asked the Minister for Defence why a payment of £200 is being demanded from a person (name supplied) who resigned from the Army Air Corps to join the Garda Síochána; and, in view of all the circumstances, if he will consider waiving this demand.

The person in question enlisted in the Defence Forces as an apprentice on 28th September, 1967, for a period of 12 years comprising nine years in the Permanent Defence Force and three years in the Reserve Defence Force. He was discharged "by purchase" from the Permanent Defence Force on 13th March, 1972. The sum of £200 paid by him in respect of his discharge is the appropriate sum as prescribed in Defence Force Regulations and accordingly the question of a refund does not arise.

Would the Minister not consider that there should be some exemption from the obligation to purchase discharge when the person seeking it is transferring to State employment as in this case to the Garda Síochána?

I think the action taken in this particular instance was a reasonable one.

Where did this question of purchasing people out of the Army derive from? Is it an antique provision from the British Army inherited by our Army?

I do not care, frankly, where it came from—whether from the British Army, the French Army or the Dutch Army. The point is, if a person undergoes training, which in this instance was expensive training, at the expense of the State, the State is entitled, having regard to the amount of money expended on the training of that particular individual, to be protected. It is quite reasonable.

A person can resign from the Garda Síochána without this.

We cannot have a discussion on this.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that 12 years is reasonable?

We cannot have a discussion on this. I am calling Question No. 74.

This is an interpretation of what the Deputy wished me to say.

If a civil servant in a Department transfers to private industry he can do so without anything like this.

In how many other European armies does such purchase take place?

That is a separate question. The Deputy must put down a question on that matter.

I am not competent to answer that.

We thought the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to the French and Dutch Armies suggested he was.

I said I did not care whether it was the British Army, the French Army or the Dutch Army, but that does not give me any special knowledge of any of these armies.

It does not suggest much knowledge, I admit.

I did not hear the last witticism. I have no doubt that after the 1st of January, 1973, we will have a fair knowledge of all these armies.