The Minister cannot make up his mind whether it is fair, just and reasonable to have the pay of officers in the Army decided by a free vote of the Dáil or whether it is preferable, in the interests of silent gagged services, to have a regulation, which affects them adversely, decided by a shackled Dáil, with an assured majority and that majority not allowed the right to decide between right and wrong. There are some occasions when a Parliament that claims to be a free Parliament of a free people, should, in fact, be a free Parliament and if ever there is an occasion when Parliament should be free, it is when we are discussing the conditions of service of officers and men who are prohibited from calling any attention to their grievances. I think it is asking nothing unreasonable to suggest that the case, such as it is, should be decided on its merits and not decided by the crack of Deputy Briscoe's whip or the whip of anybody else.
This particular regulation adversely affecting the interests of every professional officer in the Army was put through with the most remarkable secrecy of any regulation from any Governmental Department I ever heard of. This particular regulation cutting the pay of medical officers, dental officers, legal officers and other officers by amounts varying from £2 to £9 a week was issued like a bolt from the blue on the 1st of December last. A month or six weeks subsequent to that date no member of the public and no Deputy of Dáil Eireann could succeed in procuring a copy of that regulation. The Government Publicity Department were, day after day, asked in vain for a copy of this regulation. Government publications are supposed to be available and for sale to the public, but the public could not get a copy of that regulation. The officers here in Dáil Eireann could not procure a copy of it up to a fortnight ago.
When an organisation of professional men, representing the interests of the affected officers, tried to procure copies of the regulations and put up a question requiring answers as to how these regulations affected the officers in the various ranks, even the Department of Defence itself could not produce a copy of the parent regulation and wrote as late as yesterday to say that it was out of print and that it would take some months before a copy would be available. The regulation itself was put through in such haste, with such a lack of consideration and in such a petty pique that you have the extraordinary state of affairs that if an officer is promoted from the rank of second lieutenant to first lieutenant his pay is actually reduced. That in itself is evidence of the amount of departmental consideration this regulation got. It is a regulation which was considered in a rage and conceived in pique. That is sufficient evidence of the consideration this regulation received from the Minister or his staff or any responsible civil servant in the Department.
The Minister's attention has not perhaps already been called to it, but he will find if he looks at the rate of pay of a second lieutenant five years in that rank, that that man, after two years' promotion to the rank of first lieutenant, actually has his pay reduced. Is there any further evidence required as to the hasty, ill-considered way in which this regulation was drawn up? Why this hasty decision, this dishonouring of contracts, interfering with the published conditions of service? The first thing, on the face of it shows a lack of consideration for the years of service. Next to that is the lack of consideration for human beings who have got to suffer under this petty tyranny.
What does it all amount to? I guarantee that there are not two Deputies in Dáil Eireann who understand what is the meaning of these regulations, because every precaution was taken to ensure that neither Deputies nor the public could by any process become aware of the injustice that was being carried out. It was because the executive of the Medical Union happened not to see eye to eye with the Minister when he was considering that regulation. Here, in a word, is what the regulation amounts to: The pay of Army medical officers, legal officers, and other professional men entering the Army was fixed many years ago, not by the Department of Defence, not by men in uniform, not by the chiefs of this particular service, but by what was called an Army Pay Commission, with two representatives of the Department of Finance, the Army Finance Officer, the Minister for Defence, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, and three military members of the Army Council. By that mixed body, fairly representative of the Department of Finance, the civilian side of the Department of Defence, and the military commanders of the Army, the rates of pay for all ranks, including the ranks referred to in this particular order, were fixed. Those rates of pay were advertised and published in the medical colleges, in the law schools, and in the dental hospitals. Parents with sons qualified or about to become qualified saw there, in black and white, what the rates of pay for a doctor entering the Army would be, and what the rates of pay would be after two years or after five years— promotion to the rank of captain, or to the rank of commandant, and so on. There was a definite contract between the State and the citizen that these were to be the conditions in that service. Those were the rates that that man could look forward to if he made good and secured promotion. Those rates held there through one, two, three, four, five and six Governments. They were approved of by this Parliament year after year for nearly 20 years. They were approved of by the Minister for Defence for seven long years, year after year.
Then, what happened to make those rates unjust, to make them unfair? Merely that there was another scheme governing the pensions introduced by the Minister. The conditions of that scheme, in so far as they affected the doctors, were adversely criticised by the leaders of the medical profession. The answer to that adverse criticism was the answer of a bully who went to his office, disembowelled the medical rates of pay in the Army, and issued his ukase like a bombshell to decent young and middle-aged officers who had given 20 years of unequalled service to a half-dozen Governments of different political hues.
This regulation was issued to these officers and the result of the regulation was as follows: the rate of pay for a lieutenant is reduced by £1 11s. 6d. a week. The maximum rate of pay for a lieutenant when read as against the new rate after five years' service in that rank shows a reduction of £1 11s. 6d. per week. At a time when it is generally admitted that the cost of living is going up, and the cost of rearing a family is going up, the most junior rank, the lowest officer rank in the service, is reduced by that much per week, not per month or per year, but per week. The rate of pay of the next rank of junior officer is reduced by £3 13s. 6d. per week. The commandant is reduced by £5 15s. 6d. per week. In the next rank, the highest rank in the Army Medical Service, that of major, the rate of pay is reduced by £7 1s. 6d. a week, or more than £1 per day. The rate of pay for the major holding the rank of D.M.S., the dream of every young doctor joining the Army, is reduced by no less a sum than £9 1s. 6d. per week.
Is it unreasonable, when that is being done to people who served us only too well, to ask that if that is to be done under Parliament, that it will be a free Parliament will decide on its justice or injustice, a free Parliament, a Parliament without shackles, a Parliament not just voting like cattle driven through a gate; but a Parliament of human beings voting on conditions that affect fellow-human beings with the same rights as you and I have? Is it fair that these conditions should be imposed on officers in our Army when a neighbouring army, the army of Great Britain, is increasing its inducements day after day and, even as things were, getting the cream of the medical profession and our Army getting the next best; when their inducements were going up so much that in a matter of ten years the rates of pay for every medical rank doubled? Not being satisfied with having doubled the rates of pay there was a new inducement introduced—that after five years' service a doctor would get a lump sum of £1,000, whether he stayed or left, just a refresher, a sweetener, an extra inducement to get Irish doctors. There are also communications here at the moment in every Irish medical school to know what extra inducements they can offer in order to get the cream of the young medical men of this country.
The man responsible for the efficiency and for the type and quality that constitute the Irish Army can do nothing better to induce the cream of the professional men of this country into his Army than this insulting regulation, a regulation offering lower terms for professional men and lower ranks for professional men than any white army in the world. Is it not a proud thing for the nation that used to be called a nation of scholars that the value we place on our scholars is the lowest standard in any white country in the world? That is the mentality behind the £10,000,000 demand—a £10,000,000 demand and a tuppeny-ha'penny mentality; that is the mentality that is to handle the £10,000,000—that kind of mentality which is aimed at recruiting the worst.
At the new rates of pay I have no doubt that the Ministers will get doctors. He will get the dregs and the duds of the medical profession, and only the dregs and the duds, the men who have sunk so low that they do not mind being professional blacklegs, being regarded as blacklegs inside and outside the Irish Army. He will get them. He will get the witless loon who, through accident, got qualified and could not earn a living outside the institution created by our Minister for Defence. He will get that type without a doubt. That is the type of professional man that is going to treat the sick and wounded Irish heroes. That is the type of professional man who is going to treat the poor soldier when he is sick, the soldier's family, and the officer and the soldier when injured and wounded. That is the highest we can aim at, the standard of the Crimea, the standard of every army up to 20 or 25 years ago, a medical standard under which in every war more people went down with dirt, lice, and disease than went down through enemy action. That is where we are going to begin in this country —where other armies gave up 50 years ago.
If the Minister has no experience, no knowledge, no insight of his own, can he not learn the lesson that every army in the world has learned, that in peace or war, if you are to think of the comfort and welfare of the soldier, the first way to think of the welfare and comfort of the soldier is to give the soldier confidence in the man who treats him when sick and wounded, and to get the best. All modern armies are competing for the best, and we, who produce and export more doctors even than the mighty country beside us, are making a present of the best. Any man who wants a service life has either to accept the despicable treatment of a bully and to brand himself as a blackleg, or go to serve in a foreign army. This comes from the Minister who boasted that under his régime he would attract back to Erin the exiled sons from abroad. He is the greatest exporter of flesh and blood that this country has seen in our time. As I say, the one thing that is inexcusable about it is that it is done out of pique against men he cannot hit. But he hits their professional brethren, men who by law must remain silent, men who by law must continue to serve under those conditions.
The Minister may say that these are the rates for the new entrants, that these are the rates for the men coming in afterwards, and that he is not interfering with the rates of men already serving. The men already serving were induced to serve and have served for 15 years at a certain rate. We will say a lieutenant had served at a certain rate with a maximum pay of 25/- per day, and that after 17 years' service he was entitled to hope that some day he would be a captain, and that the rate of pay for the captain would be as it was—35/- per day. If that man is promoted to-morrow after 17 years in the rank of lieutenant, and takes the new rate of pay, he will actually draw less than he is drawing at the moment.
If the captain serving at the moment —the most highly efficient man, we will say, that any Army ever saw—is promoted, not only to commandant, but over the rank of commandant to major, and he accepts the new rates of pay, the reward for being so efficient that he is being promoted two ranks up is that his pay is reduced. Men and their wives and their families do not live on the pips on an officer's shoulder; they live on his earnings; and with regard to serving officers, this Order has ensured that, no matter what promotion they get, even to the very highest rank in the service, they cannot increase their bank accounts by one ha'penny a year. That is the justice and those are the standards of 1939. That is the act of a Christian Government in a Christian country— that frothy hypocrisy that was poured over this country by the biggest humbug of all. Let men's Christianity be judged by their acts. Any non-Christian, any two-legged human barbarian, would be ashamed to be guilty of what the Minister is guilty in this Order.
I had occasion to ask the Minister within the last few months—never anticipating anything of this kind—how many promotions were made from the rank of captain to higher rank in the Army Medical Service in the last 14 years, and the answer was "Nil." I asked him how many promotions from lieutenant up in the ranks of Army dentists had been made in the last 14 years, and the answer was "Nil." There were no promotions, from junior rank up, for either doctors or dentists for a span of 14 years, and those men were entitled to live in hopes that some day, in some way, they would be promoted.
Now, after those 14 years of the most excmplary service, an Order is brought in to ensure that if they do get promotion, no matter how much, or no matter how rapid, or no matter how high, they cannot earn an extra ha'penny for their families. And those men are to go through their service, like professional men, doomed for all time, no matter how excellent they are, to a rate of 25/- a day. Those men were foolish enough to trust in a Minister. They were foolish enough to have faith in the honour of a contract. They were foolish enough to marry and to take on added responsibilities, saying to themselves: "We are in Government service; the conditions of service will not be altered for us." What do they find? They find that their confidence was misplaced, that their trust was trampled on, that their efficient service was ignored— that there was a bully in the saddle who, because their professional colleagues outside happened to give offence, could say that he had his heel on their necks and that they were going to suffer for the acts of others. And we have that from a Christian Government for a Christian country!
Imagine in any walk of life—whether the Civil Service, the postal service, or any big industry—if people were attracted into that business or into that service because of certain conditions and certain rates of pay published and advertised, and as soon as they were in for 15 years, a manager would be in a position to say: "You cannot go except I let you go; you cannot get out even if you want to." Imagine that happening after 15 years—the whole conditions knocked sky-high by an act of the manager, the whole basis undermined and conditions laid down so that, if the humblest man were promoted to the highest position, he could not get an increase of pay—would not an act such as that breed, produce, and command revolution in any country? Yet, that is the headline that is set here in Ireland's Army, and that is the headline and that is the conduct that the Parliament of this country is asked to approve of.
It may not be popular, in the broad sense, to be talking of the salaries of professional men. Professional men, however, are entitled to a fair deal. They are entitled to have their contract honoured and to have the conditions that induced them in retained, just as much as anybody else, and the fact that there are only 30 or 36 of them should not matter to Parliament. It should be equal in our eyes if there were only four of them; but the policy there is to count heads, and if there are few heads, hit them—they are not dangerous—but if there are many heads, be nice to them. That is the policy. That is the policy we are asked to approve of. I say this, and I say it with knowledge, that when we are talking about these men we are not just talking about ordinary doctors. Once upon a time, as a result of a debate in this House, as a result of some criticisms in this House, I had occasion to ask for the academic distinctions and degrees held by the doctors and dentists of the Army Medical Service. At that time there were some 70 in the service, and I found that, with three exceptions, 67 of those men were first class exhibitionists, gold medallists, and men with post-graduate degrees. You had a class of men there of a quality unequalled in this country congregated together in that service, and you had it so because men entering that service were sent into the service by representatives of the different medical schools and hospitals, and they would only put forward the best man for the one vacancy. You had doctors and dentists of unequalled merit and exceptional ability, with a record of success and achievement behind them. The Minister, out of that 70, passed what I would not hesitate to call the best 28—the best 28 of an excellent 70—and those men, I know, have done their work as well and as excellently, under this Minister, as under any predecessor. And the gratitude they get, and the return they get, is that an order comes now that says: "Thus far shall you go and no further. No matter what promotion you get, there will be no extra pay; no matter how difficult you are finding it to live with a family growing up, no extra pay; no matter how exceptional or meritorious your service may have been, you can never, while you remain in this Army, get any increase in your pay, notwithstanding how much your rank has been increased, and you cannot get out until I am pleased to let you out."
I asked the Minister when moving this motion if he would leave this particular matter to be decided by a free vote of the Parliament, seeing that the Army cannot engage in propaganda, cannot ventilate their case, cannot approach Deputies, and is the Army of the whole Parliament. The Minister would not make up his mind then, but he made it up quick enough when it was a case of striking a blow. He cannot make it up equally quickly to meet a just case, and to give fair play. Perhaps, now that the Minister has had some time to consider, not as to what is the best course—because that will not weigh with the Minister— but as to what is the wisest course politically, he will give a reply. I am anxious to hear from the Minister what consideration this Order got, or how he expects to get efficient doctors, dentists and legal men under these conditions? How does he expect to compete with any other army, or with the attractions of civilian life under these conditions, except to accept what is staring him in the face under the new conditions, that he is going to get, if he gets any, only the very worst. Is it fair play to Irish officers, to Irish soldiers, and to the families of Irish officers and Irish soldiers, that when they are ill, or when they are wounded, they will be treated professionally only by the very worst elements of the Irish medical profession?
