Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Army (Resumed).

The main impression left on my mind after yesterday's debate was that the House was in a rather generous mood. The only thing I have to say about that is that I hope at some later date, when the question of national expenditure is being considered, Deputies will remember their generosity on this occasion. In general, I feel like most of the Deputies in respect to providing, wherever it is possible, the extra emoluments that have been asked for. Of course, Deputies will have to understand that what we desire and what we get are sometimes two different things. I am afraid a large number of the Deputies of this House are not in fact aware of what has been done in recent years. For instance, we had Deputy Cafferky yesterday saying something to the effect that the reason why recruitment was not up to the mark was because the conditions obtaining in the Army were such as they were. He went further to say that the Minister would be very well employed if he tried to do something for the private soldier. Deputy Cafferky is a new member of this House and it is quite possible that he made the statement without being aware of what has been done. That is why I am going to set out to enlighten him and any of the other new Deputies who may be in a similar position. Since September, 1939, the following improvements have been effected:—

Pay:—As on and from the 29th September, 1942, all privates and seamen have had their pay increased by 6d. a day or 3/6 a week. In addition to the increased pay for privates and seamen, the pay account of every non-commissioned officer and man is being credited with the sum of 6d. a day for every day of paid service as on and from the 29th September, 1942. This pay, which is known as deferred pay, will be held for each non-commissioned officer and man, and will be paid over after the termination of the emergency. Each man will then receive £9 2s. 6d. for every complete year of service from the 29th September, 1942. So that for each year of service that a soldier may have to his credit be is receiving £9 2s. 6d. That, in some respect, may be regarded as a safeguard for that soldier when his time comes to be demobilised. It will, at least, see him over the most difficult period and, from that point of view, whatever criticisms may have been levelled at the question of deferred pay, it has the good quality, anyhow, that it will be there to the soldier's credit and will be a means of protecting him over a difficult period.

Since August, 1941, a married non-commissioned officer or soldier to whom marriage allowance is payable has received the following weekly increases, according to the size of his family:— a wife only has received 3/6 increase on 7/- a week; a wife and one child has received an increase of 3/6 on 14/-; a wife and two children 7/- on 17/6; a wife and three children 8/9 on 19/3; a wife and four or more children 8/9 on 21/-.

Deputies are at this stage well aware of what the former procedure was in relation to marriage allowances. As from June, 1942, lodging, fuel and light allowances are issued to married officers who have two years' service and who are over 23 years of age instead of five years' service and 26 years of age as previously. Further provisions for pensions for members of the Defence Forces who were disabled, wounded or died during the period of the emergency are operative since September, 1939, under the Army Pensions Act of 1943. Wound pensions for non-commissioned officers and men have been increased. The maximum weekly rates which will be payable as compared with the old rates are as follows: The old rate, as Deputies will remember, was £1 6s. Od. for a single man. That has been increased to £2 2s. Od. The old rate for a married man was £1 11s. 0d.; the new rate is £2 12s. Od. Disability pensions for officers, non-commissioned officers and men, which ceased to be payable in 1924, are to be payable again. The maximum pension for an officer of the highest rank will be £480 a year and the minimum £153. The maximum pension for a non-commissioned officer or soldier will be £2 12s. Od. week for a married man and £2 2s. Od. for a single man. Wound and disability pensions up to a maximum of £110 per annum will be payable to members of the Army Nursing Service. This is a new provision, as no pensions were payable to the members of this service previously. An annual allowance of £52 in the case of an officer and £26 in the case of a non-commissioned officer or soldier will be payable to the dependent father, mother, invalid brother or sister of a man whose death is attributable to service.

Medical treatment is now available to non-commissioned officers and men. Spectacles or dentures are also being issued to these men where they are required. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers who are serving on a 21-year engagement, and who have three or four years to serve, may now receive free sanatorium treatment if they contract tuberculosis. Up to December, 1941, only the wives and children of soldiers living in barracks, or within five miles of a military hospital, were eligible for free hospital treatment. Now, all wives and children, no matter where they live, will receive free hospital treatment. Since December, 1941, non-commissioned officers and men who are in receipt of a marriage allowance, or who are widowers with children for whom allowances are payable, and members of the Army Nursing Service may receive one free travelling warrant per year when going on leave to their homes in Ireland. Since 1941, soldiers are eligible to obtain two months' leave in any year for agricultural purposes, and free travelling facilities are provided here also. We have provided the Army Nursing Service with uniforms, and they can now be seen in the city at the various places where members of the service are stationed. A scheme of compensation for members of the L.D.F. killed or injured while on duty has been in existence since 1942. An increased scale of rations has been in operation since 1941 for soldiers engaged in field exercises, or on duties of a particularly laborious nature.

These are some of the things which have been done since the emergency. It is rather unfortunate that Deputies' memories appear to be so short when they forget that these things have been done. In respect of three of these things, the increase paid to privates, deferred pay, and the increased rates of marriage allowances, the cost to the State has been £750,000. I think that the House will have to consider very carefully, when they are making these generous proposals, which we would all like to grant if it were possible to meet them, what these proposals mean.

In the course of Deputy Cogan's remarks he referred to the fact that Deputy O'Higgins, speaking in the debate, took a certain line of action. It appeared to surprise him that a member of the Defence Conference should have taken that line of action although he stated he supported his line of action. He seemed to doubt then whether the Defence Conference was, in fact, in existence at all. I want to assure Deputy Cogan that the Defence Conference does meet and discuss matters appertaining to defence. They did, in fact, discuss and examine the Estimates which we are discussing here to-day. Further, I want to pay this tribute to the members of the Defence Conference, that they have on all occasions been very helpful to me. When I had to go to the Government to try to secure the increases which I was endeavouring to secure, the backing of the Defence Conference, I can assure the House, was very useful. The fact that I was able to express their views to the Government carried weight.

Would the Minister say how often it has met?

If the Deputy would like to reckon up the number of things to which I have had to refer in my statement, he will get a fair idea of the number of times it was necessary for me to take these things to the Government. Every time I take a matter of this kind to the Government it has to be very seriously considered. The various aspects of the question, the rights and the wrongs and so on, have to be very seriously considered and I think that they have met me reasonably generously.

Mr. Byrne

Were recommendations for an increase in Army pensions turned down?

The Deputy should not interrupt.

I know that other Ministers who brought forward proposals which would entail very large expenditure were not perhaps always as successful as I was. I ascribe that, rightly or wrongly, to the fact that I had the backing of the Defence Conference. The Defence Conference is an advisory body. Deputy Cogan seems to think that it was responsible for the defence plans and so on. I think the members of the Defence Conference would be the first to say that that was not correct. They are an advisory body and they have been very helpful as such.

Deputy Larkin (Junior) in the course of his speech made a statement which I believe was made without due examination of the facts of the case. I think he told the House that an army sergeant with nine children was only receiving £2 3s. per week. I think that is a rather unfortunate statement. When Deputies make statements in this House which receive publicity, they are taken as statements of fact based on information which they have secured. I think I can say that I am very accessible and that my Department also is very accessible and always anxious to enlighten Deputies on any point of doubt. Any time any Deputy requires any information from me or from my Department we are always pleased to give it. Deputy Larkin said that this sergeant with nine children was receiving £2 3s. per week. If the Deputy had gone out of his way to seek information, he would have found that the sergeant himself gets £1 8s. and his wife and nine children receive £2 5s. 6d., making a total of £3 13s. 6d. If the sergeant was receiving a ration allowance, as he may have been, he would be receiving an extra 14/-, or £4 7s. 6d. in all. I think that figure is comparable with what that man would receive from an outside employer. It certainly is very much in advance of the figure on which Deputy Larkin would like to make the House believe this man was endeavouring to sustain a wife and family.

Several Deputies spoke on the question of the posting of soldiers nearer to their homes. I told Deputy Norton that, so far as it was possible to do that, we were doing it. The Deputy suggested that it is done in a very limited way. I have to admit that it is done in a limited way, due in the main to the fact that most of the men have become specialists in one respect or another. The Deputy mentioned that he would not expect a man who was attached to the artillery, and who was moved down to some part of the country to be brought back so as to be near his residence in Dublin. Actually, that sort of thing does occur. But whenever a case is brought to my attention where genuine hardship is being experienced, I will endeavour, so far as it is possible to do so without affecting the particular unit concerned, to meet the Deputy's requirements.

Deputy O'Higgins, in the course of his speech, mentioned the fact that the Minister had only to raise his little finger to get as many beds as he wanted to accommodate any men who developed tuberculosis. All I can say to that is that I wish that was the position. If it were, I would certainly avail of it to the utmost. The Deputy spoke about the very large number of houses which we had taken over throughout the country. I think he stated that we had every decent-looking house from here to Cork under our control. Of course, that was a slight exaggeration, as the houses which we have under oar control are only rented, and we rent them for the sole purpose of national defence. I am pretty certain that the owners of these premises would not in any circumstances agree to have them turned into sanatoria. I feel that if we put up such a proposition they would demand either that they should get their premises back, or, if not, that they should be allowed to make a complete sale of them. All I can say in respect to the question of the treatment of tuberculosis is—that the Minister for Local Government is greatly concerned with the situation, and that he is taking steps to deal with it so far as it is possible for him to do so.

Some Deputies, including I think Deputy Norton, stated that the agricultural leave was not long enough. As Deputies know, there are two months given, one in the spring and one in the harvest, and that is as much as the Army can do to meet the question of agricultural leave. Other Deputies raised the question whether the men should not be paid while on agricultural leave. We can go too far with the question of payment for that sort of thing. The Deputy who raised that question may not be aware of the fact that 14 days' leave with pay is granted to every soldier and that the men who get agricultural leave are given free tickets to their homes and back. It is unreasonable to ask that the Army should also pay them during their absence from duty. The case that Deputy Norton made was that the man he had in mind had four or five acres of land and that he went on leave to till that land for himself. That may possibly be a case of hardship, but I say it is about the only case in the Army where that has happened. From my own experience I can say that most of these men actually go on agricultural leave to work on other people's farms, and in that way they are paid while they are working and the pay from the Army is withheld.

What about the marriage allowance during that period?

It ceases during that period.

That was the case that Deputy Norton was making—that it should continue.

As to the case that Deputy Norton raised, I have suggested that it is possibly the only case that exists in the Army. I do not know whether that is correct or not. But, in all other cases, the man gets leave to take up employment on someone else's land and I must presume that he is being paid for that work as if he were not in the Army at all. In that way I think the case is fully met. Deputy Byrne raised the question of the stoppage of ration allowance when a man goes into hospital. There again I think that is the logical thing to do. The man is given a ration allowance while he is on duty with the Army. If he goes into hospital, he gets his rations there, and it seems to me too much to ask that he should receive rations while he is in the hospital and also receive a ration allowance.

Mr. Byrne

The point I made is that there is less for his wife and family, who shared in it while he was at home.

Deputy Cafferky would like us to lower the pay of the higher ranks and to raise the pay of the lower ranks. At the present moment, the higher ranks feel very strongly that they are not receiving equitable pay for the duties they are carrying out, so that I doubt if Deputy Cafferky has been giving the matter very much consideration. I might also mention that in the course of his statement Deputy Larkin suggested that the Irish soldiers were treated in the same manner as British soldiers were when they were here as the army of occupation. I think he described them as helots and outcasts of one kind or another. Deputies know that that is not so, that the Irish people do not regard the soldiers of the Irish Army in the way the Deputy suggested the Irish people did regard the soldiers of the British army of occupation. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that a large number of big business concerns in this city and throughout the country have organised large scale entertainments for the soldiers and have invited them to be their guests and that soldiers are admitted at half-price into places of entertainment throughout the country. I know from my own experience during the manoeuvres that during that particular period the soldiers were entertained royally by the citizens of the towns through which they passed and that large scale ceilidhthe were held on the roadsides with the country folk fraternising, as I would like to see them fraternising, with their own Army. I am afraid that Deputy Larkin who, I take it, is a realist in most things, is not a realist in his views on that matter.

Deputy Benson raised the question of bank drafts. I think that the position in regard to bank drafts is all right. I do not think that there is any possibility of banks refusing to recognise these drafts. There may have been one or two cases where people may have tried to take advantage of the fact of an official not knowing them, but in the main these drafts are cashed by merchants in the places where the people live and these merchants can readily identify the people. The drafts pass from these traders into the banks in the ordinary commercial way in which people send in their cheques and so on.

Deputy Keyes was concerned about the fact that minor penalties were imposed on soldiers for small breaches of discipline, such as being late and things of that kind. Every Deputy knows that there is only one way of maintaining discipline in the Army where a large number of men are concerned, and that is by rigidly enforcing every rule and regulation which is intended for the betterment of the Army. Any "let-up" on that would lead to chaos and the simple way of dealing with that type of indiscipline is by a fine. Deputy Flanagan raised the question of desertions from the Army. Because of the amount of discussion there has been about that matter, not in this House but outside, the general impression would appear to be that there is large-scale desertion from the Army. I was rather surprised to be informed, therefore, that the percentage is only 1 per cent. of the total strength and I think that that is something we need not worry too much about.

Deputy Pattison raised some question in regard to Army cooks. I was not able to grasp what his point was, whether he wanted cooks who were living away from their homes to be brought nearer to their homes. Arising out of that, I can tell the Deputy that since 1940 we have gone out of our way to train cooks for the Army, and I think I can say now that the Army is receiving the maximum of nutriment from the food cooked by the Army cooks to-day. Deputy Davin raised the question of promotion. Deputy Everett also raised it, but in a more controversial way. I want to say, first of all, that promotions in the Army are not made by me, nor are they made by the Chief of Staff, and that the suggestion made by Deputy Everett about back-door methods of promotion is merely a figment of his imagination.

What he did say was that there was a back-door method of increasing salaries.

It is the same thing, I suppose—the salary could not be increased unless there was promotion, and that is what, I presume, the Deputy had in mind. Whatever it may be, I want the House to understand what the position is. It is no harm that Deputies should be made aware that promotions in the Army of to-day are made as follows. First of all, the individual to be promoted must be recommended by his commanding officer. His commanding officer may be only a captain. A captain can recommend his second lieutenant for promotion to first lieutenant, or the first lieutenant for promotion to a higher rank. That, in turn, has to go to the commanding officer of the battalion. If he agrees with the recommendation, it then goes to the brigade commandant. If the brigade commandant is also satisfied, if he knows the man and believes he would be a competent man for the post to which he is recommended, he will then recommend him to the divisional commander. The divisional commander then takes it to a council of the higher military authorities. This council meets in Parkgate Street, and is presided over by the Chief of Staff. I do not attend that council meeting. Every promotion put forward is discussed at that conference. I do not know whether it was Deputy Davin who suggested that promotions are being made almost every week. That is not so.

I referred to the creation of new commissions in that way.

These promotions are considered every half year, but they are not finished with when the officers commanding divisions and commands have dealt with them. When they have dealt with them they may remove some of the individuals so recommended because they are not satisfied that they should go up, or they may have some other, reasons—someone else may be regarded as a better person. Whatever the position may be, the recommendations come before the body known as the Council of Defence. It is over that council that I preside. It is composed of the General Headquarters Staff of the Army. There, again, every promotion that is recommended is taken individually, no matter how many there may be. I am provided with the record of the individual recommended, and any indiscretions that the individual may have been guilty of at any time are there for me and the other members of the Council of Defence to see. I think Deputies can rest assured that, with that procedure, there can be very little question of back-door methods of securing promotion.

Deputy Harris referred to housing accommodation for soldiers. While I would like to be able to help the soldiers in that respect, unfortunately I have no means by which I could do so. Every Deputy knows that housing accommodation is controlled by the local authorities and if they deem an insurance agent to be an agricultural labourer, that is not my fault. I cannot say that the soldier is equally liable to be regarded as an agricultural labourer. All I can say is that it is a matter for the local authorities, and if Deputies have any idea that any action of mine would be helpful in securing accommodation, I shall be only too willing to help. However, I doubt very much if I could be of any help.

I asked the Minister if he would be good enough to justify his own policy or the policy of the Army Council in creating additional commissions over a long period when the numerical strength of the rank and file was standing at the same figure. Is the Minister aware that this is going to add to the taxpayers' liability after the emergency period? Would he also be good enough to give the latest figure at his disposal for the keeping of a single soldier in barracks?

The keeping of a single soldier in barracks would cost, I think, 24/6 a week.

Is that the all-in cost, including his wage?

That is the figure that covers his upkeep.

Is the Minister sure of that figure of £1 4s. 6d.?

I am now informed that it is about £2 per week. That represents the upkeep and pay of a soldier.

Is, the Minister aware that on the last occasion when he was asked a question about this he gave the figure £2 Os. 2d., and is he not aware that the cost of living has gone up in the meantime?

I think there must be some mistake about that figure.

The amount ranges between £112 and £120 per annum.

Is that exclusive of wages?

What is included in the upkeep—are small rations and bedding?

Rations, bedding, and various things of that kind—I cannot enumerate them at the moment.

Has the Minister got the figure for rations separately?

The ration is included in the figure I have given.

You have not. a separate figure?

You mean the actual cost of the ration, apart from upkeep?

I am informed it is 1/8 per day.

It must be-more than that—that was the figure some ten years ago.

I can get those figures for the Deputy. If any Deputy is keenly interested——

I am keenly interested, and I would like to get the actual figures from the Minister.

I will undertake to secure them for the Deputy and for Deputy Cosgrave, if he would like to have them.

I would like to have them, too, and also the family allowance for one, two, three or four children.

With reference to the other question which Deputy Davin has asked, we are still a long way below our establishment in respect of officers. The Deputy will, no doubt, see in the near future similar promotions to those he has referred to. We are quite a large number of officers under establishment strength—a very large number—and, as a matter of fact, we have been combing the service trying to get the right type of young man. He has to have a very high standard of education now and we find it difficult to get the men we are looking for.

Will the Minister say if, when considering the suitability of men for commissions in the Army, any special preference or mark is given to university graduates or pupils of secondary schools over and above those attending other schools?

No preference is given, except in the case of medical men and engineers.

Mr. Byrne

If the Minister cannot give an increase in the family allowances, is it possible for him to give a moderate allowance for rent to married soldiers?

I do not think so.

Mr. Byrne

They are paying 10/- and 12/- for a room and they cannot afford to pay those amounts out of the allowance they are getting. They cannot buy boots for their children.

I have pointed out that three items, out of the large number I have mentioned, have cost the Exchequer £750,000.

Mr. Byrne

Some of their children are going around barefooted. I have seen them.

Would the Minister give an assurance that there is no bias in the Army against men experienced in horse-riding or hunting? Some of the members of the Equitation School have been demobilised and I understand that the concessions made to officers who keep horses in barracks have been withdrawn.

I can give an absolute assurance to the Deputy that there is no bias whatever in regard to any of these men. The Deputy's doubts may have arisen from the fact that one of them retired recently. I can assure the Deputy that, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no question of bias against those who merely dealt with the equitation side of Army activities.

I forgot to mention a matter to which Deputy Davin referred, and on which he might desire to have our view. He mentioned three officers who had stood for election in the recent general election. So far as it is humanly possible to have an Army which is not political, our Army is not political, and cannot express its views one way or another. When these individuals decided that they would forego their Army life, and take a chance of being elected at the general election, it was made clear to them that they could not return to the Army. Evidently, they were satisfied with that, because, so far as I know, there was no come-back. They went forward for election and were defeated. One supporter of each Party—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Labour—was involved. That is lucky for me, but whether the members of the Army concerned were supporters of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, I should have had to take the same action. These men had made it clear that they were politicians as well as soldiers, and it would be highly undesirable that men of known politics, which they had been espousing from the hustings, should come back to take control of men in the Army.

The position was made clear to them before they took a decision?

Has any consideration been given to the desirability of providing separation allowances for dependents other than wives and children?

Would the Minister arrange to have the 6d. held back from men discharged after serving three or four years paid to these men, as some of them are badly in need of it?

Will they have to wait until the war is over?

Until the end of the emergency.

If they die before that, what will happen?

It will go to their next-of-kin.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share