asked the Minister for Defence if he will state in respect of each officer rank in the Army (1) the age at which under present Army regulations an officer must retire; (2) the changes made in retiring age since 1st September, 1939, and (3) any such changes made in the five years prior to the 1st September, 1939; and whether he will issue a memorandum on the policy underlying the present age fixation, and arrange for a discussion of this policy in the Dáil before new commissions are issued.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Retirements.
The normal retiring ages for officers of the Forces and the ages at which officers of the Reserve will be required to relinquish their commissions are, under existing regulations, as follows:—
|
Second-Lieut. and Lieut. |
45 years |
|
Captain |
48 years |
|
Commandant |
51 years |
|
Major |
54 years |
|
Colonel |
57 years |
|
Major-General |
60 years |
The normal retiring ages for officers above these ranks have not yet been fixed.
The age limits mentioned will come into operation for officers of the Forces on the 1st October, 1946. For officers of the Reserve they will come into operation as from the 1st April, 1946, except in certain instances, specified in Defence Force Regulations, in which they will operate as from an earlier date. The normal retiring ages for officers of the Forces are not for the present being applied to officers appointed in 1933 and 1934 as area administrative officers of the Volunteer Force or to officers of the Marine Service commissioned during the emergency. The normal retiring ages may be extended by ten years, subject to an overriding age limit of 65 years, in the case of an officer who possesses professional or technical qualifications in respect of which, for five years prior to the date of attainment to the normal retiring age for his rank, he has been in receipt of a special rate of pay or additional pay under Defence Force Regulations.
The normal retiring ages already mentioned for officers of the Forces were originally prescribed by Defence Force Regulation on the 23rd June, 1938. They were to have come into operation as from the 1st October, 1938, but for administrative reasons and because of the circumstances of the particular time, this date was extended, first to the 23rd June, 1939, then to the 23rd June, 1940, and again to the 1st October, 1940. At that stage, owing to the expansion of the Defence Forces, the retirement of trained officers was undesirable and the operation of the retiring ages was suspended until further notice. By a Defence Force Regulation dated 1st October, 1945, it has now been provided that, as already stated, they will come into operation as from the 1st October, 1946. The ages at which officers of the Reserve will be required to relinquish their commissions were only recently prescribed.
The original regulation provided that, as in the case of officers with professional or technical qualifications, the normal retiring ages might be extended by ten years, subject to an overriding age limit of 65 years, for stores officers, quartermasters who were accounting officers for stores, officers of the Supply and Transport Service and officers of the Military Police Service, provided that their retention was approved by the Minister for Defence as being in the best interests of the service. Under a recent amending regulation the extension is now confined to officers with professional or technical qualifications in respect of which special rates of pay or additional pay are issuable.
The amending regulation, made on the 21st June, 1940, which extended the operative date of the retiring ages to the 1st October, 1940, also provided that until the 1st October, 1945, the retiring ages for officers of the following ranks who had served continuously as members of the Forces from a date prior to the 1st October, 1924, should, subject to certain conditions, be:—
|
Lieutenant |
50 years |
|
Captain |
52 years |
|
Commandant |
54 years |
|
Major |
56 years |
This amendment was intended to enable officers of the category mentioned to render longer service for retired pay purposes. Owing to the subsequent general suspension of the operation of the retiring ages, the amendment never had any practical application and it has now been cancelled with effect from the 1st October, 1945, the date on which it was to have ceased to apply.
The age limits were fixed on the recommendation of the military authorities as being the maximum ages for the various ranks at which an officer holding a particular rank could be expected to render efficient service in that rank, having regard to military requirements. The normal retiring ages have not been altered since they were first prescribed in 1938. Had it not been for the occurrence of the period of emergency and the consequent necessity for retaining officers in service, they would have been in operation long since. I do not see any reason for the issue of a memorandum or for arranging a discussion as suggested by the Deputy.
Will the Minister say whether it is a fact that certain officers who were on quartermastering duties are being injured by the application of the new regulations, that some of them, because they were allowed longer service under previous regulations owing to their being on quartermastering duties, refused promotion in order that they might stay, even if at a lower rank, for a longer period on the duties on which they were engaged, and will he say whether he will review the regulations so that no hardship of that kind will be inflicted on any serving officer?
I have already reviewed the regulations, and I am satisfied that no avoidable hardship will be inflicted as a result of the operation of these regulations.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that no officer who was on quartermastering duties will be discharged under the present regulations at an earlier date than that at which he would have been discharged under previous regulations?
I could not give that undertaking.
Do I understand the Minister to say that these ages were decided by the Army authorities themselves?
What the Deputy understood me to say was that the age limits were fixed on the recommendation of the military authorities as being the maximum ages for the various ranks at which an officer holding a particular rank could be expected to render efficient service.
Therefore, I understand that the Council of Defence is the military authority that made such a recommendation. Is the Minister now pushing the responsibility for these age limits——?
I am accepting full responsibility. I am pushing it on to nobody.
The Minister justifies the decision he has come to ——
Absolutely.
He asserts here that the justification for his decision is that the military authorities made this recommendation.
In relation to the last part of the question in which I ask whether the Minister will arrange for a discussion of the policy in relation to this age-fixing in the Dáil, does he not realise, in view of the social and economic implications of this age-fixing, that now when he is apparently recruiting a large number of officers into the Army and allowing a number of old officers to go, he is creating personal and domestic problems for a large number of men who gave service in the past, on the one hand, and, on the other, inducing many young men to join the Army as officers, many of them being anxious to do so because of economic circumstances here, who will find themselves, at the ages of 45 or 50, with very heavy domestic problems as well as personal problems to meet, that it would be well to have the matter discussed in the House before a large number of officers are recruited or these regulations are put permanently into force?
The Deputy is suffering from some misunderstanding which I cannot fathom. Normally, no officer will be going out at 45 years of age as a result of these regulations. By instructions from me, many of these men were retained in the service for many years beyond the prescribed age limits. They would have gone out, and were, as a matter of fact, going out, early in 1940, but, because of the emergency circumstances which had arisen, I, as I mentioned in my reply to the Deputy's question, extended the period of their service, until eventually I decided it would be better to keep them on for the period of the emergency. Most of the men affected by these regulations are several years over the prescribed age limit.
The Minister is laying up another crop of problems in respect of which there will not, please God, be any emergency to help out, whatever other kind of help will be given. I suggest it would be very desirable to have this matter discussed.
Would the Minister kindly clear up one matter which is still rather obscure? What are we to assume will be the retiring age for officers holding acting rank? Will it be the age appropriate to their substantive rank or the next upper age limit, and is it intended to confirm these acting ranks so as to give those officers holding such ranks the benefit of the later retiring age?
I could not answer that question offhand. I should require notice of it. These men are being paid on the acting rank and not on their substantive rank, and I do not think any officers will be affected by reason of the acting rank as against the substantive rank. The people who are of acting rank will still have a number of years to go, and in the very near future all these acting ranks will be disappearing—they will either be made of substantive rank or they will go back to their normal rank.
Where an officer holds an acting rank at the moment, and where, because the substantive rank is less than that, there is a danger that he may be retired at an earlier age than he would if he held the higher substantive rank, will he be confirmed in that higher substantive rank for the purpose of enabling him to serve for a longer period?
Not necessarily.
A number of men are affected by acting rank gradings at the moment——
I am not aware of it.
I could tell the Minister that there is quite a substantial number of them.
Not all are reaching the retiring age. Large numbers of officers holding acting rank will not be affected as a result of what the Deputy is discussing.
But some will be. Will the Minister define the general policy in relation to these acting ranks now that the emergency has passed?
We can easily have them defined.
Will the Minister be in a position to make an announcement at a relatively early date?
If the Deputy puts down a question, yes.
The Minister spoke of avoidable hardship in connection with the cases of officers referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that no avoidable hardships would be imposed. May I inquire from the Minister if he imagines that any part of the House—the Minister himself least of all—desires that any of these officers should suffer any hardship? If anachronistic circumstances have arisen under the general regulations which are going to impose hardships on individuals, would he not consider looking into the matter and taking a limited authority into his own hands, or putting it into the hands of some individual in the Army, to alleviate individual cases where the regulations press unduly heavily upon individuals owing to the peculiar circumstances in which those individuals served their time in the Army? Would the Minister consider that?
All I can assure the Deputy is that the regulations will be operated as faithfully and as sympathetically as possible.
I have no doubt of that, but if they should operate to be unduly harsh on some individual whose terms of service were unanticipated and unanticipatable for peculiar reasons, will the Minister consider allowing some special permission to be made in such a case, so as to give the man involved, not a preference, but substantial equality with those whose services were of a normal character?
I do not think that any such case as the Deputy has in mind can arise. The Deputy, I take it, is now talking in a hypothetical manner.
I am talking on the assumption that the statements of the Leader of the Opposition are well-founded.
All the officers who will be called upon to retire in the near future have known for more than five years that their period of service had concluded, and that they were being retained only on a temporary basis. Normally, these men should have gone out at the end of the emergency. I did not ask them to go out like that, and I applied to the Minister for Finance for permission to allow them to remain in the Army for a further 12 months if they so desired. The Minister for Finance granted my application. Therefore, I can see no hardship whatever arising in respect of any of the officers in question at the moment.