I will consider it. It has been brought to my notice and there has been considerable letter writing in the public press about it by the captains themselves. They apparently think that they should use means to impress upon the Minister for Defence and the authorities what they regard as their claim to special promotion.
I do think that every Deputy will agree with me when I say that where it comes to ranks of higher responsibility, the General Staff should be allowed some discretion and that it is necessary to ensure, particularly in these times, that we have top-class officers available for foreign service. There are considerations to be taken into account in relation to service such as we are called on to give under the United Nations apart from ability to fight.
I was referring to Deputy MacEoin's remarks about civilian employees. In their case, as in the case of other such employees, the labour exchange is requested to submit names, and it is from names so submitted that the men are recruited.
Deputy Booth complained of the system whereby an officer's retired pay is rebated if his employment is remunerated from public moneys. I feel sure the Deputy is aware that this is an arrangement of long standing and that it applies to public servants other than ex-Army officers—for instance, Civil Service pensioners. I feel sure he is also aware that the Minister for Finance has indicated in reply to a question by Deputy Cosgrave that he is considering this matter.
With regard to the vexed question of conciliation and arbitration procedure for the Army, referred to during the debate by Deputies MacEoin, Tully, McQuillan and Booth, the position has been, of course, that the General Staff have in fact acted in this capacity on behalf of the Army and I do not think the Army has suffered in any way through any lack of enthusiasm or effort on the part of the General Staff. It is not clear that the Army would be better served by the suggested system of arbitration. However, I am having an examination made of the methods by which such problems are dealt with in other countries and if it becomes necessary to amend our thinking on the matter, that will be done. I wish to assure the House that every genuine complaint from Army personnel receives the fullest sympathy and consideration.
Deputies MacEoin and Tully mentioned the matter of automatic promotion. I have dealt with that arising out of the remarks of Deputy Dillon and I do not think there is anything else I should say on it.
A question of topical interest, the selection of personnel for United Nations service, was referred to by Deputy MacEoin and others. I dealt with this pretty fully last year and there is hardly anything new I can say about it. At that time, I indicated that suggestions of favouritism in regard to these selections were not well founded. I should like now to stress that these selections are exclusively a purely military matter and as Minister for Defence, I do not interfere with the discretion of Headquarters Staff in choosing personnel for such service.
I know one cause of complaint is the fact that some members have had more than one trip abroad. This apparently has given rise to the suggestion of favouritism in the selections. I have inquired why some men have gone more than once while others, who have sought inclusion, have not yet been selected. Apparently the purpose is to maintain the practical liaison that has been established since the beginning of overseas service. The purpose is to ensure that there will not be a completely new unit, with no link with its predecessors.
That entails the sending of a small number of men a second or third time. On the whole, the principle of sending out new personnel and spreading the experience over as large a number of men as possible, is followed. Perhaps I should say that the selection of soldiers for overseas service is influenced by various factors of which the principal are willingness to serve, recommendation of immediate superiors, age, standard of training and efficiency, physical fitness, medical record, disciplinary record, period of engagement remaining to be served, general suitability of temperament and physique.
I feel sure every Deputy will agree it is desirable that personnel selected for overseas service should measure up to a reasonable standard under each of these heads. That is what is done and if it seems to work out in a discriminatory manner, that is not in fact so. There are no means whereby members of the Army can operate any influence to have themselves selected against their suitability under these heads. There are certain types of qualifications that possibly make it more difficult to get suitable personnel. I have a list of such qualifications here—radio technicians, fitters, drivers, medical orderlies, cooks, storemen, clerks with ability to type. Men with these qualifications, I am told, have a better chance of being selected more than mere line soldiers.
Regarding the complaints about the severity of punishment awarded by courtsmartial, I do not think there is any substance in them because the number of petitions is very small. In nearly all cases of detention, if it is of any length, even before the case comes to the Minister, I find the term has been greatly reduced by the military authorities and that it is hardly necessary for the Minister to interfere at all. It seems to me in this connection that if the offence is of such a character that the punishment takes the form of a long term of detention, it would be better to dispose altogether of that soldier's services and get rid of him rather than keep him. I have expressed that view to the military authorities and I think they accept it. In this matter we must be careful not to play in with men who want to get out of the Army and who ordinarily would have to buy themselves out. If they found an easy way out by committing an offence and getting a punishment, that would create an abuse of another kind and so we had better leave this to the good judgment of the military who have handled it reasonably well.
Deputy Booth referred to variations in rates of pay for professional officers. Rates of professional pay in the Army are influenced by various factors such as rates of remuneration in corresponding civilian employment and particularly in corresponding appointments in other sectors of the public service. Various rates of professional pay are therefore inevitable and to attempt to treat all professional officers equally in regard to remuneration would be unfair and unrealistic. The question of revised rates for officers, other than medical and dental officers who have received increased rates, is under active consideration.
Deputy MacEoin referred to the case of soldiers transferred to the First Battalion as punishment. I did not like the tenor of Deputy MacEoin's remarks in regard to this matter. He seemed to think we were using the First Battalion as a place or state of punishment where some soldiers suffered for a time before getting back to their original station. Continuous complaints about the conduct of certain families in the Athlone married quarters facing the public road made it necessary for the command OC to take strong action. Recent incidents involved two soldiers who are brothers and a third who is their brother-in-law, all three living in the quarters with their families. It was decided the only thing to do was to break them up and the two brothers were detached to Galway in addition to being fined and the brother-in-law to Mullingar, in addition to detention. I understand this will be reconsidered in due course. I appreciate what Deputy MacEoin said regarding the First Battalion and I also would deprecate any wrong use of that battalion.