asked the Minister for Defence (a) if he will give details of all tests applied to the selection of suitable men for services overseas in Cyprus; (b) whether an age limit is enforced; and, if so, if he will give details of it for the ranks of private, corporal, sergeant, quartermaster, officer etc.; (c) the number of men of each rank who were rejected for overseas service on the ground of age; and (d) whether a private or corporal who is over 40 is deemed unsuitable, and if so, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Troops in Cyprus.
13.
The reply is as follows:—
(a) Personnel for overseas service are selected by the military authorities from lists of volunteers. In making the selections the military authorities take into account the following criteria:
(i) age and physical fitness;
(ii) standard of training and efficiency;
(iii) recommendations of superiors;
(iv) general suitability for overseas service.
(b) The following upper age limits for overseas service are normally applied—
|
Years of age |
|
|
Privates and Corporals |
40 |
|
Sergeants, Company Quarter- master-Sergeants and Com pany-Sergeants |
45 |
|
Battalion Quartermaster- Sergeants and Sergeants- Major |
50 |
|
Officers |
50 |
Personnel of the ranks of Private to Company Quartermaster-Sergeant inclusive with a high standard of fitness may, however, be assigned to staff and administrative appointments up to the age of 50 years.
(c) No record is kept of the numbers rejected for overseas service on grounds of age.
(d) A Private or Corporal who is 40 years of age or over is deemed unsuitable for overseas service in a line appointment.
Would the Minister not agree that the opportunity to serve overseas is most sought after by most of our Army personnel and that there is deep resentment about the rigid application of the regulation debarring men over 40? Does the Minister not also consider that, in adhering rigidly to this stipulation that men over 40 may not be considered, he is depriving the Army of the services of our most dedicated and experienced men, especially when one considers overseas service which can endanger our troops and involve them in a theatre of war? In all the circumstances will the Minister give the House an indication that he will not apply this age limit rigidly and that men who want to serve overseas will be permitted to do so? Otherwise, it is having a demoralising effect on Army personnel.
The selection of the personnel and the conditions laid down are left entirely to the military authorities, and I think rightly so. The number of privates and corporals over the age in the Army—I think it is 140 altogether —is very small in relation to the total strength. Those over 40 years of age are not deemed suitable for line appointments but some of them, if they pass the fitness test, can be considered for staff and administrative appointments.
Is the decision about age limits a stipulation of the Army authorities?
Yes.
Does the Minister not consider 40 too young to deprive these people of overseas service? Does he not consider it is having a demoralising effect on certain categories of men, privates and corporals?
I would prefer to leave this entirely to the military authorities. They are more in touch with the requirements of the situation. They also have the advice of the Army Medical Corps in this respect.
May I take it that if a man shows a particular aptitude, the application of this regulation might be waived?
He can be considered for a staff or administrative appointment only; not a line appointment.
Therefore, you are too old at 40 in the Army?