I was very interested in what Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde had to say on the matter of short-term service in the Army. When the main Estimate is being discussed in this House, I would like to hear the Deputy expanding somewhat on that idea. I think it is a good idea. Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde raised a couple of other points. One was about the United Nations payment. Another point was about the grant-in-aid for the Red Cross. I call the Deputy's attention to my opening speech which is in the Official Report. Both of these matters are dealt with in it. I do not think Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde was with us the other night when this debate began.
Rates of pay in the Army were mentioned by many Deputies. Pay, allowances and conditions generally were discussed. I would like to say straight away that there is a working party from the Departments of Defence and Finance examining all these matters with a view to their improvement in the near future. I am awaiting the completion of their work.
Deputy Tully, among others, suggested that the rate of pay for a soldier at present is in or about £8. I have a note here from my Department which sets out some sample rates of pay. It would be a matter of guidance to the House if I read out this note. It refers to the cost of the pay and allowances, in cash and in kind, of a married private, three-star, first-class, with two children. His pay is £9 16s 11d. His ration allowance is 5/5d per day which comes to £1 17s 11d per week. His marriage allowance is £3 8s 7d. His children's allowances for two children are £1 6s 10d. That all comes to a total of £16 10s 3d. There are service increments which go with that sum after three years. The increment is 7/8d a week after three years, increasing to £1 2s 9d after nine years. That could mean a further £1 2s 9d per week.
Another sample payment would be the cost of pay and allowances, in cash and in kind, of a single private, three-star. His pay would be £9 16s 11d per week. His ration allowance would be £1 18s 6d per week. There are the other facilities which are available to soldiers which are not normally available to people in civilian life. Deputy Tully spoke about £8 and Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde estimated that the pay was something similar to that. This is the all-found rate for the young recruit joining the Army. If he is good he will be out of his recruit training period in quite a short time. I mention this in particular because, as the Deputies know, we are endeavouring to recruit new people into the Army at the present time. I would not like the idea to go abroad that the rates of pay in the Army are as bad as some Deputies would suggest they are.
It was suggested during the debate that there are no gratuities for soldiers but that there are gratuities for officers. This is not accurate. Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde conceded that he was not quite familiar with the arrangements. He was anxious that a short-term soldier leaving the Army would not leave it without any provision for the future. Such a soldier does not leave without some provision for the future. He is eligible for a gratuity. The long-serving soldiers qualify for pensions. Deputy Liam Cosgrave said the other night that it looked rather anomalous that a civilian employee would get a gratunity leaving the Army and a long-serving soldier would not. The difference is that the long-serving soldier has a pension and the civilian employee gets a gratuity when he is going out but he does not get a pension. The Deputies talked about the purpose for which gratuities were paid. This was expanded in the debate. The real purpose of a gratuity is to facilitate a soldier's re-entry into civilian life after leaving the Army.
It is right to say that the Army do not leave it at that. There are a number of other facilities which are available for the retraining of soliders who are going out into civilian life. At the present time there are soliders undergoing retraining courses in various trades with the AnCO in Galway. I hope in the future there will be greater emphasis on this aspect of a soldier's life. The fact that men have given long service or indeed, any good, loyal service, to the army of their country should be recognised in a practical way such as assistance in accommodating themselves to civilian life when they leave the Army.
The question of housing soldiers when they leave the Army was also raised. I do not think soliders are in any particular difficulty in this regard. We frequently make representations to local authorities on behalf of soldiers who are returning to civilian life and part of the responsibility of Army officers is to look after the general welfare of their men. I am glad to say this aspect of their responsibility is usually, so far as I know, very well carried out. Most local authorities are very co-operative. I have heard complaints once or twice about soldiers appearing to be treated in a somewhat selective way but I am not satisfied that, in fact, any special difficulties are put in then soldier's way. In fact, in the case of many local authorities I am glad to say the contrary is the case. They are most helpful and co-operate to the fullest degree with retired soldiers.
The question of officers' gratuities was mentioned. A somewhat misleading comparison I would suggest was made between them and civil servants. I do not suggest it was deliberately misleading but I would suggest it is hardly comparing like with like to compare an Army officer and a civil servant in this regard because an Army officer after 12 years service already qualifies for a quite substantial gratuity. The present maximum after 20 years service is between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of a year's pay. An unmarried officer does not get a gratuity when he retires on pension. This, like other related things, is being reviewed by the review body I have already mentioned.
The question of widows' pensions was also mentioned. Officers' windows and children qualify for pensions and have been so qualified for a long time now. On the question of other ranks, since they subscribe, under the Social Welfare Acts, to contributory schemes, they are entitled to the full benefits of those schemes. That like the other matters I have mentioned about pay, conditions and pensions, is under review at the present time.
Deputy Tully suggested the other night, if I understand the Official Report correctly, that a soldier's pension only goes up by 1/- a year after 21 years. That may not be quite what he meant to say. The position anyway is that for each year of service between 21 and 31 years service, he gets an increase of 1/- a week on his pension. This again I am glad to say is being reviewed at the present time.
Deputy Cosgrave suggested that a commission somewhat similar to the commission on Garda pay be established for the Army. He went on to say in so many words that what was important was not the means but the end. As I have said we are seeking, with a working party, to establish a better scheme of payments and pensions at the present time.
A couple of Deputies mentioned the business of disturbance allowances. A scheme is being introduced very shortly for all Army personnel who have to change their station permanently. I am also having examined the position of married soldiers who are temporarily away from their families on service, to see if any improvement can be made in that field.
There was a hardy annual. Deputy Flanagan made some rather hair-raising suggestions in regard to Reserve grants. This matter comes up pretty regularly at Question Time in the House. People seem to forget or otherwise choose to forget that the actual annual grant has become increasingly an unimportant part of the overall payment of the reservist. Deputy Flanagan suggested, I think, that junior officers should have their period of training reduced to two weeks and have their grant increased to £400. I think that was the figure he suggested. Incidentally, that £400 I presume would not include his Army pay as well. It would not be very nice if the country were so dripping with wealth as to be able to attain such really magnificent Reserve grant payments but I do not think our present financial situation, even if it improved very radically in the future, would permit such exotic payments. I do not think the Army would expect it either. Anyway, that matter also is being reviewed by the review body I spoke of.
The question of overseas allowances was referred to. The idea seems to be abroad that these are in some way rather less than they ought to be. It is a reversion to the Deputy Oliver Flanagan theme of however good they are they should be multiplied by about 20 and we would still say they are not too much for the solidiers he praised so unctuously some time ago when he was speaking in the House. The best thing for me to do is to give the House the figures in order that they can decide for themselves whether the allowances are adequate or not. The rates for troops serving in Cyprus are: a private soldier gets 24/3d a day; a married soldier gets 34/3d; a single corporal gets 26/9d per day; a married corporal gets 10/- more than that. A sergeant to sergeant-major gets 29/3d a day single, or 39/3d a day married. Married men in those three categories get 10/-a day more than the single men. Second lieutenant to captain gets 35/6 a day single and 50/6 a day, married; commandant and upwards, 45/6 a day single, and £3 0s 6d, married. This is in addition to their Army pay and, as all Deputies know, when a new contingent is going abroad there is always pretty keen interest on the part of the officers and men in going with the new unit. The amounts may not be satisfactory to Deputy Oliver Flanagan but I think they are adequate.
The officers serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East are on a different basis. They are paid a subsistence allowance of $12.50 per day as well as a clothing allowance of $200 American. They are not paid the overseas allowance.
Deputy Tully, speaking of the call-up of the reserve last year, suggested that this should have been on a selective basis to avoid calling up reservists in jobs or business which might suffer as a result. He also said that employers might more readily have made up reservists' wages if the Department supplied the men with weekly certificates of the amounts of their Army emoluments. A selective call-up, I think, is in a way a negation of the idea behind the maintenance of an Army reserve at all. Regardless of what Deputy Flanagan said, there was a dire emergency in the country at that time. There was a steady stream, in fact at times there was a flood, of homeless, wretched people being driven out of the unhappy part of the country, the Six Counties, and we had to mobilise what resources we had to provide aid and comfort for them. Neither could we say at the time what the proportions of this problem would be. We may be grateful that the refugee problem was not even greater than it was, but it was quite a serious national emergency and we required to get all the assistance we could from the reserve.
Naturally a great many men were displaced from civilian jobs which were paying far better than the rates of pay they would get in the Army. In any case where there was obvious hardship and an application was made for exemption, these cases were immediately and sympathetically dealt with, and the proportion of the problem of reservists who have suffered loss of any grievous kind is not great. However, as I said before in this House, I invite Deputies to submit the cases of individuals who have suffered financial loss in this regard and we shall have them investigated. I do not recall having come across the case mentioned by Deputy Flanagan. He alleged that some reservist was at a loss of £110 per months. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe, because I am quite certain that, if a reservist was at that kind of loss and if he had applied to the Army authorities for exemption, he would have got it.
A number of Deputies referred to the events in the Six Counties and the protection of vital installations here.
Again, Deputy Flanagan spoke at some considerable length somewhat on the lines of Captain Boyle in "Juno and the Paycock". He looked up at the Army and asked himself: "What is the Army and what is the Army for?" The Army have been fully extended in the matter of the protection of vital installations in this part of the country for quite some time now, and I do not think it should be necessary for me to elaborate on the gravity of the mission the Army are carrying out with their customary efficiency.
It was suggested during the debate that the Dáil should have been recalled to discuss the general situation that arise out of the events in the Six Counties. This has been dealt with very thoroughly by the Taoiseach in volume 241 of the Official Report of 23rd October, 1969, and I do not think I should say anything further about it, except that it was suggested that a duty devolved on the Army to prevent saboteurs from coming into this part of the country from the north. The short answer to that is that it does not; happily, there is a very satisfactory working arrangement with the Garda Síochána in matters of security and it is working very well at the present time.
Deputy Tully asked for some statistical information about northern casualties and refugees. The number of casualties was 68. They were treated in the field hospitals that were set up by the Army at that time. He also wanted a breakdown, into men, women and children, of the 54 refugees left. The breakdown is nine men, 12 women and 33 children. Did they include people who were not refugees in the real sense but hangers-on who were not anxious for one reason or another to return to the Six Counties? All the people who were dealt with in the refugee camp in Gormanston were refugees, and that was the purpose for which the camp was made available to them.
Deputy Tully said there was a complaint in Gormanston because the Dublin Red Cross took over and crowded out the locals; the Civil Defence members were also slighted. This, I think, is not correct. If Deputies would cast their minds back to that period they would remember the great enthusiasm and readiness to help that was shown not only by the Army and the soldiers of the reserve but by voluntary organisations. It reflected the complete unanimity of the people in the matter of providing aid for the unfortunate people who had been driven out of their homes in the Six Counties. I do not think, in that context, the Civil Defence organisations would take it amiss if they recognised that the Government had decided that the Army who had facilities already in existence, would handle the first influx. If the numbers of refugees had been greatly in excess of what they were, the Civil Defence organisation would have had to become involved in major housing, feeding etc. Happily, we did not have to call them all into action but we were happy in the knowledge that, if the refugees had continued to come in massive numbers, we had an efficient, reliable and steadfast organisation in the Civil Defence glad to co-operate in assisting refugees.
Deputy Cosgrave inquired about money collected for relief purposes in the Six Counties. He said there was a doubt as to whether the money was distributed up there and asked if I had any information on that point. The Government designated the Irish Red Cross Society as the official co-ordinating agency for the collection of funds, relief supplies, comforts etc. for northern refugees. The society has donated upwards of £50,000 in goods and cash to distressed areas in the Six Counties. These include cash donations to church leaders and to the Belfast refugee reestablishment committee and supplies of clothing, bedding, footwear and medical supplies.
Deputy Tully raised another matter and, I think, not for the first time. Perhaps it is because he lives near Gormanston and is familiar with conditions there that he mentions this. Soldiers in Gormanston are doing everything from gardening to babysitting, he says, from 7.30 in the morning until 11 p.m. and get no additional remuneration. There is no doubt that the soldiers in Gormanston at the beginning of the emergency and since gave yeoman service. They performed this difficult assignment excellently but I do not think they would suggest their duties are any more onerous than those of the soliders who are manning lonely security posts on these cold nights and whose praises are quite unsung by Deputies or by people outside the House. They are on the job, on a 24-hour vigil over vital installations, as we know. I do not think that Deputy Tully, apart from meaning to pay tribute to the men in Gormanston, was serious in suggesting there should be some extra payment for them. The soldiers of the Army accept the duties of soldiers, whatever they may be, with the willingness and soldierly quality we have come to expect from them. It is unnecessary for me to say more.
Deputy Clinton spoke about living conditions in the Army with, I think, particular reference to Gormanston camp. During the debate a number of references were made to the quality of the accommodation at Gormanston. Deputies should remember that this camp is mainly used for summer training of the FCA and it was because of its position in relation to Northern Ireland that it was particularly convenient for use as a refugee centre. Nobody would look on it as suitable permanent accommodation or living quarters for families, especially where there would be a large number of children. This, I would remind the House, was a very dire emergency and fundamental things like shelter and food were what the people wanted when they fled from what had been their homes, before they were burned, in the north. The Army corps of engineers did a very good job in making the accommodation at Gormanston comfortable and habitable.
Deputy Clinton and Deputy Healy spoke in somewhat similar terms of the role of the Army in our society. Deputy Clinton said the Army should be more closely integrated into our society and that it would be appreciated, especially in peacetime, if the Army assisted in more social and economic activities. Deputy Healy told us of the wide area of activities in which soldiers in Cork engage, that they are the backbone of choral and sporting societies and that they mix very satisfactorily in society generally. To my knowledge also, in my constitutency in Kilkenny the habit has developed of looking to the Army for leadership in matters of this kind. I do not think there is a real problem here. Occasionally, one comes across some squalid incident such as that recorded in a press report recently of men of the Naval Service being refused admittance to some dance in, I think, Limerick. This is so exceptional and so pathetic that I do not think it merits comment but it serves to show that there are some ignorant, loutish people who have some peculiar complex about the men of our Defence Forces. I do not accept that this is at all common or that it is a serious problem.
Deputy Tully and Deputy Cosgrave mentioned recruitment. The present recruiting campaign has been most successful. Between 1st September, 1969, and 28th February, 1970, a total of 1,398 men applied for admission. Of these 885 were accepted. The number enlisted in the corresponding period in 1968-69 was just 499. They are still coming in at present.
This reminds me to say that, from time to time, one sees press reports of young men in difficulty with the law being advised by the district justices to join the Army. I do not know whether I should say this or whether it is the proper way to appeal to the Judiciary but the Army do not want young men who have been in difficulties with the law. The Army is not a place for ne'er-do-wells or people with criminal tendencies. We do not want that type in the Army and I wish people in district courts and elsewhere would get that finally into their heads and realise that the Irish Army is an organisation manned by decent, respectable young Irishment and we want to keep it that way.
