Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1957

Vol. 163 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Age Limits for Officers of Defence Forces.

Mr. Cosgrave

I gave notice of my intention to raise the subject matter of Question No. 23 on to-day's Order Paper on the Adjournment because I believe this is a more satisfactory way of dealing with a matter of that sort than trying to bring it to a conclusion by means of numerous supplementary questions to the Minister.

The reason I raise this matter is that I feel a great injustice may be done to a number of officers who, according to the proposal which the Minister has in mind, will not benefit by a two-years' extension of service that was granted, I think, in October, 1954, and which has now been in operation for almost three years.

The circumstances which moved the Government at that time to grant the extension were that it was considered that these officers, who had rendered loyal and faithful service to all Governments since the establishment of the State, had experience which was valuable in the light of the then existing internal circumstances. I need not elaborate here on the circumstances which existed but the fact that events occurred on the Border and across the Border caused the Government to consider the desirability in the national interest of having available officers who had previous experience of a somewhat similar situation.

All of the officers concerned were required to have I.R.A. service and it was decided that they would get an extra two years provided each individual officer had satisfactory service, that his retention was recommended by his commanding officer, approved by the Minister, and that his health was satisfactory according to medical standards.

One of the arguments against granting that extension which the Minister used, and I know the view is held by other officers, is that granting an extension to a limited number of officers prevents normal promotion. It is well to reflect on the situation about promotion which obtained over the years. Normally, in all armies, peacetime promotion is slow and the Army here was no exception to that rule. From the establishment of the State right down to the emergency of the war years, promotion was slow and all officers, and men for that matter, no matter what their rank, were affected by it. That particular situation was not peculiar to this country. In fact, it is common to all peacetime armies. Peacetime establishments involve a slow rate of promotion.

The period varied in different armies and even General Eisenhower was a lieutenant for several years. However, when the emergency arose promotion was more rapid and our existing officers, as well as those who joined during the emergency, benefited by the more rapid promotion, including officers who had been commissioned after comparatively short courses. This is a factor which should be borne in mind. Regular officers, commissioned after the normal two years' course, have fulfilled the full training period but quite a number of the emergency officers had substantially shorter courses to fulfil. That was necessary in view of the rapid growth of the Defence Forces. However, the position is that quite a number of officers, as a result of the growth of the Army, benefited by that promotion.

I am entirely in favour of rapid promotion. I believe if incentive is to be provided, and the enthusiasm and interest of officers are to be retained, there should be the incentive of rapid promotion. Such promotion will be an incentive to all officers to display their maximum energies, to perfect themselves in their special capacities in order to gain whatever advancements which may come through proficiency in their skill and experience as soldiers.

When this decision was taken, it was recognised that the peculiar circumstances of the time warranted an extension being granted. In order to avoid causing any hardship on officers who have not benefited by this, special increment in pay was granted to officers up to the rank of captain. They would normally be the officers affected by it because up to that rank promotion is automatic. When this two years' extension was granted these officers concerned planned their future arrangements on the basis of it and I feel, that having once given a concession of that sort, it is unfair to withdraw it from them. If the Minister proposes to withdraw that concession the full compensation should be made to the officers concerned.

If this regulation is now cancelled the anomalous position will exist whereby some officers who would normally have retired earlier than others, will now find themselves serving on longer than their fellow officers who would have retired before them. That anomaly will arise because of the fact that it is proposed to cancel this arrangement.

I feel that, irrespective of what Government is in office, these officers with I.R.A. service have given loyal and faithful service to the State. Some of them, perhaps, played a more important part than others, but they have all been foundation officers who rendered service to all Governments, and were responsible for the fine traditions which the Army has built up over the years. They are handing on a very efficient and loyal Army to future generations.

I feel if the Minister considers this will in any way impinge on the promotion which normally would be granted to other officers who are not entitled to this service, he might consider dealing with it by granting added years in their cases as well. I certainly urge on him, in view of the fact that wherever in the past concessions or improvements in conditions have been granted in respect of Army service, provided the person concerned did not himself in one way or another warrant disciplinary action, these concessions should not be withdrawn. I urge on him in the interest of fair play to those concerned, if he persists in withdrawing this regulation, that at any rate compensation of a material kind on the basis of salaries or allowances for the period in question, should be granted to the personnel concerned.

This is not a matter which will arise again because these officers with I.R.A. service are a very small number. It was because of the particular circumstances at the time that it was felt it was in the national interest that their services should be retained. I have no doubt they have given, and will continue to give, the same loyal service to the State no matter what Government is in office.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

I should like to assure Deputies, firstly, that I would have had no objection whatever to the previous Government having made provision for some extra reward to these officers, whom Deputy Cosgrave has described as foundation officers in the Army. I can well understand that the previous Government could be of the opinion that they deserved some extra reward and I would not for a moment object to them providing that, if they had done so in the proper way, out of the Exchequer. In actual fact the steps taken to make special provisions for these foundation officers were taken at the expense of other serving Army officers. In order to reward these foundation officers, other officers had their prospects of promotion, to which they could reasonably look forward, taken away from them.

The effect of that on the morale of the officers generally in the Army was, in my opinion, disastrous. It resulted in splitting the general body of officers into two sections, those who were the possessors of medals and those who were not. In fact, the result of it was, to a certain extent, that the medal which should be a symbol of respect, and generally speaking is regarded as that, and has entitled its owner to the respect of other people, now almost came into disrepute in the Army. It had been made the condition on the basis of which a serious injustice was inflicted on other officers.

The position that obtained prior to July, 1949, with regard to service in the Army was that there was a scale of retiring ages laid down for each rank of Army officers, a certain age for lieutenants, captains, commandants and so on. In July, 1949, the Minister for Defence introduced a new regulation as a result of which this certain category of officer whom Deputy Cosgrave has described as a foundation officer of the Army had his service extended by one year. When that was done every other officer in the Army had his conditions of service disimproved and was from then on labouring under a sense of injustice. At least on that occasion his prospects of promotion were blocked by only one year but subsequently, in October, 1954, this new regulation providing for a further extension of two years for these officers was introduced.

The effect of that new regulation on the morale of the Army was little short of disastrous. Officers who had come into the Army under the old terms when the same retiring age applied to all officers found that their conditions of service had changed overnight. Some of these people had been able to work out what their prospects of promotion were and at what age they would probably retire and at what rank. Some of them found that instead of retiring as, say, lieutenant-colonel it now appeared quite possible that they might never rise beyond their present rank of captain.

To give an example of what the effect of these extensions on other officers was, I shall take the case of an officer—one of those foundation officers that Deputy Cosgrave has mentioned—who had reached the rank of colonel and who had reached the retiring age. He now got an extension of three years. As a result of that, a vacancy that should in the normal course have arisen in the rank of colonel did not arise and was put back for three years. Consequently a lieutenant-colonel who was due for promotion to the rank of colonel found that his promotion was blocked for three years. Because he did not get his promotion a commandant found himself in the same position; similarly a captain was held back. Therefore, for the one man who got a small financial advantage there were at least three who suffered a serious financial disability. I have no doubt that the effect in some cases would be that a man who might have retired as a lieutenant-colonel had retired so much earlier and retired on a smaller pension.

The giving of this further extension was, according to the regulation, to be dependent on the fulfilling of certain conditions, but in actual fact it became automatic and was applied to everybody. The other officers in the Army could see that their prospects were very seriously affected and it had a very bad effect on their morale. That was the sole reason why I decided it was my duty to remedy this injustice and do what I could to restore the morale of the Army generally.

I do not think I have done anybody an injustice. After all, it was a condition of that two-years' extension that I should certify that, in my opinion, it was in the best interest of the Army that the officer concerned should be given that extension. I was not in a position to certify that because I know to the contrary, that the granting of this extension has had a very adverse effect. When I say that, I do not mean to cast any reflection whatever on the officers concerned. I fully agree with Deputy Cosgrave that they have given loyal and faithful service to every Government. As I have said, I would have no objection to Deputy Cosgrave, when he was acting-Minister for Defence, granting them some extra reward in this respect provided he did it out of the Exchequer and not out of the pockets of other Army officers.

I do not think that Deputy Cosgrave made a very good case. I was hoping that he would explain to me how he decided that the claims of those officers outweighed the grievance that would be felt by other officers, as a result of the granting of this extension to 10 per cent. and thereby inflicting an injustice on 90 per cent. of the officers in the Army. I know that at the time this measure was brought in it was stated that Deputy Cosgrave, the then acting-Minister for Defence, believed that the claims of those officers out-weighted the grievance of the other officers but I was hoping he would explain to-day how he felt that that was so. He has not given any such indication.

These officers have not been badly treated by any Government and I certainly do not think I am doing them any injustice by removing this new regulation. Up to the time that the Fianna Fáil Government came into office there was no provision at all in the Army for retired pay for officers or men and one of the first things the Fianna Fáil Government did in 1932 was to bring in an enabling Act which enabled the Government to introduce retired pay schemes.

In 1937, again under a Fianna Fáil Government the first retired pay scheme for the Army was brought in and again in 1953 under a Fianna Fáil Government provision was made whereby officers actually serving in the Army could draw the military service pensions which were awarded to them on the basis of their old I.R.A. service. The position, therefore is that since 1953 these officers, in addition to drawing their pay as Army officers, are also drawing the appropriate military service pension, and I understand that practically all these officers come within that category.

Another point is that these military service pensions are in the case of Army officers, based not on the rank that they had while they were in the I.R.A. but on the rank that they held in the Army in 1953. Therefore, a man whose pension was fixed in, say, 1924, which might have been based only on his rank as lieutenant, could now draw a military service pension based on the rank of colonel which he had acquired since that time by virtue of his service in the Army.

I do not think that an Army officer retiring at the moment is badly treated. A colonel retired from the Army now may qualify for a gratuity of £1,176 and, if on his maximum, gets maximum retiring pay amounting to £784 per annum. A lieutenant-colonel can qualify for a gratuity of £1,003 and get a maximum retired pay of £649 per annum. A commandant may qualify for a gratuity of £787 and a maximum retired pay of £507 per annum. So I do not think these officers are so badly treated. They are certainly in a much better position financially than a number of other people who had equal service with the Old I.R.A.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that in peacetime there was a slow rate of promotion in all armies. However, I do not think other armies did what was done here in granting extensions in service to certain classes of army officers. I have been assured that that regulation was not asked for by anybody in the Army. In fact, as far as my information goes, it was accepted in a rather shamefaced manner by the people concerned. I believe they felt quite self-conscious about accepting it because they were in a position to know of the injustices being done to the vast body of Army officers.

I feel that my action in withdrawing that regulation will have a very good effect on the morale of the Army in general. Deputy Cosgrave said that an increment of pay was given to Army captains to compensate them. Surely he cannot be serious in suggesting that one increment of pay could compensate a man for having his promotion blocked for three years and for having to retire at an earlier age on a smaller pension than that at which he would otherwise have retired.