Vol. 11 No. 14
I move:—
|
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,053,117 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Costas an Airm. |
That a sum not exceeding £2,053,117 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the cost of the Army |
In introducing these Estimates, I should say that I want to go through the various accounts and give a short detailed statement of them, so that the Dáil might perhaps be able to follow them with greater facility. I shall endeavour to give the fullest information without waiting for it to be elicited either by question, answer, or any other method.
I think I should start off by stating that there was a saving on last year's Estimates of £874,028. The Army was then on the basis of what may be known as a war Army; it has been reconstituted, and we are now on a peace footing. The conditions that were imposed on enlistment for new recruits were such that the Army never came up to the establishment last year. There were economies practised throughout the year along with the non-fulfilment of the establishment which made it possible to have that saving. At the present year the establishment of officers and non-commissioned officers has been made the same as that estimated for last year, but there is a reduction in the number of privates. The number of privates last year was 14,650, and it has been reduced to 13,300 in the present Estimate. It should be noted that the main factors, so far as expenditure is concerned, are in respect of pay and provisions. These are two main factors that go to make up the cost of the Army. The rates of pay for all ranks are now fixed and promulgated under the Defence Forces Act. There has been a considerable increase, amounting to £87,452, in the pay of officers and privates. These rates were only in force during three or four months of the previous year, but they will be in force throughout this financial year. Provisions are all got by competitive tender, and every care is taken to see that the lowest possible prices are obtained and that we get the best value possible. Included in the Vote is the Air Service, which is small at present, but, so far as it reasonably can be, it is a very valuable adjunct to the Army. A point that should not be overlooked as regards the Air Service is the assistance it will render towards the development of civil aviation in the country. I have been in communication and have had several conversations with the Minister for Industry and Commerce on this particular matter. This question of the assimilation of the Air Service with other developments in aviation is in the initial stage, and I cannot give the House further information at present.
Will the Minister state the personnel of the Army this year, as compared with the personnel last year, so that the expenditure might be made clear?
I have said that the officer and non-commissioned officer personnel is the same as last year. 14,650 was the number of privates estimated for last year, and the number for this year is 13,300. I should say that the Army does certain services for other Departments of the State. It provides in many ways, for the Ministry of Justice, functions that in a normal country would probably be performed by the police, and the Army would not be called upon to give any assistance in regard to them at all. In some parts of the country, I am glad to say, this necessity is disappearing, and in a few months I hope it will have disappeared altogether. We have been called upon to assist in the removal of prisoners, and matters of that kind, and we are bearing the expense of that on the Army Vote. There are new schools for the training of officers, and examinations are held for officers and non-commissioned officers. We are looking after the education of the private soldier, but that is a matter that requires a good deal more time. We hope we will be able to educate the private soldier so that when he comes out again into the world he will be able to attain the posi tion he would normally have if he had not joined the Army.
In this year's Estimates we have made provision, which I think the House will agree with, for libraries in the different Commands. That, I think, will appeal to every member of the House. If we do not give facilities to men living in barracks to educate themselves, and to enjoy recreation and amusements, they will go outside the barracks and wander into paths not good for them, that would lead, perhaps, to things not creditable to the Army. We are trying as far as possible to afford such reasonable recreation as the men would have under normal conditions.
At the Curragh and in Dublin we have abattoirs and bakeries. These adjuncts will, I think, give a certain amount of training and knowledge to our officers that will be useful to them. As far as I can learn, the prices at which we can provide bread and meat in the Curragh and in Dublin would compare favourably with any tenders we would get from outside sources. A serious matter that has been engaging the attention of my Department is the provision of barrack accommodation. Some of the principal barracks have been burned, and rendered practically useless for troops. We expect to have most of them put into proper condition by the end of this year. The Board of Works have in their Estimate a certain sum of money which is to be expended on the barracks, the upkeep of which will be looked after by the Corps of Engineers. Probably by the end of the summer the barracks will be in a condition suitable for occupation.
Is it possible to say how much of the Vote granted last year has been spent upon barracks?
I cannot say at the moment, but I will get that information for the Deputy. A great deal of our time is taken up with incidental matters. We have a great quantity of surrendered arms in our custody, and these take up a good deal of the time of the officers connected with that particular matter. We intend to have these arms sent back as soon as possible. I think the House would like to know the position of the Army Finance Department. We have had a good deal of clearing off during the present year of old accounts and bills that were due for a long time. I am glad to say that, with few exceptions, all these old accounts had been paid off by 31st March. New claims are coming in at about a rate of 15 per week, but they are not of a serious nature, and they will be disposed of as quickly as possible.
It would be well, perhaps, if I went through the sub-heads one by one. The total establishment of the Army in 1924-25 was 1,081 officers, 3,237 non-commissioned officers, and 14,650 men, making a total in all of 18,968. As I said before, except in the case of officers, that establishment was not reached, so that we had a saving of about three-quarters of a million on the Vote. For the year under consideration now the establishment of officers and non-commissioned officers remains practically as it was. That decision has been come to after very mature consideration. We did not think it wise to reduce the number of our officers and non-commissioned officers, and we preferred to reduce the number of our men, because, as far as I can see, and as far as I can get information, it is necessary, if we ever want to expand our Army, which I hope we will not in our time, to have a number of trained officers and non-commissioned officers. It is the intention to re-organise some of the services and make them special services. These men will be always useful; they will be there to meet any expansion necessary. It may be said that the proportion of officers to men is very high, but when you look at it the proportion is exactly the same as in other armies not far away from this country, and on examination you will find that the cost per head of our Army works out more economically than the cost in other armies.
Can the Minister give the cost per head?
£173 per head is the average cost.
Of all ranks?
Yes.
What is the comparative figure?
£284. Sub-head B— Marriage Allowance.—It will be noted that while active service conditions prevailed dependants' allowance was issued to all ranks. That has ceased now, but there are still a certain number of soldiers who re-enlisted drawing the allowance. They are a good proportion at the moment—somewhere about one-seventh, I think. When these men go out the amount will be reduced considerably, because under the new conditions of enlistment it will not be possible for men to get dependants' allowance.
Sub-head C—Wages of Civilians Attached to Units.—There is an increase under this sub-head of £28,575. It will be noted that the Public Works Office had charge of all works and barrack services at the Curragh, and there was a large establishment of civilian employees there. It was decided at one time that the Army should take over all that work, but that was not found practicable, so that we had to continue these civilian employees, and, consequently, they come under the Army Vote now. The number of civilians last year was based on gradual substitution, but for the present year we are providing for the full number for the whole year, and that accounts for about £17,000 of the increase in the Estimate.
Sub-head D—Pay of Clergymen and Altar Equipment.—A certain amount of merging of the smaller with the larger stations has taken place, so that the service of chaplains is curtailed somewhat.
Sub-head E—Pay of Officers of Medical Service.—There is a reduction of £15,896 in this Vote. The Army medical service had a very large amount of work to do. Our posts were small and scattered, and it naturally took more doctors to see that the men got proper treatment than it would in normal times. This service has been gradually reduced, and in my opinion it is now in a normal state.
What is the total strength of the medical establishment now—it was 547?
The total strength now is 543. There are 85 medical officers. With regard to the rates of pay, these officers are simply on a year-to-year basis. While some salaries, as they appear on the Estimate, may appear alarming, if we are to get the right class of men for the service we must pay them well. We have had a number of resignations on account of the small pay that some of the men were getting. As a matter of fact, during the past six months some of our best men have resigned. At the moment we are in the position that we have to do with a good many very junior officers in that service.
Sub-head G.—Lodging and Subsistence Allowances. There is an increase of £8,583 in this Vote. It is accounted for as follows:—The rate of 5/- for married officers is based on lodging allowance and fuel and light. Last year fuel and light came under sub-head S. This year we take all in under this sub-head and make the allowance 5/-, which is the ordinary allowance given to an officer when he is married. That accounts for £3,000 of the increase. There is also a provision for 50 unmarried officers, which amounts to £3,000 more. That is due to the fact that we have not accommodation in barracks for all the unmarried officers at present. By October or November next we hope to have a good deal of additional accommodation in Dublin at any rate for the officers to whom we pay a sustenance allowance at present for lodgings in the city. At present we are not in a position to house them properly, but the matter is being attended to. Some barracks that got into a state of disrepair are being put into proper repair and the officers will be housed there in future.
Sub-head (k)—Mechanical Transport. —This question of mechanical transport has engaged the close attention of my Department for some time. We took over a number of cars from the British when they were evacuating the country. Those cars were not in what you might call good running condition and they had to be under constant repair since. The intention is to dispose of nearly all of them and to replace them by a moderate number of up-to-date cars. By doing that it is believed that we will save a considerable sum of money in repairs, because these old cars were giving a lot of trouble. I think it would be good business to get rid of them.
Sub-head (1)—Provisions and Allowances in Lieu. The contracts for provisions for the Army are awarded on a strictly competitive basis. They are based on an average cost per man at 1/9 per day. It appears to be a reasonable figure, taking into account the fact that we do not used chilled meat for the Army as they do in England, but try to get the best quality of provisions for the men.
Sub-head (m)—Petrol and Oils. There is a reduction under this sub-head of £30,156, which will be welcomed, as it shows that the cars are not being used in the same manner as they had been previously.
Sub-head (n)—Clothing and Equipment. There is an increase under this sub-head of £7,334. We have had some trouble in connection with the supplies of cloth, &c., but we are now trying to establish a standard sample that our mills will be required to work up to. The cloth will be of a better quality than in the past, and when we arrive at that stage we hope to have a considerable saving. The cloth will be better and the uniforms will last longer. The amount is based on an estimate of £4 per man per year for everything that the soldier requires.
Sub-head (o)—Animals and Forage. Forage is obtained on a competitive basis in the same way as provisions.
Sub-head (p)—General Stores. Some improvement has been made in connection with the stores. We have provided some field kitchens which it is thought will be a saving if we are going to have any route marches or what might be called minor manoeuvres. Formerly we had to billet the men, which was a very unsatisfactory arrangement. We believe with the use of the field kitchens we will be able to carry on manoeuvres more economially and that the men will get warm food, and get it in a manner that we would all like them to get it.
Sub-head (s)—Fuel, Light and Water in Kind. We have been tightening up this estimate and there is a reduction of £44,605.
Sub-head (t)—Works and Buildings. —Maintenance works are all done by the Army Corps of Engineers, but where there are major works or new works, the Public Works Office always carry out these. We believe that our Corps of Engineers will be able to carry out maintenance works with the addition of the tradesmen we have employed, and that we intend to employ during the coming year.
Sub-head (u)—Compensation for Damage or Injury.—There is a reduction here of £67,800.
Before the Minister passes from sub-head (t), can he tell us the meaning of the item, "Military lands surrendered, £1,200."?
We took over a good deal of land from the British, and there was a condition that such land had to be reinstated or surrendered. We have still a good deal of land that we took over, but these lands have been surrendered, and we had to re-condition them when giving them back.
Sub-head (v)—Barrack Services.— There is an increase here of £8,858. We have now had a proper system of store accounting set up in barracks, and a rigid inspection takes place at different periods of the year. We are seeing that the quarters are improved, and the furnishing generally done in such a manner as it should be done. That is done by the Public Works Office. The men's quarters are generally fairly good in barracks, except in a few places where the barracks were burned. In many places that I have visited and inspected I must say that the officers' quarters were not quarters suitable for officers. We are about to put that matter right. That is the reason for the increase in the estimate of £8,828.
Sub-head (w)—Insurance, £25,619.— Under statute we are bound to insure the men at present. With the exception of 22 or 23 men, who were not insured up to a few months ago, I think all the men are insured in accordance with the Acts passed. There is also £7,600 for unemployment insurance for certain individuals.
Are we to understand from the Minister that all the men in the army have had Health Insurance cards stamped, and that unemployment insurance contributions are also paid in respect of them? It is a very important matter.
The amount is to maintain insurance for 17,037 non-commissioned officers and men at the rate of 4½d. per week per man. That is a statutory obligation under the National Health Insurance Act of 1923. As far as my information goes, all our men are insured.
Are all the men insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
They are not. I do not think there is any obligation to insure all the men under that Act.
Can the Minister tell us what the £7,600 is for?
That is regarded as necessary for the maintenance of the Unemployment Insurance contributions of soldiers who may be demobilised within the year. It is an estimate, under section 7, sub-section (6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923.
Sub-head (x)—Incidental Services. The sum of £8,000 for Miscellaneous Expenses covers a variety of things, such as gardens at the Curragh, the lawns, winding clocks, and various other items.
Sub-head (y)—Office of Minister for Defence, Army Finance Office. There is an increase of £8,000 under this sub-head. That is in connection with the Army Finance Office. In order to comply with the Ministers and Secretaries Act, a Parliamentary Secretary had to be appointed.
Reluctantly.
The Dáil laid it down in the Act that a Parliamentary Secretary was to be appointed for the Department.
Not in the Act. He could be appointed for any Department.
In order that the Council of Defence should be set to work it was necessary to have a Parliamentary Secretary who was a member of it.
I apologise. It slipped my memory.
There are two junior executive officers and two higher executive officers. In this Vote we have made arrangements for taking over printing and other things. As far as I can give it, that is a synopsis of what has been done, and I will gladly answer any questions that are raised.
I am afraid I must move, under Standing Order 93, that this Estimate be referred back to the Minister. The statement of the Minister has been, I regret to say, extremely unsatisfactory. His defence of his Department has not been very successful. In fact, if he defends the State in the same manner as he has defended his Department I fear we will be in a bad way. The Minister gave an undertaking during the discussion, I think, of the Defence Forces (Continuance) Amendment Bill, some weeks ago, that he would reveal the policy of the Executive with regard to national defence, in connection with the Army Estimates. He had many previous opportunities for revealing that policy, both on the motion put down by Deputy Figgis, which the Minister did not bother to answer, and on the various stages of the Defence Forces Bill. At that time many criticisms of the Government's policy on national defence were held over, in order to give the Minister time to consider his position, and largely as a result of the undertaking he gave that he would reveal his policy when we came to discuss the Estimates for the next financial year.
I am sure that members of the Dáil who are interested in the problem of national defence have listened with dismay to the statement of the Minister which implies that he has no policy to advance and, apparently, judging from the estimates which are before us, it is his intention that we shall have no policy for the next twelve months. The Ministry of Defence is the only Department, practically, that is left without a policy. The Departments of Finance, Justice, Lands and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, Local Government, Fisheries and Public Works now all justify their existence; they have produced policies or have co-ordinated their activities in a manner which can be clearly understood by the people at large. I am sure all that has the overwhelming support of the majority of the people. It is true that many of these Departments required to be pushed a very considerable distance before they reached the happy stage which they are in to-day.
The question arises on this estimate why the Ministry of Defence has not come into line with other Departments of State. The necessity for doing so in this Department is all the greater, in view of the fact that there is a time limit which will expire in eighteen months when, under Article 6 of the Treaty, a Conference must be held to consider what steps we are going to take in regard to defending the country. That Conference was arranged to be held five years from the date of the signing of the Treaty. Judging from the statement of the Minister, and from the estimates that we have before us, nothing has been done so far to deal with this problem and nothing is going to be done for the next twelve months. A large amount of public money is going to be wasted in unnecessary expenditure. The intention to delay for the next twelve months, combined with certain Ministerial statements which have appeared during the past year, may possibly give rise to grave anxiety with regard to the question of holding the full status which has been obtained under the Treaty.
The Minister for External Affairs, at the League of Nations, and yesterday in his remarks about the Protocol, took pride in the fact that we in this country have reduced our Army to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of internal order. He made that statement at Geneva, and apparently there he represented the Executive Council, although in his statement yesterday he was a bit confused as to his position in that matter. The different statements made by Ministers, together with the Estimates, do lend colour to the rumour that the Executive Council do not intend to carry out the full intentions of Article 6 of the Treaty.
Except in the matter of general reductions, the Estimates are in no way different from the Estimates of last year. They are not the Estimates of an ordinary, modern, small army; they are the Estimates for a very costly armed police force. You have only to examine them to see that of the total of £3,076,000 the amount to be spent on pay, wages and allowances of various kinds comes to £2,360,000, as against £700,000 for everything else. There is a huge sum of less than £50,000 for warlike equipment. That is the estimate of an armed police force. I would not like Deputies to think that I have any desire, or make any demand, to increase the Army Estimates. On the contrary, I think that enormous reductions and savings could be made.
The lack of policy which is represented in this Estimate is easily explained. It is explained by reason of the history of the Army, its growth, its development and the changes in it during the last two years. It is explained by its development from a revolutionary organisation to being a guerilla army, and from that to an armed force for the purpose of suppressing other guerilla forces. Those various stages have been gradual; but the question arises now as to why the Ministry of Defence is hesitating before taking the last step which should be taken in this development and so turn the Army into what it ought to be, a real army on modern lines for the purpose of defending the country. There seems to be a certain lack of confidence on the part of the Minister's Department. Practically all the other Departments of State are now displaying confidence, even—which is a miracle—the Department of Finance. For years it was a sinister force, but it has now become one of the most cheerful and confident Departments of Government. The Army, it appears, is still afraid to divert its energies from the line on which it has been travelling so long.
If I might interrupt the Deputy, I would like to say that the Army is afraid of nothing.
Colonise Africa so.
I am not suggesting the Army is afraid of anything; I dare say it is not, unless of itself, and I might add that is what I was referring to. It is certainly afraid to launch out into its proper channel, and it has not given up the idea of considering itself a body of armed auxiliaries for the purpose of supporting the Civic Guard. The Minister and various members of the Executive Council still seem to have their eyes fixed on the Irregulars when it comes to a question of defence, but the Irregulars are now a very small and quite unimportant sideshow. It is, of course, necessary for the Defence Department to keep an eye on them, but not at the cost of three millions a year. The Army, as it is to-day, seems almost to apologise for its existence.
The Minister, in his statement, while stressing and congratulating himself on the reduction, seems also, to a certain extent, to apologise for the existence of an army at all. In my opinion that is very unhealthy and a very disgraceful state of affairs. Ministers have again and again excused the existence of the Army on the sole grounds of the existence of an Irregular menace, and suggest that when that menace disappears the Army would disappear with it. That is a very dangerous doctrine. Many people in this country have at various times urged that the Army should be abolished. They are particularly people who may be loyal to the State but are not loyal to the nation. These people are constantly saying: "What do we want an army in this country for?" Generally they are people who have their sons or relatives in the British Army; they do not send them to our Army, because they do not consider our Army is sufficiently smart.
These are the people who are always urging and asking: "What do we want an army for in this country?" but I never heard any of those who advocated the abolition of the Irish Army advocating the abolition of the British Army, or the British Navy. I think it will be time enough for small nations to leave themselves absolutely defenceless and without any protection when their larger sisters show them the good example. People say frequently: "What is the use of having an army in this country except for the purpose of suppressing the Irregulars, in view of the fact that it is obviously impossible that we could defend ourselves successfully against a powerful aggressor? Therefore, we should get rid of it." I think they are wrong, although it is probable that a small state cannot defend itself successfully, nor defeat a larger aggressor. The fact that it does possess a small army makes an intending aggressor think twice, and even prevents an attack from such an aggressor. For instance, during the Great War such small countries as Switzerland and Holland were not invaded and were not suppressed. Surely Deputies do not consider that they were spared out of the kindness and morality of the belligerents on either side. They were not attacked, simply because of the fact that the various powers on all sides thought that the process of attacking them would not be worth the result, that although they could be defeated and invaded, the cost of such an operation would not compensate for the game. That is, I think, the explanation of the reason why small nations at the present time consider it necessary to keep up their defence forces. I, therefore, urge on the Minister that he should announce his policy with regard to Article 6 of the Treaty, and that he should orient his whole defence policy with the object of dealing adequately and immediately with the situation which will be created when that Article comes to be fulfilled in 18 months' time.
I would urge upon him to institute immediately an investigation into the general requirements of the national defence of this country, that he should draw up proposals for the defence and for such portions of that defence as can be taken immediately after the conference under Article 6 of the Treaty takes place next year. A nation which leaves its defence permanently to others, by that very fact ceases to be a nation and becomes a Protectorate. The Minister for External Affairs, in dealing with the Estimates for his Department yesterday, stated that we have certain external affairs, and that if we do not look after them then others would look after them. The same applies to national defence. We have problems of national defence, and if we do not look after them then others will do so, and perhaps not always to our advantage. If the Executive Council adopt, as some public statements seem to imply that they are going to adopt, the theory that the Army is solely for the preservation of internal order, then that decision would be a disaster and history would repeat itself. Not only that, but the spirit of the Treaty would be, I think, broken, and this country would be reduced, by refusing to take a hand in its own defence, to a position of slavery and dependence. I, therefore, move to refer back this estimate for reconsideration to the Minister.
I feel, while I, too, must criticise the Minister, that he is rather in a difficult position. He has not been long in office. We do not know to what extent these Estimates were prepared by him or to what extent they were previously framed. We realise that three or four months is a very small time in which to get hold of every detail of a complicated Department like this. As far as he went, I think he did very well. He gave us an account of his housekeeping and his stewardship, and he gave it with a clearness and force that we expected from him. He made, however, two statements which might mislead Deputies. I think that might be due to the fact that he made a rather cursory reading of the estimates of other armies. He said that the strength of officers to men in our Army was the same as in the British Army. The strength of officers in our Army is one to every thirteen men approximately. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
One to every fifteen men.
There is one officer to every fifteen men. Now in the British Army there is a number of corps which do not exist in our Army at all and these have a very high proportion of officers to the number of men. They are the Army Pay Corps which has 166 officers, and 600 men; the Corps of Military Accountants, 94 officers and 650 men, and the Army Educational Corps with 91 officers and only 266 men. If you take these out—and they do not exist in our Army at all—and work out the proportion of the officers to men in the British Corps corresponding to ours, even throwing in the Tank Corps where we have armoured cars, you will find that the proportion is not one to fifteen but one to eighteen. Now I am not suggesting that the Minister attempted to mislead us—it is a most important detail—but his analogy was not entirely accurate. He gave us the cost per head in our Army as £173 per year and in the British Army as £284. That includes these very costly corps. I am not saying that any analogy between our Army and the British Army can be absolutely correct. If you take out these costly corps you will find that the cost of the British infantry—and the bulk of our army is infantry—is £157 per head. We must allow something for staff and for artillery and other Departmental services and I should think that, roughly speaking, our Army costs as much per head as the British Army.
The British figure would probably come up to about £173, allowing for a greater proportion of highly paid officers on the staff, and so on. I do not say that the Minister is to be condemned for that. I think that in that respect he has done very well to keep the cost of rations down. The British figure is 1/8 per man per day, and the Minister says 1/9 here. As he is giving fresh meat instead of frozen meat I think he has done well. There are one or two points I want to criticise. Firstly, I agree with Deputy Esmonde that while we have had good housekeeping we have no vision; we have had no statement of the purpose of the Army, the functions it is intended to perform in the national life, or how it is preparing to carry out those functions. What is the function of an army? An army, as I have read in history, has two purposes, and we may have added a third one. One is aggression. Is our Army for aggression and are we to carry out Deputy Connor Hogan's wishes and send an expedition to acquire a colony? If so, I would advise the Minister to get more artillery. Is it for defence? It might well be. Or is it, as the President has said, for the protection of property and the maintenance of order? That is not, practically speaking, the function of an army at all. I agree with Deputy Esmonde, that that is the function of a police force, paid men like the Carabineers in Italy or the Civil Guard in Spain, who have a long service and are all experienced men, and if that is the only function of the Army it would be better to call it by its proper name—that is, an armed police force. But if it is for any higher function, if it is intended for the purposes of defence, is there any thinking department working out the various problems of defence? Is there what is known in Continental armies, a general staff, with its plans all prepared? I will take a hypothetical case, based on history. Suppose a Spanish army landed near Tralee, as Spaniards have done—
Or a Danish army?
Or a Danish army, if you wish, has the Chief of the General Staff any set of plans saying that the Limerick Battalion will move out at once to meet the enemy, and the Athlone battalion will go by train, via Athenry, &c.? has any thought been applied to these problems at all? I hope when the Minister replies he will tell us. It is not easy to criticise, because we know so little. I do not know if Deputy Esmonde would include me among those who are loyal to the State but not loyal to the nation.
No.
I am glad he does not. I am bound to point out when I reflect on the amount of destruction, crime and death that has been caused in this country by those who, however loyal they are to the nation, are not to the State, I would rather be put in the former category; I am glad that Deputy Esmonde has put me in that category. We have a right under the Treaty to an army, and I am in favour of using every right we have under the Treaty, but I think that Deputy Esmonde will agree with me that, whatever the object of our army is, we do not yet know it. It should fulfil three conditions. Firstly, the army should be small and capable of expansion; secondly, it should be efficient; and, thirdly, it should be economical. Any army that we may have should fulfil those three conditions. As to the first point, the army is small; it has been much reduced; it cannot have been an easy thing to reduce it, and the Government are entitled to credit for that. But they have made no provision for expansion. I am sorry Deputy Figgis is not here; I am sure he would be pleased to hear me quote the example of Switzerland. I do not think Switzerland is a model, if you reflect that Switzerland, with a population very little more than ours, is able to put into the field 300,000 men, at a total annual cost of £1,200,000. Also, when you consider that Australia, with a population somewhat larger than ours, but not very much larger, about one million more, can put into the field 124,000 men at a cost of £1,340,000, while it costs us £3,000,000, and all we could put into the field to-morrow if we were engaged in a war is 16,000 officers and men, and there is no provision for expansion. You would have to create new units, with all the waste, extravagances, and all the trouble that the creation of new units causes. You would have to take away officers required in their own units to command these units. It is full time for the Minister to tackle this problem of creating a reserve, and above all creating reserves of trained officers.
When I spoke on Deputy Figgis's motion I said that there was an urgent need for the establishment of Officers' Training Corps in both Universities. Has anything been done in that direction? Has it ever been considered? You would get there a very good type of officer, young men who would make good types of officers, who would be keen, and whom you could call up from their civil life in the case of emergency. I know the spirit of my countrymen too much to doubt that they would come. But the difference between a man trained and a man untrained is all the difference in the world in a time of emergency.
Deputy Esmonde spoke about people not becoming officers in this army. What are the regulations as to the admission of officers? Are there any regulations, or is there any examination? How can one become an officer? The ordinary man does not know. I believe that no officers are being admitted, and that raises a serious point, because in ten years' time if there are no admissions you will have a large number of captains and subalterns from 30 to 40 years of age who will be beginning to feel—as the Minister and I now know, when one gets over a certain age one becomes a little less inclined for activity—a little less disposed to go out at night and inspect sentries, and that kind of thing.
You must arrange for a continual influx of new officers, and I think it is quite time that the Minister thought about that. I think there should be a strict examination. There is no good reason why it should be easier to get a career as a soldier than as a solicitor or a doctor. I think provision should be made for special training. I do think that some opportunity should be given to people who want to take up a military career.
That brings me to my next point, efficiency, and I view efficiency, not from the point of view of the barrack square, not from the point of view merely of turn-out. As far as that goes the Army is very good indeed. I recognise gratefully the enormous amount of work done by officers in the army. I am going to criticise efficiency not from the angle of the turn-out of the men of a battalion, the polish of their equipment and the smartness of their drill; I am going to test it from what must be the ultimate test, the test of education. To make a comparison with civil life we have in the Army excellent primary education, and the education that every man receives, namely, drill, and so on, is good. The secondary education is only fair, though it is improving. That, I would say, is the education given to the individual officer, the non-commissioned officer, the man who rose out of the ranks, just as a boy who goes to a secondary school rises out of the ordinary ranks. There is no University education in the Army, nothing like the "Ecole de Guerre," or Sandhurst, and the reason is very plain; it is because we have not at present got the teachers. You cannot train men in the higher branches of war without experienced teachers. You might as well try to start a University with three or four secondary teachers and a handful of undergraduates. You must get men to study the art of war as a science, such as chemistry or any other science.
And it must be practised, or used, I suppose. How and where?
And it must be practised. When I elaborate my details perhaps Deputy Johnson will find that answered. I have heard some people say: "We could get teachers from France, or send people to France to study." But there are one or two objections to that. I am not saying that the French are not great soldiers, because they are, but there is the difficulty of language. The average French officer does not talk either English or Irish with great fluency.
The French envisage their problems from the point of view of a conscript army, and, great as is the courage of the Ministry, I do not think that they will propose conscription yet. These are objections; I do not say that they are insuperable. I suggest that we can obtain the teaching we require elsewhere. I would suggest an application, possibly, to the United States only that I am afraid that they would shrink from being mixed up in any European problem; if not the United States, then Canada or Australia, two countries that are in the same constitutional position as we are. They have experienced armies; they have created perfect training for their officers; they are democratic countries, and would not bring into our Army ideas that the Minister, the Government and the country would naturally be afraid of. I suggest that, and I suggest also that we should apply either to the United States Government or to the Canadian Government for permission to send a certain number of picked officers over to Westpoint, or Kingston, in Canada, to undergo training. They would get a fine training there, and after a four years' course we should have Irish officers competent to give instruction in the higher branches with a knowledge they do not now possess. Ministers and Deputies must remember that the whole foundation of discipline is superior knowledge. The man obeys his officer not because he is his superior socially, or wears better uniform, but, in the long run, because he believes that that officer knows what he himself does not. Unless we can supply that knowledge we shall never have the discipline we should like to have. We should not detract from our position by sending out officers. There is the precedent New Zealand has set by having its officers trained in Australian colleges. I urge the Minister to give more thought to this problem. It is the real problem. Unless you have educated officers you will not have a well-trained army. You will have an army trained to protect property and able to go through routine actions.
Now I come to the last point, the point of economy, and may I say that I make the criticism I am going to make with some diffidence and regret. I realise that officers keenly interested in the efficiency of their units, or the services they are concerned in, cannot always bear in mind the necessity of economy, but we, ordinary Deputies of this Dáil, have been challenged on this matter. About a fortnight or three weeks ago the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, speaking on the Budget, remarked that a Geddes committee was no use. The accounts can be inspected, examined and certified, and that means hard work. It would be much easier to make the suggestion that a committee of experts be set up than to examine accounts and criticise expenditure. The Minister himself is an external Minister. It is his duty to examine and criticise the accounts of Departments. I am sorry he is not here to-day to hear my argument, because I should have his support. I have examined the accounts of the Minister for Defence with a certain amount of care, and it seems to me that there are two points which would require a good deal more explanation than I have got. One is that which the Minister more or less anticipated, the criticism of the Army Medical Service. He told us he had reduced the Medical Vote by £15,000 and was naturally pleased with that. I suggest that Vote is capable of further reductions. I am going to refer to this, if I may, because the whole cost of the medical service is divided amongst various sub-heads; for instance, pay of the men. That is included in the general item of pay of men. I do not know how much it is. Then the men come under sub-head (a) and you have certified pay, medical service, costing £6,297. Then under sub-head (e) we have the pay of the officers of medical service, etc., costing £45,884. Then we have the rations of officers and men under sub-head (1). We do not know how much that is. Again, take the ration Estimates, but they are shown with the general rations.
Under sub-head (l) we have Hospital Diets costing £4,563. Under sub-head (h) Conveyance of Troops by Rail—we have Medical Services costing £6,624. That works out to a total of £61,375, not including the ordinary pay and rations of the men. The total, £61,375, gives a cost of £3 15s. per head for every man in the army, not for every man in the Medical Corps. Medical services cost £3 15s. per head. When you add to that amount the cost of pay and rations, you would not be far out if you said it would increase to £4 15s. We must remember that we are dealing with an army, that is to say, a collection of young men between the ages of 18 and 25, and they are men who passed a medical examination on entering. Even setting that aside, what young man, in civil life, between 18 and 25 years of age, would cost £4 15s. for medical and hospital treatment unless he is a hopeless invalid? It is very much above the ordinary rate. It is above the rate, I think, that doctors in Great Britain are paid for panel patients—I am not very strong on this point, but I believe it is.
As I said before, any comparison with the British army is fallacious for the reason that the British army is serving all over the world in all sorts of climates and conditions. Its units extend from Hong Kong to Jamaica, and we, surely, in this matter of medical services, ought to be able to administer our affairs more cheaply and better, and more efficiently, because the men are all serving in their own country. They have no violent extremes of climate. Making the comparison, I have worked it out that the British have one man under medical services to every forty serving soldiers. We have one officer or man to every thirty-five serving soldiers. Therefore, when the British have to deal with Aden, the Mauritius, Bermuda, and all sorts of places where you must have——
I think the estimates and the figures the Deputy is quoting from are the British estimates. That does not include India or the Mauritius. If the Deputy gets that into his head he will find we compare favourably with them.
This is the British estimate. It is the number of men on the establishment of the British Army, exclusive of India. It does not include Aden. Aden is included in India. It includes Egypt, Hong Kong, the Mauritius, the West Indies and Egypt.
Does it include Northern Ireland?
Yes, and the Rhine and Cologne. As I said, the British have one man in the Medical Corps to every forty in the army and we have one to every thirty-five. That ought to be corrected. The British have one nurse to every 550 men and we have one to every 350. That again calls for enquiry. I am now making the enquiry and I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I hope he will tell me if he has considered the alternative that might cut down the cost of this medical service and that is to rely to a much greater extent than he does, on parttime civilian practitioners, who will be paid for attending so many days a week. At present he has got a number of whole-time medical officers in places where four or five men only report sick in the day. The cases may only be ones such as small bruises and cuts. Is it necessary to have two hospitals? I believe a third is going to be added. Is it necessary to have a hospital in the Curragh, a hospital in Dublin, and one in Cork? Would it not be possible to have army patients treated, on payment, in the Dublin hospitals? It was not possible in the past, I agree, but is it not now possible? All those are points on which we should have a little more information than we have got as there is no committee that can enquire into them. I consider this is not the most satisfactory way of dealing with that question. I prefer to deal with it around the table.
Now, I come to my last point. Deputies will see that one of the items of sub-head (a) is: Additional Pay— Tradesmen. We find that the Army employs 1,625 tradesmen at 2/6 per day extra, and it also employs 1,125 men at 1/2 per day extra, so that altogether in an army of 16,000 men we have no less than 2,750 skilled tradesmen for additional pay. And they cost the country £98,000. That is not all. You would think 2,750 people would do all the work tradesmen might be needed for, but we have also 575 civilian tradesmen under sub-head (c), who cost £94,000 for pay, and £2,000 for lodging allowance under sub-head (g). That is another £96,000. So that altogether, for tradesmen's work, the country has to pay £194,835. That is very nearly £200,000 for tradesmen's work. It is altogether irrespective of the Board of Works moneys, altogether irrespective of the money voted for works and buildings. These 2,700 tradesmen in an army of 16,000 men are costing us £100,000. Civilian tradesmen are costing us another £100,000. There is no indication in the Estimate of what they are needed for. I should say that the extra payment of tradesmen—I do not pretend to quarrel with it in certain circumstances—is a bad principle in an army. It encourages a man to be a painter instead of an expert machine-gunner; it encourages a man to be a carpenter rather than a good shot, or an electrician rather than a skilled signaller. Instead of qualifying for his profession, it makes a man qualify for some civilian profession. I do not quarrel as regards the men engaged on educational work. I quite admit that it is right to train a man in the army, but while in the army his civilian training should be subordinated to his military training. I find that one man in every six in the Army is getting extra pay as a skilled tradesman. We are entitled to ask what work these men do, and what particular qualifications they have for the work.
The proportion of such men in the army is very much higher than it is in the British Army, and the British rate of pay is lower than our rate of pay. The British rates varies from 3d., which is the minimum—our minimum is 1/2 to 2/3, as a maximum, whereas our maximum is 2/6. That is for privates. I am not quite clear whether all these tradesmen are privates or not, but it would be military waste to take skilled N.C.O.'s and put them on tradesmen's work.
Not alone is this Vote a large one, but there is an increase of something like 900 men in employment of this kind, as compared with the number last year. The figures last year were 932 to 910. In Group A, the figures have actually increased by 700. Though the strength of the army in privates has fallen, more tradesmen are needed, and in money the figure is increased from £61,000 to £98,000. I think that, taking the words of the Minister for Agriculture to heart, the Dáil must have some explanation of this increase before the Vote is passed.
I want to put three questions to the Minister as my last words on this matter:—(1) Is there any fixed establishment of tradesmen—is there any limit to the number of tradesmen who may be attached and employed? (2) Who sanctions the issue of pay to these tradesmen; does it require the authority of some person at headquarters or can it be done by C.O.'s or Major-Generals in their own commands? (3) What test is there to ensure that a man's work is worth 2/6 a day; does he have to perform a trade test, or does he even have to produce a trade union card to prove that he has worked at the trade before?
I think I am entitled to answers to these questions, and unless I get them answered—I am sure they will be answered, but I want them answered to my satisfaction—I am afraid I shall have to move that the Estimate be sent back.
I think the Minister for Defence is to be congratulated that, considering the magnitude of the Vote, there has been such a small amount of really adverse criticism. Deputy Esmonde says the Minister has no policy. What does Deputy Esmonde want? Does he want an indication from the Minister that he is preparing for an aggressive war against some friendly State? I presume we are friendly with our neighbours all round, but I do not know what his idea is about the matter. Evidently he thinks that within five years we shall be engaged in some aggressive enterprise, and that we ought now be making elaborate preparations under the eyes of our neighbours. They, of course, would not take any notice of what we were doing, and would not take precautions, having regard to those preparations. He invites the Minister to make public the secrets of his Department, and to tell everybody what he intends to do. Is that the way that Ministers in charge of the defences of other countries act? I rather think it is not. The fact of the matter is, that there is not enough excitement at present for the Deputy. He would like us to be in a state of turmoil in order to keep his lively spirits engaged. The Deputy is, I think, rather unhappy and disappointed that the Estimates are not bigger than they are. He calls the Army a "glorified police force," and on top of that he says that great economies and reductions can be made.
But so far as I can make out, he does not wish them to be made. The Deputy also drew attention to the fact that the people were not sending their sons into the National Army. Example is better than precept, and we shall expect the Deputy by-and-by to put his theory into practice. Deputy Cooper referred to the higher education of officers, and I agree with him on that matter. The higher the officers are educated the better it is for the Army. I hope it will be possible to establish a Military School here on the same lines as in Canada. Seventeen years ago I had an opportunity of seeing a parade of about 10,000 or 12,000 men of all ranks of the Canadian Army at Quebec. A finer display in every way one could not witness. I speak as an old soldier, because 35 years ago I finished 11 years' service in the British Army— about half-and-half in the two branches of the Service, cavalry and infantry. Therefore I have some idea what efficiency ought to be in that line. I was greatly impressed with the efficiency of the Canadian Army from what I saw. All their officers are educated at the Kingston School, and they should be proud of the result, for a finer display I could not see than what I saw on that occasion. I hope that in due time we shall have something of the same kind here. The cost of the Army School of the Canadian Army is not very large, and I think such an institution would be well worth the cost. The efficiency of our officers would be reflected in the efficiency of their commands if such a school were set up. Deputy Cooper says that the Army ought to be small and capable of expansion. But I think our Army is capable of expansion. He also says that it ought to be efficient. I think it is efficient.
It is small.
I also think it is capable of expansion. It is efficient. We have the groundwork there and it can be expanded. I think anybody who saw the parade last year in Leinster Lawn would have a very favourable opinion of the Army. Anybody who saw the parade on the 20th of last June in Kildare would be impressed with the efficiency of the Army. I think we have every reason to be proud of it. Efficiency is, no doubt, a great thing, and, efficient as the Army is, I think that the training of the officer is an absolute necessity. I am sure that that matter will have engaged the attention of the Minister and of the Government. Now I hope our Army will never be one for aggressive purposes. I am sure it is not in the Irish nature to be aggressive.
Would the Deputy, from his experience, say if he ever knew of an army which was intended to be aggressive?
I think that is a difficult question. Our Army will, I hope, not be of that kind. We require it for protective purposes, and we want it to be efficient. I am perfectly certain, from what I see, that it will be so. All the countries or the units that form what is called the British Empire have their protective armies. They are all more or less efficient, in their own way, and suited to their own needs. I think ours ought to be up to the standard that a nation of our antiquity and standing in the world should have, and that it should be efficient, and of the size that the country considers necessary for its protection.
The speech we have just listened to from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence is interesting, especially in view of his enunciation of the doctrine, which I assume is the official doctrine of the Ministry, that we are not to be told what the secret purposes and designs of the Ministry may be, for fear we might tell a potential enemy—for fear we might warn a potential enemy to be prepared for the attack that might be made when the day comes.
Deputy Wolfe, if I might name him, seemed to complain that the speeches of Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Cooper were very mild and harmless in their criticism of the Government and their criticism of the Ministry. He congratulated the Minister upon the mildness and harmlessness of their speeches. I am of opinion that the Minister will find it very difficult to meet that criticism. Both speeches contained points of criticism, both of policy and of lack of policy, on the part of the administration, and I would be surprised if I heard any defence which is likely to meet with any reasonable judge's assent.
On the question of policy, I think it is time that we learned from the Ministry what they have in mind as to the functions of the Army, and having announced the functions, to give some idea of the organisation which it is intended shall fulfil these functions. There is, as I think Deputy Esmonde suggested, under consideration—or we will assume there is under consideration—a new permanent Army Bill, to replace the temporary Act which is at present on the Statute Book. I think it is wise that this opportunity should be given to the Deputies to express some opinion upon the purpose which the Army is intended to serve. Deputy Esmonde speaks the mind of the military man. Deputy Cooper, I think, does not so definitely speak the mind of the military man, except in his exhibition of knowledge of the details of army organisation. But I feel that Deputy Esmonde is going to infuse the Dáil, if he can, with the idea that the Saorstát must have a highly efficient army, not necessarily great in numbers or size, but highly efficient and capable of meeting any enemy using any weapon. Not only an army, I take it, has Deputy Esmonde in mind, but a coastal defence force which will either mean defence by electrical devices, submarines or mines or naval patrols—at least something on water to defend these coasts from naval attack. When the Deputy speaks of Article VI. of the Treaty and the necessity for having a policy, so that Article VI. will be dealt with seriously, when the conference suggested in that Article takes place, he evidently is thinking of coastal defence. And surely coastal defence implies defence against outside aggression? I hope that he will not succeed in rousing the military spirit of the Dáil and of the country in that way. I hope we shall not be encouraged by his eloquence to embark upon a scheme of defence which will necessitate submarines or men-of-war ships, or mines in the sea, or chemical warfare and a great number of aeroplanes. Because all this will have to be backed by a considerable army. That will mean great expense. You may get a large number of men at a small cost. But you cannot get a great quantity of material at small cost. I think the views of the Ministry on this matter should be made known to the Dáil.
Are we to look forward to seventeen or eighteen thousand men as an army force for purely land military operations as permanent, and if so, is it to be a permanent full-time service? Are they to be always foot-soldiers, or are we to have a greatly increased corps of engineers, machine gunners, tank men, and so on, or are we to think of ærial operations more particularly? In the course of his speech, the Minister suggested that he hopes to get rid of the aviation corps by foisting it on to the Ministry of Industry.
I do not think that I suggested that I wanted to get rid of it, or to foist it upon anyone. I said there were conversations going on as to what use might be made of it, but beyond that we have come to no conclusions. I certainly did not say that I wanted to foist it upon anyone.
The whole point is that the Minister has asked a question of the Ministry of Industry. Perhaps, before the discussion closes, he will explain whether he is satisfied with the present aviation corps. Does he think that the numbers in training are sufficient, that they are too many or only just enough, and for what purpose are they intended? As regards the aviation corps, we have a proposed expenditure in the matter of stores of £12,800. I do not know what the number of æroplanes is that is at present in the Army forces. It seems to me that we ought to know whether you are going to extend the ærial forces, and whether you are going to rely on them, to any extent, for whatever purpose the Minister has in mind and for which the Army will be used. The numbers at present under training seem to me to be either too small or altogether too many. There should either be none or more, and it strikes me as rather playing at aviation to have the few æroplanes that we occasionally hear of. Sometimes when State functions are held outside, we hear the whirr of the æroplane propellers. That announces the fact that there are æroplanes at the disposal of the Army.
I agree with Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Cooper that the business for which the Army is organised should be made known. We were told to-day that the Army is afraid of nothing. Deputy Esmonde pertinently suggested that it might be afraid of itself, but I do not think that is a sufficiently sound statement to give us any satisfaction. The Army is going to be used either for repelling an invasion—to deal with an enemy which has invaded the country—or it is going to be organised and trained for suppressing internal commotion: to act, as was stated here to-day, as an auxiliary to the police forces. I think if it is for that purpose the Army is to be organised and trained, that we should know the processes and the style of training these men are undergoing. I suggest that the number is very much too great for that purpose, and that the method of organisation is faulty. On the other hand, if it is intended to repel invasion, then I suggest that the equipment of the Army is not anything like efficient. Perhaps the Minister will say, as the Minister for Lands and Agriculture would say in another connection, that it is for a dual purpose, and that, as some of my friends on the right have argued occasionally, it is not practicable to have an organism, whether an army or a milch cow, capable of doing two jobs equally efficiently.
I suggested, I think, in an earlier discussion that future warfare bids fair to be in the air, and by means of chemicals. The Minister seemed to think that that was mere jocularity, and it was not taken seriously at all. If there is going to be war in which Ireland is engaged on these shores, I think we may make up our minds that chemicals are going to be used in the attack, if attack is made. In that case, we ought to know from the Ministry whether they are making any preparations to meet that kind of attack. If there is to be an army for military defence against aggression, then it ought to be organised for that, but I am inclined to think it would involve the spending of a great deal more money for equipment and armaments than has yet been spent. I disagree with Deputy Esmonde in his expressions, which seem to me, at least, to suggest that the Irish Army must be perfectly equipped, from every point, to meet every kind of attack that might come. I am inclined to think that the best defence against aggression is to have an army that cannot be effective to meet aggression; that is to say, that there should be no army as an army. I am not sure whether all that would be required for an efficient defence force would not be to have a very small number of trained and well-educated officers and men in the higher ranks, with the civilian public trained in such a way as to be ready to come to the assistance and the defence of the State whenever the call came. I imagine that that would be very much cheaper, and probably the defence would be much more efficient than it would be by any kind of army which we are likely to be willing to pay for.
There are two questions which I desire to ask. The first is, as to whether there is at present in the army a cavalry corps, and whether the item under subhead (z)—sale of horses, 12 at £7—has anything to do with the cavalry regiment. I understand that you cannot get many good horses at less than £7 except when you are buying from the army. Perhaps Deputy Gorey knows more about that item than he has seen fit to disclose. I think that most of the other points which have arisen in the course of the debate, and which seem to me to call for attention, can be more fittingly discussed when we are dealing with the various sub-heads. For that reason, I defer for the present any further comments that I may have to make.
The report about champagne dinners and strawberries at 7/6 a lb. naturally lead to a considerable amount of suspicion in the minds of the public in regard to army expenditure, and, therefore, the Minister for Defence cannot expect to escape some criticism. I am going to offer some criticism, but not severe criticism. I may tell the Minister for Defence that, as a business man, it would be quite possible for him to arrange his Estimates on lines on which we could make comparisons more easily. I have something to do with a charity known as the Hospital Sunday Fund, and we have been able to tabulate things in such a way that, at any moment, we can see items for comparison clearly. I suggest to the Minister that it might be well for him to look into this matter.
I want to congratulate the Minister on the attempt he has made to reduce expenditure generally. I am going to suggest the possibility of reducing expenditure still further, if something in the nature of what Deputy Cooper already referred to were undertaken. It is a truism, and nobody will deny it, that any hospitals that are State, or municipally controlled, will cost very much more than hospitals that are under the control of a lay body of governors. I suggest it might be possible to have a larger number of the army, when ill, treated in general hospitals, at a much lesser cost, than they could be treated in the military hospitals. I have no desire, of course, to suggest that the military hospital at the Curragh should be done away with. I think that hospital is an absolute necessity, but considering the diminution in the strength of the army, and the disappearance of fighting and therefore of wounds, and that, as Deputy Cooper said, the amount of illness should be small in a young and healthy army, the work could be very easily undertaken by the general hospitals in Dublin and in Cork.
It was my duty, some years ago, to make inquiries into the beds available in Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, and Glasgow hospitals, and I was able to show that about 25 per cent. of the beds in Dublin hospitals were not engaged because the hospitals were unable to support those beds. I suggest to the Minister that it is well worth his while to have inquiry made with regard to this matter, as to whether it would not be advisable, and much cheaper, to have some of the hospitals in Dublin and Cork selected as hospitals in which the military sick should be treated.
Now, I want to compare, for a moment, just the actual cost in the general hospitals with those in military hospitals. The Minister for Defence said, in answer to a question by Deputy Bryan Cooper during the week, that in the last year there were 4,842 patients treated as in-patients, without considering the out-patients at all, in the military hospitals. The cost of that very roughly—because it is impossible to get the real figures as to the actual cost of the military establishment, owing to the way in which the figures are scattered through the various heads—I take to be £80,000. The two hospitals that the Minister for Finance has had a report from, in connection with the board of superintendents—namely, Steevens and the Richmond—treat their patients at a total cost of £121 per occupied bed per year. That covers everything—light, heating, food, clothing, and everything required. If we take these two hospitals we find that there were 3,825 cases treated throughout the year at the total cost of £41,000, whereas in the case of the Army 4,842 cases were treated at a cost of £80,000 to the Government. One is unable to get any definite figure, but, at all events, I put it in another way. The Minister for Defence has stated that the actual cost per head per day is 9s.; that is, a cost of £164 per annum; whereas in the two hospitals receiving the grant from the Government—that is, Steevens and Richmond —the cost is 6s. 7d. per day. I hope the Minister will not mind if I suggest that inquiries should be made as to whether it would not be possible to have advantage taken of the cheaper mode of treating patients than what is being at present.
I do not agree with Deputy Cooper's figures. There are 17,600 soldiers, of whom 543 are in the medical establishment—that is, there is one medical unit to every thirty-two of the soldiers, and that is a great deal too many. But I am going to make another point that seems to me extraordinary. In the military hospitals, during the year, 4,842 cases, out of a total army of 18,923 men, were treated; that is, one out of every four men in the Army was treated in hospital during the year as an in-patient. It seems to me an extraordinary figure that one out of every four men in the Army was treated in the hospital wards during the year. I lay stress upon that figure, and I ask the Minister to make some inquiry about it, because it is a very extravagant figure. It must be remembered that we have done away with fighting to a very large extent. So long as fighting was on and men exposed, one was not able to lay down any figure as to the number of men that should be laid up at a time, but during the past year there is nothing to account for the tremendous amount of illness, as suggested here. Of course it is possible that the same man may have been in hospital several times during the year. For that reason I should like to get a figure that the Minister has not been able to give us, namely, the number of beds occupied during the year, with the cost per bed occupied during the year. If one knew that one would have a basis upon which to make some sort of criticism.
I want to say in connection with the figure in last year's Estimates of £3,000 for consultation—that is, £60 per week —I am glad to see that the Minister has this year cut it down to £1,000. I want to know what the policy of the Army Medical Department is towards prophylactics against enteric fevers and allied fevers. Are they using inoculation for this thing in order to prevent enteric fever occurring? Everyone knows that during the South African war there were more deaths from enteric fever than from wounds. Of course that was completely changed during the European war, and because of inoculation against typhoid and the use of toxins there was very little enteric.
Another point I would like to know is what attitude the Medical Department has taken in regard to prophylactics in reference to venereal disease.
I am quite sure that they are properly treating the diseases that have occurred, but I should like to know the attitude of the army medical authorities with regard to prophylaxis or prevention of disease. I want to say that I am not in any way adversely criticising the army medical establishment. I do not want to have it abolished, as, I think, it is very necessary. I agree with the Minister that we cannot have an army medical service too efficient, and that we cannot get efficient men unless they are properly paid. I have no objection to raise regarding the salaries paid to these men. My only wonder is that they have been able to get men for the salaries mentioned here. I have repeatedly said that I am anxious for efficiency. You will not get efficiency in any direction, I do not care whether it is in education or any other direction, unless you pay properly.
It is extremely necessary to keep up the military establishment fully equipped and ready in the case of war. It has been alluded to in various regions of the House that if we are looking out for war we would need to be better prepared, and if, on the other hand, we are not preparing for aggression, or war, we should reduce the amount of our medical establishment to the very lowest point we can attain with due regard to efficiency. I urge upon the Minister the desirability of making some inquiry as to whether, when reducing the number in the Army and consequently lessening the degree of illness that must accrue, it would not be wise to make arrangements with the general hospitals in Dublin and Cork to treat Army patients and to allow the Curragh hospital to remain, for it would be quite a wrong thing to attempt to remove patients from the training school at the Curragh either to Dublin or Cork if they were seriously ill.
I would like to add my voice to the plea that has been made by several Deputies that there ought to, and I think there might with advantage, have been at the very outset of the Minister's opening statement a statement of the policy intended to be pursued with regard to the Army. I urged the statement of that policy once before in this House, and I did so having in mind the discussion of the Estimates under this Vote.
I suggest to the Dáil that it is quite impossible to discuss Estimates adequately unless we know exactly what policy those Estimates are intended to serve. Estimates, after all, are not put forward merely for any ornamental purpose. I think there is a feeling, and I almost detect such a feeling in some of the statements made by the mover of the motion now before the Dáil, Deputy Esmonde, that to have an army is the necessary consequence of freedom, and if there be any limitation of armed forces, that in some kind of way the person who makes a suggestion of that kind is derogating from the freedom and independence of this country. I do not take that point of view. I agree with Deputy Johnson, and it is a point of view I have already urged, that the country that is most frequently referred to in this Dáil, Denmark, has already decided to disband its army as a measure of defence, as it believes it to be the best measure of protecting itself, because it leaves nothing to be struck at. It is perfectly clear that we ought to be able to define for ourselves what exact purpose an army in the Free State has to serve. Until we get that definition and until we get a statement of policy to show what purpose an army has to serve, it is almost impossible to discuss Estimates with that fulness of information required, because, after all, Estimates are merely the amount of money that it is judged necessary by the Department to spend in order that it may be able to put into operation the policy which it has in mind. Not having that policy, Estimates are robbed of a great deal of their force.
I repeat that I do not think, in spite of what the Minister may say about the Army being afraid of nothing, that there is going to be a very great deal of service in this country for an army for defence from any attack that is likely to be made from any external source. In the last war I think it was a fairly well-known publicist in England who stated that a war which was intended to produce the super-man had at last, in its triumphant conclusion, produced the super-rabbit, because the whole of the armies of Europe had burrowed themselves underground, and although they were maintained in those burrows, the real war was being fought between the two respective civilian populations, and the Allies did not win until they had successfully struck at the civilian population of the enemy forces. If there ever be such a catastrophe as a war on that scale again I think we shall see that policy carried to a still further conclusion, and that armies will still be used to maintain some of the mock ceremonies of war, but the real war will be conducted against civilian populations, as Deputy Johnson indicated, by the employment of deadly chemical means. I think it is pretty clear, from the tendency on the part of those who are competent to discuss these matters in other countries, in books and journals and in elaborate preparations, that that is the tendency likely to be adopted, and we may assume that it is pretty clear that we must revise our conception of the service and intention of an army in the Free State.
I, therefore, urge that we ought to get some statement of the kind required. When we have that statement, we will then be able to find our way through the details of the Estimates furnished with some greater security than at present. I think it was the Minister who, on a previous occasion, urged that, seeing there is always the possibility, however remote that possibility may be, of a recrudescence, at a future period, of internal troubles of any kind, we ought to be protected against that possibility. If that is the view we are to take regarding the Army let it be stated. If we knew it was for that purpose and only for that purpose, we had to estimate for the Army, we would be in the position of knowing the relations of the Estimates to that purpose, for we would be in the position of having a definite kind of organisation in our minds that might best serve that particular purpose. I hold that until we have information of that kind it is difficult to criticise any of the Estimates.
I think when I spoke here before I urged that there should be a civilian defence force such as other countries have adopted. My inquiries on that matter might not be, and I do not suggest that they are, in any way complete, but they have been fairly exhaustive. I have gone into the matter with some trouble, and I do not think that there is a country in the world, except Great Britain, that maintains a standing army. All the others have territorial defence forces, or citizen defence forces —whatever the expression be, they are all of that nature. Of course, the reason Great Britain has a standing army is because it has to keep that standing army for the purpose of sending drafts for the maintenance of her possessions overseas. In spite of Deputy Connor Hogan's suggestion on these lines yesterday, whatever our intentions may be in that direction, we have not achieved that yet, and, therefore, we have no need, I take it, for a standing army, as England has. Therefore, we will inevitably have to come to the consideration of a much smaller nucleus of an army than we have at present, with a much smaller annual outlay upon that army. Then we come to the consideration of accepting responsibility for the adult population being sufficiently trained to undertake the national defence of the country. If we did that we would be able to bring our Estimates for the defence forces, when we have defined what it is we want to defend ourselves against, down to within the margin of the expenditure that the country can afford.
The President, speaking yesterday, in another place, stated that the expenditure of this country would have to be still further reduced, and that further economies would have to be made, so that further relief from taxation could be given. In that he stated what, I think, is the conviction of the majority of the citizens, and I think I am stating what is equally the conviction that when those further economies have to be made the beginning will have to be made with the Army. But before we can make that beginning, or do anything towards bringing the expenses regarding the Army down to those proportions which are manageable, right, and suited to the conditions of this country, we will have to make up our minds as to what are our intentions regarding the Army. I urge that the Minister should state exactly what he considers, and what the Executive Council for which he speaks in the Dáil considers, is the intention the Army should serve. Having got that intention it would not cause a great amount of difficulty in framing an organisation that would perfectly and efficiently fulfil that service.
took the Chair.
I would like to direct attention to one aspect of this question that possibly has not had the attention it deserves, and that is the financial aspect. I think a word of credit and congratulation is due not only to the Minister for Defence but also to the Executive Council and those under them for the reductions that have been effected in the Army Vote. In 1923 the Army Vote amounted to the alarming figure of £10,664,510. Last year that Vote was reduced to £3,927,145, and the Minister deserves to be congratulated in having effected a further reduction in that Vote, bringing it down to the figure we now have before us. For that congratulations, as I said, are due to all concerned. There is, however, another aspect of the case. The taxpayer has willingly borne this heavy burden during these years of stress, and I think he has agreed that that money was on the whole wisely and well spent, and that the work that was before that army of bringing us into a state of peace and safety was quickly and well done. That heavy burden, as I say, was willingly borne by the taxpayer in view of the difficulties that confronted the country, but now that we have arrived at a more settled and peaceful condition it is only fair that the taxpayer should ask that he should be relieved as far as possible from the continuance of this burden. As was pointed out by the last speaker, it was mentioned yesterday by the President in another place that one of the urgent needs was a reduction in taxation in order that industrial development might take place, and that we might have a reduction in the large number of unemployed throughout the country. It appears to me that this is one of the items in which economy can and ought to be practised.
I am sure that it must delight the Minister for Defence to stand on a platform, as he has done recently, and to see a well-equipped, well-staffed, well-drilled army march by in large numbers. I am sure that there are members of the Executive Council to whom such a sight gives considerable pleasure. But to a commercial man there is another and important side to this matter: that attractive as such a display may be it is a very expensive luxury. We are getting to the stage now in which we can look on the Army and the condition in which we find it as very much of a luxury. I agree with those Deputies who have pointed out the wisdom of reducing the Army very considerably. From the point of view of a defence force, without the co-operation of a fleet, it will not be looked upon as a very formidable problem to any nation that may have designs on this country. That being so from the point of view of defence, the only justification for the maintenance of the Army is for quelling internal disturbances. We hope that we have got within measurable distance of confining these disturbances to small areas or small numbers. Possibly they have been reduced to such dimensions that they can be dealt with by a police force, apart from the military. The problem to be dealt with is that there is an urgent need for industrial development and reconstruction of many of our industries, in order that we may be able to build up the nation and give employment to the many unemployed. That being the position, we ought to consider the policy with regard to the Army from that point of view.
During recent discussions in connection with income tax, it was pointed out with considerable force in Southern Ireland that remission of income tax would be followed immediately by an immense development of industry. A great many commercial men agreed with that view. Last year the cost of the Army was practically equivalent to the product of the whole income tax. The Estimate for the Army last year was £3,927,000. In addition, there were Army pensions and other expenses, so that it practically absorbed the product of the income tax. If we can even now reduce the numbers within reasonable limits, it is quite obvious that a very large reduction can be immediately effected in the burden of taxation, and that, I am satisfied, will be immediately followed by an industrial revival and an absorption of a large number of the unemployed.
There is another aspect of the question which has been dealt with on previous occasions: that we ought to do everything we possibly can to help our agricultural industry in endeavouring to keep its position in the markets of Great Britain and elsewhere against the fierce competition from other countries producing similar commodities. What would help that industry more than lightening the burden of taxation? In considering army policy, if we look at it from the point of view of the financial position of the country, even if we have to make temporary sacrifices, would not those sacrifices be justified in view of the financial situation?
There is another matter I should like to deal with. The Minister pointed out in dealing with mechanical transport that the maintenance of a number of motor vehicles was costing far in excess of what it should cost and that he was rather inclined to scrap a number of the existing vehicles and replace them with new ones. That is a policy which I think will commend itself to the Dáil and the country. It is a policy that will have the whole-hearted support of businessmen. However, before putting that policy into force, the Minister would be well advised to make a very careful selection of those who drive military cars and who have to look after them. As one who does a little motoring, let me say that I always look askance on any motor that I see approaching with a miiltary driver. That fear I think is very largely shared by motorists. If that be true as regards military drivers, I question whether putting new vehicles, possibly more powerful and more speedy, into the hands of these men is going to extend the life of military vehicles. I suggest to the Minister that before he puts that policy into force a very careful selection should be made of drivers, from the point of view of character, skill and suitability, before they are put in charge of vehicles. If we have that careful selection as a result of careful training, followed by the policy which the Minister proposes, we will be all glad to support him. But until that precaution is taken, I do not think the Minister will get the support for his proposal that we would like to see him get.
I have very little to say on this Vote, as I think it has been pretty well discussed already. While so many people in this country are of the peculiar frame of mind they are, and are so unreliable in character, I think we are faced with the fact that we must maintain an army large enough to ensure that we will not have a repetition of what occurred during the last few years. If the country had anything like the army it now has, or even one half its size, I do not think we would have what we had in 1922-23. It was because we had no army then that destruction took place which cost us millions of pounds. Admittedly an expenditure of over three millions is a big one for this country to be asked to bear for an army, but, when we compare that figure with the amount of destruction that took place, and that the country has to pay for, I think we might as well make up our minds that the three millions will be, more or less, insurance for the future against any similar occurrence. I think it is a good investment, and I am sorry that the frame of mind of so many people in the country makes that insurance necessary. It is a regrettable thing to have to admit, but you have to meet the fact.
There has been a good deal of discussion as to what would be the best system of defence for this country. There is a good deal to be said for a territorial force with shorter training and embracing a greater number of men. If anything in the way of a serious upheaval took place in this country again —I do not believe it will—you would have to increase your army, as you would be practically in the same position you were in in 1922-23. Of course it is easy to get an army together again, but it is very hard to make it efficient. If you have not plenty of officers and non-commissioned officers to train the recruits an army will be of very little use. There would be nothing but waste and inefficiency in every Department. The sooner you have what Deputy Cooper advocated, a military college in a small way, where you would have a sufficient reserve of trained and educated officers, the sooner you will have a guarantee that this country will be peaceful, and that it will remain peaceful.
It is only humbug to be talking of our Irish Army as an army meant to meet outside Powers or foreign aggression. Anybody who knows anything about the question must admit that an army like ours would be useless when opposed to the forces of a foreign Power that went seriously about fighting this country. There is nothing to prevent such an army landing in this country, and when they land, if they come in force, there is nothing to prevent them defeating us.
A good deal of attention has been given recently in different military publications to the possibilities of war in the future. According to those who write in these papers some of the weapons of war that were used in the recent European conflict may be considered obsolete. Deputy Johnson did not speak as a dreamer when he said that in future war will be one in which chemicals as well as microbes will play an important part. I think it would be well if our Army had a laboratory attached to it, not so much for propagating new microbes, or for inventing new chemicals, but in order to keep in touch with what military laboratories are doing in Europe and other places. We do not want such a laboratory to start producing death-dealing instruments, but we want to keep in touch with what other nations are doing and be prepared in their own little way to take a part if necessary. If there is going to be war in the future and if one of the combatants is to have æroplanes and chemicals, and we are to have only guns and rifles, the three millions that this country is spending yearly on the Army will be wasted. Three millions spent on the Army is not a small amount, but the Army must be efficient and up-to-date even if it is only to deal with an internal war, of which there is always a possibility.
I would like to support what Deputy Good said about Army drivers. Things are not quite so bad now as they were twelve months ago. The feeling in the country then was that if a military car was seen approaching the safest thing was to get over a ditch and let the military have the road. Sometimes even the road was not big enough for them, and it was no uncommon thing to see military cars running into the fields. Anyone who knows anything about barrack yards and who has seen the amount of transport that is in hospital must have been impressed by the inefficiency of the drivers. There were more casualties in transport, I think, than on the field. There ought to be a proper training school for drivers, and drivers who have been found guilty of driving too fast or too recklessly and doing damage should be punished severely. I do not think that has been done. Drivers have been let off scot-free; their explanations have been accepted. They have got off practically scot-free, though the amount of accidents that they have been responsible for, or the damage that has been done by them, is really enormous. The whole thing has bred a very bad feeling amongst the public, and too much attention cannot be paid to the matter. I do not know that very much damage in this direction was done within the last six months, but up to that time there was quite a lot. Drivers have displayed a better frame of mind recently. I hope the improvement will continue and that the Minister will consider this question seriously.
I hope a small military college will be established, where our young men can be trained so as to be able to take their part, if the necessity should ever arise to utilise them. A sufficiency of officers is very much more necessary than a sufficiency of the rank and file. The rank and file will be always there, but officers may be difficult to get if you require them for outside or inside purposes. I draw the Minister's attention to the need of having a properly trained and equipped corps of officers and the desirability of establishing a military college where officers can be trained. I also direct his attention to the question of chemicals and the need for more supervision with regard to military drivers.
I have no wish to enter into some of the more detailed points that have been made in the course of this discussion. In fact, I would not intervene at all were it not for one or two sentences uttered by Deputy Good. I want simply to put Deputies on their guard against the impression that there remains in the country no remnant of the Irregular menace which constitutes anything more than a police problem. Without the least wish to create any feeling of uneasiness or any feeling of lack of confidence, I want to state that is not the position. There remains in the country a remnant of that menace which constitutes very definitely something much more than a police problem. The documents which came into our possession within the last couple of months go to show that there is at least a paper organisation almost equal in strength to the actual military organisation maintained by the State— 14,000 or 15,000 men. To what extent that is a paper estimate, and to what extent it may be visualised as a real existing organisation, Deputies can simply frame their own views. Assuming it to be even 50 per cent. of the truth, that constitutes something much more than a police problem, and something much more than 5,000 or 6,000 policemen, scattered in 800 or 900 stations through the country, could possibly deal with.
I rather approve Deputy Gorey's expression that to a very large extent an army is an insurance against any possibility of internal conflict or disorder. I think it is an insurance that is very well worth while. I think, for instance, that the recent Budget could scarcely have been as good as it was— or as Deputy Good might prefer to put it, as little bad as it was—if we had listened to arguments urged during the course of the last year to the effect that that insurance should be either altogether withdrawn or very considerably diminshed. We simply have to move on, watching our situation from year to year and forming our estimate of its requirements.
Deputy Esmonde talked a good deal about the fine thing it was, and the dignified thing it was, to maintain elaborate military establishments and to be in a position to boast that we were ready to take on all comers. I think, in fact, it is rather beyond us to take on all comers, and you cannot seriously regard any military establishment which we are capable of putting up in this country as something that would be capable of meeting invasion, say, from any one of five or six Powers that one could name, and that might possibly—certainly not probably—contemplate invasion. I think that in such an event one would have to trust to the courage and resources of the general population making the country sufficiently uncomfortable and sufficient of a wasp's nest for any such invader to make that invader glad enough to clear out, just as another invader, after a long stay, did—in fact, clear out. You cannot visualise from the resources of this country the putting up of an establishment that will simply go before the world and say: "Come on, if you have a mind." I do not think we ought to begin to talk in terms of that kind.
On the question of national dignity and national credit, I think that as long as the slums of Dublin are there, and as long as the congested districts are there, we have plenty of scope for improving our national credit. I just want to make the point that states, governments, armies and all machinery of that kind exist, after all, to meet the needs of people and to meet the requirements of people. You come down to the human factor and, with such resources as we have at our disposal, there is plenty, and more than plenty, to do, and there are more urgent things to be taken first. There are many things that we can do before we begin to say that our national credit and our national dignity require very considerable increases in our militaristic establishments.
I think that the principal note struck in this whole debate was that struck by Deputy Gorey when he said that the Army was an insurance for the people and for the country. If it were not for the Army during the past couple of years, I do not think it would be possible to have a reduction in income tax in this country and, perhaps, it would not be possible to have persons in the country with any incomes from which income tax could be derived. I do think that there is need for an army. We must try and make that Army as efficient as we possibly can. At the same time, people must bear in mind that this Army of ours at the most is only two or three years in existence, and we cannot expect from that Army what we would expect from Continental armies that have, perhaps, hundreds of years' experience behind them. That question must be taken into account for the next few years, at any rate, during which time our Army will be in process of being properly trained. I am not standing here to defend the Army and to say that it is an army that is absolutely perfect. I know it is not quite perfect, but it is capable of being made perfect. I do say that after the ordinary time which it would take to make any army perfect, we will be able to put forward an army that we can be proud of, an army that will be able to defend itself and the people that it is organised to defend. It will do that as capably as any other body of men that could be found in any part of the world.
Deputy Esmonde has moved that we should refer this Estimate back because of the unsatisfactory statement of the Minister. When making the statement on the introduction of these Estimates I stated what was exactly the true position. I did not wish to minimise or at the same time to take away from the rights of any person who wished to criticise any phase of the Army expenditure or anything in connection with the Army that may arise in the course of the present year. None of us could be held responsible for what happened in the Army during the stress and the trouble that we went through two or three years ago.
When people talk of recklessness in driving and of the carelessness of Army drivers in handling motor cars during these troubled times, they should remember the condition under which these drivers were working, and perhaps if the people who criticised these drivers were in the same position they would do the very same thing that these men had to do. However, that does not justify reckless driving by anybody at the present time. I do not stand for it, and I will have it put down with a strong hand as far as I can. No driver who is guilty of an act of that kind will go unpunished if evidence can be got against him. That is one thing that I pledge myself to the House I will have done. I think that officers of the Army have laid themselves out to see that discipline in that matter will be rigorously enforced. Deputy Esmonde says that there is no justification for the Army. I say there is, and the greatest justification that we can have is that we are able to sit here without fear; that is the principal justification, and I think the country is willing to pay for the Army for that reason alone.
Deputy Esmonde says that it is a waste of public money. If it is a waste of money, if the Army was not there to see that the insurrection of a couple of years ago was suppressed, if that insurrection was to continue for two years more, how much money would be wasted then? Would there not be a much greater waste of money if we allowed that insurrection to go on and if we had not in existence at the present time an army that is capable of checking any insurrection or any mutiny that may take place in future? I do not think that that money can be said to be wasted, or I do not think the public think it is wasted so long as the cost of the Army is kept down to what this country can afford and to what is normal. Still, in any army, I do not care where it is, in times of war it is almost impossible to avoid a certain amount of waste. I think no one will subscribe more readily to that statement than Deputy Cooper. He has experience of army affairs, and he knows how hard it is to check any waste. We had an army of civilians, drawn up by a number of our countrymen who had not that skill in organising an army that people should have. We had waste, but that waste had been checked. I hope that, with the checks we will put on in the future, waste will be still further averted. I hope that the cost of the army will be brought down to a figure that this country can afford, and I do not think that the taxpayers, having regard to the protection they will get from the army, will have any complaint to make on the score of cost.
Deputy Esmonde wants to know what will be the position with regard to Article 6 of the Treaty when that question arises a year and a half from now. I am not in a position so far, nor do I think it would be in the interests of the public to say, what the policy of the Executive Council will be when that comes up to be considered. I think that is a matter that must await the judgement of those who will then be in authority when they come up against that proposition. I do say that the Executive Council is looking ahead to that, and the policy of the army and the policy of the country are being put forward keeping that article of the Treaty in mind. I do not think that there is anything else that I need say in regard to the questions raised by Deputy Esmonde.
Deputy Cooper spoke of the functions of the Army, the plans of defence and the necessity of retaining capable officers and training others to meet any possible expansion of the Army. We are at the moment training our officers as well as we can with the material we have at our disposal. Examinations have been held for the last nine months, and they are going on to-day. We are at the moment establishing a training school for officers. I believe as a result of that, that this year we will be able to have men properly trained and to have officers capable of training them as they should be trained. That has not been lost sight of. At the moment we are looking into it, and I might say it is being looked into very seriously. As regards the plan for expansion that the Deputy wanted some light and leading on, we have kept all our officers and our non-commissioned officers at the strength at which we had them for the last year, merely for the purpose of having them in case of emergency. It is the intention of the Government to keep them and to have them trained as efficiently as they can be trained for the positions they hold, so that we can expand the Army any time it is considered necessary. A scheme of reorganisation is under consideration at headquarters at the moment, but it is not perfected yet, whereby the Army will have a number of specialised branches, not so much infantry, that will absorb most of our officers. Perhaps we will want to get in other specialised men to make the service an efficient service.
The Minister is missing the point of the question. Efficiency for what? Are we to take the view of the Minister for Justice? I hope the Minister will be frank in this matter. Is it to meet the possibilities of internal trouble rather than an external foe? I do not think the Minister need be afraid to answer that question, because it is quite obvious that such a thing must be prepared for. Is the efficiency of the Army that the Minister speaks of, efficiency to that end, or is it efficiency to meet external aggression?
It is efficiency in the sense mentioned by the Minister for Justice. When one takes out an insurance one does not expect fire or damage, but one takes precautions to guard against any such thing occurring.
Is it insurance against fire or flood?
Last year—and I think whoever reported what I said then stated what was scarcely quite correct—the question was what was the Army for? I think most people realise what it is for.
"A defence force can be for only one purpose—to meet any national emergency that may arise. That may arise internally. We have had experience of that."
Then later I said:—
"It seriously interferes with the discipline of a military force to have a number of scattered posts in various parts of the country, and the idea of the policy, as far as the Army establishment is concerned, certainly for this year, and possibly for next year, should be to have an exceedingly efficient military machine capable of being used at the shortest possible notice, trained to arms, trained in discipline, and trained in efficiency and a credit to the nation."
I think that that covers the whole point.
Would the President state in amplification of what he then said, "capable of being used," to what end, or purpose?
National defence.
National defence against an internal foe or an external foe?
Either one or the other, always wishing for, hoping for, and expecting the best.
As far as the question of policy is concerned, that statement of the President's last year is the statement that I intended to make of the policy of the Government as regards the Army, and I leave it at that. Deputy Cooper spoke about the medical service and the number of nurses and the number of doctors to men, and the question of private hospital treatment for soldiers. Soldiers must be kept under discipline when they are sick as well as when they are well. It is not possible to send a number of soldiers to a private hospital and leave them without the discipline they would be under when receiving treatment in a military hospital, because the discipline must go with the treatment, and as far as treatment of pensioners is concerned, it could not be delegated to any private hospital. St. Brican's, at the moment, is not to be used any further as a military hospital; it will be used exclusively for pensioners. That being so, we will concentrate all the cases that require major treatment in the hospitals in Dublin, the Curragh and Cork. No soldier will be treated for anything except minor ailments in his own district, if that is outside Dublin, Cork or the Curragh. I have been in the Curragh Hospital and in some Dublin hospitals and I was surprised to find the amount of accommodation there is at the Curragh and the way these establishments are run. They are certainly a credit to the medical service and a credit to everybody connected with them. The hospital at the Curragh is as fine an establishment of its kind as I have ever put my foot in. Everyone there was well cared for and everything was in apple pie order.
Deputy Cooper also raised the question of additional pay for tradesmen, and to the establishment. The establishment is fixed for every tradesman in the Army, from the man who shoes the horses, to the clerk. There are various degrees of people—butchers, cabinet makers, clerks, costing clerks, cycle mechanics, electricians, switchboard attendants, masons, painters, printers, motor mechanies—about forty or fifty special grades of people who make up that two thousand who get extra pay. All these are included in that and when you come to take each one of these people, people who are officers and people who are not, they are all under these two heads, A and B, that the Deputy referred to. When tradesmen are taken into the Army the first thing that they have to do is to satisfy the officer concerned as to whether they are capable, or not, of working at the trades they are to be given as soldiers.
Might I interrupt the Minister for a moment? Would he say what the rank of the officer has to be?
I cannot tell the Deputy what the rank of the officer has to be, but I presume that he is an officer capable of deciding whether a man is a tradesman or not from the credentials produced to him. The man has to produce a reference from his former employer; if he has a trade union card that is accepted, and in small posts out in the country, if a soldier is wanted to do anything, the most efficient man at the time being to do the job is taken. But in Dublin and in the Commands, every person who gets pay over his army pay must satisfy the commanding officer, or the officer of the Corps of Engineers, that he is capable of doing that work, and we will see in the future, if there has been laxity in the past, that men who do tradesmen's work and are getting paid for it produce certificates to show that they are tradesmen and have served their time.
Deputy Johnson wanted to know, as usual—it is an old favourite of his— about chemical warfare. I can tell him now that we have our eyes on what is being done regarding chemical warfare in other countries. We have not a laboratory of our own in the Army, but we are using the State Laboratory in a small way to keep us in touch with what is being done in other countries. It could not be expected that we would be able to take the initiative in some of these dreadful things with which other countries are threatening the world. I hope, if we ever have anything to say to it, that it will be to warn people of the dangers of the use of these things, and what they will do to humanity. I think that that is the position we should take up as far as these dreadful things are concerned about which we have heard so much.
We have not a coastal defence force at the moment, and I do not know whether it is possible to have one on a small scale or not. We have been considering the matter as far as smuggling and other things that go on along the coast are concerned. If it is thought feasible, in the next year or so, and that it would pay to establish a small coastal defence force, the Executive Council will have an opportunity of considering the matter. They have not had that opportunity yet, but they are considering such a proposition. Deputy Johnson also asked if we had a cavalry corps. We have not at the moment. He also wanted to know about the sale of horses at £12 each. That was an instance of the usual wastage that goes on. When the Army is finished with a horse that is bought for perhaps £30, it is sold by public auction and generally brings about £12.
I think what I have said about hospitals answers the question raised by Deputy Sir James Craig. One to four people under treatment in hospital may seem a very large percentage, but a large number of these men were taken in during a period when there was no medical examination of any kind. In the years under review they were mostly old men, and in that case they would not bear favourable comparison with the men we have in the Army now. Men coming in now have to pass a severe medical test, and no recruit is taken but a first-class man. Deputy Sir James Craig also asked what is the policy of the Medical Department with regard to prophylactics for certain diseases. I have taken certain precautions in these things, and as far as venereal disease is concerned, in the Commands where it was rampant twelve months ago, from the precautions we have taken, I am glad to be able to announce to the House and the country that it is practically wiped out. Steps were taken, and they were-successful, and I am glad to be able to announce that.
Why were they not taken earlier?
I am not to blame for that.
I agree.
I have some blame in that connection, and I may now say that it was under serious consideration for a long time.
Deputy Good says that the Army is a luxury, and he wants it reduced. He referred to the good that could be done with the money that could be saved on the Army, that if you did away with it altogether you would have industrial enterprises springing up here and there, and no unemployment or anything else. If you have not the security which the Army affords, that will enable people to invest their money in this or that industry, does any sane man think that men will invest their money? I think myself, as far as that is concerned, that we must at all times be able to say to the people who want to invest their money that it is safe for them to do so, and that we are able to protect them. I say we are able to protect them, and that no man need be afraid to invest his money in the country.
The amendment before the House is that proposed by Deputy Esmonde, that Estimate 57 be referred back to the Minister for Defence for reconsideration.
Is it in order for me to speak?
No.
It is open to a Deputy to speak more than once on an amendment of that nature.
We have not confined Deputies to the ten minutes' rule and I think that in that case only one speech is allowed. The Deputy may ask any questions he wishes.
I suggest that under the Standing Orders we are still in Committee, and as we are in Committee any Deputy may speak the number of times allowed by the Standing Orders for Committee. That is three times. I am not going to take advantage of it.
The Deputy is technically right, but on important debates of this kind Deputies are not confined to the ten minutes' rule. They are allowed to speak for half an hour on the question. It is unusual to have more than one speech. If the Deputy insists on speaking again he is within his right in doing so.
I refrained from interrupting several Deputies because I thought I was entitled to reply. In the first place, several Deputies, including Deputy Wolfe, and afterwards the Minister for Justice, suggested that I was urging the adoption of an aggressive military policy by the Government. The Minister for Justice suggested that I was urging the adoption of a policy tantamount to trailing one's coat in the face of other countries. Nothing is further from my intention. My whole point was that this country should be placed from the point of view of military defence in the same position as other countries which cannot be accused of trailing their coats. The question we are discussing by its very terms is not a question of aggression, as Deputy Wolfe suggested. It is a question of defence. Deputy Figgis urged that we should suppress the Army, following the example of Denmark. I understand that Denmark contemplated abolishing its army, but on reconsideration it found that such a thing was not feasible. They have retained the army in a modified form. The Minister for Defence made various quotations from me which I do not think were accurate. Certainly if they were accurate I did not mean them. He said I stated there was no justification for the Army. I never suggested there was no justification for the Army. It would be a most foolish suggestion. What I did say was that there was no justification for the expenditure of £3,000,000 on an army.
I took down what the Deputy said. He said there was no justification for the existence of the Army.
The Deputy must have taken it out of its context. What was obviously meant was that there was no justification for the army as at present constituted, if it were solely for suppressing Irregulars. I suggested £3,000,000 was a waste of money if that was the sole object of the Army. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the State Laboratory is being used for investigating methods of chemical warfare, as suggested by Deputy Gorey. If it were suggested that we were to go to war with Denmark, the laboratory might forward some germs of foot and mouth disease or fluke to Denmark for our benefit.
With regard to the main question, on which many Deputies have been trying to extract information from the Government as to what is the object of the Army and what is their policy as regards Article 6 of the Treaty, the Minister stated that it was not in the public interest that he should disclose the intention of the Government with regard to Article 6 of the Treaty. The President quoted from a statement of his last year, to the effect that the Army is for the purpose of defending the country against both internal and external aggression. But the Vice-President implied that any attempt to defend the country from external aggression was foolish or impractical. Therefore, there seems to be a grave difference of opinion in the Executive Council as to what exactly is their policy. That is why I am afraid I am unable to withdraw the motion. The Minister for Justice looks upon the Army mainly from the point of view of his own Department. I hope when we come to the discussion of the Executive Council's vote we may persuade the President to change his Ministers about. They are getting like permanent officials, and they are getting the mentality of their own departments. A new Minister for Defence might be more in favour of defending the country from external aggression. There is a complete fog as to what the policy of the Government is with regard to the purpose of the Army.
in the Chair.
I am moving to reduce this Vote by a sum of £98,085, being the Vote for the additional amount paid to tradesmen. I am doing so because I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister as to the necessity for this additional pay. Some paid tradesmen are, no doubt, necessary. It may be more economical to have the work done by a serving soldier than to bring in civilian labour, but the justification of this Vote by the Minister is absolutely inadequate to justify us in voting a sum of nearly £100,000, or more than double the whole cost of the Ministry of External Affairs, for that purpose. What did the Minister tell us? He told us, in the first place, that these tradesmen were of a number of varieties—plumbers, gas fitters, electricians, motor drivers and so on. I should, particularly, like to know the proportion of motor drivers, because I am strongly of opinion—and I think others are strongly of opinion—that the Army motors too much and marches too little; that the habit is growing up by which troops cannot go five miles from their barracks without having a motor car to take them. Some motor drivers are needed. They were more needed in the past than they are now, and the number could, I think, be reduced.
We were told with pungency, by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and more courteously by the Minister for Finance, that there is no need for a Geddes Committee, or for a Committee of Inquiry of any kind; that it is this Dáil must make the inquiry. Very well! I want to get things on a business footing, and I want to know how many gas fitters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and motor drivers are being paid in this way. I want to get the thing on a business basis and then we can decide whether the Army needs so many of these services, and whether these services cannot be more cheaply performed by bringing in civilians instead of paying a man extra pay for every day he is in the Army, as appears to be the present position. Even a man living in a big house might find it uneconomical to keep a permanent plumber. He might find it more economical to get in a plumber when a plumber is needed.
I want to know what tests are applied to prove that these men are qualified. The Minister told us that any man claiming this proficiency pay had to satisfy an officer that he was a tradesman—any officer——
I did not say "any officer." What I meant was an officer of the Corps of Engineers who was capable of judging whether the man was a capable tradesman or not.
Could the Minister tell us how many officers there are in the Corps of Engineers?
Yes: I will have that for you in a moment.
It does not appear in the Estimates.
I will get the information for you in a moment.
Will the Minister say that there are more than 50 officers in the Corps of Engineers?
There are forty-four officers.
Forty-four officers in the Corps of Engineers, and there are 2.700 qualified tradesmen. I think these officers of the Corps of Engineers can have very little time to do anything except examine these tradesmen. I do not know whether all the officers of the Corps of Engineers are qualified engineers. Have they any particular technical qualifications? I do not want to cast any doubt on their ability, but here you have forty-four officers of the Corps of Engineers who have passed 2,700 people as fit for extra pay, ranging from 2/6 to 1/2 a day, the majority getting 2/6.
The Deputy has not got hold of the situation rightly at all. These men who are getting this extra pay are not all in the Corps of Engineers. I think I said some of them were clerks. There are men in every branch of the Service getting additional pay for additional duties.
I never suggested they were all in the Corps of Engineers. I hope I did not misrepresent the Minister.
I do not want to get at cross purposes with the Deputy. The engineering officers do not examine all these men. Some of these men are employed in the Finance Department of the Army, or are in the higher executive posts. The engineering officers are not concerned with them. They are confined to the engineering part of the work.
I quite agree. Then it comes back to my first remark, that a great many of these men are qualified for extra pay as a result of an examination by an ordinary regimental officer of the Army, possibly a Colonel, Commandant, Captain, or even Lieutenant. Now, an ordinary regimental officer is no more qualified to certify a tradesman than I am. Allowing an ordinary officer to certify any tradesman as fit and competent to do his job is nearly as bad as allowing a Deputy to certify. We do not know the necessary test to apply. A man may come up and say that he is a plumber. How do we know that he is a plumber? For myself I would not believe he was really a plumber unless he had left half his tools at home and told me that he could not get on with the job until to-morrow. There is not sufficient rigidity of test in this Department. I gather that from the Minister's own statement. Sufficient care has not been taken in ascertaining the qualifications of these men, with the result that claims under this head have been increasing and accumulating, involving a greater charge on the public. Last year there were 932 people claiming pay at the higher rate. This year there are 1,600. That is the result of lax administration. I am not blaming the Minister. The Minister only took this up four months ago. He is not entirely responsible. No one is entirely responsible. Possibly the Dáil is responsible, as we ought to have called attention to this matter last year.
I am not making this the subject of a vote of censure but I do say we ought not to vote this money until we have more detailed information. We should know how many there are of every skilled trade. Last year we were told the category but we were not told how many there were in each category. This year we are given a blank vote. Last year we were told that there were armourers and gunsmiths, artificers, electricians, painters, bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, gasfitters, farriers, etc., and that they were getting 2/6 a day. That was last year's category. We do not know how these categories have been altered. We do not know what tests are applied to these tradesmen. We do not know what authority is needed except that an officer has to be convinced. I suggest that the Quartermaster-General ought to be convinced, that a definite establishment ought to be laid down, that in every barracks taken over by the troops there should be allowed, perhaps, one painter and one carpenter, one gasfitter and one electrician, and no more, and that in mounted units there should be a definite establishment laid down as to farriers and shoeing smiths. And this establishment should be very much lower than 2,700 men. Two thousand seven hundred skilled tradesmen out of an army of 16,000—it makes me wonder who is going to do the fighting. There are 2,700 tradesmen and another 1,000 members of the Army in hospital. We have not got a very large army to fight when all that is considered. It is a wrong principle and a bad principle to pay men for painting and plumbing and gasfitting and not to pay them for being efficient soldiers. If your army is to be of any value at all, reward men for being good machine gunners, efficient signallers and first-class shots. But to say to a man: "Be as good in your profession as you like but if you are not able to do the work of a tradesman you will get no extra pay; if you can paint a door or mend a door or make electric light work that is not working, we will give you 2/6 a day,"—that is absolutely wrong. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
I am curious to hear the Minister's explanation in reply to Deputy Cooper. I think it will be something like this: that hitherto—I do not know how recently the change took place—a great deal of the work required to be done in connection with barracks, buildings, etc., was done by civilian labour; that in the policy that has been entered upon the object is to ensure that as many as possible of the men who work at barracks shall be enrolled members of the Army; that these men are not soldiers except for the purpose of discipline and never will be efficient as machine gunners or anything of that kind, because they were never intended to be; that they have been enrolled in the Army and brought under the supervision of the Army instead of being retained, as they were hitherto, as civilians working on civilian work under the Board of Works and contractors. I imagine that that is the explanation. I am glad Deputy Cooper has raised the question, because I would like to hear the justification of the new policy if that is the explanation.
There is practically no new policy in connection with this matter at all. The policy is exactly what it was last year. It is different only to this extent, that it is not possible to bring up the Corps of Engineers to its strength at the rates of pay offered men who join that service. Consequently, in order to do the work that this corps is supposed to do, we must go outside and employ tradesmen. These tradesmen must be paid the trade union rate of wages. The number of tradesmen at the moment is 614. We have people in addition who are getting this extra pay, such as clerks. There are tradesmen of various classes attached to the army corps of engineers, barracks maintenance corps, artillery corps, army signalling corps, and army transport corps.
Deputy Cooper wants to know the tests that are applied. I thought I made plain this evening the tests that were applied when these men were taken into the Army. The ordinary test that any man will apply when he is employing a tradesman is applied. The man comes along and says he is a plumber or a carpenter or a painter or a skilled worker of some other description. If he has a trade union card, he produces it. That is accepted as evidence that he is a bona fide tradesman. If he has not got a trade union card, he produces, perhaps, a certificate that he served his time with a certain firm, and that he worked with that firm or some other firm for a certain number of years at his trade. That is accepted. I do not know what other precautions we could take to ensure that the man presenting himself was a bona fide tradesman. If a man came along to any person and said that he was a plumber or a carpenter or a mason, he would hardly be told, on the strength of that statement, to get on with the job which was to be done. The Army certainly does not do that. They are not so foolish as to act in that manner. We try to get the best possible men available, and we have to offer these men proficiency rates of pay in order to get them. The reason the Engineering Corps is not up to strength, is that the inducements offered at the present time are not sufficient to get men to join.
Another point was raised regarding the Army drivers. Deputy Cooper says it is time that there was more marching, and that the use of motor cars was discontinued.
We do not advertise in the public press what is being done in the Army, and if anyone wants to know what is being done in the Army I may refer to a march performed by one of our corps not very long ago that would do credit to any company the gallant Deputy ever had under his charge. The corps I refer to marched from Athlone to the Curragh, and did an average of 30 miles per day. I think that is an achievement that any army should be proud of. As regards manoeuvres and the ordinary evolutions performed by an army, our Army will have to go through all these for the future, so that it may become properly trained. So far as men getting a motor car for every hand's turn, nothing like that can happen now. We are now back to peace times, and the position is quite different to what it was some years ago. The Army is being brought up to the normal state that any army should be in.
As far as tests are concerned, we do not accept absolutely the word of a man when he says he is a trade unionist. If he has his card, well and good, but we have officers in the Corps of Engineers who are highly trained men and who are quite capable of putting these men through the usual tests. If a man turns out not to be satisfactory, we do not accept him. Men who do not pass the tests that are now applied are not given the proficiency rates of pay. All the ordinary precautions are taken to ensure that no man in the army is getting the proficiency rate of pay unless he is entitle to get it, and unless he is certified by an officer in the Corps of Engineers who is qualified to give the required certificate. That is the position in the army at the moment.
The Deputy referred to the large number of tradesmen on this list, but I am afraid a good many people seem to forget that we have taken over all the men who were formerly employed under the Board of Works in the barracks throughout the country and in the Curragh. These men appeared on the Board of Works Estimate before, but this year, for the first time, they appear on the Army Estimate. These are things that must be taken into account in considering this matter. It has also to be borne in mind that during the last three or four years the military barracks throughout the country were allowed to get into a dreadful state of disrepair. It was necessary for the comfort of the men that they should be put into repair. The soldier is entitled to the ordinary comforts that ought to be provided for him in barracks, and it is absolutely necessary that we should employ men for some time to come in doing this very necessary work.
I would like to withdraw my remarks as to the army not marching. Thirty miles a day is a very creditable record. I never managed more than 24, and I congratulate the Minister and the Army. If I did them less than justice it was due to certain external impressions that one gather: that the army does not move except in motor lorries. The march from Athlone to the Curragh at an average of 30 miles a day is something that anyone might be proud of. The Minister told us that the reason for this Vote being increased was because these tradesmen were formerly paid by the Board of Works.
Some of them.
Would any Deputy who listened to the Minister have realised that there is still a sum of £59,000 on the Board of Works vote for army work. There is the sum of £98,000 for army tradesmen and £96,000 for civilian tradesmen employed by the Army. I still hold and maintain that that is too large, and that it is an excessive proportion. The Minister said that we had no corps of engineers, and that therefore these tradesmen were necessary for our corps of engineers. He said that the corps of engineers did not attract recruits, and that therefore the employment of tradesmen was necessary. Comparing the strength of our Army with the British Army, the proportion is as 1 to 8 in the British Army. The British Corps of Engineers, excluding officers, is under 6,000, while we have 2,700. Therefore, while the ordinary fighting men in our Army, compared with the British Army, is as 1 to 8, for engineers we have 1 to 2. This Vote has not been justified. The Minister was not prepared for criticism——
I am quite prepared.
I am not trying to be offensive to the Minister, but I am trying to say that he was not prepared for criticism on this point, and so he does not give us all the information that we have a right to have. I was not trying to be offensive to the Minister, and I ask him to believe that.
I quite believe it.
At the same time, we have been told again and again that there is no need for any Committee of Inquiry and that this Dáil has got to decide whether the expenditure is adequate or excessive. Well then we must have information. We must have some sort of detailed information in the estimate for the Board of Works which would show, for instance, how many plumbers and gasfitters are considered necessary at Athlone. We should know the rates of pay and should not have this big lump Vote thrown at us in this manner. Therefore, I for one will not agree to the passing of sub-head (a) until we do get that information. I would ask the Minister not to press sub-head (a), but rather to withdraw it until we get a return showing the manner in which this sum of £98,000, which is a very considerable sum of money, is being expended. If the sub-head is not withdrawn I shall be reluctantly forced to challenge a division.
Deputy Cooper seems to forget altogether—I do not know whether he is forgetting it merely for the purpose of his argument or not— that the £58,000 for the Board of Works Vote is not for maintenance. That money is to be utilised to restore the destroyed barracks in Cork, Limerick, Castlebar and other places.
Your tradesmen cannot do that.
Tradesmen in the Board of Works will take contracts. These are new works. What we employ our tradesmen on is maintenance work of a minor nature, the expenditure on which can never exceed £200 for any one work. That is the class of work we employ tradesmen on. The tradesmen are classified, and when you remember that those who receive the extra pay possess extra qualifications you will find that the number is not very abnormal. We took over all the men at the Curragh that were usually employed there by the Board of Works and these men are still there.
As soldiers?
No, as civilian tradesmen. The Deputy talks about the corps of engineers in England. I am not concerned with the corps of engineers in England, but what I am concerned with is the needs of my own country and with what the Dáil conceives to be the needs of the country. The Deputy possibly is not aware of the fact that they have not a full establishment in the corps of engineers in England. I can tell him that they have not, and the reason is because they would not pay the rates which would enable them to secure men for a full establishment. The Deputy has got before him the British Army Estimates for the financial year that we are in. He was good enough to tell me—in saying this I hope I am not doing him any injustice—that he wanted this Vote postponed in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting the British Army Estimates for the purpose of comparing them with ours. The Deputy got the Vote postponed from yesterday to give him an additional night, in order, I suppose, to pick all the little holes that he could in our Estimate. The point I want to emphasise is that we are now dealing with our own Army and our own Estimates. That is what we have to look after, and speaking for myself, as Minister for Defence, I am not going to take any leaf, unless it is suitable to me, from the English book.
The Minister has not justified the expenditure of £98,000 on military tradesmen, and £96,000 on civilian tradesmen for the upkeep of barracks for an army of 16,000 men. If the Minister would look at it as a business proposition he would see that an expenditure of £194,000 was excessive for the upkeep of barracks for 16,000 men.
If the Deputy states, as an old soldier, that barracks are not to be maintained but are rather to be allowed to get into a state of disrepair and dilapidation, and that he, as a man supposed to look after his men, will say that men are not to be employed to put these barracks into a proper state, I must certainly disagree with him. These barracks were allowed to get into a state of dilapidation and disrepair during the period of civil war; they are valuable assets as buildings to the country. Are they to be allowed to get into a further state of disrepair when eventually it would cost twice as much money to restore them and put them into a proper state for occupation? Is it not better to have that work done now when so many men are idle and when it is necessary to put these buildings into a proper state of repair? Many barracks were destroyed. We know what it is to have people living in buildings in times of strife. There is no one to look after them; all the men could do was to snatch a few hours' sleep. They had no time to look after the care or repair of these buildings. Now we want to have them put right, and we are going about that in the only possible way we can, and when tradesmen are idle we are getting the work done by them. The money is voted for that purpose now, and it will not have to be voted for that purpose next year.
The Minister has not helped us. The point that Deputy Cooper is on is that included in this Vote there is a sum of £74,000 for 1,625 men at 2/6 per day additional pay for tradesmen and £23,924 for 1,125 men at 1/2 per day additional. As I understand the query raised, it is: At what occupation are these men employed? and where are they employed? and why are they in the Army instead of being employed as civilians? I take it it is not merely the maintenance of barracks that is meant. These men are engaged in such things as the repair of waggons, carts and such like, and the Minister has indicated that at some time, however recent, whether this last year, or not, a number of these men were recruited into the Army while prior to that they had been employed by the Board of Works. I think it is needful that the Minister should justify this policy whether it is a new policy this year or last year. It is the policy for the coming year, at any rate, that tradesmen shall be employed for maintenance work and repair work, who are not strictly soldiers but are tradesmen enrolled in the Army and that they are paid a figure, some of 2/6 and some of 1/2 per day additional.
I think the question put by Deputy Cooper requires an answer, and I think that the policy, whether new or not, should be justified. I am of opinion that you would be very much better served if the old system of employing men who are civilians, and retain their status as civilians, for doing repair work and the like, were adopted, than under a system of enrolling men into the Army and paying them at these additional rates and getting the best kind of work you can from them as army men. I think, notwithstanding the Minister's faith and belief, it is true that many men have been employed doing skilled work who were only learning their jobs, getting the pay, and who were not skilled men, and that there is really no economy in this system. The case is different altogether from that which prevailed during the time of the trouble when it was thought that men going to work in the barracks should be under army discipline because of the risk of allowing civilians in and out of barracks. There was some justification, perhaps, in these circumstances, for the policy of insisting on men doing civilian work joining the Army. But there is no such excuse or justification available now. I agree with Deputy Cooper in requesting that there should be some details in respect of these additional tradesmen, and that the Minister should justify the policy of having all the civilian work done by men who have been enrolled in the Army in what you may call an engineering corps. These 1,625 men are, I presume, deemed to be skilled men, men who have served a period of apprenticeship to their trades. I do not know what the 1/2-per-day-men mean, except that they are a sort of semi-skilled men, superior labourers. However, the distinction between groups A and B has not yet been explained. That is the first thing that should be explained, and I think the Minister should not be worth with any criticism upon these lines, for Deputy Cooper is only doing what a notorious personage was in the habit of doing merely asking for information.
I have exhausted my right to speak on this Vote, but may I make a personal explanation? The Minister referred to the fact that I asked for this Vote to be postponed yesterday. I assure the Minister, and I assure the Dáil, that I got the British Estimates yesterday morning and I worked on them in the Dáil yesterday and again to-day. I did not ask for a postponement of the Vote to study them more fully. I did ask for a postponement because I think this Vote of three millions, one-tenth of our total expenditure for the year, was a Vote that should not be hurried through at a late hour in the evening. I think the President agreed with me on that. I have given no study to the British Estimates other than what I gave yesterday morning and some study since I have been here to-day. The Minister's appeal to me as to whether I would have men in barracks properly housed would have great weight but for the fact that it is notorious that in commandeered premises the Army never mended even a window or did repair of any kind.
The Army never mended windows when living in places such as the Deputy mentioned, because they had not the men with them capable of doing it. They lived in these premises out in the country in circumstances that none of us would like to live in. I said before now that it was a disgrace the way that some of these men were housed during the period of the trouble, and what is the reason? Because the men could not be found to carry on repair work that was absolutely necessary.
Deputy Johnson wants to know the difference between men paid 2s. 6d. and men paid 1s. 2d. in addition to their army pay. Group A includes tradesmen, and group B includes clerks, storekeepers and helpers, and all the rest. The tradesman gets 2s. 6d. per day according to his trade. It does not mean that plumbers and carpenters get 2s. 6d. each, but it is the average of the addition that tradesmen get, and the other group is for clerks, storemen, helpers, and various people of that kind, and they get an addition of 1s. 2d. That only brings up their Army pay and allowance to what tradesmen would normally have working outside. It does not give them any more. Men themselves think they are not getting enough. If they thought they would be better off outside they would not join the Army. I want to give the Committee all the information at our command. At the present time there are 25 tradesmen not attached to the Army, employed on barrack service. They are not enlisted in the Engineers; they are simply civilians.
Are they under sub-head (C)?
Yes. They are civilians absolutely, and they come in and out of barracks as if they were doing ordinary civilian jobs. The reason they are there is that we could not bring the corps up to its proper strength. We want to get the work done, as we cannot have it hanging over any longer. That work is necessary, and nobody will deny that these barracks should be put into proper repair. Some of them, if left as they are much longer, will deteriorate further, and it will then cost more money to have them repaired, and it will not be a saving to the State. It is, therefore, better to repair them now before they get absolutely beyond repair, say in two years hence, when it would probably be cheaper to do with them what the Irregulars did with some of them, burn them out.
Are these enrolled only for the job?
Which ones?
The 1,625 tradesmen who have been spoken of as putting the barracks in order.
They are enlisted soldiers.
I thought that, but when the Minister explained that this work has to be done to get the men properly housed, one would imagine from that argument that when that work is done these men will be dismissed.
No.
Then that argument has no weight. Am I to understand that this 2/6 a day is not a fixed rate but an accepted average?
It is an average.
It is not a rate of pay?
No. It is the difference between the Army rate of pay and the trade union rate of pay outside.
We are now getting little by little a reply to Deputy Cooper when he drew the attention of the Minister to the character of the Estimate. For public works he was able to call attention to the fact that so many wheel-wrights, electricians, and fitters employed at these places, had so much a week, or so much a month, and the information that he sought for was information which might reasonably be given. I think the Minister should not be vexed, or allow himself to appear to be vexed, at the kind of criticism or questioning which Deputy Cooper has levelled at him. Before we pass from this, are we to have the justification that was asked for for the adoption of this policy, not in respect to outside civilian labour being brought in to do repair work to meet the needs of the time, owing to the destruction and dilapidation of the last few years, but in respect to the work that is being done by the enrolled men who are tradesmen at an average of 2/6 a day? I would like to know what is the justification for adopting that policy instead of reverting to the old policy of bringing in civilian labour to do civilian work, now that the risk of bringing in such labour to the barracks is past. A couple of years ago, as I have said, there was, perhaps, a fair amount of justification for saying that they could not have painters, plasterers, plumbers or carpenters coming in and out of barracks under circumstances which might give rise to a good deal of risk. Now that that risk is passed, why is that policy of enrolling men and paying them an average of 2/6 a day adopted, instead of bringing in civilian labour to do civilian work? These are not soldiers, and never can be, because a number of them are beyond the years of enlistment for soldiers. We need some justification for the policy of insisting that these men should be enrolled as soldiers.
That is a question which links up with the question raised earlier in the evening. It is linked up with the question whether in an army like ours we should have an engineering corps at all. If we are to have an engineering corps there is a certain advantage in giving officers of the corps experience in controlling men and in executing works, whatever the works may be. The works may not be of the types which engineers would have to execute in war, but there is no doubt that the experience of controlling and perfecting an organisation to carry out works of any sort will be of distinct value if we are to have an engineering corps at all. I suppose that I should have said what I have to say in regard to that at an earlier stage, but it seems to me that we have, in addition to the need for keeping a force here that will serve to repress any attempt at internal disorder, to consider the question of the possibility of our being involved without any desire of ours in external complications. I think it must be obvious to Deputies that a situation might arise in which this country would not easily be outside the war zone, if I might put it that way. It has always seemed to me that our position ought to be that we should have the nucleus and skeleton of a military organisation that could be filled out, and that there would be a possibility of supplying whatever force is needed for the defence of this country out of the country itself, so that there will be no excuse to bring, or send in, troops from outside the country. I for one do not envisage that we are going to have any clash at all with British forces. There are people, I think, foolish enough in the country who think of our Army in terms of such clash. I do not think that there is a shadow of possibility of that, but there may be a position in which there may be an international situation in which questions might arise as to whether garrisons in this country were going to be supplied by us, or whether we were in a position to supply any garrison. I have always held that, in addition to acting as an insurance against disorder and providing for public security against internal enemies, we ought so organise our defence forces that we will have an organisation that can be expanded, and that will enable us to see after the defence of this country, so far as the resources of this country admit, for ourselves, in any crisis that may arise. It seems to me that that sort of view is a justification for having, say, any engineering corps. If we thought of nothing except using the Army against purely internal enemies or insurrectionary efforts we might think that the service we now have might not be necessary, that it would suffice if we had infantry, machine gunners, and a few field-pieces to blow down buildings, that we might have the very simplest form of organisation and that, perhaps, that very simple form of organisation would be cheaper. I feel, however, that that is a matter that in the coming years may be thought out very carefully, but I feel that we ought not to content ourselves with that very simple form of organisation which would barely suffice to deal with insurrectionary efforts, that we ought provide ourselves in as cheap a way as possible with the nucleus of a service that would be required if we found that we had to call upon citizens to come into our Army in great numbers for the purpose of meeting any emergency that might arise in circumstances with which we would have nothing to do.
So far as we have gone, the position has been, as the President put it, that we should look to the Army as a dual organisation. We have services like our engineering corps and other services in it, for we feel that that is the line. I suggest that if we have to keep officers who will be the people who will take charge of any sort of engineering organisation that has to be built up, we should not employ these officers in purely theoretical exercises, but that they ought to be employed on any sort of practical work that they can be employed on, in the supervision and planning of it, and in the control of the men who are doing it. I think that is really the justification that can be made for employing men in uniform as soldiers to do the work, rather than by letting it out to contract, and not giving the employment to officers in our engineering corps.
Will the Minister tell us why officers get no extra pay in this corps? Last year the officers in the engineering corps got extra pay. Would he also say of what use are painters, bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers in war?
They are useful in maintaining barracks. I was really speaking of officers, of the training of officers in the execution of work and the control of men, and preventing them from rusting and merely theorising.
But the officer gets no extra pay.
The case made by the Minister for Finance is an understandable one, whether we approve of it or not, and if it was to fit in with that view of the functions of the Army, then it would be for the Minister for Defence to show that the 1,625 men were employed in services which would be required in such an unexpected emergency as the Minister has touched on. But, as Deputy Bryan Cooper has pointed out, that is not apparently the policy that is being worked towards, because there are painters, bricklayers, plasterers, and men engaged in all kinds of operations that will not be of any conceivable use in time of war, when the Army has to be expanded. I cannot imagine that on the declaration of war and in an ever-expanding army, you would call together all the bricklayers and plasterers, and so on, to expand the number of fighting men. The Minister for Defence has made one case, and the Minister for Finance another. Can the Minister for Defence attune his case to that of the Minister for Finance? That is what I would like to have an explanation of, as to whether these 1,625 men are engaged in operations in accordance with the theory and policy laid down by the Minister for Finance.
How many officers come under the heading of engineers, and how many of them in this particular corps are qualified?
Forty-four.
Qualified engineers?
They are qualified engineers in that they are in the Corps of Engineers, and the majority, or the heads of them, are qualified engineers who have certificates in one kind of engineering or another. I cannot give the exact number of them, but I know they are qualified, certificated men.
I am glad to hear that.
With reference to Deputy Johnson's remark about my being annoyed, I wish to say that I am in the best of good humour.
I am only suggesting that you were attempting to appear annoyed.
I am very sorry if I appeared to be annoyed or vexed. It would be well for the Deputy if he were not in his place when I really vexed. As far as the engineers are concerned, every man in the corps is a soldier, and if required must do any work, no matter what it is. Whether he is a mason, or a plasterer, or a plumber, he is a soldier and trained as a soldier, and has to take up soldiers duties. If we are to have an army we must have a corps of engineers. I do not think that any Deputy will seriously suggest that if we were to have manæuvres or evolutions, or training, in the summer that it would be well to take a lot of civilians and to put them at cooking, and do the work these men do. I do not think that is seriously suggested. These men take their share in the ordinary work of the Army. If they are called upon to do any engineering work in connection with the manæuvres, and, as the Minister for Finance has suggested, if we were engaged in any broil of any description, these men would be required for ordinary engineering work, such as bridge building. It is not suggested, I hope, that when that work is not going ahead that they ought to be idle in the barracks when glazing and painting have to be done. I think the men would be better employed at that work, and they are paid tradesmen's wages for doing it. I could understand an objection being made if soldiers were made to do that work at 1/9 instead of 2/6, but they are not asked to do that. They get what is called proficiency pay for doing that class of work, and we employ them at that instead of keeping them idle and lounging about the barracks. These men are all soldiers, and if wanted to-morrow to do the ordinary work of soldiers they have to do it. They are not enlisted as tradesmen— as plumbers or masons—but as soldiers. If found after enlistment that they are qualified for the corps of engineers, and if there is a vacancy in the corps, they are transferred to it. We do not enlist them for any special corps; we enlist them as soldiers, and put them into the position they are fit for.
Are we to understand that the man is first of all trained to be an efficient soldier, and only put on to the extra proficiency work for which he is specially adapted on special occasions, and that he is only paid the extra rate when he is so employed?
No. If he is transferred he gets that extra pay.
Are we to understand that the extra pay is given regularly once he is put into that occupation?
Yes.
So that up to that date he has become an efficient soldier, an efficient shot, and he is quite as fully qualified as any other member of the Army, and the remainder is extra?
Yes.
That would suggest, of course, that the work of soldiering can be learned and the man can remain proficient as a soldier without continuing his training. It seems to me there is an inconsistency in the position the Minister has taken up.
Is the Minister maintaining that a corps of engineers is necessary?
Certainly.
That is not my point. We want to know what is the strength of the establishment of that corps of engineers before we vote money for it. We ought to know how many are required for this service, and we ought, if necessary, to be able to suggest addition to them. Personally, before giving proficiency pay to painters, I would give it to good cooks. Apparently they get no proficiency pay. I fear it may be, as it was in another army I know something of, that the most incompetent man at everything else is put to cooking, with the result that the hospitals get filled. I move the reduction of this Vote, because we have not got sufficient information about the corps of engineers and the men who are receiving proficiency pay. That is what I ask the Dáil to divide on. I am not saying we ought not to have such a corps, but I say that the Dáil ought to know about it.
As to sub-head (C), under which £5,000 is to be voted for educational purposes, I would like some explanation as to how this is to be expended. Does this mean military education, or is it for the purpose of improving the general standard of education in the army?
It is principally for the education of officers from a military point of view. This is the first time that any Vote has been asked for under this head and it is in connection with the school which we propose to establish. If we can get the school going this year this amount will be necessary to carry out the education that we propose to give to officers.
Are we to understand, then, that this expenditure is to be purely on military education?
There will be civilian professors engaged as lecturers and so on, for the purpose of educating the officers up to a proper standard. What we are aiming at is the establishment of a military college. Provision is made in another part of the Estimate for furnishing. We want to make military officers what we think they should be, and I think the Deputy would like the officers should have a decent education both from a military and a general point of view.
I am not taking exception to the Vote, no matter what kind of education it is for. The Minister has given us to understand that it is for educational facilities for the officers—both military education and what we might call literary education.
It is practically for military education.
Then we can take it that it is almost entirely military. That brings me nearer to the point I wanted to discover. I cannot find any other sum for education in the Estimates, with the exception of £300 for initial equipment, on page 254. Is there any other sum set aside for educational facilities other than military education?
The other provision that we have made for education is by the equipment of libraries. There is also an Army school for clerks, and there is the initial equipment for this educational scheme. Then we have the officers' school of instruction. All the items under sub-head (P) practically come under the head of Education in one way or the other. The ordinary soldier will get a certain amount of education and, as I said to-day in my initial statement, the scheme is only in its infancy. We are trying to get the soldier into such a position that he will not lose anything by being in the Army but will be better, both physically and educationally, when he goes out of it. That is what we are aiming at. These things cannot be done in a month or two. We are only beginning in a small way, and do not want to launch out into big things that perhaps we might not be able to carry out. From a small beginning we expect we will have a school that will be able to train officers and men.
It was brought under my notice in another place the other day that man, of the men in the Army were of a very low standard, from the educational point of view, and when I saw £5,000 under this Vote, I wondered if it was for improving the education of the men in the Army. The Minister understands as well as any other Deputy that a soldier or civilian must have a certain standard of education if he is to avail of a library. A library is worthless to a civilian or a soldier who cannot read. While it is perfectly right and necessary that there should be libraries for soldiers, and if almost £2,000 is to be spent on them, soldiers must be given a chance to educate themselves in order to make use of the facilities that libraries afford. It is essential, if a soldier is to be made a good type of citizen—and I think it is customary in every army to aim at that —that he should be given a chance of receiving an education that perhaps he was not given before joining the Army. A sum ought to be set aside in the Army Estimate for that purpose, and I have no doubt that in going through the Estimate it would be possible to save the necessary money and put it aside for the education of soldiers so that they may avail of the facilities provided for them. That would enable soldiers going back to civilian life to be better citizens and better men. It would also show that in the National Army there is an opportunity for the soldier to improve himself if he to avail of it. One thing that can be done in the Army is to fit the soldier for his return to civil life by giving him a better education in the subjects that he will subsequently require. I think no time ought to be lost in setting aside a sum of money for this purpose.
In his opening statement the Minister evoked a general cheer when he stated that a beginning was being made in the education of the soldier. Under sub-head (C) £5,000 is allocated for educational purposes, and £300 under another sub-head for educational equipment. It is now learned that it is intended to spend the £5,000 as pay for civilians engaged in the education of officers in the art of war— that is to say, a military education. I rather gather that it may be considered necessary to give these officers certain rudiments of technical education, technical from the point of view of the military man. I am very much disappointed to think that the proposition in respect of this £5,000 is to educate the officer to be a more efficient officer. While that is very desirable, and I am not finding fault with it, the disappointment arises from the knowledge that there is really no provision made, except a few pounds for libraries, for the education of the soldier. The Minister agrees that such education is desirable, but the proposal is in its infancy. Well, an infant of 12 months is growing rapidly and we are making provision for a 12 months' baby.
One would think that if there is any sum to be voted for the education of the soldier, there would have been plans ready at this date and that we would have some information from the Minister as to what the plans were. During the war in Europe, and after it, there was established in England, and in other countries as well, a regular educational scheme for the soldier, not primarily and not solely for ordinary elementary education, but for what is known as a tutorial scheme in civic subjects, economics, literature and music, perhaps, as well as arithmetic, writing, reading and other elementary subjects. I believe it would be one of the best possible courses that could be adopted, to set afoot within the Army a series of classes of a tutorial character, so that you will interest the soldier in study and in preparation for citizenship when he leaves the Army.
I had hoped the Minister was going to initiate some such scheme as that and that this Vote was the beginning of such a scheme, but I am now informed, and I am sorry, that no such scheme is in mind. The idea is rather that the £5,000 is to be used for paying teachers or professors to help the education of officers for the better performance of their work as soldiers. Perhaps, even in that respect, we might have had a little more information as to the plan the Minister has in mind. Will he please consider the position of the private soldier and consider how valuable it would be for the soldier, while in the Army, to develop an interest in general culture and civic affairs and to learn the habit of application and study? It would be of very great value to him after he leaves the Army, both as a citizen and as a workman. I hope the Minister will attempt some scheme of that kind, even if he has to come to the Dáil for a supplementary vote.
I can assure Deputy Baxter that a scheme in connection with what he suggested has been in my mind for some time back. As a matter of fact, this Vote for the equipment of the schools—it is a small sum of £300 —will mean that as soon as we get these schools equipped we will be able to make a beginning. Possibly that would be this year. I can assure Deputy Johnson that the matter he touched upon will not escape my attention. I have no intention of allowing the state of affairs to continue where a soldier will not be able to get a reasonable chance of educating himself while in the Army. That is one of the first things that I spoke about when I entered the Ministry. I have consulted the Army Council on the subject, and I will see that the question will not be lost sight of. A scheme will soon be ready—it is in course of preparation at Headquarters—for the purpose of seeing what is the best means of setting up these schools for the private soldier. The matter has not been neglected. Of course nothing could be done up to five or six months ago. It was impossible to deal with the education of soldiers owing to the existing circumstances. But now that we are at peace we will see that the private soldier will get an opportunity of bettering himself and that he will be a better man, both physically and educationally, than when he came into the Army.
In regard to sub-head (e)—Pay of Officers of Medical Service—I want to return to the question of Army hospitals, which we had not fully thrashed out. The Minister based his objection to treating Army patients in civilian hospitals on the grounds of the need of military discipline. I have been a patient in an army hospital and in a civilian hospital, and I can assure the Minister that the discipline is the same in both places, and that the mildest hospital nurse that was ever born is a more rigid martinet than the most severe disciplinarian in the Army.
You must have met a woman with a bad temper.
No. Any patient in any hospital is at the mercy of the authorities, because when they take away your trousers you are helpless, and they invariably do. I really think the Minister's fears that it would be impossible to have discipline amongst Army patients in a civilian hospital are unfounded. Even suppose they were well founded, I would like to call his attention to a report of the Dublin Hospitals Sunday Fund in regard to Steevens Hospital. The report says:— Number of beds for patients, 160 ready for occupation; 50 beds were accommodation formerly used for the R.I.C. and are not now in use." There is a hospital in Dublin that actually has accommodation that was set aside for military purposes, or at least for semi-military purposes, and which could presumably—I am not acquainted with the hospital—supply separate accommodation that could be kept under military discipline, or under military medical officers, and, if it was thought necessary, it could be kept under military nurses, though I do not think that would be necessary. You could there have the advantage of the economy arising from the fact that the whole place was worked in connection with the general hospital. I have worked out the annual cost per bed in Steevens Hospital, and it is £124 a year. A bed at St. Bricin's Hospital, according to the figures given by the Minister to-day, costs £164. There is the difference between £124 and £164 of £40 for fifty beds. You could save there, by the fact that we were part of a big organisation purchasing or dealing on a large scale, £2,000 a year.
I only wish the Minister for Finance were listening. I am telling him where we could save £2,000 a year. There are many people who will tell him where he could spend £2,000, and possibly larger sums. Here is a concrete suggestion. You could have these wards, that were formerly used by the R.I.C., kept under military discipline if necessary, and you could save £40 a year on each bed. I do beg of the Minister that what he said to-day should not be his last word. He should further consider the possibility of treatment of army patients in civilian hospitals and also the possibility of part-time civilian medical officers in small out-stations. He would save on travelling and, I believe, on pay. Before the war the British army did not have a medical officer to every battalion or unit. They had during the war, but then war conditions are very different to field conditions.
Before the war they used to have, at a big military station where there was a brigade of infantry and a regiment of artillery and cavalry stationed three or four medical officers. Every medical officer got a turn of duty in these stations. Permanent medical officers might be retained only at stations like the Curragh and Dublin, and at the smaller stations it would save money to employ the local doctor and pay him a fee for the services rendered. It might be that in the last few years local doctors might be out of sympathy with the powers that be and that while they would supply the necessary medicine to the patient, their treatment might be calculated to enfeeble the patient rather than to restore him to his pristine health. I am not suggesting that any doctor would injure his patient, but perhaps he might not recover as hastily as if he were under a military doctor. I do suggest that the war mind should vanish from the Ministry and that the peace mind should prevail, on this question.
I think it is only right that I should tell Deputy Cooper that he is making a very serious mistake in regard to medical officers not paying attention to the patients, regardless of what they were. I do not mean military men. We will take the most confirmed Unionists or Die-hards that were to be found in this country. It was our experience that they attended a man fighting for his country to the very best of their ability. In the same way one of our doctors no matter how extreme he was on the other side would treat the greatest blackguard in the Black and Tans or Auxiliaries when necessary and do his best to bring him back to health. I am sure that it was in a moment of forgetfulness that the Deputy suggested that doctors might not give their very best whenever and wherever they might be called in.
I am very grateful to the President for suggesting that what I said might be misunderstood. I had no intention of making any such charge. As a matter of fact I knew a doctor—he came from County Kerry and his name was similar to that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance—and he treated some soldiers of the British Army in the morning and soldiers of the I.R.A. in the afternoon. He said: "They are my patients and I do not tell anybody any tales about my patients." That was the spirit of the medical profession, I quite agree, and I am very grateful to have the President's correction.
I think it was due to the medical profession, and we should admit it on both sides. The Deputy was not an extremist I think on any side, but we can both admit that the conduct of that profession is above reproach so far as attendance on patients is concerned. I had this very question that Deputy Cooper has raised before me when I was Minister for Defence. There are many reasons why it should be kept as a service in the Army. I criticised very much more severely than he did the cost of the medical services for the Army. It is out of proportion; in my view it is entirely out of proportion, but there is no doubt about it that while we are now something like seven years away from the great war, we are not seven years away from its evils. In the same way, though probably we are two or three years away from the disturbances in this country, we are not the same length of time away from the evil associations that have been arising since. There is not, possibly, in any Army in the world at the present time the discipline that existed in the armies previous to the great war. In consequence of the laxity that is inseparable from such commotions as were brought about during that conflict, it is only gradually that one can get back to the real discipline that existed prior to the war. It was mainly on the question of discipline that I agreed to this Estimate, although I think we saved a considerable amount of money during the time I was Minister for Finance having regard to the Estimate. The Estimate was not fully spent. This was a service in which I was satisfied that any reduction and any hope there would be of a saving, as far as money was concerned, would be more than set off by the disadvantages in other directions. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details, but I can assure Deputies that I approached the matter entirely from the point of view of the economist, and although I am not one on whom doctors make a strong impression I must say they convinced me that it was not an item that could be reduced.
I was afraid that the President was going to back from the position that he had taken up in the beginning, when he got up on the second occasion. I was getting up in order to thank him very sincerely for having placed the position of the medical profession so clearly. I think there can be no question that what we consider is the illness of the patient and what can be done. Nothing else matters. I agree with the President that any reduction applicable to the medical service as a medical service would be a great mistake. The Minister for Defence pointed out to-day what I am sure was quite true—that they were scarcely able to retain the men when they got them, because they were unable to offer them sufficient emoluments and, as I said before, you will not get sufficient service unless you pay for it. I am not, however, going to deal with that. I am going to call attention to a matter on which, I think, some explanation is necessary. I find provision made for eight chemists. Naturally there is a chemist at St. Bricin's and another at the Curragh, but when I look through the establishment fund I find that there are two officers in charge of the Medical Supply Stores. Then I find one on the Inspection Staff. One wonders what does he inspect. Then I find there is one on the Eastern Command Staff, one on the Western Command Staff, and one on the Southern Command Staff. There is also the chemist at St. Bricin's and an additional one at the Curragh. That means there are eight chemists. What are their services required for? I want to ask whether under the document which I hold before me dealing with the Army reorganisation these establishments are still maintained with additional establishments at Cork, Templemore, and Athlone. I want to know whether these hospitals are still being run or still exist. There were four officers connected with the Cork Hospital. There is no chemist there. At Templemore there is no chemist either, nor is there one connected with Athlone, but at all events, I think the Minister for Defence might look into the matter to see whether he could not possibly make some reduction in the establishment of eight chemists for all that is to be done.
In reply to Deputy Sir James Craig, I may say that I will look into this matter of the chemists. At the moment I do not know whether they are actually required in all these places, but I will give the matter consideration, and if I find that any of these chemists can be dispensed with with safety, I will see that it is done.
I would like to ask the Minister on what principles these allowances are made. They have increased since last year. Last year we granted 229 at a sum of 4s. 3d; this year we are asked to grant 400 at 5s. Has the rate of matrimony in the Army been very progressive? I would also like to know on what grounds unmarried officers get these subsistence allowances. Are they stationed in places where there are no barracks? If so they need them, of course.
An allowance is made to officers who cannot be accommodated in barracks, and the allowance is at the rate of 5s. per day for lodging, fuel and light. Last year, as I stated to-day, the fuel and light allowance came under sub-head (s) and this year it is absorbed in the allowance as a whole. That accounts for the £3,000 increase in the sub-head. The fuel and light allowance, added to the lodging allowance of 4s. 3d, makes it 5s.
Will the Minist. tell us why an unmarried officer only gets 3s. 6d.? Does he not require fuel and light?
He has only a single room in barracks. The married officer requires more accommodation. That is the probable explanation of it.
Can the Minister tell us what is the reason for this outbreak of matrimony?
There are various causes.
Under sub-head (h) I would like to ask a question with regard to the moving of troops to the Curragh, and in connection with training. What is the policy of the Army with regard to training? In pre-Truce days there were certain concentrations, for manoeuvres and for other purposes, and particularly there was a concentration of artillery at Glen Imaal, in Co. Wicklow, for the purpose of practising their guns. Do the artillery now have any chance of firing their guns with live shell? The observation of artillery practice is a very essential part in the training of an artillery officer. An artillery officer is not efficient unless he has a chance of observing the effect of his fire. That is a very technical point I know, but I also know how completely inefficient I was when I was tested at it, and unless our officers are tested at it they will not be efficient artillery officers at anything beyond the point-blank range. Are we keeping the artillery and the musketry ranges that the British had? There was a musketry range in the Wicklow mountains, there was an artillery range in the Glen of Imaal, and there was a field-firing area in Kilworth, in the County Cork. Do we move troops to these areas at times in order to give them a chance of practising, or do we not?
During the period of trouble in the country, such practice was not carried out, but the artillery will get an opportunity in the Glen of Imaal this season of seeing whether they can shoot straight or not. As far as rifle ranges are concerned, we have several of them that we are keeping on hand, and they will be used this year. We have Kilbride——
They have not been used up to now?
Only in some cases.
Have they in any case?
I think in some cases they have, but there was no opportunity of using them up to now. The men were continually on duty, and until this summer there was no opportunity of giving the men the training they should get.
I want to draw attention to certain figures that the Minister gave us to-day. The Estimate under sub-head (1) is based upon a cost of 1/9 per day. I take it that that is not extravagant, that the Minister considers it a reasonable allowance for the cost of food, without the luxuries that civilians and soldiers have to purchase for themselves, that it is an ordinary, reasonable allowance for a man for the prime cost of food. I would ask the Minister and his colleagues to take that into account, because rations, food bought wholesale, as all Army rations are bought, will be bought at a lower rate than that at which the ordinary civilian will be able to purchase an equivalent amount of rations. If we think of 1/9 per day for seven days per week, and think of two adults in a family, and, say, three children, or two children, or two and a half children, equalling one adult, we have a family group of three adults. At 1/9 each per day that will come to 36/9 weekly for food alone. I find from the very interesting and very useful report on the cost of living in Ireland, issued in June, 1922, that in estimating the figures on such a basis of calculation, the estimate of the total expenditure, apart from luxuries—the food cost— was about 57 per cent. of the total expenditure of the household, and that percentage was more or less equalled by the percentages in other countries. If we take 36/9 as the reasonable cost of food alone, and that being 57 per cent. of the total requirements of the family, apart from luxuries, we will get some idea of what is a reasonable basic wage to keep a family in this country in the same amount of food rations and ordinary needs as we admit to be necessary for the soldier.
For the officer.
For the soldier or officer, but there are 15,000 soldiers and about 900 officers. I am not suggesting for a moment that the ration cost is extravagant; probably it is on the near side, if anything; but the wholesale price of that ration would cost a family group of three 36s. 9d. per week, and I ask all Deputies, and Ministers particularly, to take that fact into account when considering other questions.
I think that sub-head (m) and sub-head (k) are much the same. The Minister got over sub-head (k) very easily. Here you have for mechanical transport—for oil and petrol—almost £31,000. You may also take that in connection with sub-head (k) where you have £20,000 for maintenance on a capital expenditure of £24,000. That means that your motor transport costs you £24,000; to maintain that motor transport will cost you £20,000, and petrol and oil will cost £30,000.
The £20,000 is not spent on the £24,000, but on much more.
What is it spent on?
That capital is new. You also have the maintenance of the old transport.
Am I to understand that you have a very efficient staff in the army to deal with your own repairs? I understand you have an efficient staff of drivers and mechanics to deal with your repairs.
I would like to see the Rolls Royce staff operating on some of the cars which were handed over by the British.
Do not talk of what was handed over by the British. Twenty thousand pounds seems to me to be a huge sum in addition to the expenditure on oils and petrol.
How many cars have they?
I do not know.
Perhaps the Minister would like to be reminded that the cost of maintenance estimated for last year on mechanical transport was £20,650. So there is a little extra in the cost of maintenance this year, on what is presumably a smaller number of cars, in addition to the repair work which will be carried out by the tradesmen, which we have already discussed. Is the same number of cars likely to be in operation this year as last year, and is the maintenance cost going to be as great? I was under the impression that with the lesser mileage we might expect this year, the maintenance cost would be much less, and perhaps the number of cars driving through the country would be much less, particularly if the policy which I think was touched on by the Minister earlier, of scrapping a lot of worn-out dilapidated cars and purchasing new cars, was adopted.
Mechanical transport is down under K, £47,000 for this year. Last year it was £77,000.
Yes; but last year it included arrears of claims for commandeered cars, £25,000. The counteracting items were—Capital Expenditure, £26,700 last year, and this year it is £24,250. Maintenance charges were for last year, £20,650, and for this year £20,681. Armoured cars last year cost £2,610; armoured car maintenance this year is £2,589. Those are the parallel charges.
As regards the last item, Armoured Car Repairs, they were not done last year, although they were estimated for.
Were the cars maintained last year?
Yes.
Are they to be maintained at the same cost this year?
I do not know.
Why were (M) and (K) not under the same sub-head?
Oils come under (M) and is a separate item. That is one particular institution the Minister has under consideration at the present moment, and a scheme in connection with it will be shortly under notice. It may lessen that particular item. Until they get rid of the old cars, the maintenance item will be large.
Under (K), we have maintenance, £20,000, and under (M) we might say we are charging maintenance £30,000.
No, it is petrol and oils.
It is mechanical transport.
Mechanical transport will not go far without petrol and oil.
The best thing I could do is to read the details of capital expenditure on mechanical transport:—
12 Heavy touring cars at £600.
34 Light touring cars at £150.
30 Tenders at £350.
30 Tender Bodies at £15.
That makes 106 cars and the total cost is £23,250.
What was expended on that item last year?
I have not that before me at the moment. The cost of maintenance is as follows:—
84 First year Fords at £5 12s. 3d.
16 Used Fords at £20.
20 Used heavy touring cars at £40.
12 First year touring cars at £10.
56 Used lorries at £30.
40 Ton trucks at £30.
80 New Lancias at £10.
50 Used Lancias at £15.
20 Lancias (Overhaul) at £80.
66 Crossleys at £30.
That makes 444 cars of that type, and the total cost is £9,721 for maintenance. Then we have tyres:—12 Heavy touring and 20 heavy touring, and so on, the total cost of which is £10,960. That makes up the entire sum of £43,931. A Ford car in use for two or three years costs more to keep on the road than a new car.
Would the Minister tell us whether the money voted last year was spent for the purposes for which it was voted? Is this a re-vote, or to what extent is it a re-vote?
I think the armoured car maintenance is a re-vote.
The vote last year was £77,010. We spent £95,315 9s. 10d. We overspent the vote last year.
I am not satisfied that the requirements of the Army this year with regard to transport, are as great as they were last year. They should not cost as much this year as last year. It appears from the Minister's last statement, that the sum spent was more than the estimate last year. In that case, he may argue that there is, in fact, a reduction this year. Is that the case the Minister would like to make?
I would like to make that case, but I would point out that those cars are in our hands yet. We anticipate that it will cost that sum to maintain them. We must put them into some kind of order before we can dispose of a number of them. Some will be sold before the 1st of June. We have to spend money on them in order to put them on the market and we will have to take our chances of what we will get for them.
Are we to understand from that that it is the intention to reduce the number of cars? Are we to understand that the cars are to be sold off because they are not up to a certain standard or because they can be done without? Are they to be replaced?
There are a number that will be sold off and that will not be replaced. We have reduced the number of cars. We could not dispose of the old ones which were going out of order every day of the week. We will have sold three times as many old cars as we have purchased new ones. That reduces the number.
Is there any decision as to the number of cars necessary in the Army, or will the provision of cars be maintained at its present strength?
In the scheme of organisation last year there was provision for that, but I do not think we will be able to get to that point until we get rid of the old cars.
I would like under sub-head O (Animals and Forage) to ask the Minister what is the procedure in the purchase of those horses, and if he could tell us approximately the number of horses he has now in the Army; also if he does not think it peculiar that while the cost of the horses is somewhat less than £4,000, the upkeep of these horses costs over £18,000? I think that is an extravagant sum, except that he has a multiplicity of horses. But I cannot see that any great number of horses could be bought at the figure down in the Estimate. It seems extraordinary that the upkeep of less than £4,000 worth of horses should run into the figure in the Estimate, and I would like the Minister to give us some information on this point. Shoeing and stable requirements seem very high. Medicines and veterinary instruments must be very elaborately provided when they come to the figure of £2,017. There is £1,017 down for medicines, and £1,000 for veterinary instruments.
My query was in regard to the item of £800 for chargers. I see the figure of £1,852 down for draught horses, and £800 for chargers. We were told earlier in the day that in the Army there is no cavalry. I am not sufficiently familiar with military parlance to know the distinction between a charger and a draught horse, except that I always understood that a charger was a horse that was ridden by a man in a charge.
And always by a commanding officer.
And by artillery officers.
Is it for use or for ornament these horses are kept?
For use, undoubtedly. You cannot have an artillery officer walking after his gun. I am sure it would look very undignified.
I am interested as to the quality of the food supplied these horses. I hope that the Minister is not buying Canadian oats. I heard that a lot of Canadian oats goes to the Curragh. I should be pleased to hear that the Minister is not buying Canadian oats. He buys Irish beef and I think he should buy Irish oats. With regard to these horses, I take it that the Minister had a stock of horses at the beginning of this year. Is the item here under these two figures what the Minister expects he will spend in purchases this coming year? We cannot form any idea as to the cost of maintenance until we know the number of horses that is kept.
407 horses.
I take it that this £800 for chargers would mean that he is going to buy twenty chargers. Would the Minister explain how much per day it costs to maintain each horse? Would it be too much trouble to find that out?
What about the medicine?
Deputy Michael Doyle asked for some information as to how these horses have been supplied to the Army and I hope the Minister will explain the procedure.
First and foremost, we are not getting any Canadian oats.
I am quite sure that the reference to Canadian oats being used in the Army is wrong. I take it that when Deputy Wilson spoke of Canadian oats going to the Curragh, he meant that it was going to the racing stables and not to the Army.
I know that.
Shoeing and stable necessaries are a big item in all establishments where horses are kept. That is down here at £1,800, but the next item is more surprising. Medicines are down for £1,017, and veterinary instruments for £1,000. The last two items are more than the cost of shoeing and stable necessaries.
The number of horses is 407. That works out at about £54 10s. 0d. per horse for everything— feeding, shoeing and the rest.
£54 10s. 0d. per year?
Yes.
Would the Minister explain how these horses are purchased —is it through dealers they are purchased or through your own officers?
They are purchased through dealers.
There is a certain price fixed and the horse must pass the required examination and test before it is taken in.
Is it a veterinary surgeon examines the horse?
Yes; the horse must be passed by a veterinary surgeon.
Have you got a veterinary surgeon in the Army?
Yes; we have two veterinary surgeons.
I think a little more requires to be said about medicines and veterinary instruments, for which there is down a figure of £2,017. I do not want to offend the Minister by constant comparisons with the British Estimates, but he has introduced comparisons with the British Estimates himself. The British Army have, I think, twenty regiments of cavalry and about one hundred batteries of artillery. We have no cavalry and we have only four batteries of artillery. Our Estimate for medicines and veterinary instruments is £2,000 odd. The British Vote is £3,500. There seems to be a certain disproportion between these amounts that would call for inquiry. I am not asking the Minister to explain now. It is not the kind of point the Minister could explain right off. I think if the Minister, before next year, looks into the matter, he will be able to make some reduction in this amount.
Have you any "Kruschen salts feeling" amongst your chargers or artillery horses, or what are you giving them? I think anybody of common sense, in looking at these three items under the head of "maintenance," will be struck by, at least, two of them as compared with the others. There may be a simple explanation. You may be going to get in a stock of medicines and instruments that will meet your requirements for the term of this Government, or for this generation. But I do not understand it. It is an item that will require some explanation.
Looking through last year's Estimate, I cannot find that any details were supplied in regard to the "animals and forage" sub-head, so that it is not possible to make a comparison. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether the sum voted last year for medicines and veterinary instruments was actually spent. That would be an indication as to whether there was really need for such a large sum for these two items.
Would the Minister say how many veterinary surgeons are taking charge of these horses?
Two.
And they have £1,000 worth of instruments?
If you want to keep up an establishment at all, you must buy instruments. This is not a recurring item.
Were these instruments on the Estimates last year?
The expenditure last year was not more than one-third of the Estimate. The Estimate was £48,000 and something like £15,000 was spent in respect of that service. General Mulcahy informed me that the establishment of horse transport was one of the most economic propositions that they had in the Army. It is almost inevitable that, in the case of a large institution, such as a Corporation or a Government, you will have expenses which could be saved, in some cases, or greatly curtailed, in other cases, of private ownership. But these expenses are inseparable from keeping a large establishment such as this.
What we take exception to is the large amount for veterinary instruments. You have not a stud farm, where mares are kept and bred from, or where horses, in their first year, undergo a certain operation. You are not going about "firing" horses for unsoundness, and I would like to know what you are using £1,000 worth of instruments for. It seems to me a pretty hopeless proposition that this amount of medicine and this number of instruments should be required for that number of horses. It may be a small item, but it shows that the method of working is unsound. What is put down here cannot be described as a "business proposition."
It is quite clear from the discussion here that the Estimates of the Department of Defence require more consideration than we have been able to give them. I have been suggesting a Committee to inquire into Estimates for a long time, and I have been turned down. Now I make another suggestion. We have been told that there is a halo about Ministers which makes them powerful to inquire into matters that none of us can inquire into. Will the President set up a Committee of three members of the Executive Council to examine the Estimates of this Department? I would prefer an independent Committee, but if Ministers have this super-sanctity that we are told of by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, I do not desire to encroach on their domain. There are points in this Estimate that will bear closer and more careful examination. If we cannot have a Geddes Committee, or an Estimates Committee of the Dáil—the Ministry have turned those suggestions down—will the Executive appoint a small Committee of their own—say, three Ministers—to go into the Estimates of this Department and let us be sure that the work is being done in the most economical way.
A question arises as to whether anything in the way of veterinary instruments was taken over from the British Army. Many other stores were taken over, and I presume they had veterinary instruments. Are we to assume that these instruments were all taken away? The proposition here might be justified, on the ground that it was really a start and that all kinds of equipment had to be provided. I would imagine that a considerable variety of instruments would have been left behind by the British authorities, as all classes of other stores were left behind. The item undoubtedly requires explanation.
One is forced to the opinion, on looking at the estimates for medicine and veterinary instruments, that the type of horses that is being bought is not the right type. The horses bought must be unsound. If we are paying, as the Minister has informed us, over £50 each for horses, the least we might expect is that they would be sound. But when we expend £2,017 on medicines and veterinary instruments, it is altogether unreasonable. It works out at about £5 per horse.
The average price of the horses is about £30. Although that item for veterinary instruments, I admit, does seem large, and though the item for medicines may also appear large, it does not necessarily mean that the money will be spent. As regards medicines, it is only one shilling per week. It may have been hit upon in that particular fashion, but from the return I got of the expenditure last year, I am satisfied that it is not likely that there will be any extravagance in connection with this Vote.
In regard to veterinary instruments, these are necessarily purchased, and they will not be a recurring item. There were no instruments taken over from the British. This is a new purchase. The instruments will go into stock and new purchases will not be required every year. Next year, perhaps, we may not require any instruments. Nobody, I think, can suggest that where you have 400 or 500 horses a certain number of instruments are not essential. They are required on various occasions. Deputy Gorey knows that you cannot even keep up a kennel without having a certain number of instruments. If you do not provide instruments for your veterinary surgeons, they will have to go into the city and ask the loan of them when required.
I could understand the necessity for these instruments if you were having a post mortem examination of every horse that died.
The Minister has said that this will not be a recurring item. I remember, when General Mulcahy was Minister for Defence, calling attention to this item of veterinary instruments. There were no details given, and I understood that the purchase represented new stock. Still we are told it is not a recurring item.
I undertake to investigate these two items. If I find that there is anything wrong in regard to them, I will not have the slightest hesitation in coming back to the Dáil and telling Deputies what is wrong.
It may ease the minds of some of the Deputies if they realise that medicines are frequently used for prevention of disease. I can quite understand a veterinary surgeon going to the cost of getting these medicines in order to prevent the greater cost which might be incurred by the outbreak of disease.
Under sub-head (P), would the Minister tell us how many aeroplanes are in action? I see there is an item of £12,813 for general stores in the aviation section. I would be glad if he would give us some information on that.
I would like to have some information from the Minister as regards the educational schemes: such as the soldiers' welfare scheme and the library. We all welcome, I think, what the Minister told us in his introductory statement, but we would like a little more information as to the lines upon which these schemes are going to be worked. For instance, we would like information as to how books for the library are going to be obtained, what authority is going to select and purchase suitable books, and if the Minister has any idea of linking up the library scheme for the Army with, say, the Carnegie library scheme in the County Kildare. If he were to link up with that scheme, he would be able to get a greater change of books than he could get otherwise. Has the Minister, I wonder, considered the possibilities of wireless? I personally think that for people in country stations, whether in the Army or in the Gárda Síochána, wireless may be a great alleviation of their loneliness. It will, no doubt, be a greater alleviation still when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Finance have met and discussed the matter, which appears not to be in the immediate future. When the City of Cork has extended itself to include the County of Monaghan, we may hope that the two Ministers will have come to some sort of conclusion on the matter. I hope that when the Minister for Defence is developing his welfare scheme and his educational scheme that he will not omit the possibilities of wireless.
I turn from that to two other items. The first is Officers' School of Instruction equipment, £1,500. I want to know what the nature of that equipment is. Is it in books and desks and so forth?
Desks and equipment generally.
Does it include maps?
I presume so.
Maps of Ireland?
And of other countries.
I would also like to know if it includes maps of various campaigns? The other item I desire to draw attention to is £10 for text books, special maps, instruments, etc.
For the Irish Military College.
Yes, for the Irish Military College, as the President reminds me. That is exactly the contrast I want to draw. The Irish Military College is supposed to be the University for Army officers, and we are giving precisely a sum of £10 for text books, special maps, instruments, etc., How many officers are going to attend this college? Possibly ten. That will allow one pound for each officer to get text books, special maps, instruments, etc. Presumably the "et cetera" means blotting paper. It is farcical, I suggest, if there is going to be an Irish Military College, at some remote date, to put down an item of that kind. In the meantime, I suppose, the Minister will buy up all the Whittaker's Almanacs, or something of that kind, which he can get.
What about "Old Moore's"?
Whittaker's Almanac apparently does not circulate in Tirconaill, and I presume that for officers coming from that county, suitable provision will be made. I want the Minister to justify these two items: £1,500 for the Officers' School of Instruction, and £10 for the Irish Military College.
On one or two occasions within the last week I have criticised Estimates for being too low. That is one of the results of a popular Budget. The Minister for Finance has observed a rather different orientation since there was a reduction in taxation. This latter item is of all things the most inadequate. You cannot equip an Irish Military College—a college corresponding to the establishment in France in which Marshal Foch was Chief—on £10. In my opinion £10 would not buy the ink that is needed. I would ask the Minister to give us a little more information on the subject.
I would like to have some more information as regards the educational policy for the Army. When, I wonder, is it going to be introduced, and on what lines is it proposed to run it? What provision is going to be made to see that Irish is properly taught, and that the library is stocked with suitable text books for the study of Irish? I am seeking this information for the reason that I understand Irish speakers in some of the battalions are hiding their knowledge of the language so that they may not be transferred to the Irish-speaking battalion. I understand that in the case of some poor speakers of Irish who transferred to the Irish-speaking battalion, in a very short time they became very fluent speakers of the language. I suggest that in the Irish Army there is no reason whatever why the Irish language should not be used as the language for giving instruction and enforcing discipline, while of course it should also be used as the language for ordinary social intercourse. I would like to know if there is any inducement held out to speakers of Irish in the other battalions to transfer to the Irish-speaking battalion. Amid the welter of criticism that we hear of the Army, there is one thing at least that stands out to its credit, and that is the introduction of the Irish-speaking battalion. What I want to know is if there is any inducement held out to Irish speakers in the Army to transfer to the Irish-speaking battalion—inducements, say, in the way of relief duty and in other ways.
Extra pay?
Yes, I thought of that. It was one of the things that I did think about. What I want to ask the Minister is if the educational policy foreshadowed for the Army is to have any peculiarly Irish bent, and whether in the library, in addition to the ordinary stock of books, there will be a suitable supply of text books for those who desire to take up the study of Irish and for those who have a knowledge of it, to pursue an advanced course?
There cannot be any inducement held out to men to go from one battalion to another. They are all soldiers, and as soldiers they must go where they are sent. If a man is an Irish speaker in any particular battalion and expresses a wish to go into the Irish-speaking battalion, I am sure there will be no difficulty in arranging for his transfer, because the Irish-speaking battalion is not yet up to full strength. If a man who is able to speak Irish wishes to transfer into that battalion and if he applies to the Commanding Officer, I am sure he will have no difficulty in getting the transfer.
Deputy Hogan asked if any special inducements were held out to men in the Army to take up the study of the National language. It is only a few weeks since the Chief of Staff put a proposition before me as regards the study of Irish in the Army. The proposition was this: that in the case of officers who had an elementary knowledge of the language and were anxious to pursue their study of it, if they were willing to spend their month's holidays this summer at one of the Irish colleges studying Irish and come back with a certificate from the college showing the proficiency they had attained as a result of having attended the course of instruction there, they should be allowed an additional fortnight's holidays.
Does the Minister mean that they were to get proficiency pay?
What I said was that they were to be given an additional fortnight's holiday if they brought back a certificate showing that they had attained to a certain degree of proficiency in their knowledge of the language as a result of having attended the Irish course at the college. We heard a great deal to-day about proficiency pay. You cannot discriminate between soldiers in a matter of this kind. If there are any Irish speakers who wish to get into the Irish-speaking battalion, I am sure they will not have any difficulty about it as it is not up to strength at present.
With regard to Deputy Johnson's question, the details are: aviation workshops, plant, wireless stations, meteorological equipment, £4,800; aerial photography and survey department, flying and training section, £1,893; miscellaneous, £500; wireless equipment and stores, £586; signalling, £365; spare parts for engines, £31; workshop, £38. These are the items that make up the details, in answer to the question that Deputy Johnson put.
As far as the libraries are concerned, we will see that books of a suitable character are provided. It is simply getting a start. Next year we will do something better, until we get proper libraries established in the Army. That is only commonsense.
With regard to the last item, in this sub-head, "School of Music," I would like to ask a few questions: What really is the policy in connection with it? The Minister, I think, will understand why I put this question, as to the policy of the Ministry with regard to Army bands. Is there an intention that Army bands will be brought into, and form part of, the national life, or are they merely to be units within the Army, going out with brigades and battalions on parade? Are they not to be made use of, or utilised in any other way, to further that branch of Irish culture that I think can do so much to bring about a better and a healthier spirit amongst all sections than by any other means that can be employed? I think everybody will agree that if there is one thing more than another in this country that can produce satisfactory effects it is music, and the more we can introduce this into the life of our people the more I think we are going to raise their standards, certainly their standards of national culture.
I understand, though I have not had the pleasure of hearing it, that one of our Army bands can very favourably compare to-day with any Army band anywhere. I have no experience of it; it is only what I heard, and I think it is something to be proud of, after such a short space of time. What I want to know is, how far can Army bands be brought into touch with the national life of our people. If this Army band, with the reputation that it has in Dublin, could go down the country, then, beyond all question, it would have as good an effect in many of our districts as a grant of £50. I am not saying that by way of jest, I am absolutely confident of it myself. If the National Army is to be a National Army, in the real sense, and if there is to be contact between the national life and the National Army, one way we can make certain of that is that our Army bands be in constant touch with, and that their services be utilised by, the national elements in the country when necessary. We know that when we had the British Army in this country they made use of their bands to try and spread their ideas of culture and taste here amongst us. And to a certain extent their bands created an influence. I feel our bands ought to be used in the very same sense to-day, and I feel that when we have bands with the reputation of our Number One Band we ought not to confine the presence of these bands to any particular place, playing only to certain crowds, who are able to pay, but we ought to have them present at Irish Gaelic festivals.
And election meetings.
No, but at county Feiseanna and such demonstrations to which people would go all the more gladly if they knew they were to hear Irish music by a band with such a high reputation and under a conductor who can interpret so well. I think these bands could do more to stir up kindly feeling in this country to-day than any other means that could be employed. We had someone from Waterford some time ago, who could not be said to be sympathetic with the Army, writing in very complimentary terms of the Army band. And so it is all over the country, and if the Army band is to stand for Irish culture and Irish ideals in the truest sense, I say there ought to be a definite policy with regard to our Army bands in attaining the real object of their existence. It could do much to further Irish culture. I would like to hear from the Minister that that point of view is kept in mind and attended to and that during this season it would be possible that this band would be available to go to different parts of the country to display its ability and to display to the people of the nation what there is in Irish music, and demonstrate to the younger people growing up that they should try to understand and interpret it and how it ought to be interpreted. The place where this band can serve such a purpose is where that type of citizen is to be found in thousands, and I suggest to the Ministry that it is a matter of great importance what their policy is to be in this matter. It demands careful and important consideration. I suggest the service of our bands ought not to be utilised for the benefit of certain sections in certain places, not merely so much for the purpose of making a profit of a few pounds, but for that purpose which, apparently, it is well qualified to serve, namely, spreading a love for our Irish music and demonstrating how it can be interpreted by any of our Army bands.
As far as I know, the Army bands have not been used for the purpose of any one section against another in the community.
I do not know any case where that has occurred. If the Deputy knows a case in which such a thing has happened and where the band has been used for one particular section of the community against another I will inquire into it and take steps to have it put right. The bands generally have not done much work for the last few months. There was a tour in the South last year and a tour, starting in about a month's time, has been arranged in the North-West and down as far as Mullingar.
What about the SouthEast?
Deputy Corish will get his turn in Wexford. He has, perhaps, a grievance as the band passed by there and went to New Ross, the reason being, I think, that a hall could not be obtained in Wexford. I can assure the Deputy that the band will be in Wexford in the near future. I agree with Deputy Baxter that the bands should enter into the national life of the country, but there is one thing which we do not want to do, and that is to put our bands into competition with civilian bands in Dublin and throughout the country. We do not want it to be said that the Army is in competition with these civilians. We want to give them fair play. There are good bands in Dublin, Cork, and other places, and we do not want to cut them out. We do not want our bands to perform for nothing where civilian bands would be paid. That is one of the reasons why our bands do not go everywhere they are asked. We believe that these civilian bands have a right to live. That is my view and that of those on the Army Council. Where the cost of providing one of the bands is put up, and where arrangements can be made at a figure that will not involve a loss to the Army, that can always be done. The proceeds of concerts and other performances during a tour go to the Appropriations-in-Aid and to the Exchequer. I would be glad to see the bands entering into the national life and, so far as this summer is concerned, we will try and do so, so far as we can.
I think that the Minister might draw attention to the fact that the Army No. 1 Band appeared in public in the open on at least two or three occasions in Dublin City and neighbourhood, and was very heartily received. I hope that there is no intention to depart from that practice of giving occasional public open-air performances. As a matter of fact, I imagine that the civilian bands will be quite glad to welcome them for the purpose of their own training. The example of a highly efficient and well-trained band is usually appreciated by another band. I hope that the practice of allowing the band to give public performances in the open will be continued so that those who cannot afford to attend the indoor performances will be given an opportunity of hearing the band in the open.
Instead of curtailing that practice it is intended to extend the public performances as far as possible.
I can quite understand that. Am I right in assuming that there are twenty-six bands in the Army?
No.
Then what is the meaning of these twenty-one pipers' bands?
There are pipers' bands in course of formation.
As regards the last assurance of the Minister it means that the country is paying for the bands in Dublin. Dublin apparently is to have advantage in everything.
Oh, no.
As regards the libraries, are they to be provided for every unit in every area, or is this Vote only for libraries at Headquarters in Dublin?
No, they will be as general as we can make them.
I think it is only right that every section should get the value of these. There are lonely places in the country where these libraries would be appreciated. In reference to the bands I quite agree with Deputy Baxter that there are places in the country which do not know even that we have a band. They look on the Army, apparently, as a fighting machine, especially in places that have been hostile to the Government. To send the bands to such places would, I think, be the finest piece of propaganda the Government could have. I do not mean propaganda in the ordinary sense, but it would show the people that the Army pays attention to things other than fighting.
I am not satisfied with the way the Minister has met my point. I am serious about this. I believe if the Army is to have a purpose in our national life it must have a certain outlook, and that if the bands are to have a place in our national life they also must be given that outlook. I believe that that outlook must be defined for our Army bands and, where we have bands which have achieved the reputation which these bands have achieved in a short period, I believe we ought to see what service we can get out of them, that is to be of real service to the country. I am not putting up the point that the bands have been given to certain people and have not been given to other people, but I say there is a very great distinction as regards the places and the functions at which the bands have attended, and at which they should not have attended. My sympathies are altogether in favour of the bands being some sort of a reflex of our national life. Unless the bands are directed in that particular way, I do not think they can be looked upon as units of an Army that can be said to be a real National Army. Unless that point is considered seriously there is no doubt that the bands will be acceptable to certain elements in the community and unacceptable to others.
May I ask will you send the band down for our races in August?
I think that Deputy Baxter ought to have a little patience with the Minister in this regard. It takes some time for a Government to move. Most Deputies have, I think, found that out. Last year it was only after long consideration that the No. 1 Band made its itinerary in the country. I think it ran into this year. A great many things have to be thought of and a great many considerations have to be balanced against one another. It is our desire to have the people enjoy what they pay for, and people are paying for these bands a considerable amount of money. I think it will be admitted that Colonel Brase and his band have given the people good value, but all the people have not had the advantage of hearing it. It will take some time before arrangements can be made by which the benefits of that band will be derived by all the people, and, I think, the Minister will consider proposals to that end.
We have heard a good deal about the band and it has been well merited. It has excited us with great curiosity to hear it. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he should arrange to have some performance given in Leinster Lawn during the long summer evenings for the benefit of Deputies.
If I had known this debate was going to last so long I would have brought the band here this evening.
I notice under sub-head (Q), no sub-heads are given with regard to warlike stores, or the apportionment of the sum of £49,000 we are asked to vote for. There is a large reduction from last year. I do not know if the Minister could give us any information as to how the money was spent last year, and as to how it is to be spent this year.
The reason the Estimates were so large last year was that we were under the necessity of making up the stores and completing the equipment. Having done that, the item need not necessarily be so much this year. Certain stores require replacement regularly, and last year we came into the particular year in the cycle which necessitated renewals.
That is giving no information as to what the stores are. The British Government lets Parliament know how many battleships it is supplying, and how many guns on each cruiser, and so forth.
There is ammunition of various kinds, rings, primers, targets, bull's eyes, Lewis machine-guns, protectors, and numerous other articles.
With regard to sub-head (B) I asked the Minister during the course of his opening statement what proportion of the amount that was voted last year for furniture, utensils, and chandlery, has been spent. Last year a sum of about £77,000 was voted under this head, which would be equivalent to about £4 per head of the Army. The sum asked for this year is about £5 per head of the Army. Was the money voted last year actually spent, and if not, how much of it was spent?
Fifty-three per cent. of the estimate was spent last year. Out of £77,000, £41,000 was spent. We have got to make up the difference this year. Furniture that was required for offices was not supplied last year, but it is absolutely necessary this year.
Now that the price of furniture will be higher, may I take it that the sum is intended to be spent this year?
In connection with the item sub-head (W), I would like to know what is really the policy of the Minister as regards the stamping of insurance cards. Some of us get complaints day after day that when people leave the Army they have a certain amount of difficulty in getting their cards stamped. I am speaking in connection with health insurance. When people want benefit they are unable to get it, because their cards were not stamped during their time in the Army. During the time the British were here things were made easy for the people. When a recruit joined up he had to give the name of his society, and the stamps were sent to that society at the end of each insurance period. So far as I can learn that system is not followed now. There should be no difficulty in the Minister seeing that the cards are stamped and thereby remove certain grievances these people have. In connection with unemployment insurance, I think the Minister knows that questions are put down day after day to the Minister for Industry and Commerce asking why ex-Servicemen are not paid their unemployment insurance. Certainly there are a great many complaints in this connection. I would ask the Minister to get his Department to pay special attention to this very undoubted grievance. The Minister may say that some of the people are not entitled to have their cards stamped. I could give cases to prove they were entitled to have them stamped and where they were not stamped until a number of weeks had passed, and the men had gone through great hardships. I would ask the Minister to state the actual position, for there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in the way of people getting the benefit unemployment and health insurance benefit.
I would like if the Minister would give to the House the reasons why the unemployment insurance cards are not stamped for the men for the full period of their Army service in the same way as the health insurance cards are. The system, I understand, is that twelve stamps are put on the unemployment insurance card in the year. That keeps a man from going out of benefit altogether, and losing any contributions he may have had to his credit previous to joining the Army. I cannot see any good reason why unemployment insurance cards cannot be stamped for the men's full period of service. The position is that a man after serving, say, two years in the Army, is demobilised. He has twenty-four stamps on his card which entitle him to twenty four days' pay. At the end he is unemployed and cannot get further benefit. If the cards were stamped for the full period there would be no necessity for borrowing so much money from the Government for relief of the unemployment insurance fund.
There is a minor point I would like to draw attention to under the head of "Other Commands." I have some knowledge of unemployment and health insurance, as I have been connected with them since the Act was passed. I notice "health insurance £87," and "unemployment insurance £217." As I understand it, nobody is supposed to be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act who is not insured under the National Health Insurance Act.
As regards insurance, we are only acting according to our statutory obligations under Section 7, sub-section (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, which states that:
"The Minister for Defence shall out of monies to be provided by the Oireachtas, pay to the Minister (for Industry and Commerce) for the credit of the Unemployment Fund such contributions for each person to whom this Act applies as are necessary to secure that there shall be not less than twelve contributions to the credit of such person in respect of each insurance year, etc."
The foregoing section is amended by Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924 (No. 1) to the extent that the number of contributions is doubled. Twenty-four contributions are necessary under this Act.
We are acting under our statutory obligations, and we cannot go beyond them until the statutes are amended. In every case we are seeing that the men are insured, both under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts, and as far as the obligation is cast upon us, we intend to do that. For some reason or other a few men were not insured in the past—I think about 23 or 24 men—and the matter is being put right in their case.
What I want to know is who is responsible for the holding up of men's cards which should have been stamped. I am speaking principally about National Health Insurance cards, but I should like to know also if the men's Unemployment Insurance cards are stamped.
We do not stamp any cards for serving soldiers. We hand the money over to the Department of Industry and Commerce.
I make the Minister a present of that point. Has the Department of Defence liability to hand over money in connection with every soldier?
For every soldier.
Is it only for men who have been subject to Unemployment Insurance prior to joining the Army.
For men who are entitled to it under the Act. The section is very plain.
Does the Minister hand over money for the 2,700 skilled tradesmen?
Yes, they are all insured.
Would the Minister see that the money is handed over in time?
It is handed over.
Is it handed over in connection with National Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance?
For both.
Cards are being held up somewhere then.
I want to touch on a little difficulty. Section 8 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act speaks of constituting the Council of Defence and says it shall include—
"A civil member being a member of Dáil Eireann who shall be responsible to the Minister for Defence for the finance of the Military Defence Forces and for so much of the other business of the Council of Defence as may be from time to time assigned to him by the Minister for Defence and who shall act as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence."
The Minister for Defence has had a long innings to-day and he is carrying out his bat. But it seems to me that if we are asked to vote £1,000 for a Parliamentary Secretary, who is to advise the Minister and be responsible to him in matters of finance and act as Parliamentary Secretary, we might have looked to the Parliamentary Secretary being present to assist the Minister in his work. It is not known to very many Deputies who the Parliamentary Secretary is. We might well have imagined that when matters come forward relating to the office of that Department of Defence, particularly the finance of that Department, there should have been some appearance.
Progress ordered to be reported.
