There are several items under sub-head A that I want to draw attention to, and to extract some information about. The first item is in respect to the pay of officers. I think it is important that we should understand what the policy of the Minister is in regard to the retention of officers, and the position it is intended they shall occupy. As compared with a year ago I find that while a comparison of the Estimates shows a reduction of five in the total number of officers of the general Army, apart from veterinary, legal officers, music-masters, and so on, there has been a very considerable increase in the pay-roll. Last year one Lieutenant-General was noted as being in receipt of £1,000; this year he has £1,150. Seven Major-Generals last year received £5,600; this year, £6,150. In the total we have an increase of about £9,000. I arrive at that figure, £9,000, by taking into comparison the additional pay of officers. The figure this year is £3,741. Last year's Estimate indicated that the number of officers who were in receipt of additional pay was five at 5/- per day. This year there is no figure given as to the number who will be in receipt of additional pay, and no rate per day is stated in the Estimate. On that point I might say that it would be a great convenience if the practice of the other Departments generally could be applied to the Army details so that we could compare on the same page the previous year's figures. I take it that in respect to these officers there is to be added to the pay-roll the usual accommodation, marriage allowance, furniture, and so on, and that that must be taken into account when figuring out our own impressions of the relative positions of officers in the Army with people in civilian occupations. Touching the disposal of these officers, I think some information is required. I am informed, for instance, that there was a period—a considerable period— when the office of Assistant Chief of Staff was deemed necessary, that during the height of the peak number of the Army there was an Assistant Chief of Staff, and that an officer with the rank of Colonel occupied that position.
There was then a period when matters became not so urgent. There was a vacancy in the office and it was not filled, presumably because the need did not arise, in view of the reduction in the total personnel and the activities of the Army. I understand a new appointment has been made to that office of Assistant Chief of Staff, and that an officer, with the rank of Major-General, has been appointed. When matters were critical and difficult, an officer of the rank of Colonel could fill the office, but when matters are quiet and easy, it takes a Major-General to fill the position. The question arises whether it is necessary, for the due accomplishment of the work of the Army, that an officer of that rank should fill an office of that character.
I now come to the question of cadets in the air service. We have, in this year's Estimate, provision made for twenty-six cadets (privates) at 2/6 per day—£1,186. Last year we had estimated for ten cadets at 6/- per day. On the face of it, one would imagine that that showed a reduction in pay, but I gather from the insertion of the word "private" that 2/6 per day is additional to the pay of privates. I do not know whether or not that is the explanation, but it would be well if we had the matter cleared up.
In regard to the School of Music, I want to raise a general question as to the policy of the Army. I do not remember to have heard a case stated in the Dáil in respect of this School of Music. I think it is desirable that we should have put to us the justification for the expenditure of this large sum of money on a School of Music for the Army. I take it that the term used distinguishes it, somewhat, from the ordinary Army bands; that there is something distinctive about it when we describe it as a School of Music and charge it upon the Army Vote. Some justification is required for the expenditure of this very considerable sum. On analysis, I come to the conclusion that the School of Music is costing us from £25,000 to £30,000 per year. I am very doubtful whether we can justify that expenditure. On the face of this Estimate, it would appear that the School of Music is only costing £8,151, but we have to add to that the normal cost of the men who are in the various bands. Assuming that there is the normal proportion of married men and that the lodgment subsistence, provision allowance in lieu of provisions, clothing and equipment charges, are of the normal character, then we have an average of, say, £52 per year as the cost of the bandsmen and officers. In addition to their ordinary pay, this £8,151, it should be noted, is the cost in respect of the bandsmen as distinguished from officers and the additional pay of the men in the band. I think I am right in saying that the amount of military service that bandsmen can give is trifling, and that the Army, as a military force, would not be weakened if it did not contain these 190 or 200 men. There are five bands. Last year it required six officers to control, instruct and direct these bands, with a Colonel Director of Music, at £623 per annum, and a Captain Instructional Officer with £300 per annum. We have the Colonel Director of Music this year at £548 on the Estimate as laid before us, plus additional pay. We have instead of the Captain Instructional Officer with £300, a Commandant Instructional Officer whose pay this year is £365, plus additional pay. Last year we had a Captain-Adjutant at sixteen shillings per day, two Lieutenants at fifteen shillings per day and one Lieutenant at ten shillings per day.
This year, instead of a Captain-Adjutant and three Lieutenants, we have only two Second-Lieutenants at eight shillings per day, but the footnote says in respect to these officers that additional pay is provided. Now, a question arises as to what is meant by additional pay, and we have to refer to last year's Estimate to find that officers' additional pay is at the rate of five shillings per day. I assume that the additional pay for the officers in the School of Music is at the rate of five shillings per day and that that applies to the four officers. If that is the case, we have to add to the figures in front of us £91 5s. for each per annum, which brings the Colonel Director of Music from £623 last year to £639 5s., and the Commandant Instructional Officer who, under the grade of Captain Instructional Officer a year ago, received £300, this year will be in receipt of £456.
But one is also in a difficulty to understand why it should have required six officers a year ago to deal with these bands while four can do it this year. Is that an indication of a change of policy? I find also that the numbers in the bands, Nos. 3, 4, and 5, are increasing. Last year the Estimate was for 25 men for each band, but this year it is increased to 38 men for each band. These are details, of course, and may be explained and justified, but I think it is important that the Dáil should know exactly what is the policy of the Government, what it intends to achieve by the use of these bands. In general, what is the purpose of the School of Music, and is it justifiable that we should spend £28,000, or thereabouts, per annum for this work? I am not to be taken in the slightest degree as minimising the value of military music, or of instrumental music, whether in the Army or outside it. I am, though, somewhat hesitant to believe that a Government should proceed to inculcate a love of music and a standard of music for the country as a whole by means of an Army Vote. We had a discussion a few days ago on the cost of wireless, and some questions were raised as to the justification of that as an educational medium. It is intended in respect of wireless that at some time it shall become self-supporting and that the users of wireless should pay for it. I think we can say very fairly that the musical instruction of the people through wireless has been good, has been valuable, very much more valuable, I venture to suggest, than through the Army School of Music.
I am not decrying the State expenditure of money for the purpose of raising the standard of musical education, but I am questioning the wisdom of doing that work through army bands and dealing with it as a school of music. I have not sufficient knowledge of the practice in other armies, but I have a vague idea that the men in a battalion or a regiment that has a band are very pleased to be able to serve in the band, and I am very doubtful whether it is necessary that the upkeep of bands should cost so much as our bands are costing. We have five bands; we hear of two of them, but five bands are estimated for, and they are costing £5,000 to £6,000 a year each. I think that the Dáil is entitled to some information as to the policy of the Minister in respect of the army bands, whether they are intended as a means of educating the soldiers, of raising their taste, and through them the musical education of the people as a whole. What is the object and purpose? If it is the public as a whole that is in mind rather than the army, I say that this sum ought not to come under the Army Vote, and that the whole organisation should be dealt with in a different fashion. If it is intended to be merely the normal accompaniment of a military force I think the cost is too great and I ask the Minister to give us some enlightenment as to his policy, and the policy of the Executive Council on this question of the Army School of Music.
