Vol. 20 No. 7
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,458,767 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, 1928, chun Costas an Airm, maraon le Cúl-taca an Airm.
That a sum not exceeding £1,458,767 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, 1928, for the cost of the Army, including Army Reserve.
The Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann were formally constituted on the 1st October, 1924. Prior to that date the abnormal circumstances of the time had necessitated the hasty collection of a large force to deal with internal disturbance. The 1st October, 1924, therefore, may be said to mark the beginning of a peace-time force, so that we have now had three years' experience of army development on normal lines. Those three years have seen a marked increase in the efficiency of the Army and a steady decrease in expenditure on the forces. The decrease in Army expenditure is clearly shown in the Appropriation Accounts published, and is reflected in the Estimates now presented to the House. The estimated expenditure for the year 1925-26 was £3,053,117. The estimated expenditure for the year 1926-27 was £2,483,785. The estimated expenditure for the year 1927-28 is £2,183,767—that is to say, that in two years a total reduction of £870,000 has been made in the estimated cost of Army expenditure. The figures for actual expenditure for the years 1925-26 and 1926-27 are less by a considerable sum than the estimated figures. I see no reason to doubt but that in the present year it will be possible also to effect a saving.
The decrease is in the main accounted for by a decrease in strength. The reduction since 1925-26 has been, approximately, 4,500. But other factors have also contributed to the decreased expenditure. Some of these factors are, the increase in administrative knowledge in the Army itself; the adoption of a system of store and supply accounting, which rigidly controls the issue of stores, provisions, etc., and an intensive development of the system of contract purchases under competitive tender.
An important feature of the recent development of the organisation of the Army has been the creation of the reserve. Provision was made for the cost of the reserve in the last financial year, but the difficulties associated with its formation were such that it is only recently that it was found possible to complete and promulgate the regulations governing it. The formation of the reserve will involve a further reduction in the effective strength of the standing Army, and when the policy in regard to its creation has fully materialised a still further decrease in normal Army expenditure will be shown.
Regarding normal Army expenditure, I might take this opportunity of explaining that, apart from that expenditure, there will, in the coming years, be expenditure which can more properly be described as capital expenditure. In fact, in the present estimates it will be found that there is some capital expenditure included in the total sum, such as field kitchens and aeroplanes under sub-head "O." In regard to war material, the Army has, up to now, been to some extent relying upon more or less out-of-date stores taken over in 1922. It is a matter of common knowledge that certain types of war material have a limited "life," and if efficiency is to be maintained replacements of such material from time to time are essential. Much of the material taken over in 1922 has now outlived its period of use, and it will therefore be necessary in the next two or three years to expend certain sums on capital outlay of this nature over and above what would be required for normal replacements.
As I have already stated, the present estimates show a decrease as compared with last year of over £300,000. On examination of the various sub-heads it will be found that there are decreases on most of the sub-heads, there being out of a total of 30 sub-heads increases on only five, these increases being to some extent casual. Thus, on marriage allowance the increase is occasioned by the new regulations which fixed a percentage of married soldiers for units. The percentage scheme involved a slight increase in the total number of men authorised to be placed on the marriage roll. The increase in the wages of civilians attached to units represents an increase in the tradesmen attached to the Engineer Corps. The small increase in general stores can be strictly described as casual. The increase under the heading of warlike stores is in the nature of capital expenditure. In sub-head Y—Office of Minister for Defence, etc.—the increase represents expenditure which was formerly shown under sub-head C.
It is, of course, right to say that these Estimates were prepared in December of last year. We are now six months away from that time. In those six months savings have taken, and are taking, place. For the information of Deputies who were not in the last Dáil, perhaps it would be no harm to point out that in a new service such as the Army, with the unusual circumstances surrounding its inception, the large number of scattered posts it was called upon to defend in the various districts of the country, and the necesary gradual reduction in the number of these posts and in the personnel, it is practically impossible to estimate down to the degree of accuracy that should be expected from a normal service. We have not yet reached absolute normality in the Army, but we are approaching that stage rapidly.
When introducing the Estimates last year the then Minister for Defence outlined the policy of the Executive Council in the matter of the Army. That policy has not changed. It is the view of the Executive Council that it is essential for the safety of the State that there should exist an organisation for its defence, capable of preventing internal disturbance or disorder, and of defending Irish territory from violation by any enemy. It will be always necessary to maintain a nucleus of sufficient strength and training to form the basis for a rapid and efficient expansion in time of need to the maximum strength of the country's man power. In peace time the average citizen is inclined to regard war as a very unlikely contingency, and is, accordingly, liable to overlook the necessity for defence preparations. Experience shows, however, that it is too late to sharpen one's sword when the drum beats to battle. Our aim is to maintain the necessary nucleus at the lowest possible cost consistent with efficiency, and for this purpose we aim at training all ranks of the standing forces in duties of a more advanced nature than those which are ordinarily assigned to each rank, so that if the necessity should, unfortunately, arise there will be available sufficient officer and non-commissioned officer material within the standing Army and in the Reserve to enable whatever additional forces may be required to be called upon to be trained and put in the field with the minimum delay.
The details of the Estimates which are before you have been exhaustively examined and analysed both in the Department of Defence, which is the Department primarily responsible, and in the Department of Finance, and every care has been exercised to ensure the utmost economy. I shall be prepared to deal with the points of detail as they arise under the various sub-heads.
Legislation has been promised dealing with the Army and Army questions. I propose to refrain from any discussion of policy, but I want to make it clear that the absence of any discussion of the policy suggested even by the President in his statement must not be taken as acquiescing in the policy outlined. We do not desire to open a discussion at this stage in the circumstances, but if we did not make a demur it might be said later that the President having made a statement of policy, and no objection having been taken, it was to be assumed that we all acquiesced. That is an assumption that is not at all warranted.
I move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000. The first item I call attention to is one of £4,460 for the training of officers abroad. I do not propose to make a very elaborate statement, but I think that expenditure is not only unnecessary but unjustifiable for many reasons, and I do not consider that it is diplomatic or wise expenditure. The next item is a very large one— £145,000 odd for marriage allowances. The Army, I believe, has a strength of less than 12,000. The men are very properly enlisted for very short service, and the amount demanded in this Estimate seems to be very excessive. It certainly would maintain a large number of wives. When you contrast that with the amount proposed to be spent on warlike stores there is something ridiculous in the comparison. Warlike stores are to cost £59,000. I agree with the President that war is a very unlikely contingency, but although the sum of £59,000 is small for this purpose, I really think it is rather more than is required, because if we must have an Army it might be safer to have an Army that would not be too highly armed. Passing from that, I come to the medical service for this Army of less than 12,000—all young fellows from their own country, not liable to be called upon to take part in any foreign expeditionary force. In this medical service there are one colonel, two majors, seven commandants, twenty-six captains and twenty-six lieutenants. That means that there are 62 medical and dental officers for an Army of less than 12,000, which pans out at about 193 or 194 men per medical officer.
Let us turn to civil life. I can group three towns in my own constituency with a population of about 12,000 including the very old and the very young, the poor, the under-fed, the ill-housed and the badly-clad. In those three towns of 12,000 inhabitants there are about 12 medical officers in fairly active practice, and even these are not over-burdened with patients. There are a few other medical officers in these towns, but they are old gentlemen who have practically retired. Let us go a step further. I was speaking within the last week to a medical officer with world-wide experience, and he told me that at present in England one doctor was able to look after 3,000 people on a panel. He considers that was rather too much, but he told me that he himself had been for a time medical officer on a big ship, that they often had over 2,000 persons on board, and that he was never over-worked. In view of those facts, can anybody seriously maintain that it is not positively absurd for the Army to have such a medical staff?
Unfortunately since I came here I have noticed that every request for economy has been met by a stone-wall attitude on the part of Ministers. The reply always is either, "We cannot," or "We will not." I can almost anticipate the reply of the President to this. He probably will tell me that it is true economy to keep a doctor for every 193 men, that they want them to be super-efficient—every one of them will always be possessed of the "Kruschen" feeling. I do not agree with the statement made yesterday by the President that the financial position of the country is sound. I say that the present expenditure cannot be maintained—that a reduction of many millions will be necessary. The Free State at present is beyond doubt, having regard to its capacity, the most highly-taxed country in the world. The reduction I propose here may not be very large, but you must commence somewhere, and "those who contemneth small things will fall by little and little."
This is the first time since I came to this House that I intervened in a discussion on the Army Vote. I am prompted to intervene now, by reason of the amendment that appears on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy O'Gorman. In Cork County most of us are familiar with the arguments that Deputy O'Gorman has advanced for the last twelve months, on the state of administration generally in the country, and particularly in regard to the Army. At the public boards in Cork County we have heard from him about crookedness, maladministration and corruption so far as the public services are concerned. With one wave of his hand the Deputy was able to demolish millions of money that were being spent, with a view to bringing about economy. I am rather surprised to-day that the amendment that appears on the Order Paper in the Deputy's name proposes to make a saving of only £1,000. I am wondering where are the millions he was going to save, in view of the fact that he is now brought face to face with his responsibilities. Perhaps it is easy to indulge in vague generalities in the country, but harder to place one's finger on the exact saving that could be attained, having regard to the needs of the situation, and the desire to maintain a certain amount of efficiency.
I am not one who would advocate huge expenditure on a military force, but I would like to point out, and it has been pointed out before, that if a very large reduction is made in the strength of the Army, and if people are thereby thrown out of employment, they will be in the same position as those whose fate we have been discussing within the last week. You have corroboration there of the statement that was made yesterday by Deputy O'Brien that a great deal of the case that has been made by Deputy O'Gorman and other people resolves itself into what he aptly described as ignorant clamour. With many others, he has been an apostle of pessimism and failure, so far as the future of this country is concerned. It may be that the Deputy does not desire to see an Irish Army, but, at any rate, he has never given one ray of hope to the people, so far as his utterances as a public representative are concerned, or shown that he has any faith in, or any hope for, the future of this country. I am very much surprised to find that the Deputy could make no better case than he has made for the saving of the millions of money he so airily preached about during the election campaign and before it. Since the Deputy came to the Dáil we have been surprised to find that he has contented himself with a few mild criticisms, and that to-day, on this very important Vote, he has asked the House solemnly to say that the situation might be met by saving £1,000 out of the millions he has spoken such a great deal about for the last twelve months or two years.
In speaking in support of the amendment, I cannot help commenting on the tactics of Deputy Murphy in this House. I have often admired his methods of speaking out, but generally on examining these methods I find that they come down to vicious personal attacks. One time it is a Deputy of one party who is attacked, and another time it is a Deputy of another party. Disagreements which Deputies may have in their own counties have nothing to do with the business of the Dáil; we should not be treated to them and Deputies should try to rise above them when they come here. What I have to say on this amendment is going to be very brief. It has been the policy of the Farmers' Party for years to urge everywhere, particularly in this House, and Deputy Murphy knows it, a reduction in the strength of the Army and a reduction in the Army Estimate.
Of £1,000?
Last year from these benches members of the Farmers' Party moved reductions in the Army Vote which amounted altogether to £1,500,000. We were treated, it is true, by the Minister then in charge of the Department to a good deal of that kind of opposition which the House understands so well, namely, that it was not possible, that it was foolish, to ask that any attempt should be made to bring about these reductions. If we examine the history of the succeeding twelve months we will find that in that short time the Ministry themselves came to the conclusion that a reduction in the Army Estimate was essential, and later we had a declaration of their policy in regard to the Army in which it was indicated that they were bringing about reductions of, approximately, £1,000,000 in the cost of the Army. That policy got no support from Deputy Murphy twelve months ago nor, do I think, from his party. I do not quarrel with them on that. They have to justify their attitude as we have to justify ours.
In present conditions we believed that it was necessary to press that policy and we had acceptance of it later in the declaration of policy made by the Minister, and we had an indication that what we advocated did count and weigh with the Government. We want to know now how far savings have been effected. I would like to know if the President can say that this sum of £2,183,967 represents what is likely to be the expenditure on the Army for the current twelve months. I am not one of those who would adopt an attitude of pessimism or that kind of nationalism which Deputy Murphy wants to induce the House to believe to be the policy of others. I believe in the existence of a National Army. I believe it is right to have it. It is a safeguard and it is a symbol of our distinct nationalism. We must have it. I do not agree with Deputy Murphy that we must maintain a National Army merely to gather in the unemployed.
That is only one reason.
It is no reason, and if Deputy Murphy wants to plead in this House that a National Army must be maintained in this country, no matter what the circumstances to the taxpayers are, simply because the unemployed are to be gathered into the ranks of that Army, I say that that is not a national outlook. We must have some other justification for the maintenance of the National Army. I hope that the members of the Labour Party do not subscribe to that doctrine as a justification for maintenance of the Army. We recognise that the expense of maintaining the Army has been reduced over a number of years, and that the efforts made on the Estimates here twelve months ago, unpopular though those efforts were, have to a certain extent borne good fruit, and that the definite policy of the Ministry is to maintain the Army, but to maintain it, as we contend, at a cost that will not be out of proportion to the capacity of the people to pay. The kind of Army we have and the amount to be spent on it will depend on the capacity of the people to maintain it.
I am sure that there are many who would like to see a standing Army of half a million men. That would, no doubt, give employment, but we could not justify it, and the case against the amendment should not be based on it. Personal antagonism carried by Deputies from their counties will not produce the spirit that will get the best out of them. Deputy O'Gorman has singled out for attention two or three items. The Farmers' Party do not intend to tackle this question of economy in another way. We could have adopted the same policy which we pursued last year by moving reductions to the various items in the Estimates. Deputy O'Gorman has singled out a few items which will occur to the mind of anybody. I did not hear Deputy Murphy make one single point against the case for maintaining a medical service in the Army, whereby a doctor and dentist are provided for every 160 or 170 men. That is the main point of Deputy O'Gorman's case. Let the President indicate to the House how far the Government policy of economy has borne fruit. Let him indicate, if he can, how much of this £2,183,967 has been spent so far, and let him indicate, if he can, how much will remain to be spent at the end of the financial year. The country will then know what outlook the Ministry has with regard to the maintenance of our Army. Perhaps the President may be able to satisfy us that that attitude of mind which was displayed in the declaration of policy in regard to the reduction of expenditure on the Army is bearing fruit.
Deputy Baxter has endeavoured to make a good deal out of what Deputy Murphy said in the course of his references to the speech of Deputy O'Gorman, but I think Deputies will find it hard to restrain themselves in their references to such an amendment as this. Deputy O'Gorman. in the course of his speech, quoted certain sub-heads in the Vote, one being the marriage allowance and another medical service. He mentioned, rightly, that there was for marriage allowance £145,000. In his great hurry to the relief of those who preach economy the Deputy tabled an amendment to reduce the whole estimate by £1,000. Surely, if he was sincere on the question of economy, he would have made an attempt to reduce the amount for marriage allowance by more than £1,000. All he has done is to move an amendment to reduce the Vote of £2,183,967 by £1,000. That is a false way of getting at economy. I maintain that Deputy O'Gorman has moved this amendment simply for the purpose of satisfying the people in his own constituency who have thought well to follow him on the way of economy he has preached during the past year or year and a half in the South of Ireland.
There is nothing in the amendment, and it shows no desire to have economy brought about in the State. Yet Deputy Baxter, with more experience in this House than Deputy O'Gorman, has tried to place a crown on the head of Deputy O'Gorman, and has criticised Deputy Murphy for having the audacity to stand up in this House to defend the people of Cork against the false teaching of Deputy O'Gorman. I maintain, and every sensible Deputy in this House will maintain, that to move for a reduction of the Vote of £2,183,967 by £1,000 is not a move towards economy, but is simply window-dressing to make the people in Cork believe that Deputy O'Gorman is as great a man here as he was when standing on the political platforms in County Cork. He is not as great a man here. If the debate has become personal it is by reason of the fact that Deputy O'Gorman has ferociously attacked State expenditure in the South of Ireland, and that he comes here now and in a childish way tries to play with the situation. I believe that the Army Vote ought not to be reduced, and no matter what any other Deputy here may do I will oppose the amendment, because Deputy O'Gorman has given no reason why the Vote should be reduced by £1,000, or that if so reduced there will be any benefit to the taxpayers.
I ask the President if any consideration has been given to the question of proficiency pay to army cooks. It is a question that may be laughed at, but very often in this Dáil questions of an individual nature are raised, and the House is held up with a discussion on these questions for a good while. In this case I am not speaking of one individual, for there are many Army cooks. In the last Dáil I raised this question as to why proficiency pay was not being given to army cooks who were giving service of approximately fifteen hours a day. This occurs particularly in the transport department. I would like to know if anything has been done in this matter, as the Minister for Defence in the last Dáil told me it was receiving consideration, and that he hoped to give a decision at an early date.
Deputy O'Gorman in the course of his address made an allusion to the grave financial condition of the country. I think a similar statement was made yesterday and a contradiction was given to it by the President. Such statements should not continue to be made, as they are not true. I know from conversations I have had during the last two or three weeks with the heads of some of the biggest banks in the South of Ireland that such statements are not correct. I have been assured by people representing very big financial interests that the country is as sound as any country in Europe, or in the world. That stands to reason, if you only look at the present state of affairs with a clear and unbiassed mind and not with a mind clouded by prejudice and anger. I hope statements of the kind I have referred to will not continue to be made. Deputy O'Gorman's amendment reminds me very much of the old story of the mountain in labour. Deputy O'Gorman, I think, made it a plank in his political campaign in the south that if he could he would do away with the Army altogether, and that he would leave no stone unturned to do that. Now he moves for a reduction of £1,000. That is the case of a mountain in labour bringing forth a mouse, and the £1,000 is Deputy O'Gorman's mouse. I do not think such a futile amendment should have been brought up. It appears to me sheer waste of time, and if for no other reason I protest against the futility of such an amendment.
When I had spoken yesterday the President took occasion to refer to the words I may have used, and he placed an interpretation upon them. If I mentioned the word "financial" in regard to the conditions obtaining in the country I assure the President and the House I did not mean the state of the finances of the Government or of the country generally. What I meant to convey was that the state of economic depression that exists in the country was such that there was a general demand for all-round economy. I did not for a moment wish it to be thought that any statement made by me would suggest that we were not sound financially in this State. On the contrary, I have every reason to believe, as all Deputies must believe, that our resources are good, that our credit is good, and that we are as sound financially as a State as between ourselves and other States as probably any other nation in Europe. What I did insist upon, and endeavoured to impress upon the House, was the urgent need for all-round economy in order to enable the country to carry on its Government and the affairs of State in a way commensurate with its economic capacity.
While I take this opportunity of explaining to the House anything that I may seem to have conveyed at the conclusion of yesterday's debate I want it to be understood that while I believe the Government of the country is sound financially I do not believe that the country is in a thriving or prosperous or indeed in a sound economic condition. I welcome the decrease of £300,000 in this estimate and, as on previous occasions when the Army Estimates were under discussion, I suppose it is necessary for me again to reiterate my position. I believe, as I said previously, that we should have a National Army, but I do not believe it is necessary for us to have an Army upon anything like the scale which we have even at present, though it has been substantially reduced.
Like Deputy Johnson, I do not intend to dwell upon matters of general policy in connection with this Vote because the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech announced a change in regard to Army policy which will necessitate the introduction of subsequent legislation. I welcome that change, I welcome particularly his statement, as I did at the time he made it, that for the future the basis of the permanent cost of the Army was taken at £1,500,000 instead of £2,000,000 as in the past. He adopted a suggestion, in that respect, which, if I may be permitted to remind the House, I made twelve months earlier. Similarly I welcome his proposal to initiate some form of territorial or, in his own words, militia force. That will undoubtedly require legislation, but I welcome these changes and when the time comes we will all have an opportunity of discussing the methods whereby these changes are to be put into operation.
On this particular amendment I would like to say that I am in complete agreement with Deputy O'Gorman in suggesting that there should be a reduction in this Vote. Everyone knows that when a reduction in an Estimate is proposed the sum by which it is actually proposed to reduce the Estimate is taken merely as a nominal sum, generally as a protest against the expenditure on certain items in the Estimate. I do not know whether Deputy O'Gorman is in the position—I certainly would not be—to put down any definite sum to indicate what should be the proper amount expended on, say, the Medical Service of the Army, but I am in the same position as he is in this regard, that I think his proposing a reduction of £1,000 should elicit some information or explanation from the Government or the Minister in charge of these Estimates, as to the necessity for the expenditure of a sum of £38,685 upon this service. On the face of it, I must confess that it does not seem necessary to have anything like the number of medical officers which is provided for under sub-head E of this Vote. To suggest that it is necessary to have one medical officer for every 150 or 200 men—I do not know the exact figure—is to suggest that the medical officers are not competent medical officers. It seems to be an extravagant estimate that one medical officer would not be sufficiently competent or energetic to be able to look after the health of more than 200 members of the Army.
Therefore, I think that Deputy O'Gorman has done a service in putting down this amendment, and I think further, he is entitled to put it down. To suggest that because Deputy O'Gorman only proposes a reduction of £1,000 he is not treating the matter seriously, is a suggestion that can emanate only from those who know nothing whatever of Parliamentary practice. There is no other means at the disposal of a private Deputy. He has not access to the Army records; he has not access to the Army medical sheets; he is not able to discover, for himself, exactly how many medical officers would suffice, but he is entitled to make a proposition by way of reduction of a round sum in order that he may elicit information and explanation from the Minister in charge of the Estimate, and if he is not satisfied with that then he is entitled to vote against it. I, therefore, support the proposed reduction on the ground that it is warranted, and on the ground that until a proper explanation has been given to us of the necessity for this large sum being voted for this number of medical officers as a requirement for the Army being maintained, we are entitled to take the only course open to us, and to ask for an explanation. If that explanation is satisfactory, well and good; if it is not, Deputy O'Gorman is in the position that he can proceed to make his protest if he so desires, by challenging a Division.
I do not propose to deal with the general subject of the Estimate. It seems to me ridiculous to do so in the absence of the Minister, and also because we shall have a further opportunity of dealing with the question of Army reorganisation. I propose to deal solely with Deputy O'Gorman's amendment, and I hope I shall be in order. I also hope that it will not be regarded as a violent personal attack on Deputy O'Gorman if I say that he commits an error very natural in a new Deputy; he thinks that the history of this question started when he came into the Dáil.
No.
Well, that is the inference I drew from his speech. In fact, Deputy O'Gorman rather reminded me of Robinson Crusoe. Deputy O'Gorman sees the footprint of Governmental extravagance in the sands. He is naturally shocked and horrified and desires to tell the world about it. I forget what Robinson Crusoe did when he saw the footprint. He obviously could not call a meeting and move a resolution. so I presume he went home and told the parrot. Deputy O'Gorman, having no parrot, tells the Dáil, which is very nearly the same thing. In one regard I am not saying that Deputy O'Gorman has been original. I did not suggest to the Dáil, though I have spoken very often and listened to many debates on the Army, that we should have an Army but that we should lay ourselves out not to have it efficient; that we should lay ourselves out not to send our officers away to learn the military profession, that we should not equip the troops with the latest and most modern types of warlike material. There is an increased amount for warlike stores, and I would like the President to inform us whether he is going to expend the money on artillery, because the Army had a gun which is similar to the one I was instructed in twenty-one years ago, and that could hardly be called the most modern gun in Europe.
The bulk of Deputy O'Gorman's speech dealt with the Army Medical Service, and in criticising the Army Medical Service he is treading a well-blazed trail; he is not hacking his way through virgin forests, a pioneer without a trail. Deputy Sir James Craig was the first to criticise the cost of the Army Medical Service, and I followed him. We hacked our way side by side through the forest, with the following results: In 1924, the first year of the last Dáil, there were 105 Army medical officers, and the cost of the Department was £61,780. The following year the number had been reduced to 85, and the cost to £45,884. Then, as a result of constant criticism year after year, the number of officers was reduced in 1926 to 78, and the cost to £42,958. We still thought that that was too much. and we moved amendments, with the result that this year the number is 68 instead of 78——
Sixty-four.
The Deputy has not looked over the page. If he does so, he will see that there are five chemists and a radiologist. I am taking the whole of them; there are 68 commissioned officers in the Army Medical Service, but if the Deputy prefers 64, he weakens his own case. I wish to put his case as strong as I can. The cost is now £68,685. Deputy O'Gorman compares the number treated in the Army with the number treated by a panel doctor, and though I may myself have made that comparison in the past. I had its fallacy demonstrated. When a panel doctor examines a man very often he does not treat him. He says: "Your teeth are out of order: you must go to a dentist." He says: "You must see a specialist," or, possibly, the man is in a very bad condition and he says to him: "You must go into hospital as quickly as possible." The Army Medical Service contains dentists and hospital doctors, as well as the doctors who look after the health of the troops actually serving in the field and you have got to take all these factors into account. Deputy Redmond said that we had no means of getting information. Deputy O'Gorman has been a very short time in the Dáil, and I hope that he will not think me offensive if I say that one can get a good deal more information, before the Estimates come up, by means of questions. When Deputy Sir James Craig and I were making up our case against the Army Medical Service we asked a large number of questions as to the number of beds occupied in the Curragh and St. Bricin's Hospital and the number of men treated in them. None of us has actually had time to do that in this Dáil. The cost of the Army Medical Service was undoubtedly excessive, and last year I moved an amendment to reduce that cost by £4,300. I am sure I would have had the support of Deputy O'Gorman if he had been in the Dáil, but unfortunately I did not get the support of a single member of the Farmers' Party when I put it to a Division. Deputy Baxter did not vote for it, Deputy Doyle did not vote for it, and Deputy White did not vote for it. I did get the support of Deputy Hall, which was rather surprising in view of the speech he made, and of Deputy Colohan and Deputy Johnson. I did not get the support of Deputy Redmond; in fact, I do not remember in any of the discussions we had on this question in the last Dáil that Deputy Redmond ever spoke on it.
On the Army?
On the Army Medical Service. I know Deputy Redmond spoke on the Army, and spoke with great effect, but I was disappointed that I did not get his support on this particular question, because he could have spoken with great authority. But that is the situation— an amendment moved on this very subject in the last Dáil did not secure the support of the Farmers' Party. It was late in the evening, of course. We were met with what Deputy O'Gorman referred to, the usual stone wall of the Government's automatic majority. My words did not fall on deaf ears, however. I moved to reduce this particular sub-head by £4,300, and in the current Estimates it has been reduced by £4,273.
Cause and effect!
There has been a reduction in the number of officers from 78 to 68.
Has the Army not been reduced since?
Not since last year.
Has it not been reduced since 1924?
Obviously. I will answer Deputy Redmond's question in another way. Last year I worked out the cost of the Medical Service per man in the Army and it came to £3 15s. This year it comes to £3 0s. 7d., so that whatever the strength of the Army, there has been a definite reduction on the Medical Service. I do not say that it is the largest reduction that could be obtained, but I do say that in order to obtain a larger reduction Deputies will have to go into the question more deeply, get figures and compare them with the figures of the cost of administration of the Dublin hospitals, as Deputy Sir James Craig and I did. You will not get anything worth having merely by saying, "This is too dear." I do not want to praise myself. It was mostly Deputy Sir James Craig, who had knowledge of this question, excellent knowledge which I did not possess, and he and I went into the matter to see if it would be possible to have a saving. I am not going to quarrel with the Government now about this £27, because I got practically all I wanted.
After the speeches delivered by Deputies Murphy, Hall, Egan, and Cooper there will be but little left to the President to say in connection with the Army Estimates. I think Deputy O'Gorman was strictly justified and deserves every credit both from the Farmers' Party and from the people who voted for him in Cork and sent him to this Dáil for raising the question of the cost of the Army Medical Service. There is also an increase in the amount for marriage allowances of £8,134, in the wages of civilian attendants to units of £5,648, making a total of £13,782. I think Deputy O'Gorman and Deputies on those Benches are perfectly justified in raising the question of an increase of £13,782 under these two heads.
There is another item I wish to draw the attention of the President to: I see by the Estimates that the sum of £5,568 has been spent on bandsmen as additional pay. That is a very large item to spend on music at present in the condition of the country and it requires some explanation. There is also an increase of £7,216 under the heading Office of Minister for Defence and Army Finance Office. That requires further explanation. We would not be doing our duty to the people who sent us here if we did not question these increases. If we made the mistake last year of not supporting Deputy Cooper and Deputy Sir James Craig when they raised the question of the cost of the Army Medical Service, we hope to assist them this year and we will vote in support of Deputy O'Gorman's amendment. I do not wish, and never did, to decry the credit of the Saorstát. Opinions differ very much at the present time with regard to the financial position of this country. But a Deputy stated that an eminent banking authority told him that the country's credit was never on a sounder basis. Probably he was quoting the very bank director who had closed down and refused to give accommodation to struggling farmers and shopkeepers, or a director of some of the banks that are at present calling in their overdrafts. A straw shows how the wind blows. Calling in overdrafts, the closing down and the refusal of banks to give accommodation to struggling farmers and shopkeepers in some rural districts of the country are not indications of a very sound financial basis.
I said a good deal on this Estimate in the two previous sessions of the Dáil and I am glad that the matter has been raised now in order that the people should understand the position. I am very glad to be able to say that to-day I am ready to give credit and praise to the Minister for the reductions that have taken place. The Minister has met my criticisms in an extremely fair way. There has been a reduction of ten officers in the present year and that is a very fair improvement. That is a fair number of men to get rid of in one year. It is very difficult when men have got into positions to throw them, as it were, on the dole. Therefore one must give credit to the Minister for not making quite all the reductions that are possible.
Hear, hear.
Yes, I admit that it is quite possible to make further reductions. I want to call the attention of Deputy O'Gorman to what has been alluded to by Deputy Cooper, namely, that in last year's Estimate there was a reduction of £2,926, and this year the reduction is £4,273. We are coming down by leaps and bounds. But I will call your attention to a much more important figure to which none of the Deputies has alluded since I came into the Chamber to-day. It is a matter to which I called very particular attention on the last occasion, namely, the extra statutory provisions for hospital treatment for ex-members of the forces within the limits defined by the Minister for Finance.
We are not dealing with that matter in this Vote.
But this practically came in under this head. It was included under the expenditure on the Army for the upkeep of St. Bricin's Hospital. That figure is down from £9,000, and is now £2,500. That was not a payment to medical officers, but was directly concerned with expenditure on the Army. I do not intend to go on that item if you do not wish me to do so, but I want to call attention to the fact that a tremendous reduction has taken place both in the numbers of the medical officers and in the expenditure, and I would like very much if Deputy O'Gorman turned his attention in some other direction. As Deputy Cooper has pointed out, he and I have already travelled that road. He and I have taken the trouble to find out the number of beds in the hospital and the actual cost per patient. A very large reduction has taken place in that item, and I consider that our criticisms last year have been met very fairly by the Minister in the reduction that he has made in this Estimate. That is all I want to say at present.
Before the Minister replies, I want to ask a question. Deputy White objects to harmony in the Army and Deputy O'Gorman objects to an increase of £8,134 in the marriage allowance, and an increase of £7,524 in the warlike stores. Does the Deputy ask the House to agree that when a soldier qualifies for a marriage allowance, he adds to the warlike stores of the Free State?
I wish to support the motion of Deputy O'Gorman. It is principally to reply to Deputy Cooper that I rise. I want to reply to the statement he has made as to the nonsupport given by the Farmers' Party to his motion for a reduction last year. I hold that the Farmers' Party moved for a very much bigger reduction on the whole Vote than did either Deputy Cooper or Deputy Sir James Craig. We moved for a reduction of something over one million last year. I cannot recall the exact figure but I know it was something in the vicinity of a million reduction, and we got no support whatever from Deputy Cooper or Deputy Sir James Craig. They now taunt the Farmers' Party for not supporting their motion for a reduction of £4,000 in the Vote. We have put up a very diminutive reduction to-day; we are taunted that it is something like a reduction in the shape of a mouse. Last year we put up a much larger figure. It was practically equal to a lion and they did not support it. I really do not know what would stop some Deputies from criticising our Party. I think Deputy Cooper walked out of the House when our reduction was put up last year. now he has the audacity to taunt us this year with not supporting him in a reduction for a paltry £4,000. He could not see his way to support a very large reduction and now he can taunt us with not supporting his motion for reducing the Vote by £4,000. I do not think it is fair criticism to say of us that we sat idly by on these benches last year and that we moved no reduction. As a matter of fact we moved by far the biggest reduction of any Party in the House on this Vote, and we had not the support of Deputy Cooper or Deputy Sir James Craig behind us.
As a new Deputy I do not know that I have very much to add to what the other Deputies have said on Deputy O'Gorman's motion. But it strikes me that this debate has ended in a comparison between millions and hundreds. The last Deputy who spoke said that when his Party moved a reduction of more than one million they were not listened to, and that to-day when they moved for a reduction of £1,000 they are still not listened to. Perhaps it was that the former Dáil when it was faced with such a tremendously large amount was afraid to pass it and that they preferred to let it stand. To-day the sum mentioned, £1,000, is so insignificant that one can hardly realise it. Deputy Cooper made a statement that in considering the amounts by which they proposed to reduce the Estimate they previously got experts' advice on the particular item. He says that the Minister gave consideration to that particular item. The particular item of this Estimate to-day that strikes the fancy of most Deputies is the item for medical allowances in the Army. I notice that the two Deputies who previously moved for a reduction in this item are to-day moving for no reduction. Deputy O'Gorman is moving for no reduction in that particular item. He is moving for a reduction of £1,000 in the whole Estimate of £2,100,000. Now, if that £1,000 in the case of £2,100,000 represents what Deputy O'Gorman has in his mind, it would be something like a reduction of one shilling per £100. On that basis the reduction in these allowances would be £18 or £19. That particular sum of £38,000 would be diminished by perhaps £19. That would mean that in the case of the other items in the Estimate the diminution would be 11½d. per cent. If that is the only contribution that the Farmers' Party can make to this debate, if they have not the courage to put on paper a reduction in some particular item that they can stand behind and argue, I do not think that they can expect the Deputies, at least the new Deputies, to vote for their proposal.
I think enough has been said on this subject, and I would not rise at all except for the fear that the President has got so much support that he might not say anything in reply. In his opening speech he said that the time at which this Estimate was made was last December. Now we are six months away from that time, and it will be possible to know from the experience during that six months whether we are working well within the Estimate and possibly the expenditure may be lower. If that is so it may get over the difficulties we have before us. I may say in passing that I would not like to be amongst the Farmers' Party when bringing on a motion at any time. It would seem to be like a nut in a nut-cracker. As far as I can understand it, the business side of the nut-cracker is on this side of the House. The Farmers' Party also have forgotten to take credit for what they did. Deputy Cooper and Deputy Sir James Craig took credit for saving something like £4,000. The Farmers' Party moved a reduction of 1½ millions, and I think they forgot to take credit for having brought about a reduction of £300,000.
In reply to many of the comments made, I would like to say that last year we moved a reduction of 1½ million pounds. That motion was rejected. Later on a declaration of policy came from the Ministerial Benches to the effect that they contemplated, and were going to carry out, a reduction of £1,000,000. None of them got as much as that.
As this has been largely a County Cork debate, I do not think it would be complete unless Deputy Daly adds his quota to it.
I desire to add my voice to the debate arising on the motion by Deputy O'Gorman. I should like to remind Deputies that a comparison between the Vote and the amount of the reduction moved is no argument at all. In all Parliaments the usage is that a reduction of the Vote is moved in order to get a Division and to show that the House is not satisfied with the way in which the money is expended. Deputy O'Gorman is quite in order, and is following out the Parliamentary usage of every Assembly.
I support his motion for another reason. The President told us that it was necessary to have an Army to maintain order within the country and he also reminded us that when the drums are beating it is too late then to sharpen our swords. I quite agree it is necessary to have some organisation to maintain peace in our country, but I very much wonder as to whom we are going to fight; what drums we are going to beat and when are we going to sharpen our swords again. We have to face facts. If a well-equipped army of any European country were to come to this country we would not be in a position, even with this money spent, to meet it. Our Army could not keep an army of fleas off, not to mind a modern army. I support the motion because I am opposed to the principle of an Army. If we have money to spend, spend it in building up the nation, not in providing a machine, the logical result of which is the destruction of human life. This House is going to spend millions of pounds in equipping a machine the ultimate result of which is the destruction of human life. We are building up our nation on wrong lines. We have asked time and again that money should be spent for the preservation of human life. The function of this Government is to create and preserve human life, not to destroy it.
I do not think I am called upon to reply to the rubbish we have heard from the last speaker. Perhaps it should be described more as piffle than as rubbish. We have a certain responsibility in this State and we are going to observe that responsibility and maintain order. We are preserving human life by such means as this and we are going to continue in that manner. If the Deputy thinks that by voting for a reduction of this Estimate by £1,000 he is going to dispose of the Army, he is welcome to vote for it.
The general trend of the discussion goes to show that we have many suitable candidates for the Ministry of Defence if that office becomes vacant. Everybody is satisfied that the contribution he has made in the nature of criticism of these Estimates for years past has had most admirable results. None of the economies which have taken place during that period could ever have taken place if it were not for Government action. Last year I mentioned that in 1923-24 the Estimate for the Army was £4,000,000 and the expenditure was £3,000,000. In the Estimates of that year there was, perhaps, less criticism and less advice from the various sections of the House as to how money could be spent and yet there was a maximum saving in that year. Some Deputies seem to think they are doing all the work by themselves. The Government will be at all times open to receive advice, but let it not be understood that there is no wisdom in the Ministry of Defence and in the other Ministries. Great value has been given in administration during those years in connection with practically every service in the State.
We intimated a couple of years ago that the expenditure in connection with the Army would be regarded as amounting to about £2,000,000 per annum. We were able to review that Estimate in the light of the improvement there has been in the country and in the improved social conditions, the extraordinary return to peace and the fact that peace conditions were being more or less stabilised every year. It was these conditions, and not criticism, which enabled us to come to the House this year with an estimate that the Army would be regarded in the future as costing about one and a half millions. It was not by a stroke of the pen or by a dozen sentences of criticism that these results were obtained. Deputies are perfectly well aware that the conditions to-day are very different to what they were three or four years ago, when the Army Estimate was much greater than it is to-day. They know the policy which I have outlined to-day. It is the policy that has been outlined by previous holders of this office. The main policy was to make this machine, this Army of ours, capable of expansion at the minimum of cost and the maximum of efficiency. We are not boasting, and we are not looking for any trouble, but we do say that this State, and the territory of this State, is going to be defended by the Army, the nucleus of its defence, and that it will render a good account of itself on any and every occasion when the integrity of the State is menaced from outside or by any body of men inside. I would like the new Deputy from Galway to realise that there are men of courage in this country, men who are not the least bit nervous about having an Army of five or six thousand men, and who are well satisfied that this Army will defend this country from any and every invasion which may come.
And this Empire, too, perhaps?
I suggest, as regards any commitments or obligations which we undertook in our capacity as a State that we have honoured every one of them. We do not want any of these cheap empty gibes. There is no sense in them. We have pledged our honour to our bargain, and we are going to keep it. I said that outside on the hustings and I am prepared to say it before any assembly in any part of this country. Deputy O'Gorman, in moving a reduction of this Vote, went on to say that administration expenses in this country should be reduced by millions. I have had, perhaps, as much association with figures and as much knowledge of figures as any Deputy in the House, and I say that statements of that kind are only calculated to deceive the people outside, because such a reduction cannot be brought about. It might be done if we were to reduce the services that we provide, if we were to reduce the efficiency of these services and were to take risks. We have not taken risks, and we have not reduced the services but rather have expanded them. In the case of this particular service its cost has been reduced, but its efficiency has not been diminished. One of the evidences of attempting to make it more efficient is the item to which the Deputy drew attention, the item which refers to the fact that we sent to America three or four officers with a view to getting the most modern information regarding Army conditions, and with a view to establishing here an Army School of Instruction. The cost of that has been considerable, but within the next few months that particular Commission sent to America will have returned. Most of that money has already been spent, and even if it were possible to stop it now, the expense or the resultant saving would be negligible in amount, perhaps a few hundred pounds. Therefore, I take it that the Deputy is not serious in drawing attention to that particular item, even though he attempted to show that it was unwise and unjustifiable. I consider that it was both wise and justifiable. I consider that an Army School of Instruction should be established here just as in other countries. We are not different to other countries, but perhaps the conditions are different here. Anyone who knows anything about the Army here is aware of the fact that many of the junior officers are older than some of the senior officers. Therefore, we must recruit here a junior officership if there is to be a natural expansion and natural promotion from junior officership to senior officership. The senior officers of the future will be required to pass through an institution such as the Army School of Instruction which we hope to set up.
As regards the other item, marriage allowance, that was touched upon, I thought that I had explained in my statement that we had issued certain regulations recently which entitled, under stated conditions, a certain percentage of the troops to marriage allowance. This is an estimate, and as an estimate it takes into consideration the maximum number who can get this allowance under the regulations. In the estimate there is taken an average of a wife and two children for those who are entitled to get the allowance.
The President says that this is an estimate, but he seems to take into account the full number which can be permitted under the regulations to get the allowance, although probably such a number is not in the Army at all at present. That is what I understand from him.
When the Deputy gets a little more acquainted with the method adopted of making an estimate, he will realise that it is the safe course to adopt to estimate for a correct amount. Having made the regulation, we estimated for a correct amount. If the percentage were five per cent. then we made an estimate for five per cent. and struck an average. It does not follow that if the amount exceeds what is required that a single penny of it will go astray.
I thought that the majority of privates in the Army had enlisted for a period of two years, but the President has now made the statement that this allowance is for a man with a wife and two children.
Perhaps I should have explained the matter at somewhat greater length, but I spoke to save the time of the House. There are cases of men married without any children, there are cases of men married with four children, and you have cases of married men with three and two children, and with one child. When making an estimate one does not take the exact number of children that every man in the Army has. One simply estimates a proportion. The proportion taken in this case was a married man with his wife alive and with two children alive, and it is on that basis that this Estimate has been devised. I was going on to say when the Deputy interrupted me, that on the Estimate you are likely to have a saving of £10,000 in the year. I presume, with the Deputy, that it is unlikely that there will be a huge influx of children before the 31st March next, but if that contingency did arise, it is quite possible that the whole of the £10,000 would be required. I am not anticipating that particular event.
As regards the medical service, Deputy Cooper and Deputy Sir James Craig have answered on that. For the information of those who desire to get the exact number, the following are the particulars: Medical officers, 48; dentists, 9; chemists, 4; and there is one radiologist. That gives a total of 62 as against a total estimate of 68. The number is gradually being reduced each year. As I mentioned earlier, this Estimate was prepared in December last. I stated, too, that it was unlike other estimates in this respect, that the Army, as it exists, has a great number of posts in many parts of the country. In that respect it is unlike an ordinary Civil Service establishment which gradually expands, while this one has been gradually diminishing. I think, too, that allowance must be made for the special circumstances of the last four or five years.
The Army doctor is responsible for looking after the sanitation of barracks, posts, etc. The comparison is not fair with the ordinary doctor outside, because it is not fair to compare 2,000 men within a radius of a few miles with 2,000 men scattered over 30, 40, or 50 miles. I should also say that there are medical boards in connection with the Pensions Acts at which attendance from some of those officers is required. Deputy Hall raised a question about proficiency pay for cooks. There is at present, I understand, a course for cookery on the Curragh, and to those men who will get an efficiency certificate passing through that course proficiency pay will be paid. The amount is not fixed nor is the matter beyond the consideration stage. As regards the point raised by Deputy White about bandsmen, that is a case in which the gradual expansion or the growth of the service is brought under notice. The Army School of Music is but a few short years in existence. As the men become efficient instrumentalists they are entitled to proficiency pay. The cost of this service in other armies is sometimes borne by the officers. The officer personnel in other armies is drawn perhaps from people more fortunate as far as the possession of the world's goods is concerned than ours and the cost of the band falls upon the State here. I think it is a good service and that the State is getting good value for it. I think it is reasonable when there is that proficiency noticeable among young men who have joined the Army, gone into the band, and rendered a good account of themselves, that they should be entitled to have proficiency pay. I think that disposes of most of the points that were raised. I should like to draw attention to a short article that appeared——
Can the President indicate how the expenditure up to the present in the financial year compares with the Estimate?
I should say there is a likelihood, if it continues, of a saving of over £100,000. The number of men per officer, in the armies of the world averages 12.11. In our Army it is 11.75. It is higher than Sweden, Finland, and Belgium but lower than all others. The strength of our Army is—this was written in November—13,564, which of the population is a percentage of .4. The amount of money spent on the forces is 8 per cent. of the State's expenditure, the lowest anywhere, and the annual cost per man per annum is equally low.
Deputy Cooper raised a point about artillery. There is provision in the warlike stores for the purchase of some artillery in the current year, howitzers and ammunition wagons, instruments for the howitzers and ammunition for an eighteen pounder and instruments for eighteen pounders and for shells.
I should say that the Dáil on the whole ought to be well pleased with this Estimate and with its reduction from two or three years ago. That would not have taken place in the Estimate without the marked improvement there has been in the efficiency of the Army and the desire to make it still more efficient. With the general conduct of the Army and with the fact that practically every heading each year shows a tightening up and improvement there is evidence and has been evidence of a real desire to reduce the amount to the country's needs and requirements and to keep it within the country's needs and requirements.
I took a note of the tactics of the Minister as Deputy White did. I found that Deputies in opposition to the Minister were answering one another and I consequently waited to hear what the Minister had to say and noticed that he carefully avoided the reference Deputy O'Gorman made to the increase in the expenditure on warlike stores. He has explained in reference to a remark of Deputy Cooper regarding the purchase of artillery, but I am not satisfied with the figure he has put down, showing an increase of expenditure on warlike stores this year as compared with last year. In 1925-26, the Estimate was £49,000. That was a considerable reduction from the previous year's Estimate, but for 1925-26, there was expended against the £49,000, £195,000 and it is explained in the Appropriation Accounts that some of the money voted the previous year was not in fact spent in stores in that year but came within the following accounting year. But, £195,000 spent in the year 1925-26 in warlike stores is a large amount. The following year, £43,000 was estimated for, and I think a Supplementary Estimate was brought in. I see the sum stated in the present Estimate is £51,000 having been estimated for in 1926-27. We have a further increase this year to £59,000 and the President suggests as an explanation that there is a rapid deterioration in the value and efficiency of warlike stores and consequietly there must be a great deal scrapped each year. I think we ought to have some explanation as to whether this warning about the decline in efficiency of the stores, or deterioration of value has any direct relation to the amount spent, of £195,000, in 1925-26.
The justification for that large expenditure has not been made evident to the Dáil, and one would imagine that we should at least not spend more in 1927-28 than was spent in 1926-27. The need for expenditure on ammunition and equipment of a warlike character surely is not greater in 1927-28 than last year, and when we spent £200,000 or almost that in the previous year, that would surely be enough to carry us over for a considerable number of years without having to have continuous increases. Unless there is a very clear explanation regarding this increase of expenditure in warlike stores, it seems to me the motion of the Deputy for a reduction in the Estimate is justified. I am reading this motion as, one might say, a token vote, that is to say, it is an indication of dissatisfaction with the Minister's policy regarding the Army. One may have one reason for objecting to the policy, another may have another reason for objecting to the policy, but I am certainly dissatisfied with this sub-head showing an increase in the purchase of warlike stores, and without a very clear and satisfactory explanation from the Minister, I shall support the motion of Deputy O'Gorman.
I am not sure whether Deputy Johnson really means to keep company with Deputy Lynch, or whether he is really in earnest about this particular item. I thought I had explained, in my opening statement that certain material has a short life. A considerable amount of money has been spent within the last couple of years, but I do not know what the amount of the Estimate has been expended in those years. I stated before that some such expenditure was likely in the coming year, and that it might be regarded as capital expenditure. Four howitzers are included in this Estimate at a cost of something like £1,000. Each year will be responsible for its own contribution towards keeping the stock up to standard. It is not a question of hoarding up stocks. Hoarding up stocks in a case of this sort is not spending money well. One simply stocks what is necessary for the moment and for normal expansion. Other than that, there is no item in the Estimate which could reasonably be taken out.
Is the President in a position to say whether there has been any further consideration of the question mentioned by the Minister some months ago as to the establishment of an officers' training corps in connection with the universities?
I overlooked that matter. I suggest to the Deputy that he should put a question to the Minister when he returns. I do not expect that he will return before the adjournment.
