Yesterday evening I suggested that there was an understanding at one period that no more than 20,000 fully armed men could be kept in this country at one time unless by permission or sanction of England. The Minister might easily point out that that figure must be wrong, because during the civil strife the Free State had under arms close on 60,000 fully equipped men. That does not alter the situation. In normal times, I understand, it was agreed that not more than 20,000 fully equipped men should be kept, but that in abnormal times the number could be exceeded. I do not know whether the number— 20,000—now exists or has been increased, but perhaps the Minister would say whether there is to be any definite number of fully equipped men at any one time. It was pointed out yesterday that for a country such as this, considering everything, considering the situation we are in, the cost per man in the Army to the State at present is out of all proportion, and certainly is not justifiable, particularly when it is compared with that of other countries which are far ahead of us in many ways, which have not the strain of excessive taxation which we have to bear, and also which are able to keep armies or effective units at a much less cost. Our cost per man is £145 for the coming year. Last year it was £180, so that some effort is being made to reduce the cost and something has been done. It must not be overlooked that that effort is being made, but still the cost is far too high. The British have an Army of 400,000, of whom 153,500 are regulars, 110,800 are reserves, and 139,000 are territorials. That Army costs £41,000,000, which works out at a cost of £102 per man. In Australia they have 47,000 effectives at a cost of £1,141,000, which works out at £22 per man, and in New Zealand the cost of 23,000 effectives is £454,000, or £20 per man. The figure in Denmark and Switzerland is below that, but, as Deputy Cooper pointed out, in these countries, particularly in Switzerland, service is compulsory and there is no payment. Therefore the cost there would be certainly low.
To get back to the item of warlike stores. If the Estimates are gone through, and if the details of the expenditure are examined, and if it is agreed that we should have an Army, it is essential that this Army should be properly trained for purposes even such as were suggested by the Minister for Agriculture, for internal use only. He has no fear of any outside aggression whatever; he has no fear of this country challenging the rights of any other country. He spoke of the first-rate Powers, but I suppose we would not even challenge a third-rate Power. That being the case, I wonder is the Minister prepared to say that he has sufficient reserves of material to put at the disposal of the Army should he be called upon to put an Army into the field? I do not know how many field guns we have, whether it is three or four. I do not think it would be policy to ask the Minister that question, or policy for the Minister to answer it, but it is known that if these eighteen-pounders that we have were put into action we would require something like 300 rounds per day for each eighteen-pounder for ordinary use in warfare. I wonder is the Minister satisfied that he has sufficient reserves for those eighteen-pounders to keep them, for the sake of argument, in operation for a period of six months? We have also a tank as part of the equipment. I do not understand what use one single tank would have in this country except, as Deputy Carney pointed out, we were going to make the Army in this country a pocket edition of the British Army, the nucleus of an army that could be joined up with the British Army if Britain were at war and if this country were committed in some way or other to join up with it.
There is no doubt that we, on this side, are anxious that talk of civil war, talk of war, as far as we are concerned, with anybody, should cease. We all believe that we have had enough of that. We are out to see the youth of the country trained, and to see that the manhood of the country will be kept at the disposal of the country, not only for the assistance they would give if we were threatened, but also in order that we would have a healthy body of people as properly trained and developed as physical culture will make them. We are anxious to see some form of force developed which will be really an army of the people no matter what Government is in power. We are anxious to see that it will be open to all classes of people in the community, and we would like to see such organisations as the British Fascists, which are now being started, made impossible. We think that the Army should be open to all classes, and let anybody who wants a military training join a force such as a territorial force. We think that should be the only thing that would be permitted. I put it to the Minister again that it is ridiculous for us to talk of having an Army that is effective when we have nobody to fight and when we do not intend to fight. It is ridiculous to train an Army on the basis of the British Army, to be a pocket edition of it. What we want is to try to get down the cost of the Army, and to get that money which is spent in an unproductive way for some work of a productive nature. If the Minister could succeed in reducing the cost of the Army so that the country would be saved another £500,000, that £500,000 would go a long way towards helping to solve the housing problem and alleviate unemployment. When we aim at a small Army, it is no argument to say that if that small Army is disbanded or cut down we are going to have the ranks of the unemployed swelled by so many thousands more.
I do not wish to say anything more except to point out—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong —that everything in our Army is controlled from outside. We are not allowed to get any equipment outside Woolwich Arsenal. If we ever had strained relations with England in future this whole Army would be useless. If we are bound to observe a state of neutrality in the event of England being embroiled with some other country, and we say that we are not going to take sides, we cannot even defend ourselves if we are attacked elsewhere. The Minister, knowing the details of the matter, can clear up these points, but I would like him to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Carney as to the possibility of eventually evolving a territorial form of military force, which will not cost the country half as much as the present form of professional army.
