Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Army.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £2,836,654 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for the Army and the Army Reserve (including certain Grants-in-Aid) under the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts; and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith; for the expenses of the office of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures; for Expenses in connection with the trial and detention of certain persons (No. 28 of 1939, No. 1 of 1940 and No. 16 of 1940, etc.); for certain Expenses under the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940 (No. 13 of 1939 and No. 2 of 1940) and the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1939 (No. 21 of 1939); for Reserve Medical Supplies for Civilian Hospitals; for certain Expenses of the Local Defence Force (including Grants-in-Aid) (No. 28 of 1939); for certain Expenses in connection with the special Commemoration of the 1916 Rising; for certain Expenses in connection with the National Blood Transfusion Council; and for a grant to the Irish Red Cross Society.

The Estimate for the Army Vote for the financial year 1943-44 shows a reduction on the previous year's Estimate of £434,418, despite the fact that, owing to the leap year, the increase in the rate of pay for private soldiers, and to new services, there should have been an automatic increase over last year's figure. The reduction has been effected by a judicious pruning of every branch of Army expenditure, but it must be clearly understood that the present Estimate of £8,507,654 reflects not the Army's needs in men or its requirements in stores, but only the deliveries expected and the strength anticipated during the current year based on experience of the recent past.

The record of the Army's activities during the past financial year contains many credit items and also a few debit factors. On the credit side must be considered the progressive improvement in the conditions of service of soldiers during the year. Outstanding here is the increase in the rate of pay. From 29th September, 1942, the pay of every private soldier in the Army has been increased by sixpence a day and, in addition to this actual increase of sixpence a day, every non-commissioned officer and private soldier will be credited with another sixpence a day, called deferred pay, because its payment is deferred until after the end of the emergency.

Another improvement in the conditions of service is the extension of marriage allowance to all soldiers with two years' service. That extension has practically absorbed all personnel already married but not hitherto entitled to the allowance, and, according as men of 23 years of age complete their two years' service, they will become automatically entitled to the allowance, if they marry. During the previous financial year, the rates of marriage allowance were substantially increased and that increase coupled with the present extension has involved an increased cost of about £170,000 in the Estimate for 1943-44. Indeed, the total cost of the allowance for wives and children during the year is estimated at £618,418. Finally, quite recently, we have, at considerable administrative expense, made marriage allowance payable weekly instead of fortnightly, as heretofore.

The free annual leave voucher, previously introduced, continues to operate and involves an additional estimated expenditure of about £17,780. There has also been introduced a free issue of dentures and spectacles to those in need of them, and, although the financial effect of these issues is not yet certain, it is expected that the cost will be at least £4,500.

The improvements outlined deal with the material interests of the soldiers, but their spiritual needs have not been lost sight of. During the year, there have been appointed additional fulltime chaplains so that practically every large unit in the Army has now its own chaplain to look after the spiritual interests of the men. During last year's large-scale military exercises, the chaplains accompanied their units in the field and their example in the cheerful endurance of the stress, strain and fatigue of the exercises must have had no small effect on the morale of the units engaged.

The physical fitness of the Army has considerably improved due to the constant training in the field of the various units. The standard of health has remained at a high level and the Army has been free from any serious form of epidemic. Discipline, too, has been well maintained and, during the past year, there have been very few cases of serious crime.

By far the most important feature of the Army's activities during the year under review has been the large-scale exercises held during the autumn of 1942.

The object of these exercises was to provide an opportunity for higher commanders to command their troops in the field and to give them practice in co-ordinating the team work of the different components of their commands. They were also designed to be a practical test of the tactical and technical training carried out during the previous two years, of the physical fitness and morale of all troops engaged and of the administrative capabilities of all units under severe conditions.

They were the first exercises in which complete divisions have been exercised and maintained in the field. They were, moreover, the most prolonged exercises yet attempted, involving as they did long marches, continuous operations over a number of days and over varied terrain without regard to weather conditions. In this way, since they were held under conditions outside the control of the formations concerned, they provided a real test of organisation and of the ability of these formations to take the field, to operate and maintain themselves under conditions of uncertainty.

The result of the exercises from a military point of view is a matter for the General Staff of the Army, but, as far as the public is concerned, it may be said that the exercises showed clearly that the Army, in addition to its protective garrison and administrative duties, can now put into the field an effective striking force.

Throughout the exercises, all ranks displayed a high standard of stamina and physical fitness, together with a cheerful disregard of every form of discomfort.

Notwithstanding the much improved conditions of pay and allowances introduced at considerable cost during the year which has elapsed, we have failed to attract a satisfactory number of recruits. This failure seems to be mainly attributable to complacency on the part of the civil population generally, and, particularly, to a lack of responsibility and a false sense of security on the part of the youth of the country. There seems no doubt that if this country were faced with the dire threat of immediate war, its youth would respond, as always in the past, to the call to arms, and the failure of many to do so during the present emergency must, therefore, be attributed to their lack of appreciation of what is involved in the training of a modern army. They do not yet realise that one trained soldier is of more value than any number of untrained recruits, and that, therefore, if they put off their joining the Army until there is a threat of immediate war, they may be too late to render any effective service in the defence of their country. I, therefore, avail of this opportunity of once more impressing on the civil population generally and on the youth of the nation in particular, the urgent need of the Army for recruits and of their responsibility to see that the gaps in our ranks are filled without delay.

The other chief item on the debit side of the account is one over which the Department has little or no control, the non-delivery of stores against the orders placed, especially for equipment of a warlike nature. From this it must not be inferred that the delivery of such stores has ceased, but it does mean that we have not received all the stores which we have ordered. I am glad to say, however, that, over the period under review, we have received what may well be described as substantial deliveries of every form of military equipment.

So much for the Army itself. I will now deal with the L.D.F. Here, during the year, there has been a wastage, but that, I am glad to say, has been more than counter-balanced by a steady inflow of new recruits, so that now the strength of the force is not less than that of previous years. The wastage has been due to a variety of causes such as waning enthusiasm and economic factors, but no small part of it has been due to the elimination of what may be termed dead-weight material; that is, men nominally on the registers but making no real or apparent effort to attend parades and exercises. It is not suggested that all the dead-weight has been completely eliminated, but it can be said with some confidence that the great majority of the force is now fully effective.

During the past year, special attention has been devoted to the fighting and personal equipment of the force, and all of the effectives have now been provided with uniforms, greatcoats, leggings and boots. Its training, too, has been progressively maintained, and a modified form of battle drill with special attention to practical problems, mainly designed to train leaders in field duties, has been introduced. During the summer months special courses were held at the Curragh for district leaders and district training officers.

The record of the other voluntary service, the A.R.P. service, has been one of steady progress during the year. In the county boroughs and the scheduled urban areas there have been virtually completed the control and message centres, the air raid warning system, the wardens service, the rescue service, the casualty service, the distribution of respirators to the civilian population, and arrangements for the establishment of food and rest centres are well under way.

The provision of public shelters in case of air raids has been actively pushed forward and there has already been provided adequate accommodation for about 70,000 persons. In addition to the public shelters, 93 private firms have submitted plans for the construction of shelters for their employees and 33 firms have already completed shelters with capacity for about 10,170 persons.

Progress has also been made in developing the Auxiliary Fire Service, and, in addition to providing about 113 static water tanks remote from existing water static supplies such as canals, rivers and ponds, existing static water sources have been adapted so as to make them available for fire fighting.

In order to organise householders and business firms in elementary fire fighting arrangements and thus to locate and extinguish incendiary bombs as soon as they fall so as to prevent major conflagrations, an organiser for local fire prevention has been appointed in Dublin. He has been dividing the central city area into suitable blocks and has been assisting in organising those particular city blocks which have been devising schemes of their own in advance of legislation on the subject. In this connection I should mention that the Government have recently directed that an Order be made making it compulsory on occupiers of business premises to prepare schemes for the protection of their premises against fire, and in the case of local authorities to prepare fire-fighting schemes, not only for their own premises, but also for residential areas.

In order to provide food and hot drinks for personnel of the Air Raid Precautions Service when working for long periods, four mobile canteens have been provided by the Dublin Corporation, and the Irish Red Cross Society has agreed to provide the necessary staff.

Another subject which has been under active consideration is that of essential undertakings, i.e., undertakings whether public or private, such, as railways, the Electricity Supply Board, gas companies, waterworks and other concerns, the continuance of whose operations is deemed to be essential and who are required by the Act mainly to provide instruction in air raid precautions for their staffs, to supply shelter and equipment for them, to make arrangements for fire-fighting, to give special protection for key men and for vital points of their works, and to accumulate reserve stocks of spare parts and other essentials. Essential undertakings to the number of 149 have been requested to submit schemes in accordance with the Act. The schemes approved to date provide for shelter accommodation for about 3,000 employees, the training of 2,000 together with the supply of fire-fighting equipment and the provision of reserve stocks.

The remarks made concerning the delivery of stores for the Army apply equally to stores needed for Air Raid Precautions Service. Everything that could be done has been done to get all the stores and equipment necessary, but deliveries against orders have not been all that we desire. We have, nevertheless, during the year received field boilers, fire engines, trailer pumps, respirators and a large assortment of tools. During the year all stores delivered to local authorities have been inspected by the Department's officials and the results were on the whole satisfactory.

Finally there has been evolved a scheme to operate in case of urgent necessity for the evacuation of certain categories of the civilian population of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, and arrangements are being made for their reception, lodging, boarding and general welfare in specially selected reception areas.

From this account of the progress of the Air Raid Precautions Service it must not be inferred that everything connected with the service is in a satisfactory condition or that the Government is viewing the present position with complacency. There are still many gaps to be filled up in all the services but, especially, in the rescue, decontamination, and fire fighting services. Some difficulties have occurred here and there throughout the year in connection with the serving personnel of the services. Many of these difficulties have already been ironed out, and it is to be hoped that the fine example shown by the serving members of the service in sacrificing their time and leisure in the interests of the civil population will have the effect of inducing others to fill up the gaps in their ranks and of making still further progress in developing the service during the period which lies ahead.

The Estimate includes provision for the Office of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and the Censorship Staff, the cost of which has increased by about £700. This is accounted for in the main by normal incremental advances and the increase in the cost-of-living bonus under the Civil Service (Emergency Bonus) Regulations.

During the year, recruiting for the Construction Corps was continued and, notwithstanding discharges totalling nearly 800 due to termination of service and on medical and other grounds, there were approximately 200 more boys in the corps at the end of last year than there were 12 months previously. This is not an unsatisfactory position, but I am aware, of course, that there is a very large number of unemployed boys who are eligible to join the corps and who have not done so. By inculcation of discipline and a graduated introduction to manual work, good results are being obtained in improving physique and endurance and in fitting these boys of the corps for employment which would otherwise be beyond their physical capacity. The corps training also includes instruction in the elementary educational subjects for all members and, where the limited opportunities allow, training is given to selected personnel in such subjects as mechanics, victualling, cooking, shoemaking, hairdressing, and so on, for which outlets exist, in the routine of the corps.

During the past year, various types of work, such as road construction, fence construction, repairs to rifle ranges, drainage, trenching, and cable-laying, were undertaken by the corps for the Army. Furthermore, personnel of the corps cut considerable quantities of turf and timber for Airny use. Apart from these activities, the following civil work was in hands during the year:— (1) Road construction and quarrying at Glencree, County Wicklow, for the Special Employment Schemes Office; (2) timber felling at Glencree for the Department of Lands; (3) construction of a light railway at Clonsast for the Turf Development Board; (4) drainage and levelling work in connection with the development scheme at Tramore for the Irish Tourist Board.

The reclamation work in Cluais, County Galway, which was suspended during last year, was again put in hands during the current year.

In conclusion, in considering this Vote for £8,507,654, covering an establishment for all services of not more than 250,000 men, the Dáil may rest assured that the details of the Estimate making up that amount have been very carefully computed, that the most rigid control is being exercised over its expenditure, and that in due course all such expenditure will be duly accounted for, not only under the two legal heads of the published Estimate but also under the normal sub-heads of the Vote.

Dr. O'Higgins

In rising to discuss this particular Vote, I want to express my protest against the continuation of carrying, within the Ministry of Defence, another Ministry. That practice was reasonable enough in 1939, when the office of the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures was established, the object of which was to include it within that of the Department of Defence, but, after all, nearly five years have passed since then, and I think that every Government Department and every individual Ministry should be answerable through the people to Dáil Eireann. I believe that every Minister should be answerable to the Dáil for his Ministry and for the administration of his Department. This casual way of referring by a Minister to one of the Ministries under his Department seems to me to be something like a sweepstake, and that it is not treating the Dáil fairly. I think that there would have been a good lot to be said, and a good deal of opposition to be expressed, as to the setting up of the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, when it was introduced here, except for the fact that there was a state of emergency here, and I think that that is one reason why this Vote is introduced here, as a part of the Vote for Defence.

Now, with regard to the Department of Defence, I must say that I should like to commend everybody concerned to the attention of the Department— whether they be officers or men, or even the Minister himself—because of the progressive efficiency that is clear to all of us with regard to our Defence Forces—an efficiency that is clear even to the man in the street. These men show, by their behaviour, their deportment, and the business-like way in which they go about their jobs, that they know what they are doing, and they are giving that impression to the ordinary man in the street. From that point of view, everybody, including the Minister, is to be congratulated, but in facing up to this Vote, for the year 1943-44, when we are asked for the huge sum of £8,500,000, every Deputy must satisfy himself conscientiously: firstly, that the money is required, and, secondly, that the money is not required more urgently elsewhere. I believe that in war times, and particularly in global-war times, the energies and resources of every country must be bent towards meeting whatever danger is most real and imminent at the moment. In the summer of 1940, following the collapse of France, and under the momentum of gigantic armies, which carried these armies to the west coast of Europe, of course, any country in Europe at that time had a right to be panicky or nervous as a result of the war situation, but I do not want to talk, nor do I presume to think that anybody here would want to talk, with any more knowledge of the situation that then existed than that which presented itself to the ordinary man in the street. However, it was obvious to everybody that our position here was particularly vulnerable, and that it was particularly attractive to some of the belligerent nations. Approaching the matter from the ordinary impartial view of the man in the street, looking at the map of the world, one can readily assume that one or other of the belligerents would say: "There is a little island which we could use for our advantage."

That was, undoubtedly, an attraction, not alone to one side of the belligerents, but to all sides—to come in and take advantage of our position in that particular year. Any sum that would have been asked for by the Government in that period would not have been considered excessive if it were to be devoted to the saving of our country from any attack by any of the belligerents. If, in that situation, it meant that a half, or even a quarter of our population would have to starve, in order to meet the emergency, it would not have been considered unnecessary. That was the position in 1939, 1940, and possibly in 1941. We had no L.D.F. then, and we were asked for a sum of about half what we are asked for now; yet, we are told that that was the sum required for the defence of this country. As a result of that effort, we not only gave the Army tens of thousands of volunteer soldiers—and that is nearly four years ago—but many thousands of men who joined the regular forces. Now, I do not want to encourage the belief that there is no danger now, but I am sure that nobody is going to say that the danger is as real or imminent now as it was in 1940 and 1941. Our strength is immeasurably greater than it was then. From the point of view of the war in Europe, it looks as if the soldiers on one side or the other are, so to speak, neutralising one another, and that, as a result of extensive and expensive ventures overseas, the time has gone by in which to embark on new adventures, and that as far as the importance of this island as a steppingstone for the supply of great armies in Europe from the western continent is concerned, alternative arrangements of a vast kind have been made so that this little island fortunately has been by-passed.

Even assuming that we must to the very end be prepared to meet any danger that might come our way, it is the function of the Minister for Defence not only as the head of the Ministry of Defence but as a member of the Government to see that in war time the resources and the wealth of a little country such as this are directed towards meeting the danger that is most imminent. I think the danger that is most imminent at the moment is one of supplies, and not only of getting supplies. There is no good in getting supplies if the supplies cannot be bought. Whatever supplies may be there at the moment, whether from overseas or home-produced, circumstances are necessitating a bounding increase in prices from month to month, and our main trouble for the remainder of this war is to see that the people of this country are properly fed. Food cannot be produced—and it would be unreasonable to expect it to be produced—except there is a reasonable margin of profit left to the producer. With increasing prices of every implement, every instrument, every article used, the price of the finished article must go up.

At the present moment that price is completely outside the reach of the poor families of this country. We have reached a point in this war emergency when we must face up to this: that if we are to continue to get food produced it must be paid for and that the price giving a profit to the producer is entirely out of reach of the poorer families. If we could devote £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to subsidising food and the necessaries of life so that the producer would get a reasonable price and the consumer would get an article reasonably cheap, I believe we would be taking a sounder step in the defence of the country than by spending it on arms and armaments.

I should like to see the Department of Defence, without demobilising a single soldier, lean a bit more towards the hundreds of thousands of young volunteers, who have come forward to give their time and their services in an unpaid capacity, to act alongside a central, highly trained, skilled and expert little army, to let those who want to get out of the Army, having done three or four years' training, into the L.D.F., where their experience and their training will make that splendid force a still better force. I do not believe in, or do not advocate, the demobilisation of a single soldier but there are very many men who came forward at the time of an apparently real crisis, leaving their trade, their business, their farms, to spring into the gap of danger, to offer their services against a danger which they believed was just around the corner. That danger passed but the world war is not yet over and those men are still retained in the Army, their trade neglected, their business shrinking. These men are trained men now. Most of the soldiers fighting throughout the world at the present moment have not got a fraction of the training that even our L.D.F. has got. The number of professional soldiers on all sides now would not represent 5 per cent. of the armies. The balance, 95 per cent., is made up of civilian soldiers, not as trained as our L.D.F., not as trained as men who have given two or three years' service to the country within the army. If men who want to get out within a limit fixed by the Minister, were allowed to get out, to resume a trade or business, some definite approach to this problem could be envisaged. We are not a vast continent; we are a tiny little island. These men are patriotic young men. They sprang to the colours immediately the call went out. If danger swerved again in our direction, a wireless message would get 99 per cent. of them. In the meantime they would be helping on the farms, maintaining their families and serving the nation, outside as well as inside.

I want the Minister to realise that we are reaching a very serious situation in this country with regard to food. It is only two days ago since the Minister for Supplies brought in an Order fixing the price of eggs at 4/- a dozen—4d. an egg. That is not going to worry the wealthy household. Eggs will still go into the middle-class household but is there a single wife of a labouring man or an unemployed man in the City of Dublin who can afford to buy eggs at 4d. each? The infant child, the most helpless member of the human race, the tiniest infant, requires two pints of milk a day and the price of milk is going up every three months. Would the Minister reckon the daily cost of a bottle fed infant? What is happening as prices go up? In the better class household there is a bit of grumbling—nothing more. The money is there, the article can still be purchased, there is, no less food going into the house.

But what happens in the humble home? What happens even in the home of the steady workman who has never been out of work, when butter bounces to-day, milk leaps up tomorrow, meat doubles its price in the course of the year and eggs go up to 4d. each? It is not a case of grumbling there and buying the article. A point is reached when the wages cannot keep up the gallop as the price of the egg, the pint of milk, the pound of meat and the pound of butter increases. What happens there? Only one thing. There is less bought. There is less food and the Ministry of Defence should particularly be concerned about the health of the oncoming generation. You see by the reports in your daily papers, by the reports from health visitors, by the reports of those living amongst the youth of the country, that health is deteriorating, and the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Local Government will tell you that is so. There is no money available to assist them, there is no money available to subsidise food, there is no money available to wade in in a big way, as they had to do in Great Britain, so as to see that, where the price the producer was guaranteed, a cheap price to the consumer was also guaranteed by filling the gap by subsidies. That is the choice that I, for one, feel I have to face up to as an individual Deputy when I am asked for £8,500,000 here and where I am told on another occasion that a matter of £50,000 cannot be found because all our money is wanted for defence.

This Vote for defence is going up and up and up. Although the voluntary unpaid defence force, the L.D.F., has gone up from nothing to well over 100,000 men, yet this Army Vote keeps going up and up. One would imagine that a sum of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 counted for nothing. A sum of £1,500,000 per annum in this country means the difference between a, half-fed, a half-starved child population in the majority of the homes and a fairly comfortable child population fairly and reasonably fed in the majority of the homes. That is the choice we have to make. But, when we had no L.D.F., when the necessity for food subsidisation was not half as great, the maximum sum asked for by the Army was £1,500,000 less than to-day. If we had the money to spare, I would say that the mistake the Minister was making was asking for £8,000,000 instead of £80,000,000, because, to tell you the truth, my belief is that if we have to face invasion, it is a joke to be talking in terms of £8,000,000. We might be able to throw up something worth while if we could talk in terms of £80,000,000. But, seeing that our poverty is such and that our resources are so limited, we have to take the hard choice as to how best to spend what we have to spend. I would take a risk with regard to the security of the whole country before I would deliberately see a half-starved generation growing up. There is no case of risk there—that is a certainty, that is a fact. The other risk is just the possibility. We can all have our opinions as to how great the risk is, whether it is receding or coming nearer. One person's opinion is as good as another's. My view is that that particular danger is receding. But the other danger, the danger of starvation, the certainty of partial starvation in many homes, is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of speculation. It is a matter of dead, certain fact, and it is a matter of fact that is within the knowledge of the Government.

I should like that the Minister for Defence, as a Deputy for Dublin City, would sit down to the details of that particular Estimate asking for £8,500,000 per year and see whether his defence machine, splendid as it is, with the splendid force of unpaid men that rallied to it, could not be fed for, say, £1,500,000 less. It would be within his own knowledge how that £1,500,000 could be spent certainly in the interests of the nation and not spent in a direction where there is any doubt as to the danger. In expressing those views I am expressing my own views, and I am expressing views based only on my deductions from what appears in the daily papers.

On some detailed questions with regard to the Army, I should like Army headquarters and the Minister in particular, to inject a little bit more of ordinary family humanity into the machine. I should like the Minister and G.H.Q., while acting fully in the military sense, to face up more to their responsibility as head of a great family. There is no doubt about it that, without interfering with the efficiency of the Army as a whole, without in any way creating any disorganisation, there could be a lot more humanity inside the machine. As I said earlier, tens of thousands of men, who joined for the duration of the emergency, who joined in the big rush in 1940 and 1941, were of opinion that there was fighting coming and were determined that they were not going to be found leaning back, that they were going to be as trained as they could be and that they were going to play their part. None of them visualised three years or four years or five years in the Army. Many of them left wives and children at home. Many of them left widowed mothers at home. Many of the mothers have become widowed since. Would it create any great disorganisation in the Army, seeing that it is a kind of emergency Army, that has to be held for the full duration of the emergency and that we have no say or voice in deciding how long or how short that emergency will be, to see that where possible, or as far as possible, every married soldier or every soldier with a widowed mother was posted as near as possible to his home? Every one of us here has handled dozens of applications where a married soldier is posted, say, down in Youghal while his wife is in Athlone. There are a few hundred men in Athlone and a few hundred men in Youghal. Surely an internal system of transfers could be carried out, at all events with regard to the young married men, so that they could on their evenings off lend a hand to till a plot, to drag a cart-load of turf, to chop up wood, or to ensure that the children at least know their daddy. I find that applications of that kind do not go through very easily. If we are to have a good emergency Army—not engaged in fighting but just beating time against the day when danger might come—the mental comfort of every individual soldier should be looked after as carefully as his bodily comfort. I do not care how well you house or clothe or feed a man, if his heart is gnawed out of him with anxiety for those at home, he is irritated by the thought that he could be there as easily as any one of another 100 soldiers if the machine allowed him. Little things like that count, and I would like to see those little things looked into. The amount of temporary disorganisation caused by the carrying out of the reshuffle would not be very great. One of the big problems in a big army in time of peace is to keep everybody healthily occupied, and, if nothing else, there is a certain amount of staff occupation in carrying that out.

The question of marriage allowances is a running sore and it is increasing. The marriage allowance is a regulation common to all armies in normal times. As far as I know, in an emergency, or in war, the restrictive conditions disappear in most, if not all, armies, and every married man, by right of being married, gets his allowance. We met that situation in this country to the extent that in the past it was necessary for a man to be 25 or 26 years of age and to have five years' service before he could get married. Now it is 23 years of age and two years' service. I think the age restriction is quite defensible, but I would question the two years' service qualification. You are not dealing with a normal Army. It is not a professional standing Army. It is an emergency Army, rushed together to meet an emergency, and those conditions of two years' service before a man can get a marriage allowance are the normal peace-time regulations of a small standing Army. They are not reasonable regulations to impose on an emergency Army, a war Army.

Could the Minister say in 1940 that the emergency was going to last for two years? Every man officially married takes the age limit as being reasonable, but every man that is regularly married should get the marriage allowance. If we are going to deal with millions of pounds, surely it is not right that the wife and the children of any soldier of the State should be branded as destitute and should come on the home help list? From the taxpayers' point of view, it is Tweedledum and Tweedledee whether it comes out of one pocket or the other pocket. The families have to be maintained, whether out of the Army Vote or public funds, but it is degrading that the families of soldiers of Ireland's little Army should be compelled to brand themselves as destitute.

Is not that a grand headline to set to employers? The example to an employer should be the State, and that certainly is an example which we would not like to see followed by any employer in the State. I put it to the Minister that he is dealing with huge sums of money, and, perhaps, this emergency will not last as long as we think, and that in the time he has that Army, the fellows who came forward as volunteers should be treated properly. Treat them in a way that will get the respect of people outside. It may be a big bill. The bill has got to be reckoned in terms of two years, but, certainly, the bill as far as the taxpayer is concerned has got to be paid. He is paying it for home help when it is met out of public funds. He will pay in the same way on this Vote, but to inject the normal regulations of peace time into a wartime emergency Army is entirely unreasonable. That is the one point I want to make in regard to allowances.

Another point is this: we all handle applications from trained soldiers, men of two or three years' service, for indefinite leave. To a very great extent that is granted where it is required for agricultural purposes, but not in every case, and not very speedily. It is granted to students who want to get on with a course of studies. But, in every case that I have come across outside those two classes, it is not granted. Now, an apprenticeship to a a carpenter or to a cobbler or to any other tradesman is just as important to that boy and his parents as the career of a student of any particular profession, and if the Army can allow one class of youths out to resume professional studies then the same should apply to everybody sufficiently trained to go on indefinite leave, where he has an occupation to go to. I do not think, in fact, that if a real emergency came upon us, and if some considerable numbers of your present trained soldiers were at home between this and then, you would lose as much as half a dozen men when the call would go out, and they would be no less efficient as soldiers.

On this question of the treatment of individual soldiers, men are being turned out of the army medically unfit. A good number of them are found to be tubercular and a note is sent to some practitioner in the county that Private so and so is about to be discharged suffering from tuberculosis, and that arrangements should be made with regard to his disposal. For the information of the Department of Defence, I want to say this, and I am saying it with knowledge and a certain amount of experience, to quote the old phrase about the camel going through the eye of a needle, that animal would go through that particular passage with much greater ease than one of us can get a bed in an Irish sanatorium. The Minister for Defence is head of a great State Department, and if he wants x or 2x or 4x beds for patients who are soldiers of the Army, he can get them like that, while others cannot. What is happening is that those men are going home and spreading the disease in their homes, and it is months before the best efforts of anybody down the country can get them into a sanatorium. That is a thing that can be done by the Minister and it is not a case of arguing about one half-penny.

We are arguing and talking of human lives, not only the lives of the particular soldiers who are diseased and given a chance of recovery, but the lives of those they are sent home to infect. There is any amount of premises—every good looking building from here to Donegal and from here to Skibbereen is in the hands of the Department of Defence at the present moment. You could, within the property that is controlled by the Department of Defence, turn this country into a tuberculosis patients' Utopia. You have an unlimited number of the best sanatoria that could be found and they are standing there empty and idle against the time when something may happen, but as against that, something is happening every hour every day. You have tubercular soldiers going out and causing new cases again as a result of that. Is it beyond their capacity and powers, or is it asking too much from the Department of Defence that they would utilise, equip and staff some of those beautiful buildings that are now standing empty in the most beautiful places of Ireland, and turn them into sanatoria or convalescent homes for the young lads who came forward when we all asked them to come, and who lost their health and strength in the service of this country?

Mr. Norton

In view of the fact that there is a medium provided for the purpose of discussing the broader questions of Defence in this country, I do not desire to press the wider issues which might normally arise on this Vote. With Deputy O'Higgins, I think it is regrettable that we must spend such a large sum of money on defence purposes, a great deal of which may be of a very negative character, but unlike Deputy O'Higgins I do not think it is easy for us to shed liability and responsibility in that regard. After all our expenditure on defence purposes is not incurred by our own volition. The movements of armies elsewhere, the threat of invasion from one side or another, and the intensity of the European military conflict may compel us to resort to methods of defence which are forced upon us because of extern circumstances, and I think that, whether we like it or not, it has been the experience of neutrals that did not believe in a military expansionist policy, that for the duration of this war, expenditure on defence is an insurance for the nation against the possibility of attack and invasion, so far as you can get any insurance in financial expenditure during a war of gigantic magnitude such as we are experiencing to-day.

One hopes that eventually this expenditure will be adequate insurance for the whole nation, and that for the rest of the world conflict we may be spared the horrors, the privations, the appalling devastation and the terrific slaughter of human life which unfortunately is the lot of the greater part of the world to-day, whether it is in respect of armies on the battlefield or the civilian population at home. It is generally recognised, however, that expenditure of a military character, necessary though it may be, does not of itself produce any great improvement in the economic or social conditions of a nation, but in our circumstances and the world circumstances as we see them to-day, it is perhaps too Olympian to hope that so long as the world is in arms, we can escape expenditure of the magnitude presented in this Estimate.

I do not want to discuss broad questions of defence policy here publicly, but I wish to raise matters of administration—matters which I think with a leavening of humanitarianism might do a great deal to improve the lot of the tens of thousands of regular soldiers, of duration soldiers and of men who have joined the Defence Forces as auxiliaries to the normal defence machine. With every other Party in the House I want to pay a tribute to the magnificent service the nation has received from the thousands of men and women when the nation looked to be in the throes of a crisis. They have served faithfully during the past four years. They have given of their best to equip themselves for the nation's defence. They have borne the rigours and privations inseparable from military life, and a grateful nation should make sure, so far as it can, by the exercise of pressure on the Department and the Government, that those who have given up their freedom in civilian life, and who have undertaken the hardships of military life should be treated as well as it is possible for the nation to treat them. It is to that aspect of this Estimate that I want to draw attention.

Reference has been made to the granting of agricultural leave. I think it is true that the Department grants it liberally, and in that respect I have no complaint, but I have a complaint against the conditions. A person with five or ten acres of land may join the Army. He may have been employed on the roads, in the bogs or on other local activities of one kind or another. He knows that the land is the best source of insurance against privations for his wife and family. He knows there is a national demand for the production of more food, and he applies for leave in the spring to go back to plough, harrow, and sow his land so that when the harvest comes there may be food for the household to maintain the family.

I think it is praiseworthy activity on behalf of the soldier. He might very well say that the land had to lie there until he came out, but for the purpose of providing for his family, he wants to utilise the land. He makes application for agricultural leave and it is granted. He goes to work on his land but, bear this in mind—during the 28 days of agricultural leave, he gets no pay from the Army, his wife gets no marriage allowance and the children get no allowance, so that as far as the ordinary soldier is concerned, he leaves the Army and his wife and children get no allowance. Everybody who has any knowledge at all of agriculture knows perfectly well that ploughing and sowing land is not at all times a remunerative proposition. It is a time of expenditure, and if a small man with five or ten acres of land has no income, and is faced with a position of having to get land ploughed, perhaps to get assistance and to seed it, that man's financial plight can very easily be imagined. Nobody could pretend to believe that we pay our soldiers well and, recognising that, and the fact that a number have left the land for the purpose of national defence, the Army authorities might recognise the claims of these soldiers to be paid some allowance during leave. They are doing valuable work, and are doing it not merely in the interests of their family, but in the interests of the whole nation.

They are keeping land from going to waste; they are keeping land from deteriorating and I think it is rather unfair and, if I may say so without being desirous of being captiously critical, rather mean of the Army authorities to give a man a month's leave without any pay, knowing the circumstances under which that man joined the Army for the emergency and knowing, too, that at the time he gets the month's leave he is ill-equipped financially to undertake the task of ploughing and sowing his small area of land.

I would like to bring that matter to the notice of the Minister. I know, from contact with him, that he has a sympathetic interest in those in the Army. I know, of course, that the matter is not wholly one for the Minister to decide, but I think the Minister should take his stand on this principle, that he is the Minister responsible for the organisation of an Army which is a credit to the whole nation, and is entitled to go to the Cabinet as often as he likes, fortified all the time with the authority and the pride of the nation, and ask the Cabinet to provide better conditions for those soldiers in circumstances such as those to which I have referred.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is the allocation of soldiers to various units. With other Deputies, I have raised with the Department of Defence a large number of cases where soldiers are away from their wives and families. In many cases those soldiers are anxious to get back for the purpose of looking after a piece of turbary, a piece of land, the cutting of turf or timber and, generally, assisting in the management of households. But although many cases of that kind have been represented to the Department of Defence, my experience —and I think from discussions I have had with them it is the experience of most other Deputies—is that it is extremely difficult, in a large number of cases, to induce the Army authorities to transfer a man either to his own home town or a place near his home town.

We are not dealing with an army of millions. This is not the Eastern front. We have not a 2,000-mile terrain to look after. We are dealing with, probably, one of the smallest armies in Europe, numerically not a very large army, and it ought not to be impossible in these circumstances for the Army authorities to make some arrangement of a human kind whereby soldiers who are serving away from their home towns will be transferred to units which are stationed in these towns or close to them. There is no use in pretending it is impossible to do that. The Minister may reply that a person who joins the Army must put up with all that kind of inconvenience. If the Minister makes that reply I will say that it is just a brass-hat outlook on this whole question. The Minister is not a professional brass hat.

Mr. Traynor

I may say that in every case where it is possible, we are doing what the Deputy is suggesting we should do.

Mr. Norton

This war will be over a very long time before you make much progress at the present rate. The Minister is simply a Minister for Defence and I can quite understand that folk in the Army may say to him: "Mr. Minister, you cannot do it. This has always been the practice and you must not pet and humour these soldiers too much." I want to stiffen his back, and I say to him that he must recognise he is a civilian Minister for Defence and the kind of steelish notion that impregnates military folk must have no place in the make-up of a civilian Minister for Defence. His job is to protect the rights of the civilian soldiers, because in the main that is what the Army is composed of. I hope that the Minister, now that he has indicated that a scheme of this kind is under way——

Mr. Traynor

I say that we are doing it as far as it is humanly possible to do it. It is in the interest of the Army to do so.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister will look over his replies to Parliamentary questions from time to time, I am sure he will be surprised—although they are all written in his name. It may not be possible in all cases to do as I suggest. You may not be able to transfer an artilleryman stationed at Cork to an area where only an infantry battalion is stationed. One can understand that. And you cannot transfer one of the infantry into an area where only artillerymen are stationed. But at the same time every effort ought to be made to transfer soldiers as near to their home towns as possible. Generally speaking, the type of impatience which military folk are inclined to display when they get applications of this kind should not have any place in the civil administration of the Department of Defence.

Married allowances to serving soldiers have been referred to here and elsewhere on many occasions. I think we are not treating the dependents of the married soldier fairly. The allowances which we pay to them are small, smaller probably than is paid in any army in the world which Irishmen join, even in exile. We are privileged, perhaps, in that we have not the same financial commitments that other armies, other countries engaged in war have, but I think we have a heavy moral responsibility to the dependents of married men who join the Army and the dependents of men who marry after they join. I am sure the Minister will not pretend to believe that the scale of Army allowances is such as to provide a decent standard of living. The scale is altogether too low. It cannot be justified by reference to the standard of living or to any decent concepts of life. I think a further effort should be made to increase the scale of allowances which are so inadequate. I know from personal experience that the dependents of married soldiers have had to put up with an intolerably low standard of living. It seems, to me to be very unfair that a soldier's wife and children should be compelled to tolerate that low standard of living when his service in the Army is for the purpose of protecting the coinnninity, many members of which enjoy a very much higher standard of living than that which is the lot of the soldier's family.

There is another aspect of this Army allowance question. I refer to the position of the young man who joins the Army leaving, perhaps, an aged father and mother at home, perhaps leaving a father at home who is working when the son joins the Army. Many such boys joined the Army four years ago. Economic circumstances in the towns or the rural areas have probably forced the father out of employment, or perhaps ill-health or advancing years have helped to do it. The son is still in the Army. When the father was working, things at home were not so bad, but when the father is out of work and the family income is either nil or has dwindled rapidly, it seems unfair in such circumstances, with the son the main contributor to the family wage pool, that no allowance should be paid. I think the Minister could urge on the Government that where a young man of that type is in the Army, leaving at home people virtually wholly dependent upon him, there should be a scale of allowances just as there is in the case of the married soldier who has a family to provide for.

It may not be easy to draw the line in a case of that kind, but in other spheres of legislation we have been able to define total and partial dependency. If it is not possible to make an allowance in an automatic way, it ought to be possible to devise a scale by which, where the son joins the Army, and leaves the family to which he normally contributed or in existing circumstances would contribute in a substantial way, an allowance would be paid. These are administrative matters outside the realm of our broad defensive policy, but they are matters which affect the daily lives of the soldiers and the families of those soldiers. If we are going to surmount what in every country has been found to be a natural disinclination on the part of people to join the Army, we can probably do that best by making the Army attractive. The Army can be made attractive only when we give the soldiers decent conditions of service, pay them reasonably well and make full provision for their families. These are administrative matters, and I hope that the Minister, when replying, will be able to tell us that, whatever about the position in the past, he realises that the Army has given good service to the nation and that, as Minister for Defence, he will spare no effort to secure, by approach to the Government, that the conditions of the soldiers will be further improved on the lines I have broadly indicated in the course of my few remarks.

Mr. Byrne

Deputy O'Higgins has covered virtually all the points upon which I desire to touch. I, with other members of the House, pay tribute to the magnificent qualities of our Army, but I make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of the men and their wives and children. Several times I have raised the question of the inadequacy of their allowances. An hour ago, passing down one of our principal streets in a working-class quarter in the city, a woman called after me. She had a newly-born baby in her arms and she said: "They are giving me 3d. a day for it, and a bottle of milk costs 4½d." That occurred in a street within five minutes' walking distance from here. She does not get even the price of a bottle of milk for the baby. With the rapid increase in the cost of living, are we not justified in asking the Minister to give the dependents of these men, at least, the same increase that these soldiers would have got if they had continued to follow their ordinary avocations and had made application to the Wages Tribunal? Their wages would, in that way, have been increased by 7/- or 8/- a week. Surely they are, at least, entitled to the increase they would have got if they had continued working at the docks or at some factory. I have been asked dozens of times to mention this matter.

Last week, I raised the question of the boy and girl marriage—the young soldier of 20 years of age, the girl of 18 and the baby. I read a letter in this House in which a young woman told me that her mother and herself had gone to the pawn office and pledged their bed-clothes to get ready for the young woman to go into the Rotunda Hospital. She was a soldier's wife. The next thing that happened was that an application was received by the Dublin Board of Assistance, better known as the Poor Law Board, for a grant to enable that woman to keep herself and her baby while her young husband was serving in the Army on a single man's pay. I believe that there are at least 300 or 400 of that type of boy and girl marriages in the City of Dublin and the parties are living on a starvation allowance. The girl goes to her mother to live and brings the baby with her. I do not think that an Irish Government should stand for that much longer. We should impress on the Minister and the brass hats referred to by one of the speakers that they cannot stop these boy and girl marriages by some regulation in the Army. Under this regulation, soldiers are not to get married until they are 23 years of age and have had two or three years' service. If a soldier who is 23 but who is not qualified by service gets married he gets only a single soldier's pay. I think it was Deputy Cosgrave, junior, who referred to the cases of young men with full service but under age who could not get the marriage allowance. I know that every member of the House has letters similar to those sent me about the hardships being suffered by the wives and children of our Army men.

The marriage allowance, where granted, is not sufficient. I have seen soldiers' children every day during the past week barefooted simply because the mother could not afford, out of the small pay her husband receives, to buy seven or eight pairs of boots at the price which they are to-day. They are practically unpurchaseable. Therefore, I say that the Minister should instantly see that something is done to secure that the men in the Army will get the same treatment that they would have got if they had continued working in the jobs which they left when the emergency occurred. Some of them thought that the emergency would last only for a year or two. Having declared their allegiance to the country and their preparedness to defend it, they thought that they would be allowed to return to their work. Now, they see their workmates getting increases—and rightly so— which they are not getting. I appeal to the Minister and to every member of the House to consider those points.

Another case came under my notice which may be justified according to military law but which I think is a shame. It is the case of a woman with a large family. When her husband, who is a soldier, is at home and she receives his ration allowance, her position is not too bad. But this case resembles the unfortunate case mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins. It is a case in which the man was suffering from T.B. and went to hospital. He was in a hurry to leave hospital. Why was that? Because he wanted his wife to have the ration allowance when he was at home. When he went into hospital—a military hospital at that— the Government stopped his ration allowance owing to the hospital regulations or some Army regulation. I do not think that that is a proper thing to do. It may be said that, when the man is not at home, his wife has not to provide rations for him and that, therefore, she loses nothing by his going into hospital. Every one of us knows that where food is bought for a family and is being cooked on the same fire, the ration allowance is of benefit to the family. I think the Minister ought to consider that point and see that the ration allowance is not stopped when a man goes sick. That is the time to give the allowance to his wife and family. It should not be taken from them and given to a State hospital. We know that when an old age pensioner goes into the Dublin poor law institution, 8/- a week is stopped from the pension, and that the balance is left to the pensioner. I do not think that is proper.

Deputy O'Higgins covered most of the points that I wished to refer to. I make a final appeal to the Minister that where allowances are being paid they be increased, and, further, that in the case of the boy and girl marriages the Minister will see that the soldier's wife and child in Dublin will not have to depend upon poor law assistance.

Mr. Cogan

For some time there has been a growing feeling in the country that the expenditure on the Army is altogether in excess of the needs of the present situation. Deputies in all parts of the House, as well as the people outside, have felt that the question of the strength of the Army and the amount of money which should be devoted to national defence were matters primarily for the Defence Conference. I would like to ask what has become of this alleged Defence Conference? Has it been dissolved or disbanded? To-day we heard Deputy O'Higgins who, I understood, was a member of it, advocating a very drastic reduction in the strength of the Army, as well as a very drastic cut in defence expenditure. If these, questions have not been dealt with by the Defence Conference, I do not see what particular use that body serves at the present time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no item in these Estimates for the Defence Conference.

Mr. Cogan

I would like to ask the Minister how he conducts his Department in connection with defence, whether he acts purely on his own initiative and on that of the Government, or whether he acts in consultation with the other Parties as was envisaged when the Defence Conference was established.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that the Minister can be asked to disclose to the House what takes place before the Defence Conference.

Mr. Cogan

I am not going to press the Minister to disclose any information——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that the Minister should be asked to do a thing that he cannot do.

Mr. Cogan

If the Minister does not want to disclose the information, I am not prepared to press him. It seems rather strange to me that we should have this question of the strength of the Army, and the amount devoted to defence, brought up by a member of that conference. I am entirely in agreement with Deputy O'Higgins. I think that the situation has changed very materially since 1940, and that there is a very strong case for reducing the strength of our Defence Forces and the amount of expenditure on defence. Money is more urgently needed to-day to provide for a more important line of defence, namely, the provision of the essential food and fuel requirements of the nation. Deputy O'Higgins pointed out that this money could be employed in a more desirable way, that is in closing the gap between the cost of production and the price which the consumer has to pay. That is a policy which the members on these benches have been persistently advocating, and it seems to be one which is long overdue.

In addition to that, a reasonable case for reducing the strength of the Army can be supported by the need which arises for staggering the volume of demobilisations from the Army. As everybody realises, it would be a most undesirable situation for the country to have to face if the major portion of the Army were to be demobilised in a short space of time. If it were possible, as I believe it is owing to the change in the international situation, to transfer men gradually from the Army to civilian occupations over a period of months or even over a period of years, if would make for greater stability. It would enable those men to get established in their civilian occupations with the minimum amount of disorganisation, difficulty and confusion. In addition, some of the money which would be spared in reducing the strength of the Army could be devoted to the purpose of establishing those ex-members of the Defences Forces in civilian occupations, and in supplementing their earnings in fuel or food production.

I think Deputy O'Higgins has made a very strong case for a reduction in the amount of this Estimate. I think it will be the duty of the Minister, when replying, to defend the Estimate and to convince the House as to the need for this huge volume of expenditure, unreduced to any great extent or only to a small extent, having regard to the amount involved as compared with last year and the preceding year. I think that the Minister roust be prepared, cow that the Defence Conference has, apparently ceased to function, to come forward and tell the House exactly what danger he really fears, and to what extent the international situation is the same as it was when it was decided to expand defence expenditure in 1940.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

It has often occurred to me, when listening to debates of this character and hearing the eulogies poured out on the soldiers who give service to their country— when we hear people telling us of the pride that they take in the Army—to wonder how much pride the ordinary private soldier takes in the people and nation whose safety he has enrolled himself to safeguard, secure and protect. I say that, especially, when we realise that in so many ways and forms we treat the average private soldier as some form of helot, some type of sub-human being that in some way is not allowed to associate with the ordinary citizen or to enjoy the ordinary rights and privileges conferred by the State on every citizen above a certain age. It is a peculiar feature that in this country we did not attempt to break away from a certain mental attitude adopted by another country towards its ordinary private soldiers. We seem to have carried over to our military life all the bad and evil conceptions of the British Army whereby the ordinary private British soldier is treated as a sort of outcast among the great mass of the people. Whether that is due to the peculiar lines along which our defence policy is built up, or whether it is that we have just inculcated into our small Army all those vicious principles, I do not know. But it is a peculiar thing that in this country, where the name of soldier, in our struggle, carried a very high tradition, we are on a level with those countries that, have always treated their soldiers as merely a form of cannon fodder: that we have kept them on the lowest conditions possible, and have never attempted from the early days to follow a better headline, to treat our men who go into the Army, not as people cast into the outer darkness whom we hliould shun and ask to live at the lowest possible level of existence, but as citizens who have taken upon themselves an added responsibility and an added duty, and are therefore entitled to additional protection. So far as I am aware, there are only two Governments in the world which have done that. One is the Labour Government in Australia, where the ordinary private soldier enjoys a rate of pay commensurate with that paid to skilled workers outside and all the privileges and rights of a citizen. We, unhappily, have followed the other course.

It is somewhat difficult to discuss the actual details of a Vote of this kind, and I think it would be as well for Deputies who feel, if you like, that the amount is too great and who would like to see it reduced to realise, when dealing with the types of individuals whom we refer to under the title of "brasshats", that once you give them something, it is very hard to get it back. You will not get it back merely by appealing to their better instincts or by pointing to the needs of ordinary women and children. The debate on such a matter has to be a major debate and it is necessary to bring in all the principles of the entire strategic policy of the country and that is something which is not possible at the moment. There is, however, another way in which it could be approached, and that is not merely to suggest that the Vote should be reduced, but to endeavour to formulate ways and means of obtaining this money, so that this huge sum of £8,500,000 might not be taken away from what are, to my mind, the even more vital needs of the welfare not only of our women but of our future generations.

I think many of us must have been struck from time to time by the thought that it is an illogical procedure to equip and train an Army, to ask our men to bear arms and risk their lives in the defence of their country, when we expose the children of these men to premature death, disease and all the ravages which follow a low diet, a low standard of living. If there is anything valuable in this country, surely it is not merely the property, the sticks and stones, that we have, and surely it is not even the general vague principles of nationality and freedom about which we talk so much. Surely it is the people of the country and not those of us who have already completed the greater part of our span of life, but the little children who are to come after us and carry on the race and tradition. Yet, in building our Army and in providing a sum of £8,500,000 for it, we do not ask that we should run any sacrifice, that we should do without anything, but we ask that the cost of that Army should be borne by the most defenceless section of our people.

I do not know whether it is that we are illogical, or whether we just do not give a thought to it, or whether we have that particular attitude of mind which feels that human life is of less value than property; but, in the ordinary civic affairs of our city, if a property owner wants particular protection for his property, and if he asks for additional police protection, he pays for it. Is there any reason in the world why this sum which we have spent on our Army year after year during this war period should not have been regarded as an emergency expenditure? Why should we not realise not merely that our Budget is one which has to be balanced year by year, but that there are times such as the present when we have to meet exceptional expenditure, and that such expenditure should be spread over a longer period? Why should we not ask those who stand to gain most by the protection our Army affords to make the biggest contribution, because they are in the best position to do so? Surely it is not too much to expect that those who have property and investments in this country would have provided the Government with a long-term loan to enable it to meet this expenditure, and not, as Deputies have pointed out, to take out of the mouths, not of the children generally of the nation, but even more particularly of the children of these very soldiers, the food they require?

I do not think it is of great value to pursue that particular line at the moment, nor is it of any great value to try to deal with the Vote as a whole; but while it might appear to be repetition to follow the line of other speakers in regard to the allowances paid to the dependents of soldiers, it would be a shame for any Deputy who has the opportunity of voicing a protest to remain silent and refrain from adding his voice to the protest made already from different benches. When we consider that, in the City of Dublin, the Department of Defence and the Minister responsible require the wife and nine children of a sergeant in our national Army to exist on a sum of £2 3s. Od. per week, and that, when we work that out in terms of so much per meal per day, they are asked to provide a meal for these ten people for the sum of 2½d., we see the state we have reached. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that among the most poverty-stricken, the most ill-nourished and badly clothed children in the City of Dublin are the children of our serving soldiers. If he does not believe that, he should go to one place alone in the city—Keogh Square, Inchicore—where he will have personal experience which possibly may even now change his mind. It is from that angle, it seems to me, we should make this appeal to the Minister.

I do not know whether the average citizen realises the position in which we place these men. We take them, in many cases, from good jobs; we call them up from the Reserve and put them into the Army; and because they have laid themselves open to that call from their country, we condemn them to see their families taken from relative comfort and security and placed below the poverty line. If these men are worthy of service in the Army, if their service is valuable to the country, surely the first consideration is that their women and children should be given at least that minimum protection.

Deputy Byrne has spoken about giving them the same increase as has been given to workers in outside industries. I do not think that even that sum would be sufficient to fill the gap which we have left between the needs of those dependents of our serving soldiers and the amount provided for them, out it would at least be a measure; and, from my experience of dealing with the type of individual who would be arguing the case against us, we would be very lucky if we succeeded in getting portion, not to speak of the whole, of it. It would, however, be an encouragement to us to go ahead and to continue protesting, so that finally our soldiers would be treated not as helots or individuals who, for one reason or another, have "taken the shilling," as was the phrase in the old days, and who have gone away to hide themselves in shame, but as citizens serving in a more valuable, a more dangerous and a more worthy way than the great bulk of the citizens.

Then we come to deal with the other problem that has been raised by Deputy Byrne, the problem of the young soldier marrying outside the regulations. It is another amazing fact that we give the right to any male citizen of this country to get married at 18 years of age but we say a soldier in the Army, apparently, is neither fit nor competent to get married until he is 23 years of age. At the same time, the very individuals who lay down these regulations require an increased birth rate to supply their Army with recruits. And they talk to us about national suicide! I would suggest that if it is fit and proper and if they do believe in a larger Irish nation and a greater population, apart altogether from whether or not it is possible to stop these marriages, it is important from the point of view of the country and from the point of view of the men that those who joined the Army or were called up, should not lose the ordinary rights they enjoyed as citizens outside the Army.

I want to quote one case to the Minister, which seems to me somewhat symptomatic of the attitude towards these men in the Army. It is a case of a soldier with 16 years' service and a good record, who was living in married quarters. He has a young family of five children. He has a boy already in the Army, who is now in St. Bricin's Hospital. One of his boys got into the ordinary trouble that any boy would get into. He was brought up in court and put on probation. Then the Army, not satisfied with the decision of the, magistrate, ruled that the father should pay monetary compensation for the damage done by the boy and, in addition, that he should vacate his married quarters and, until such time as he did so, his marriage allowance would be stopped. I am fully familiar with the difficulties that arise in having children in married quarters. I happened to live for some time outside the wall of a barracks and I had many unpleasant experiences but to penalise a whole family because of a misdemeanour of a boy of 12, to reduce this family to the stage that they have to have recourse to charitable aid from the St. Vincent de Paul Society, seems to me to be going beyond the limit altogether.

When that man goes out on the barrack square in formation, and collapses from weakness, through hunger, we cannot even then get any remedy but are told that the regulations must be enforced. When he leaves the married quarters and takes up residence outside the barracks, then, and only then, will his marriage allowance be restored. This man has seven children for whom he must find accommodation in the City of Dublin. Any one who knows the city knows that it is almost a physical impossibility to get any accommodation for a family of that size unless the applicant is in a position to pay rent of £1 to 30/- a week. This man has to find such accommodation and to pay that rent out of the ordinary pay of a private soldier. I suggest that that attitude to a serving soldier requires to be changed. It seems to me symptomatic of our attitude towards these men. That is something that we cannot take pride in and I certainly do not think it, induces pride in these men.

The Minister is aware of the difficulties confronting the Army in the trek across the Border. Men do not leave the Army because they take pride in that Army and are satisfied with their conditions. If we cannot give to these men all that we think they are entitled to, at least we should give their women and children the loud, clothing and shelter they are entitled to through the services of their men and as women and children of our nation.

Mr. Benson

There is one very small point which I would be glad that the Minister would look into. I do not expect an answer from him to-day because it is obviously a matter he will have to look up. It has been reported to me that in some districts there has been difficulty in cashing the drafts paid for allowances. I understand that these allowances are paid by a cross-draft and that they bear on them some remark to the effect that a bank cashes them at its own risk. I presume that such safeguards as can be taken have been taken to ensure that the person who presents the draft for payment is the rightful person, but at the same time I understand that in one particular case there was some trouble over the cashing of one of these drafts; the bank was unable to recover the money from the Department and, in consequence, all the banks in that particular area have declined to cash these drafts.

My information may not be correct but, if it is, I think it is a matter which should be looked into. The Minister should see if some system different from the existing one cannot be adopted—payment through the Post Office, or something of that nature—so that there may be no difficulty about the cashing of these drafts. It is obvious, of course, that most of the persons in receipt of these allowances will not be persons who have banking accounts. That, of course, presents a difficulty in their having them cashed through a bank. If a shopkeeper cashes them, he does it at his risk, because there is this clause that the Department may not make it good. It is probably a difficult matter, but I hope the Minister will take note of it with a view to seeing if anything can be done to improve the system so that there may be no difficulty about the cashing of these drafts in the future.

Mr. Cafferky

The various Deputies who have spoken have all complimented the soldier on his discipline and good behaviour. When one listens to men congratulating the soldiers for behaving properly one would imagine that to join the Army you must be some low type of human being. After all, the great majority of the Army come from the working class, many of them from the unemployed ranks. They happen to be the best citizens of this country. They happen to be the backbone of this nation. It is only to be expected that they would behave in the Army just as they would behave in civilian life.

I wish to voice my protest, not against the amount of this Estimate, but against the way in which it is distributed. I cannot see why the soldier does not receive better pay. I cannot see why the soldier, if he is so important and if he is at any moment prepared, and has taken an oath, to lay down his life for the defence of this country, should not receive a wage equivalent to that which he was earning, if he was in employment, before he joined the Army. That is a point in which I am very much interested: why cannot the soldier receive a wage equivalent to the wage he had before he joined the Army? Of course, the Minister may reply that there are Deputies who say that the expenditure is already too great, and that what I suggest would increase it. Would it not be possible to lower the salaries of the higher ranks—the brass hat people —the men from the N.C.O. up? Would it not be possible to give them a little cut and to give a little rise to the lower grade, the ordinary private, who has his wife and family to look after, the man who is barely existing I One would think a little humanity might come into our hearts, and the Minister's heart and the Government's heart. One would expect a little Christianity. After all, these men are very patriotic. I happened to be out of this country, as a worker earning my living, when the war broke out, and I was quite surprised to read of the numbers of young men who rushed to the Colours in this country. I was surprised that there was any patriotism whatsoever left in the youth of this country. I was surprised that they were prepared to lay down their lives to serve under the rotten and diabolical system that exists here to-day and that has existed for the past two or three years since we got our native Government.

That is the only point on which I can pay tribute to the soldier of to-day, that he has within him any patriotism, or any respect for this country, seeing the way he has been treated since we took over the reins of office, and since we claimed to do what John Bull failed to do in the past years—to give our workers and people a decent wage, to give them economic and social security, healthy environment, everything that the worker and the ordinary man requires and has a perfect right to demand with no apologies whatsoever.

It is no wonder that when you meet the ordinary soldier in the street he has certain faults to find with the administration of the Army and with the way he is treated. If you go into a pnblichouse—not that I drink much; I may go in to pass a half an hour— do you think you would see the "big shot" offer the private soldier a drink? He would not touch him. Do yon think you would ever see a soldier in the saloon bar or the cocktail bar? Not on your life. Do you think these upper classes would ever invite them to their home on Sunday afternoon for a nice tea or make life more sociable for them? Not on your life. They are just contemptible rats, something of the lower type of humanity, who have joined the Army to take up a gun and lay down their lives to protect this country. Against what? Against an invasion, we are led to believe. To protect the private owning class, the property class and the exploiters—that is what the Army is for. If Hitler came in here, I have only my clothes and pyjamas. They would not be much use to him.

Mr. Davin

What about Stalin?

Mr. Cafferky

It is six of one and half dozen of the other as far as I am concerned. I think the Minister would be very well employed, and he would be fulfilling his obligation in the letter and the spirit, if he tried to do something more for the private soldier. If he cannot find the money let him come to the House and get the money. If he will remove, perhaps, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and the staff he has in that Department, perhaps he would be able to find an, extra few thousand pounds which would give tike ordinary soldier extra comfort and easier access to the social comforts which he needs and which he has every right to have.

Then we would be getting somewhere, and there would be no need for the Taoiseach to have to beg for recruits for the Defence Forces. We would be in a different position then, because we would have somthing to defend. If the ordinary citizens of this country had been properly treated prior to this war, and if any reasonable guarantee had been given to them that their dependents would be looked after properly, I believe that there would be no need to beg for people in this country to come to its defence. For instance, take the ease of a married man, with a young family, what guarantee had he that his wife and family would be taken care of? In the case of a man with a wife and child, if, let us say, a lunatic should come into the house to attack that child, that man would put up the best defence he could to protect his child. I know that I would do so, and I am sure that any man would be prepared to do the same thing. Accordingly, if the people of this country were given the social security to which they have a right, there would be no need for any broadcasts over the radio or through the newspapers to get them to join the Defence Forces, but the fact is that that social security does not exist.

It must be admitted that in Ireland at the present moment we have nothing to offer our citizens which would induce them to go out and fight in its defence. The present Government has given no inducement to anyone to go out and defend their country. It is all very well to speak of the payments or allowances made to soldiers or their dependents, but I should like to know—I have not the exact figures with me— the amount of money that goes to the higher officials connected with the Department of Defence. I should like to know what exactly are the salaries of the high officials or officers of the Army, from the Commander-in-Chief down to the lowest grade officer. When I read the figures here, I was shocked. I could not believe that, under a Fianna Fáil Government, the higher officials should be getting so much, while the ordinary private or volunteer in the Army could not get enough to enable him to buy cigarettes. I am prepared to back what Deputy Larkin, Deputy O'Higgins and other Deputies said with regard to the present emergency, and that the dependents of these soldiers should get assistance immediately in order to help them to exist. Of course, I know that we are told that certain things should not be referred to during the present emergency, but I think that that is a matter which calls for immediate attention.

Mr. Keyes

In his opening statement, the Minister indicated that it was due to judicious pruning that this decrease had been effected, but having regard to statements made by various Deputies I wonder whether the use of the word "pruning" was judicious. I am sure that the best thing that can be done is to keep our Army at the highest peak of efficiency, and I feel quite sure that the Minister will not give a deaf ear to any suggestion in that regard. Accordingly, we have to examine the Minister's statement carefully in view of the various statements that have been made here to-night. The Minister has indicated that there has been a, slackening-off in recruits for the Army as compared with the original influx of recruits at the start of the emergency. Is the Minister satisfied that the treatment of the wives and families of soldiers is not a contributory cause to the falling-off in recruiting? It may be, perhaps, nauseating to repeat this, but I have to say that the wives and families of these soldiers are acting as anti-recruiting agents, if you like, because of the way they are being treated. Other speakers have referred to the inadequate marriage allowances of soldiers, but there is one point that I particularly wish to refer to, and that is the different treatment which is given to the higher officials or officers, which must reflect itself upon the feelings of the unfortunate dependents of the ordinary serving soldier. I am sure that any Deputies who have had any contact with those soldiers will be aware of the irritating effect of many of the regulations, with regard to marriage and so on. If we are looking for anything that would help to make the lot of these soldiers and their dependents better, surely we could remove some of these irksome regulations which are militating against a satisfactory condition in the Army.

I am sure, as Deputy Larkin has pointed out, that the Minister must be conscious of all these things that are militating against recruiting for the Army—these regulations with regard to marriage, and so on. Perhaps, these are matters that should be more properly discussed by the Defence Conference. Deputy Cogan referred to that, and I am sure that these matters have already been adverted to in the Defence Conference, but I do not agree that such matters should not be discussed here during the duration of the present emergency, even if they have already been discussed at the Defence Conference.

I feel rather timorous in discussing this question of the Army but, as I said in my opening remarks, I think it is the business of every Deputy to see that the Army is maintained at the highest pitch of efficiency although a few months ago the Government Party seemed to feel that they themselves were the sole custodians of the right to have an Army. In my constituency, they made a remarkable outburst in a printed circular which they distributed broadcast irrespective of the damage it might have done. In that document they accused members of the Labour Party of trying to disband the Army, and stated that if the Labour Party got into power, their first intention was to disband the Army, to enable members of the forces to go to England, where they could earn higher wages. So much for the responsibility of the headquarters of an organisation which allowed a circular of that character to be disseminated through the length and breadth of my constituency.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy suggest that the Minister for Defence is responsible for that circular?

Mr. Davin

He has not repudiated it.

Mr. Keyes

I regret that the necessity should have arisen to discuss this matter and I want to assert that I am just as keen as ever for the maintenance of an efficient Army, notwithstanding that vile attack made on this Party by the Government Party. It was repudiated here before, but I want to take advantage of this Estimate to say that they should show a greater responsibility for the Army which they control. It is the Army of the nation, not their Army. Any criticisms made from these benches are not made with the object of scoring personal points against the Minister or his staff, but really to try to improve the standard of the Army and to see that the grievances which are rankling in the minds of members of the Army should be removed at the earliest possible moment. I think they should be removed, not alone in the interests of justice and humanity, but also in the interests of the efficiency of our Defence Forces. I am merely takmg advantage of this Estimate to raise these matters.

Mr. Flanagan

I was not in the House when Deputies were dealing, at an earlier stage, with the Army Vote, but there are only one or two matters to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. Some time ago I wrote a letter to the Minister—there was also a letter from a certain member of the Defence Forces—in which I enclosed a copy of a communication sent from the B.A.F. recruiting station in Belfast, which indicated that members of the Army in this country are able to secure these documents and leave the Army—to desert in other words. They are able to go to Belfast and join the R.A.F. I have before me one of these documents which states:—

"It is now possible to arrange for your immediate enlistment in the. R.A.F. subject to passing the medical board and trade test in Belfast. In agreement with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it is necessary for you to travel and to catch the 9 a.m. train from Dublin to Belfast. No other train will do and this letter acts as a travel permit."

This letter acts as a travel permit to allow members of our own Army to join the R.A.F.

Mr. Davin

Is that an official document?

Mr. Flanagan

It is an official document, a travel permit in other words to go straight up to Belfast and join the R.A.F. How can we keep an Army in this country when the British Government is sending down travel permits to members of our forces to go down there and join their army? The Minister should have replied to me on that matter, at least I was expecting he would reply. I was down in the Library when I was told that this Vote was under discussion and I rushed up to ask the Minister is he aware that this business is going on? I have the travel permit in my possession which I got from a soldier. There is another point to which I should like to call the Minister's attention. Is he aware that there are high-commissioned officers in the Army who have sons serving in a foreign army? We know that a father's heart lies where his son is.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy can trace the relationship of all the officers in the Army.

Mr. Flanagan

I am of opinion that this country cannot expect really good service from an officer in tho Army whose sons are serving with foreign forces. I ask is the Minister aware of that? I know he cannot do anything or that he is not responsible where an Army officer's son is serving, with another army.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Minister is not responsible, why raise it?

Mr. Flanagan

I should like to know if he is aware of it.

An Ceann Comhairle

He has control over the personnel of the Army, not over their families and other relatives.

Mr. Flanagan

At the same time it is not good enough. We cannot expect a good return from these men when we leave the whole question of our defence in their hands while their sons are serving a foreign country. I do not think there is any sincerity or heart about it. There is no other point I wish to raise but these are two matters to which I should like the Minister to pay some attention. A major, question is that concerned with the issuing of travel permits to Belfast for members of our Forces because we cannot keep an Army while we have the British Government sending down these communications to men in our Forces. There are some of our men going because there is easy money to be earned in England and in Belfast. I think the practice should be stopped. The Minister would be well advised to look into the matter. If necessary, I shall send this travel permit to his office in the morning.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to bring a few points before the Minister which I have not heard raised up to the present. The first concerns men taken into the Army who are classed as A.1 and who are later discharged from the Army without any pay, their only recourse being to sign on for the dole. The Minister referred to the fact that these men receive 6d. a day extra and that there was 6d. per day retained which they would get when the emergency was over. Some of these men will have gone to the long home by that time and will never get the money. I suggest that men discharged from the Army as unfit or for any other cause should get the 6d. per day which baa been deducted from them during their service. Some of them have served tor over two or three years.

I should also like to mention that I know cases of soldiers' wives in my own town, such as Deputy Byrne mentioned recently. There is a case of a wife and eight children who receive £2 3s. 9d., and a wife and seven children receiving £2 2s. In that town they are paying 4/- rent, and 1/- for electric light. These people are not able to afford boots to send their children to school, and if they do not go to school the Guards are on to than. We see children going to school in their bare feet, because their parents are not able to buy boots from this meagre allowance. I should like to see the Army Estimate increased by £2,000,000 more so that the rank and file might get increased allowances. I would ask, the Minister to consider the cases of men who have been discharged, with a view to having the 6d. per day deducted from their pay during their service immediately paid to them.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

I want to join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister from all sides of the House to grant an early increase in the marriage and children's allowances. I am not going to elaborate on the matter, as other Deputies have spoken about it, and we have had it mentioned here on many occasions. The allowances certainly are not adequate, and they should be increased this side of Christmas. In passing, I think that we can congratulate ourselves on having had this debate, because it is the first time we had a really thorough debate on this important question. On other occasions on which we tried to raise it, it was generally stifled—fairly successfully. I think tills debate will do a lot of good, and I hope that as a result the marriage allowance will be increased by at least 50 per cent. before Christmas.

An Ceann Comhairle

I trust the Deputy does not suggest that discussion was stifled by the Chair. Discussion on this Estimate was limited by consent of and at the desire of the Dáil.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

I want to emphasise that I think the debate has done good, and I am glad that the matter has been debated in the way it has been. With regard to the regulation preventing marriage under certain conditions, I have on more than one occasion asked the Minister to give a reason for that regulation. He has not as yet given any reason other than that it has always been the practice in most armies. That is not a reason. I want to know if there is a really good reason why that regulation should be there at all. I think there is every reason why it should be abolished. The truth of the matter, I think, is that it is there for economy reasons. I think it is entirely wrong and unchristian that any State should economise by such a barbarous regulation. It has been suggested quite often to me that, apart from the marriage and children's allowances, there should be a separation allowance for other dependents. We often come across a man in the Army whose aged mother is living at home on a miserable old age pension, most of which goes in rent. We ought seriously consider that allowances should be made to dependents of serving soldiers, apart from their wives and children. A few men in the Army have also complained to me that when they felt they had a grievance with regard to the rate of pay or something else and wrote to their local Deputy, if that were discovered they were punished for it. I think that also is very wrong. I think that no man should be punished who, when he thinks he has a genuine grievance, tries to get it remedied.

Mr. Davin

I want to refer very briefly to the two policy matters for which the Minister is answerable to the House and to nobody else except the members of the House. Nearly every Deputy knows that the numerical strength of the Army has not changed for the past year or 18 months. Notwithstanding the fact that the numerical strength of the Army has not been altered to any great extent, it is surprising to me to read every few weeks a list published in the daily papers of new commissions being granted or promotions being made by the Minister and his advisers.

If the strength of the ordinary rank and file of the Army is standing at the same figure for the last 18 months, I cannot understand why it should be necessary up to quite recently to increase the numerical strength of the officer ranks and to promote officers whose duties and responsibilities have not been altered to any great extent, or to any extent at all so far as I know. I notice, for instance, in one particular case—I do not want to give the position of the officer concerned— that an officer who orrginally entered the Army as a lieutenant was subsequently promoted to the rank of captain without having his duties and responsibilities altered in any way. The officer concerned has nobody under his control. He is in a position in which he is on his own and, if there was no alteration in the duties and responsibilities of the officer as compared with the time when he was appointed to this particular position as a lieutenant, the only conclusion I can come to is that this is a sort of backdoor method of giving an increase of salary to an Army officer. That cannot be done in the case of the rank and file. I should like the Minister to explain why, at this stage, it is necessary to grant so many new commissions, because this is only creating a problem which the Minister or his successor will have to deal with at a later date or at the end of the emergency period.

There is one other matter that may not be regarded as very serious, but it is a matter of policy for which I presume the Minister is responsible. I understand that three serving officers who were in the Army up to a short time before the last general election applied for permission to contest seats at the election. This is not a Party matter, because I understand the three officers involved have been associated with the Fianna Fáil, the Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The three officers concerned were defeated at the election, but I am informed that the Minister and his advisers refused to reinstate them in their former positions. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain why ho has refused to reinstate them and whether he is relying upon some Army regulation to support the action that he has taken.

Mr. Pattison

There are one or two matters to which I should like to refer. The position of the Army in a neutral country like this should be as important as in any country engaged in war. There is a matter connected with the Army which is creating great discontent. I regret to have to deal with it publicly, but it has got to be raised somewhere at some time, if anything is to be done about it.

Owing to the very low rate of marriage allowance, married men in the Army, very frequently men with excellent records, have found themselves in certain difficulties which have led to disciplinary action. In some cases they have been tempted to part with Army blankets or some Army stores to some people who bought them. I agree that they must be dealt with, but I do not agree that the punishment should be passed on to the wives and innocent children of these soldiers. In Great Britain the same regulation applied, but in that country now everything must be sacrificed to victory and they removed that regulation. If our object is to keep out of the war, we must rely mainly on our armed forces to preserve oar neutrality and I think it is time that the Government and the Minister should review that position and see that no longer shall the wives and innocent children of serving members of the Defence Forces have to share in the punishment of such men, if they have to undergo any punishment for any offence during their service. Nobody will argue that it is in the interest of the Army in any way that innocent people should have to share in the punishment meted out by the Army authorities. The moment a soldier commits himself in any way, no matter how slight, steps are taken to ensure that his wife and dependents no longer receive allowances until the matter is dealt with. Then, if he is sentenced to any term of detention, they do not receive any money during that time and the local rates liave to support them. I am sure the Minister will agree it would be well if something could be done about it. In the Army there are many special classes in the private ranks, such as cooks, and so far as I know most of those men are married men who are left in one post for years. I suggest it would be much to the advantage of their dependents if they could be located as near as possible to where their families reside.

Mr. Corish

I would like to add my voice to what has been said as to the inadequacy of the marriage allowance paid to a soldier's dependents. I think it will be admitted by everybody that it is too low. The Minister will probably tell us, as he did before, that within the last two years the allowance has been raised twice. Notwithstanding that, the allowances at present are not such as to permit a man's wife and family being treated in the proper manner. The Minister will recite the allowances given to a soldier, the amount it takes to keep him in barracks and in clothes, and so on. Of course, that is very little use to the man's wife and family. One would like to know the actual cost of keeping a single soldier in a barrack at present.

Like some of the other Deputies, I submit that the man who joins the Army to serve his country, and who stakes an oath to lay down his life for his country if needs be, should have at least a wage equivalent to the wage he would receive in civil life. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that suggestion, and the Minister would be well advised to adopt something of that kind.

In regard to marriage allowances, under the present regulation, a man must be 23 years of age, and must have two years' service. I think it was 25. What right has the Minister of the Government to determine when a man should get married? The Church has always advocated early marriages, and it is a very dangerous thing for the Government to take up this attitude. It is not preventing marriages; soldiers are being married day after day against this regulation. As a result, no marriage allowance is paid to the man's wife, and after a time there is a child, and no allowance is paid on behalf of that child. The result is that they have to go to the home assistance authorities in order to receive a few miserable shillings, week after week. It is humiliating, to say the least of it, and certainly disgraceful, when a man is in the service of his country and prepared to lay down his life for his country, that his wife should have to seek home assistance, because of a regulation which is very hard to understand.

Some speakers to-day mentioned the question of husbands being separated from their wives and families. I know that the Minister has been helpful in this matter and I remember writing to his Department on three or four occasions, when he always did what I asked in that connection. However, matters of this kind should be adjusted before it becomes necessary for a Deputy to write to the Minister to ask that a husband be sent back to his home town, or as near to it as possible. These men offer their services to the Army in an abnormal time: probably they would not have done so if the times were normal; and, therefore, they should not be bound by rules that would or should be in operation, perhaps, in peace-time when a man offers himself as a professional soldier.

On many occasions, a soldier gets home on leave for a week and at the end of it he may be ill and not able to go away. I have known occasions where that man's wife called to the military barrack in the town in which he spent his leave and presented a doctor's certificate to the officer-in-charge. That certificate was sent on in the usual way and, the man went back a day or two afterwards. The next time a separation allowance was due, none was sent to the wife and family. I would ask the Minister to try to remedy that. I am not pleading the case of a man who deliberately refrains from going back on duty—as there are many—since that is the man's own fault. Where, however, a man is ill and takes all the necessary steps to acquaint his commanding officer by sending a medical certificate, the allowance should not be held up for two or three weeks, as I have known to occur.

Mr. Everett

Deputy Davin raised a very important point in connection with the promotion of officers. It had been my intention to refer to that and to suggest to the Minister that it is definitely a back door method of increasing the already very high salaries of some of the officers. We have a discrimination between the family of the officer and the family of the private. We have heard here to-night an appeal from all sides of the House to give to the private what is his due to him by his country. You have privates' children expected to be maintained on 3d. per day. What is the allowance for the children of officers? Why should one person be promoted from a clerk to a second lieutenant and from commandant to A.D.C.? Was that done on account of his politics, because certain people in this House were relatives of his? Why was his Party singled out? Is that not one of the reasons why the Taoiseach said there would have to be conscription, because he realised that the soldier was not satisfied when his children were getting only 3d. a day?

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy knows the Taoiseach never made such a statement.

Mr. Everett

He is reported in the Press as making it, and it was not contradicted. I say that our Army should be made attractive, and then there would be no necessity for such a threat. I do not agree with other Deputies here in the suggestion that, if there is an emergency, a soldier will not render loyal service because he has a relative in the army of a foreign country. If an emergency were to arise there are, perhaps, some who might not render loyal service, simply because they may have relatives in the army of a foreign country. At the same time I may say this, that we are all very proud of our Army and some of our soldiers have rendered distinguished service in other walks of life. I am satisfied that if we call upon them in an emergency we can rely upon them.

I must criticise the Minister for his back-handed method of giving increased allowances and salaries to officers and not to the sergeants and the privates. It may be pointed out, without divulging any secrets in relation to the Army, that there have been certain promotions to high positions and I suggest that there was no necessity for those promotions. Why were those promotions made? I am aware of certain persons who were in the Army and they got out of it because they had neighbours who were in the English Army whose wives were receiving up to £4 and £5 a week. I am not suggesting that we are in the position to pay our men at that standard.

I am not agreeing with other Deputies when they say that £8,500,000 is too much for our Army. I say that whatever Government is in power is the best judge of that. It is on that Government the responsibility rests for organising an Army in case we may require it. If we are going to retain the Army, and if we wish to possess the confidence of the Army and make Army life attractive, we must do better than we are doing, especially in allowances for children. We will not make it attractive by offering a private 3d. a day and giving officers 5/- a day. Surely the child of a private in a house in the country requires as much nourishment and food as the child of an officer. Why discriminate to the extent of 5/- in one case and 3d. in another? Is that the way you are going to make the Army attractive? If that is the policy, the Minister will have a very difficult job.

We recognise his difficulty. He should approach the Government, as has been suggested from all sections of the House, and demand on behalf of the Army better treatment than has been given our soldiers in the past. If he does that there will be no necessity for the Taoiseach to threaten us with conscription. The Minister has not done so; he has congratulated the Army and he has spoken of the fine services our soldiers have rendered. I would much prefer to see him doing something practical for the Army. I would prefer to see him introducing a Bill here asking for authority to improve Army conditions and I am sure the House would give him every assistance in order to make conditions easier for the private or the sergeant, so that their dependents will be no worse off than the dependents of officers.

It is humiliating for men on public boards, as Deputy Corish pointed out, to have to consider applications for home assistance from the dependents of soldiers. Why should a soldier's wife have to look for home assistance? Why does the Army not maintain those people? Under certain circumstances a soldier may be forced to marry. Why should his unfortunate wife and child be penalised and why should they be forced into the position that they have to rely on the local authority? We know that in some instances the Church intervenes and, to the credit of the soldier, he acts as a man and marries the girl. That poor girl and her child are victimised; in their case there is a taint of pauperism. That matter is made the subject of propaganda in the county and people will say: "Here is a soldier's wife and child depending on home assistance each week, although her husband is in the Army." Probably that is one of the reasons why there are so many desertions, but we need not go into that aspect to-night.

I say deliberately that in many cases certain things are worked through politics in order to satisfy certain people. I will state that certain officers have been promoted, and they were not worthy of that promotion, but the promotion was granted simply to give them a higher status and salary. Deputy Cafferky pointed out that many of the officers spent portion of their money trying to help unfortunate soldiers. We do not want them to do that. We want the soldier to be treated in such a way that he will not be depending on officers or other people.

Mr. Cafferky

I did not say that the officers spent portion of their money that way. I said that if the Minister would reduce the officers' salaries he could utilise what is saved in helping the soldiers.

Mr. Everett

I have in mind certain officers—politicians—who were promoted to soft jobs, and who got good salaries. I am aware of one such man who is now a fully-blown A.D.C. For what? That man was working as a clerk a couple of years ago. My suggestion is that yon should stop promotions of that sort, stop such increases in salary, and give to the men who are really serving the country, and who can be depended on whenever they are required, sufficient to keep themselves and their dependents in reasonable comfort.

Mr. Hughes

I, too, have had experience of young soldiers who got married, and found themselves not entitled under the regulations to a marriage allowance. They had not complied with the regulations, which indicate that they should have two years' service, and be 23 years of age. I agree with the views expressed by Deputies. It does seem a rather humiliating thing to have a soldier's wife seeking charity from the local authority. I think the Minister should reconsider that matter. It is grossly unfair, and it is a reflection on the Army, on the conditions under which men are asked to serve. I am aware of one case where a soldier's wife died, and he was not in a position to bury her. Some small provision was made from some fund in the Army. I am aware that the undertaker is still out of pocket. If the Minister wishes it, I shall give him particulars of that case later. The amount provided from the Army fund was insufficient to cover the burial expenses. It is possible that the undertaker was looking for too much. I think a more substantial contribution should have come from the Army fund.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It has reference to agricultural leave, indefinite leave. The intention of the Minister and the Army authorities is to facilitate soldiers who seek agricultural leave at certain periods of the year. They get a month's leave to do agricultural work if they are small farmers or cottiers who have crops on their plots. They are supposed to get an opportunity to save their crops. I have experienced a great deal of difficulty in the making of representations regarding such soldiers. The procedure seems to be very involved. The Adjutant-General has to be consulted and there is a great deal of letter-writing and examination into the circumstances of the applicant. The result is that the soldier may obtain his leave only when it is four or five weeks late. If the Minister is to continue the grant of agricultural leave, the method of dealing with these applications should be expedited. Such leave is of little use when granted too late for the purpose for which it is intended.

In some cases there appears to be no difficulty in getting indefinite leave, but incases in which there would seem to be a good claim for such leave, taking into consideration economic circumstances and other factors, applications are flatly turned down. I do not know whether there is any hard or fast rule governing this matter, but it would seem that there is not. It struck me that if an applicant is not a good soldier, the Army is glad to get rid of him on indefinite leave. But if he is a good soldier, no matter how strong his claim, he will not get indefinite leave. I think that the time has arrived, seeing that we have now indications of what the result of the war will be, when we should decide that those who are anxious to get out of the Army should be discharged. In the post-war period, the demobilisation of the Army will present a big problem. If the Government is satisfied that the danger to the country has disappeared, we are scarcely justified in spending the huge sums of money which the House is asked to vote for defence. Where a man is anxious to get out of the Army, he should be facilitated. A large number of men appear to be anxious to get out of the Army. Whether that is an indication of discontent or not, I do not know. Whether Army life is monotonous or not, it struck me as amazing that so large a number of men should be anxious to get out of the Army. I am sure the Minister is in a position to give some information to the House as to the reason for that.

Mr. Cafferky

On five days out of the seven they have no pocket money.

Mr. Hughes

If what I say is correct, the Minister should inquire into the cause.

Mr. Flanagan

There are only 19 Deputies in the House and I think 20 are required to form a quorum.

Mr. Harris

I should like to draw attention to the difficulty experienced by soldiers' wives in securing proper housing accommodation in my constituency. I may give the Minister one example. A soldier made application to the Kildare Board of Health for a cottage in the parish in which he had worked as a civilian before he joined the Army. His wife and family were living in an insanitary house. His application was refused by the board of health on the ground that he was not an agricultural worker. That is only one example of many cases of which I am aware. If the board of health, or the housing authority in a particular case, are debarred from granting houses to soldiers' wives and families, so that they are compelled to live under insanitary conditions, the Minister for Defence should do something about it. I can understand the difficulty in providing married quarters for all those in the Army who would be eligible for them, but it is very wrong and most unreasonable that a soldier should not be treated as an agricultural worker for the purpose of the Labourers Acts, as insurance agents are. The term "agricultural worker" receives a very wide interpretation in the allocation of board of health houses and I do not see why a soldier who is serving his country should be debarred from receiving a house. There are several cases in Kildare in which soldiers cannot get houses in their own districts because they are not agricultural workers, although they will, probably, be going back to genuine agricultural work when the emergency ends. In any event, their wives and families should be permitted to live under proper conditions in their own districts. I ask the Minister to see that something is done in connection with this matter.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

With a couple of exceptions, the trend of the debate has been in one direction. The exceptions, I am sorry to say, have been such as to cause me, and I am sure others in the House, a certain amount of concern. Deputy O'Higgins seems, for some reason or another, to think that the danger situation has more or less passed. I cannot agree with that.

I feel that the situation which brought about the expansion of the Army is just as grave to-day as it was when it was found necessary to create that expansion. The world conflict has not in any sense decreased. In fact, if anything it has, in my opinion, extended, and has become very much more vicious than it was when the necessity for the expansion arose. I would be just as anxious as the Deputies who have spoken in these terms to see the Estimate for the Department of Defence decreased. In fact, I think it will be something that will be looked forward to by the House with pleasure when the day does arrive when the amount of the Estimate which is being sought this year and has been sought for a number of years will no longer be required, hut, unfortunately, in my opinion anyhow, that day has not yet arrived. The situation, as I have said, is as dangerous to-day for this country as it was in the year 1940. It can be argued by those people who like to argue that way that the war is moving away from these shores, but neither this Government nor any other Government could merely consider that aspect of the question. The aspect of it which we have to consider very seriously is the protection of the rights of this nation and of its people, and that can only be done by the means which we introduced in 1940.

It was stated, I think by Deputy O'Higgins, that at the very best our Army is such that it could be of very little use in stemming an invasion. I am not sure that these were the words he used, but I think that is what he meant to convey. However opinions may differ on that question, the fact, nevertheless, remains that the Army which was increased in those years has been made more efficient as each year has passed until to-day, as Deputy O'Higgins himself has said, the Army of the nation is probably the most efficient army in the world. That has been brought about by the continuous, untiring efforts and devotion to duty of the Army staffs, and by the magnificent discipline of the men. That, in my opinion, is the thing that has ensured this nation against any attack being made upon it. Therefore, I feel that when Deputies suggest that this Estimate could be decreased by millions of pounds for the reasons which they gave, they are neither doing themselves a service nor,doing the nation a service. I only hope that whatever effect may be created by their words that, at least, it will not make the people feel that all danger to this nation has passed. It has not, and I am sure that the majority of Deputies do not share those feelings.

I was naturally very pleased to have heard the praise which was lavished by numerous Deputies on the Army and on its efficiency. It was a long-delayed tribute, but I may say a well-deserved one.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

Mr. Traynor

The Army officers, to my own personal knowledge, have never spared themselves in their efforts to make this Army an Army such as Deputy O'Higgins described it here this evening, and whatever efficiency exists in the Army to-day is due solely to the higher authorities in the Army who have given almost unceasing attention to every aspect and every phase of Army requirements. As I mentioned in the course of my opening statement, the manoeuvres which were carried out last year could not have been carried out in any circumstances were it not for the preliminary training that took place in the preceding years. These manoeuvres were carried out on the most extensive scale that Army manoeuvres have ever been carried out in this country. They were carried out under conditions equivalent to the most difficult active service conditions. I am very proud to say, sad I am sure the House will be very proud to know, that every unit in the Army stood up to these conditions and carried out their duties throughout these manoeuvres with credit to themselves and credit to the nation.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

Mr. Traynor

They endured very long forced marches. They marched through the long hours of the night and over mountains in order to carry out the plans which were being operated. They crossed rivers and brought their equipment across riven and, on the whole, they did everything that it would be necessary for them to do if this nation was faced with an attack upon it. They supplied themselves with food throughout the entire period of these manoeuvres. They supplied themselves with ammunition, and they carried out every particular phase that it would have been necessary for them to have carried out if an actual attack was being made. As I said before, they carried that out with utmost credit to themselves. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 28th October, 1943.