Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1947—Second Stage (Resumed).

General MacEoin

When the adjournment was moved last night a case had been made to show how unfair the Government and the Minister for Defence have been to a certain number of officers and non-commissioned officers in the Army. I will not labour that case, but there are a few points to which I wish to draw the special attention of the House. Firstly, this is another of the Army Acts and it represents the 14th broken promise of the Government. For years the Government and Fianna Fáil Deputies demanded and insisted that there should be a permanent Army Act. On the records of this House there is ample evidence to show that the Minister for Defence, or a Minister for Defence, several times promised that a permanent Army Act would be introduced. He went so far as to say on one particular occasion that the draftsmen had completed the measure. Yet here we are still in the same position as we were in 1943 and 1945.

Reference was made by some Deputies here yesterday to the fact that the annual Army Act is a continuation of the British system under which, of course, it was unlawful for His Majesty to maintain an army in any one year without the consent of Parliament. Therefore, an annual Army Act must be introduced. A Deputy also referred to the fact that we had adopted the monarchial system in relation to the control of the Army, but that it is exercised by the head of a republican form of government. When the Minister addressed the House I expected from him a clarification of the whole situation as far as the Army was concerned in this country, but again he simply pushed that question on one side and, mind you, went so far as to say that on certain matters, on the grounds that it was a purely administrative function, there was no obligation on him or the Government to consult the supreme authority in this country, to wit, Parliament. That means that the Minister, and the Government of which he is member, have no regard whatever for the wishes or the will of the supreme authority, namely, the Parliament of this country. I shall be glad if the Minister will say what are the intentions of the Government in relation to the permanent Army Act, so that we may for all time settle this question and so that it will not have to be referred to every time the annual Act comes up.

I am struck by the fact that during the emergency every officer and non-commissioned officer was retained in the Army as efficient and that the Government and the Minister left them there to lead troops in the event of hostilities in this country. The only ground that would justify that step by the Government and by the Minister was that these men were efficient. It meant that they were efficient for war and that they would be efficient in our hour of necessity. Then, when the necessity has passed we are told, in effect, that they are inefficient for peace. Of course that is the most inconsistent statement that has ever been made by any Government. The Minister tells us that this development was inevitable and that, of course, these officers were in an invidious position. It would be much better if the Minister tackled the problem straightforwardly and said: "Listen, boys, once the danger is over we do not want you and out you go." Of course, that would not be diplomatic. The promise is now made that further legislation will be introduced to add five years to their service. Of course that is a step that should have been taken long before this question arose so that when these officers were going out they would know the conditions under which they were being discharged. It is true that there are some people who, I suppose, are not as efficient as they should be but the Government should not throw these men on the roadside as so much waste. Some sense of responsibility and some sense of justice should be shown by the Government towards officers and non-commissioned officers who rendered faithful service during the emergency.

The Minister also tells us that there were 142 non-commissioned officers not suitable for their rank. Is it not an astonishing situation that it is when the emergency has passed and the danger is over that fact is ascertained? Surely that must have been clear to those who were commanding these men before now. Why were they not found unsuitable during the emergency? No action was taken during that period and the decision was evidently come to to wait until the emergency had passed and these non-commissioned officers were no longer required, to make this statement.

The Minister says that the defence policy of the Army is the defence of the territorial integrity of the country. He went further and said that it was the sole responsibility of the Government. Of course that is only partially true. The defence of this country, as was shown during the emergency, is not the responsibility of any one section because, if a war takes place, it is not only the Government but practically all of the citizens who will have to fight. It has been made clear for some years past, and it is clear now, that any future war will be a wholesale war, a total war. Having regard to that fact, some such scheme as was adopted during the emergency should be instituted by the Government. There should be a defence conference composed of representatives of all Parties in the State, so that no matter what happens, the defence of this country will be conducted according to a united policy, as it is in every other great country, so that, no matter what happens, that policy will be continued. As we are, the Government here hedges and tells us that they have no responsibility to consult us or anybody else, although the people of the country have to pay and the young men have to fight for it.

The way to get real solidarity behind the Government and the Army of this country is by taking the people well into your confidence. I admit that the first important point as regards the defence policy of this country is that relating to the defence of the national territory. I hope the day is approaching when the national territory will be the whole island. On that I would like to ask the Minister and the Government, or perhaps the Minister for External Affairs, to tell us what were the arrangements during the recent emergency for the defence of our national territory. Was there any liaison or any contact made with the forces that were occupying part of our national territory, and how far was the Taoiseach's phrase given effect to—to make the combined forces as effective as possible? I should like to know if there was any step taken in that direction, because then we would be in a much better position to know how much money should be spent on our Defence Force and how efficient it could be made.

I do not agree, of course, with everything that was said here by Deputies last evening. It was asserted that a land army is a thing of the past. It is a well-known fact, that no matter what mechanised form of weapons you may have or what atomic energy you may have or what explosive power you may have, all that these can do is keep on blasting, but it will still take the foot slogger to go in and occupy a position. Therefore, the infantry man is still required, and he must be trained in all the arts and crafts of warfare as he is at present. The number we are retaining is small. I think it is small, although my colleagues think it is too big. I should rather see that number well organised and contented, so that when an emergency arose it could immediately extend itself, as it did in the last emergency, and be in a position to put a fairly effective force in the field. I believe that is possible. I should like to have heard the Minister tell us what are the plans for the higher training of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the next two years, five years or ten years. I should also like to hear him tell us if any liaison, or even friendly arrangements, had been made with any other State or country.

Now, the expenditure is heavy. I feel that it is worth it if we get the service that we should get for it. I am not at all disturbed over the weight of £4,000,000, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 being spent on defence if we get efficient service for that money. I say that because it is very important that it should be well established everywhere that we had a force capable of doing something and of extending itself in a very rapid way.

As regards the demobilisation of these officers, I am sorry that the Minister and the Government have taken that step without consulting the former Defence Conference. It could have done that, and it could have explained to that conference, even though it is no longer in being, the reasons why. I agree with the Minister when he says that it would not, perhaps, be in the interests of these men to say why they were being dispensed with, but yet, on the other hand, he told us that they were efficient. Now, there is something being concealed, so that the position is really worse by implication. He has left these officers in a worse position than if he had put all the facts before the House. Therefore, I say that he is prejudicing them to a very great extent by saying something half-way and not saying it completely.

It is strange that a number of these men are being pushed out this year, the 25th anniversary of the formation of the National Army. I would like to be satisfied that there are no personal animosities between the Government and some of these officers who are going out because of things in the past. I do assert here, and I am glad to pay tribute to this fact, that there has never been politics in the Army during those 25 years. It would be a pity if, at this time, anything that would give the semblance of politics would be introduced into the Army or alternatively in the conduct of the Government towards the Army. They have served faithfully and well, and I am sure will serve faithfully and well in the future, but in order to have that for a certainty it is essential that the Government would show them that they have a real just Government to deal with, one that will treat them decently and generously, and that they will not be thrown overboard once the emergency has passed. I say that because, if an emergency comes on us again, it would not be humanly possible to expect that we would get men to come in and trust, blindly, to a Government that had broken its promises in the way this present Government has done in the past.

I do not want to cover the ground that has already been covered by other speakers. I do, however, subscribe to the view that this step is a serious matter. I agree with Deputy Dillon that the morale of the Army is the most important factor in the efficiency of an Army and I ask the Minister and the Government in the first place to establish or re-establish that confidence that there should be between an Army and its Government and its people and secondly, that if because of financial stringency or other reasons the reductions have to take place, these reductions or reversions or demobilisations will be done in the most generous way possible. And there is only one way in which that can really be done, and that is when the officers, non-commissioned officers, or men who go out of the service are left in a position of independence— financial independence—in a position to support themselves and their wives and families in a decent way and that they will not be left as mendicants of the State begging or looking for something. If the Government takes that step, then indeed the morale of the Army will be high. It will have confidence in the people; it will have something to fight for and if necessary something to die for, but from the way that the Government has handled the situation I would not like to have the responsibility of going into action with a number of the men because the danger would be that at the crucial moment the case might be made that we had a country that was not worth serving or not worth fighting for. I hope that is a day I will never see but by the conduct of the Government it is a day that could very easily arise.

Mr. Norton

In consequence of the Minister's statement we are now able to appraise at its real value the extent of the reversions and retirements which are to take place in the Army and we can see the extent of the retirements and reversions which will take place. I am rather sorry that it has been found necessary compulsorily to retire a number of officers and non-commissioned officers from the Army and, quite frankly, having regard to what we have passed through during the past seven years, and having regard to the fact that we escaped being brought into the holocaust of war during the past seven years, I would prefer to approach this matter of compulsory retirements in a rather different way and to recognise that inevitably during war years, and when you promote people without the close scrutiny in war that you would apply in peace, you inevitably get some misfits. Bearing that in mind, I would have imagined the policy of the Minister and the Government would have been to close their eyes, as it were, to some inefficiency, knowing that at all events that inefficiency was a diminishing quantity and that in due course those who were inefficient would leave the Army without the commotion that has now been aroused because of the nature of these retirements. Frankly, I am not too satisfied that a discussion on these compulsory retirements will be of benefit to those who are being compulsorily retired, because I am afraid the publicity the matter has already got, or which it will get as a result of this debate, is not calculated to enhance the reputations of those who will be retired, nor, indeed, do I think the form of the notice which was served on the officers concerned was in the best interests of the service. A more complimentary phraseology could have been used for the purpose of conveying the decisions to them.

O. Henry used to talk about people who left their country for their country's good and when he wrote in these terms he had in mind particular classes of people of whom the country was well rid. This seems to be an attempt to plagiarise the phraseology of O. Henry when an officer is told he is going in the interests of the Army. I do not think it is the happiest phraseology. It seems to me to be written with a bayonet because of the sharp and pungent character of the admonition which is conveyed to the officers concerned. I am sure the Minister would not consciously do an unjust or unfair thing to any of these people. I do not want to put the Minister in the position of asking him to justify in each case the grounds for the retirement or reversion of each officer or non-commissioned officer. I am sure there has been ample consideration and a full evaluation of the services of officers and non-commissioned officers and I am sure there was present in the minds of everybody concerned that no hardship or injustice should be caused. To ask the Minister now to justify the retirements might only add to the difficulties in which they are at present engulfed and might unfortunately give to the whole question a still more undesirable publicity.

All I desire to say on the matter is that even now if these compulsory retirements could be avoided and if these compulsory reversions could be avoided, knowing that after a while the persons concerned because of their long service will leave the Army within a reasonable period of time, I think it would be a highly desirable development. I think it would avoid all this commotion and I think it would have on the whole a beneficial and steadying effect on the morale of the Army. I know an effort has been made to say that these compulsory retirements should be taken as indications that there is no security of tenure in the Army. I think it would be fatal to the morale of the Army if that viewpoint were allowed to go unchecked. I think one of the ways in which the Government could help to kill propaganda of that kind, because I think it is insidious propaganda, would be by saying: "Well, on reviewing all the circumstances and having heard the views of all Parties in the House, we are prepared to agree not to proceed with these retirements and to take them as one of the inevitable legacies from the wartime period", in the knowledge that ultimately the whole problem will remedy itself by the retirement in due course of the persons concerned. If the Minister and the Government could see their way to do that, I do not think the cost involved would be very considerable—certainly not 1 per cent. of what it would have cost us if we had been involved in the war for one hour. A good deal would be done to steady the morale of the Army and to kill what it is desirable to kill by positive proof to the contrary—a feeling that if one embarks on an Army career one may have to face the possibility of being told that he has to retire from the Army in the interests of the Army.

I am concerned in this matter from the point of view of the morale of the Army and from the point of view of the well-being and the welfare of those who make the Army their career. If persons go into the Army and select the Army as a career, they ought to have an assurance of a permanent tenure so far as their service in the Army is concerned. It ought not be possible capriciously to terminate their services and every person who joins the Army whether as a soldier, non-commissioned officer or officer—any person who desires to make the Army a career—ought to have from the State an assurance that subject to good conduct and efficiency he will be allowed to finish his service.

Mr. Traynor

That assurance is there already.

Mr. Norton

Because of statements made to the contrary and because of my contacts with Army personnel in my own constituency I think a different point of view is being sedulously circulated. I would like the Minister to give, as a result of this debate, a positive assurance to men entering the Army that on the understanding that their conduct is satisfactory they need not fear that their service in the Army will be prematurely terminated, and that the phase through which we are now passing is one inseparable from the circumstances of the time and does not imply continuance of that policy in respect of future service in the Army. I think it most desirable for the morale of the Army that an assurance of that character should be given and I hope the Minister will give it in the most positive terms.

On a previous occasion, when discussing an Army Bill or the Defence Estimates, I raised the question of the relationship of all Parties to the defence policy of the State. I then said what I want to repeat now, that, in my view, the defence policy of the State ought not to be the defence policy of the Party in power, that this State belongs to all the people and to all the Parties in the State, and that the planning and fashioning of a defence policy and intimate contact with that defence policy ought not to be the prerogative of whatever Party happens to be in power, but that, instead, there ought to be a wide appreciation by the Government of the day that, if it is ever necessary to utilise the services of the Army to ward off attack or possible invasion, it is necessary to have the goodwill of all elements within the State, including all political Parties in the State.

One of the best ways in which that goodwill can be got is by all Parties in the State being taken into consideration in framing a defence policy and in supervising the implementation of that defence policy, as far as Army personnel, Army training and Army equipment are concerned. I suggested on a previous occasion that that idea can best be given effect to by establishing a permanent defence conference to be consulted from time to time as to the best method of moulding the Army, training the Army and equipping the Army and as to the best uses to which the Army can be put in preparation for the occasion when it may unfortunately be necessary to use it. At all events, I suggested that there ought to be a permanent defence conference, representative of all Parties, which would be consulted regularly in respect of defence matters, so that the Government of the day, no matter what its political complexion might be, could always feel assured that, though there might be differences of opinion as between the Government and other Parties on economic, social, fiscal and agricultural issues, there was no difference whatever so far as the formulation of a defence policy was concerned.

I should like to see the Minister discussing with the Cabinet the possibility of establishing a permanent defence conference with that object in view, so that we could evolve, not a Party defence policy but a national defence policy, a policy which commanded the confidence of every Party in the State, a policy which would not change merely because the Government happened to change. I think the defence conference created during the war did some excellent work. Because of the way in which that defence conference met, it is not possible to reveal the steadying effect which its existence had, but those who participated in that defence conference will, I think, acknowledge that it was a very valuable and inexpensive piece of machinery which worked excellently and gave to the nation the feeling that all Parties in the State were united in a desire to preserve the integrity of the nation and gave the Army the feeling that whatever instructions were being issued to it represented not the thoughts of a single Minister but the pooling of the collective wisdom of all Parties.

I still think there is valuable work to be done by a defence conference of that character. Nobody on these benches, and, I suppose, nobody on the other benches, wants particularly to be inquisitive as to the Army's activities or its plans, but I think that just as the Defence Conference was a very effective instrument in the circumstances of the emergency, so also could a defence conference be a more useful medium of weaving a national defence policy which would command the respect of all the people and give to the Army the assurance that all Parties in the House supported the policy of which they were the physical exponents. Although my proposal on a previous occasion did not get the sympathetic consideration which, I think, from a national point of view, it deserved, I still urge the Minister to discuss the matter with the Cabinet, in the hope that, even yet, they can be converted to the usefulness of a national defence policy to plan a national defence scheme, and not to have that scheme planned on the basis of being the viewpoint of one Party and that the Government Party. A defence policy based upon a defence conference representative of all Parties is one calculated to inspire confidence amongst the people and in the Army, and anything that does that, in the serious and critical matter of defence, is something which has a good deal to commend it.

Mr. Colley

Some months ago, Army policy, the new Army policy which was to follow the emergency, was announced by the Minister for Defence in this House. We were told then by the Minister that it was proposed to have an Army of 12,500, a young Army, virile, active, highly-trained and efficient, in which every man in every rank was to be trained to such a pitch that he could in an emergency or in a war take over a rank at least one grade higher than that which he then held. In pursuance of that, the Army authorities apparently set out to overhaul their personnel, and, as a result, certain changes had to be made in the officership and amongst the non-commissioned officers.

We had great complaints here yesterday on the ground that 13 officers out of 1,100 are being retired, that is, roughly 1 per cent. To carry out the policy of creating a new and highly efficient Army it has been found necessary to retire about 1 per cent. There have been allegations that it was done on political grounds and so forth but the fact that it was necessary during the emergency to extend the Army enormously and that it was obvious that a number of officers would be redundant at the conclusion of the emergency was scarcely mentioned. Nor was the fact adverted to that under the scheme over 350 acting officers are confirmed in their acting positions. Any Chief of Staff setting out to deal in the most generous way with officers holding either substantive or acting rank could hardly do better than that in any circumstances. The authorities have tried to ease the position for those men who have to return to civil life by giving them, in the case of officers holding acting rank, pension according to that acting rank rather than at the rate applicable to their lower substantive rank. I am not clear, although it has been alleged, that all these men are men with long service but, if that is so, then I take it they are old I.R.A. men who entered the Army in 1922 and, if that is so, they will have the further advantage of getting military service pension on the basis of the rank on which they are retired. In the case of those officers who are being reverted to lower rank, if they do not see fit to accept it, they will be treated fairly generously also in so far as they will get five added years for pension purposes and six months' leave with full pay and allowances.

In view of these facts and figures there is hardly a case for members of the Dáil to assert that a large number of men are being treated unjustly. I recall that when this scheme of reorganisation was put forward it was alleged that the Army would be altogether too large, in fact, two and a half times too large. That allegation was repeated here yesterday evening. If that point of view had prevailed, how many hundreds of officers would have had to be pensioned off and how many men would have had to be disbanded? I know that a number of men who joined the Army during the emergency and attained to the rank of non-commissioned officer decided to leave the Army because they understood definitely that, with the inevitable reduction in the Army at the end of the emergency, they could not possibly expect to retain their ranks. The same applied in the case of officers. I consider that the Army authorities must have gone out of their way to try to meet the point of view of the officers and men as far as they could in order to achieve the results they have achieved. For the sake of the country, I hope they have not gone too far in that direction.

Yesterday a point of view was expressed by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon which revealed the most defeatist outlook. If carried to its logical conclusion, it seems to me it would mean that we should not spend 1/- on the Army, that it is sheer waste of money to spend anything on it. We were told that half the number would do, that half the number had done before and had worked effectively. It is well known that before the emergency the men in the Army were on guard duty practically all the time and exclusively on guard duty and that no facilities could be given for training in the ordinary way. When the emergency came about there was no provision for housing the volunteers who joined the Army. We all know the conditions under which they existed for the first few months after being called up in Mullingar and other barracks. If we are to have a scheme whereby, in the event of emergency, men of the second line and other lines of defence are to be called up, it is part of the ordinary organisation of the Army that proper provision should be made for their accommodation.

If we are to learn from the experience of the emergency—as Deputy Mulcahy asked us to—surely there is adequate reason for an extension of the numbers. We have also to consider the better conditions provided in the way of training and for home leave for the men in the Army now. All Deputies agree that these facilities should be provided but it means more personnel and accounts to a large extent for the increased amount of money required. Nobody complains about the cost being two and a half times the previous cost when the rates of pay of officers and men and of allowances to dependents in 1939 are compared with the present rates. There is a vast difference, and properly so. Every Deputy will approve of that, but it has to be paid for.

If we did not try, as far as our resources permit, to provide an Army to defend our territory, we would be false to our history, more particularly to our recent history, and to the men who died to achieve our freedom. Are we to leave this little country in the position that, in the event of world happenings, if other nations feel it necessary to step in and take control of this country for their own defence, we shall be unable to prevent them? If we do not provide for our own defence to the best of our ability, that will happen. I am wondering whether that is what we are expected to do— to leave it to other people to settle that question for us. I am not prepared to do it.

It was refreshing to hear Deputy MacEoin's views after what we heard yesterday on this subject. I think any man who honestly studies the matter will agree that the number of men in the Army and the cost of the Army are not, in the present circumstances, by any means too high. I am sure Deputies will also agree that everything possible has been done to reduce the cost of the Army, in the sense of not having a definite standing Army.

Yesterday evening we heard references to atomic bombs and as to what this country was doing in regard to them. Is not every country in the world facing that peril, and have other countries been able to do anything in the way of defence beyond trying to provide an air force, just as we are trying in so far as our resources will allow?

When Deputy Dillon was talking yesterday about our defenceless state, did he recall what Mr. Churchill said, after the fall of France, about the state of England? Mr. Churchill did not think of giving in then. I think our history proves that we have as great a sense of patriotism as Englishmen have, and we should be prepared to take the steps necessary to provide the best possible defence we can for this country. Deputy Dillon told us that Messrs. Churchill and Roosevelt saved this country in the last war. I wonder did they refrain from interfering with us for love of us? Can any of us believe that that was Mr. Churchill's reason, or were there other reasons? Was not one of those reasons the fact that this country had taken certain definite steps, small as they were, compared to the enormous work done in that connection in other countries? Did not the fact that we had taken those steps have some effect on their minds when they came to consider the matter?

If an army is useless to-day, why is it that in other countries, like America, where they have the use of the atomic bomb, they are extending their navies and armies? If land armies are to be useless in the future, why is that happening? On the figures and facts given us by the Minister, I think that the situation in this country, following the emergency, has been met in a very just and fair way and with very little in the nature of upset to the Army personnel.

If sufficient reasons came to those in authority why certain men should be retired, it was their duty to retire them. The people are entitled to know that the Army to-day is as efficient and as highly trained as it can be made. The men in the Army are being satisfactorily trained under the most efficient and capable officers that can be obtained.

Mr. Cosgrave

In dealing with this matter I think we should consider not merely the necessity of having an Army which will be, in our view, sufficiently large to defend our territory, but we should also have some regard for the resources of the country and the available man-power. When we speak of an Army capable of defending our territory, we must realise that with the rapid changes in equipment, with the various scientific developments that have taken place and with the large resources available to other countries, particularly to larger countries, small countries are inevitably at a disadvantage and, consequently, those small countries, and particularly countries like this, placed in close proximity to a fairly strong military power and having ancient and continuing ties with another country capable of maintaining a large Army, may have their views of the proper strength of an Army and its capacity somewhat disturbed.

Many Deputies seem to be under the impression that, even though ours is a small country, we should be capable of having an Army which could withstand any force, however great. I subscribe to the view that we should have an Army capable of defending our territory in so far as it is possible for our own resources to provide such a defence machine. I hold the view that not merely should we have an Army adequate for defence purposes, but we should have an Army capable of expansion and efficiently trained with modern equipment. The Minister said our Army will have something over 12,000 officers and men and at the present time, due to the high cost of equipment and the rapid changes in various types of weapons, it is not possible to equip the Army effectively. No one will suggest that we should endeavour to keep pace with other nations either in supplying ourselves with modern equipment or attempting, if that were possible, to produce such equipment here. I think the first essential is to have an Army with some relation to our population and some relation to our territory. That Army should be capable of expansion and we should concentrate primarily on having the nucleus of an effective fighting force, should the necessity for such ever arise.

Having listened to the Minister, realising the burden that is placed on the country at the moment in the form of taxation and general Government expenditure and the fact that during the years of the emergency some £19,000,000 was added to the existing public debt, and that the interest and repayment charges of this extra debt must total something in the region of £1,000,000 per annum, it is my view that the strength which the Minister at present aims at for our Army is much too high for this country. I am further of opinion from the figures which the Minister has given us that the Army as at present constituted is sufficiently large for the needs of the country. The Minister proposes, on the figures he has given us, to recruit 20 per cent. more officers and approximately 66 per cent. more men to bring the Army up to the strength at which he states it is the Government's policy to maintain the post-emergency Defence Force. I think it was generally anticipated that there would be a reduction in our Defence Force and equipment when the emergency came to the end. The Minister has informed the House that he proposes to present an Estimate for the Defence Forces for 1947-48 of £4,600,000. For a country in which the population has remained static for many years—in fact if there is any trend at all it has been downwards—I consider that such a heavy commitment for defence services is far beyond its capacity to bear.

We must realise that in addition to having an effective Defence Force, other services must be maintained and that urgent works of a public, private and local character are awaiting not merely equipment but sufficient labour forces to carry them out. At the present time, adequate labour forces are not available for these works while there is a vacuum across the water which is constantly absorbing all available labour from this country. Despite increased supplies of certain raw materials since the end of hostilities, in housing, industry and various other branches there is not merely a shortage of material but a shortage of man-power. That is one of the greatest problems confronting industrialists and other employers. Notwithstanding that shortage of man-power, permits were given last year to 29,000 persons to take up employment in England. In our circumstances, we should concentrate not merely on having a Defence Force adequate to meet our requirements, but we should give due consideration to the fact that that Defence Force must be maintained in relation to our other requirements and needs.

I consider that a sufficiently large Army has been recruited already and that it would be a wiser and a better policy to concentrate on making that Army the nucleus of a force which could be expanded if necessary with better equipment, rather than attempting to have a large paper force, a large force of officers and men without sufficient equipment or with equipment which, in the present state of armament development in the world, is inadequate and obsolete. I would suggest to the Minister that the present strength of the Army is absolutely adequate for this purpose and that he should concentrate on having a force capable of expansion. Mention has been made of the fact that, during the emergency, large numbers of men came forward and that the Army expanded rapidly. It is often forgotten, in paying tribute to the men who made the Army capable of that expansion, that these officers and men were capable of being assigned to higher ranks, that not merely were they capable of being assigned to higher rank but that they were capable of extending the Defence Force from battalions to brigades and from brigades to divisions, and that, with these constantly growing forces, they were capable of training recruits effectively. When we consider how rapidly the Army expanded and how efficient the new recruits became, we must realise how essential it is to have an efficient permanent Army capable of rapid expansion.

I want to refer to certain matters, particularly the retirement of certain officers. A considerable portion of the debate has been devoted to the unfair treatment meted out to some of these officers. The officers were told that their services were being terminated "in the interests of the service". I think it well for the House to know that many of the officers now being retired in the interests of the service were promoted during the emergency and that in some instances they were promoted on a couple of occasions. The House should also know that it is usual, under the 1937 Act, to inform an officer on his retirement of the reasons for his retirement and that when an officer is being asked to retire, he is asked to sign a report prior to retirement which sets out the officer's career and the details of his service. In these cases, I should like to know whether the officers affected have been asked, or will be asked before retirement, to sign the usual report and if it has yet been presented to them. I think it is generally agreed, in this country and elsewhere, that the efficiency of an army depends not merely on its strength but on its morale. I think everyone will realise that the statement that a number of officers are being retired "in the interests of the service" has influenced considerably the morale of the officers and men of the Army, that not merely has it influenced existing officers and men but that it must have an effect in future on recruitment. The Minister may say that officers and men can have an assurance in that regard, but in the light of the circumstances of the retirements in these cases, no officer in future will have any guarantee that he is not going to have his services terminated abruptly "in the interests of the service" and terminated without informing that officer of the reasons why it is deemed necessary to retire him.

It may be said that 13 officers are not a very large number out of the whole Army, but it is not so much the number as the principle that is involved. It is the fact that here we have a departure from our recognised practice. We have departure from the recognised practice after a period during which these officers had rendered loyal, devoted and faithful service. Many of them, in fact all of them, had pre-Truce service and they now find themselves at the end of their career being retired "in the interests of the service" and without being given further reasons. In addition to these officers, I should like to inform the House that for the past 12 months a large number of officers have been retired and a different practice has obtained in certain cases. A number of these officers were retired in acting ranks and, consequently, the higher pension which would be payable to these men if they were of substantive rank, is not payable. That does not apply to the 13 I have already mentioned. A number of these officers were given certain periods of leave prior to discharge. In addition to the leave, they were given full pay.

The practice that obtained was that if the officer was to retire on the 1st October, and did not reach the age limit until the 1st October, he could have six months' leave with pay. In certain cases officers only reached the age limit in September or August. These officers got six weeks, two months or a month. In some cases officers got only a few days pre-discharge leave with pay, whereas other officers, who would have reached the retiring age limit in April or before it, were given six months' pre-discharge leave with pay.

Officers who have been retired and who had not reached the age limit until a month or six weeks before retirement, feel a deep sense of grievance that different treatment was accorded to some as compared to others: that, while some were given six months' leave with pay, others who had reached the age limit almost at the appointed time on the 1st October, were given a shorter period. I think the Minister should have given all officers who were going to retire on the 1st October six months' leave with pay. However unfair that may be, I want to draw the attention of the House to the discrimination shown in the case of these officers, small in number, and officers known as area administrative officers. They were commissioned in 1933. Many of them, like the others, were promoted during the emergency. They had not the service which would bring them up to the maximum period for retirement. The Minister added ten years. In addition, from December last, he has given these officers six months' leave with pay.

I want to say, when it is stated that the Army should be free from political influences, that I subscribe entirely to that view. When, however, I see the corrupting effect of political influence, I doubt the sincerity behind certain statements that political influences are not being used. Surely, when officers give over 20 years of loyal service, when, as I said before, they have rendered faithful service not to one Government but to two Governments, and in addition have rendered faithful service during the emergency, they are entitled to the same treatment as officers who may be described as the Minister's pals who have had 10 years added to their service. Many of them have got maximum retiring pensions. In addition, they have got what other officers in acting ranks did not get, except they happened to be lucky in the matter of the age limit, six months' pre-discharge leave with pay, irrespective of their age. I think the House and the country are entitled to an explanation of the unfair preference given to some officers as compared to others. I do not want to be taken as objecting to the added years which were granted to these men, or to the pre-discharge leave which is being granted to them. What I object to is that some officers, who are friends of the Minister and friends of his Party, should get preferential treatment, while the vast bulk of the officers who have served the Minister and the country loyally and faithfully should not get the same treatment. They should all have got the same treatment on retirement as well as discharge leave, and, if necessary, added years to make them eligible for the maximum pension. Even though most of them have that, they should, I submit, also have been promoted to substantive rank before retirement.

I want to refer for a moment to promotions. About October last, I think, a number of temporary officers were commissioned in the regular Army. I think that about 17 of them were commissioned as commandants in the permanent force, and take rank accordingly. I want to ask the Minister if he thinks it is a wise and a sound policy to promote to senior commissioned rank officers who have had only comparatively short service and to do that, in many cases, over the heads of officers who have had senior service, officers who had done protracted and lengthy courses, and who had served in the Army since its inception, and as well had been commissioned as a result of a cadet course which they did at the Curragh in 1936. Many of the officers who were commissioned at that time had done special courses and had shown themselves to be efficient. They were promoted as a result of their efficiency. It may also be said that they had made the Army their career almost from the time that they had left school. They went into the Army then, served on a number of special courses and were commissioned, as I have said, in 1936. Now they find that they are superseded in many cases by temporary officers with comparatively short service who have not their experience and who did not do the courses they did either here or abroad. I am sure Deputies will agree that all officers who are physically fit, who are competent and who gave service during the emergency and wished to engage in the permanent force should have been afforded an opportunity of becoming regular officers in that permanent force. In many cases they had five, six or seven years' longer service than these temporary officers that I have referred to.

I think the Minister should examine the system of promotion which obtains elsewhere. If he does I think he will find that, in the case of most other armies, and certainly in the case of the American Army which expanded rapidly during the war, officers who had served in a temporary capacity were, with a few negligible exceptions, reverted to the rank of lieutenant. Some of those officers who were so reverted had extensive fighting experience during the war. A number of them served in China, but when demobilisation took place, following the cessation of hostilities, they were reverted despite their fighting experience, and despite all the advantages which that must have for officers in an Army. As I have said, almost all of them were reverted to the rank of lieutenant. But here the tendency in the case of temporary officers would appear to be—certainly in a number of cases—to promote them to higher ranks than they held during the emergency. That is system that has not found favour elsewhere. Were there some reasons, other than proficiency in the service, which warranted that course? I suggest that the Minister should examine the methods whereby a number of these officers have been promoted. I understand that the Minister's advisers are in favour of making substantive any senior officers who have been in acting rank and who have longer service than these officers, and I hope that when they are made substantive the substantive senior will rank from the time of his acting promotion. It is entirely unfair and definitely bad for the morale of the Army if officers who have acted in senior rank for a number of years now find themselves superseded by officers who were made permanent as recently as last October. I hope in this case—and I think my information is correct that the Minister's civilian advisers are giving him sound advice—that that advice will prevail and that these officers who are acting in senior ranks will, when placed in substantive rank, rank as senior from the time they were promoted to the acting rank.

There are one or two other matters. I notice in the Bill before the House that it is proposed to abolish the rank of major and substitute the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I do not for the life of me see the necessity for abolishing the rank of major which is accepted in every army in the world. Apparently we are going to go out of step with every army in the world over the rank of major. It was suggested, first of all, that the rank of commandant should be abolished. I think if any rank were to be abolished it is obviously that rank which should be abolished. In no other country, with the exception of certain appointments in rank of the French army, is there the rank of commandant and that rank of commandant is going out of use. In all other countries the rank of commandant does not exist. Certainly in all the better known armies—armies we may have contact with — the rank of commandant does not exist. Whatever about leaving that rank, we are going to take the retrograde step of abolishing the rank of major and substituting the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I think we ought to show some realism in this. If we want to hold, for sentimental reasons, the rank of commandant then we can hold it, but I do not see why we should hold such a rank. I think sentiment should not enter into this thing. I think we should adopt a uniform ranking which obtains elsewhere and that we should abolish the rank of commandant. If that is not done because of sentimental reasons and because of peculiar attachment to certain individuals then it may be retained but, at any rate, do not let us get out of step with all the other armies in the world by abolishing the rank of major. Apparently now we are going to have no rank between the rank of commandant and lieutenant—colonel.

There is, of course, another possible explanation for the proposed new titles—a white-washing attempt to convince some of those who are demoted that they are still in a higher rank. I think we ought to abandon the nonsensical activities which are evidenced in these changings of ranks and names. During the emergency everybody knew what the Local Defence Force was, or what it was intended to be, though some of the members of the force were not very certain themselves. Now we have abandoned that title and have a new title of Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil. It may be desirable to have an Irish title, but I think in the initial stages these titles should be adopted and when adopted they should be left. We are changing the Marine Service to the Naval Service. All these changes in nomenclature are merely superficial, and I would suggest that so far as lieutenant-colonel is concerned we ought not get out of step with every other army in the world by abolishing the rank of major.

I hope when the Minister comes to reply he will consider carefully the criticisms which are rampant of the methods adopted in certain retirements. The criticism which has resulted, first of all, over these 13 officers who are being unfairly retired, but not merely over the 13 but over the many officers who will be retired without being granted the full six months' pre-discharge leave with pay and the preferential treatment being afforded to certain pals of the Minister—all that criticism should be considered. If this Army is to remain what it has been in the service of the people, it should be possible to say in the future, as it has been said in the past, that the Army, its officers, its men and all those who are in it served the people faithfully and fully, irrespective of politics. Then it is time to abandon and it is too soon to begin political, preferential treatment.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Ba mhór an náire é go raibh orainn bheith ag éisteacht le cúpla oráid a rinneadh indé ag an Teachta Ó Diolúin agus an Teachta ó hUigínn. Bhí an Díolúnach ag magadh faoin Airm agus bhí sé cosúil le Charles Lever ag magadh faoi na daoine fadó. Dúirt an Teachta Ó hUigínn go raibh na rudaí poiliticiúla ag cur isteach ar obair an Airm. Ní fíor é.

The attack made by the last Deputy on the administrative officers was uncalled for and unwarranted. "The political pals of the Minister" had reference to a small group of individuals—men whose work in establishing a front in our defence will go down in history, whose work in wiping out the misery of past dissensions and whose help in the establishment of a broad national force was one of the best achievements in national history. And because that small group of individuals had got favoured treatment they were being used here in the House——

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the Deputy should say I did not object to preferential treatment being granted to them but what I do object to is the granting of preferential treatment to some and not granting it to others.

Mr. Kennedy

The Archbishop of Manila when he came here after the terrible time through which the Philippines passed gave a Press interview and he said in that interview that the small group of islands had been overrun by one of the greatest military powers of our time, the Japanese Empire. They wiped them out, they cruelly effaced them. They perpetrated atrocities: they left them without a habitation. And did he say when he came here and referred to that that it was not worth while having a defence? Did he get up and talk like Deputy Dillon in pantomime mimic of the defence of the Philippines and go on with that disgraceful kind of speech that the English papers rejoice in and give full headlines to when himself and Deputy O'Higgins make speeches in this House about anything national? No, the Archbishop of Manila said: "Fight for your freedom—and die for your freedom— by every possible weapon you have." What has been the attitude of Norway in the recent war and of Belgium and of Holland, of Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia and every small country in Europe? No Deputy in these countries would have addressed the people in that manner and made little of their forces and terrified them about the atomic bomb. We would not have a former Chief of Staff of the resistance movement in any of these countries getting up to-day on a defence Vote or Defence Bill or anything dealing with the national forces and telling the people of Albania, the people of Greece or the people of Norway that they must just be a maintenance party between the armies of two great powers. But here we had the disgraceful display of the former Chief of Staff of the I.R.A. telling us the Army of this country must be a maintenance party between the Army of the United States and the Army of Britain and that we must consult them whether we do a right turn or a left turn.

The Army taken over when Fianna Fáil became the Government of the country was a credit, and it served this Government well. If all the men who served in the Army in a military sense or in a civil sense were asked fairly and squarely if there had been any interference with them as regards its administration, they would say that there had not been.

Take the position in Europe, in America, or in any country that was involved in the recent war, or even in countries like ours that maintained neutrality, in none of them will the reduction be as low as 1 per cent. Yet we have had a discussion on national defence lasting for hours, on the motion of one of the principal spokesmen in the Opposition, in order to make the case that 13 men are being fired for political reasons. If ever anything was calculated to introduce a spirit of politics into the national forces, statements like those which have been made in this debate would do so.

The Army has served the people well and, for that reason, the Minister should go ahead with his plans for increasing the forces. A colleague of mine dealt with the position of the force at the time the Army was being recruited in 1939, when men had to go into barracks that had been closed for years. The State had to spend thousands of pounds reconstructing them, in order to make them fit for occupation. I put it to Deputy Cosgrave that there is no economy in closing down these barracks again, or in reducing the strength of the Army below what the Minister proposes. These barracks should be kept open for any emergency that might come upon us. Tens of thousands of pounds were spent on reconditioning barracks like that at Mullingar, and they should not now be closed down but maintained in proper order.

Mr. Halliden

It is the considered opinion of Deputies on these benches that there is no justification whatever for the expenditure of £4,600,000 for the equipment and maintenance of an Army during peace time. Our present population is less than 3,000,000, and the expenditure now proposed means a tax on every man, woman and child in the country of 30/-. That is far beyond the capacity of our people to bear in present circumstances. Side by side with this proposal we have been told recently that the excess corporation profits tax, amounting to £3,000,000 yearly, is to be abolished forthwith. In other words, the profiteers and speculators of the past six years are to pocket another £3,000,000 at the expense of the middle class as well as the poorer class in the community.

Money can be provided for many spectacular schemes, but when it comes to providing it to improve the condition of our primary industry, to improve the condition of the old age pensioners or of widows, we are met with a howl of disapproval from the Government Benches. I think this is a very serious matter, because the result will be to make rich people richer and poor people poorer. There has been in recent years a great shortage of manpower on the land. Many farmers are embarrassed by the shortage of labour, and cannot get sufficient to produce all the food that they would like to provide. The last harvest proved that clearly. We are now asked to recruit men for the Army. What effect will that recruitment have on men who are required to produce food for the country? That is another reason why we strongly object to an increase in the strength of the Army, and to the expenditure of such an enormous sum as £4,600,000. The position requires most careful consideration by the Government. Taking all the circumstances into account, as they affect our social and economic life, we believe that this expenditure is altogether unwarranted.

Mr. Keyes

I wish to deal with a few matters that may be of interest in this debate, because if there is one thing that the people of this country resent it is ingratitude. A feeling has arisen through the country that many people have been treated ungratefully by the Army, men who gave good service in it, and who were invalided out of it. The treatment that was accorded to some of these men and their dependents in many instances, does not seem to square with what could be termed fair play. Many such cases came under my observation, and I must be only one of 138 Deputies to whom the same remark would apply, because they must have heard of the grave hardship inflicted by the regulations. I am perfectly well aware that the Minister must be governed in these matters by the medical officers. We all respect the members of that profession, but what are we to think when we find cases, as I have found them, of men who were recruited to the Army during the emergency, and who were carrying on their ordinary avocations in life before joining, being demobilised as unfit? I know one case of a man who was working as a carter at the docks before he joined up. He was accepted into the Army, so that he could not have been too bad. He served two or three years in the Army. Then he was demobilised. Since then, he has been suffering from T.B. and hopping from one sanatorium to another. The medical officer says that the disease did not arise from his military service and that the Army authorities have no responsibility for it. That is a particularly sad case. The man is a complete wreck. At present, he is waiting for a bed in a sanatorium, having been in another sanatorium previously. Yet, he is told that the disease was not aggravated or accelerated or promoted by his service in the Army. We are only laymen but common sense would not support the attitude of the medical officer who says that a man who joined the Army and went through rigorous training for a couple of years and was then demobilised, suffering from tuberculosis to the extent that he is not able to earn a shilling, did not contract that disease in the Army and that it was not aggravated by his service in the Army. His Army service must have had something to do with it.

I wish to refer to another case—the case of a man who served in the Army during the emergency. He had no tuberculosis. He was an active soldier and a good boxer. He won many medals as a boxer during his period in the Army. He slept in an open truck during manoeuvres and was removed to the military hospital at Mallow. After a month, he died from nephritis and kidney trouble. The medical officer says that his Army service had nothing whatever to do with his death and his widow and child have been left without a penny of compensation. I am selecting those two cases from many others. I think that a case can be made for re-examination of the method of dealing with these cases. Have the medical officers some sort of instruction to give the minimum of compensation in these claims and the maximum of relief to the Department? I should not care to believe that any medical man would so far forget the duties of his profession as to act unfairly in such cases but a set rule is being established, so far as one can see. I ask the Minister to look carefully into the matter. If many of those cases are cropping up in different parts of the country, they will constitute a strong deterrent to recruiting and will not make for the popularity which the Army should enjoy. We want new men in the Army and we want to maintain the popularity of the Army. I am speaking of one area alone and, if the same thing applies in other areas, the unpopularity which it will create can be readily imagined.

It is all very well to advise young men to join the Army. On behalf of this Party, I stood on platforms during the emergency and asked men to join the Army for the emergency. Members of other Parties did the same. We feel a certain responsibility, because we asked those men to join up and assured them that they would not be forgotten. I am afraid they are not being remembered as they should be and that a harsh line is being drawn in the type of case to which I have referred. Men leave the Army without any prospect of employment. They have, of course, a certificate from their commanding officer and some hundreds of them are sent down to one industrial concern. That concern has no hope of absorbing them. They have to fight for a place as best they can. The man to whom I have referred, who died in a military hospital, had been a vigorous, healthy man when he joined the Army. Even the cost of his funeral service was not defrayed by the Army and there is not a fraction for his widow or child. That is not going to make for the popularity of the Army. It will be difficult to induce men to join the Army if, as Deputy Kennedy hopes, we are to have another crisis——

Mr. Briscoe

He does not hope, but fears, we will.

Mr. Keyes

He suggested that the barracks should be kept open. I am interested in seeing the Army popularised for young men. I want to see them join it with hope and confidence and the expectation of a square deal.

I think that the Minister would be the last man who would be guilty of tolerating hardships in the case of any of these men but, if he inquires into the cases I have mentioned, he will find that there is grave room for concern about what is taking place. The foundation is being laid for widespread hostility to recruitment. The men are not getting a fair deal and the medical board are either acting too strictly or too sternly or they are adopting the line of least resistance. I ask the Minister to give the matter his very serious consideration because I think it would be a pity if even one man were to be unfairly or unjustly treated. I know of two cases in which that happened. I know of seven or eight others which might not be so clearly established. However, I am perfectly satisfied as to the two cases I have mentioned. If there were only one of these cases, it should be investigated so that no cause would be afforded to citizens to complain about the treatment our soldiers receive when they have served their country.

Mr. Coogan

My purpose in intervening in the debate is to endeavour to elicit from the Minister whether or not we have a defence policy and what that policy is. On a previous occasion I tried to put my views to the Minister. Since then I have not seen anywhere indicated what exactly our defence policy is. I agree with those Deputies who have said that our defence policy should not be the plaything of Party politics. I want to make my position very clear on that matter. In dealing with matters of defence, we should not have regard to Party considerations of any kind. At the same time, the people are perturbed, because they do not know what position the country intends to take up in relation, particularly, to international matters. I agree with some of the speakers who think that the Army establishment here is too great for our resources. This country is too poor to afford a heavy Army establishment. At the same time, I realise that, as a country, we must contribute our fair share in endeavouring to protect ourselves and, if necessary, others, from whatever aggressors may be abroad in the world to-day. We have got to try to reconcile the two positions. I should have preferred to see our defence policy based more on international considerations than on our national position. We are a very small country, with very limited resources in men, material and money. If a major war is again to afflict the world and if we are to participate in it, we can do so only, as I said before, by marching beside, or in company with, the big battalions. It is idle for us to indulge in the vanity of extravagant armies, navies or air forces which would be beyond our resources. It is idle, either for historical or sentimental reasons, for us to lose our sense of the proportion of things and embark upon what might be described as a militarist policy. If we are to do any of these things, we should do them in co-operation with other people, who intend to prevent aggression from whatever quarter it may come. It is for that reason that I want to learn from the Minister whether, in relation to international development, we have any definite defence policy.

Do we intend to march along, developing our policy in isolation in respect of what is happening either on our right or on our left? Do we simply look upon this portion of this island as a practical problem for defence? I do not claim to be a soldier or to have any knowledge of strategy or tactics, but I realise that we are only three-fourths of a country and that six of our counties are occupied by an alien force and have been occupied during six years of war by two alien forces. As long as that position obtains, we are in a difficulty from the military point of view. Even if we had the 32 Counties under our jurisdiction tomorrow morning, we would still have the essential problem that our geographical position compels us to look to our defence in co-operation with other peoples, whether we like those peoples or not. We are placed there by God in propinquity to the British Islands and the British Islands, if they are in modern strategy defensible at all, are defensible as a unit and it is useless to have people talking mere tripe about defending ourselves in a position of isolation. I do not think any soldier or any man who has studied the problem would agree for a moment that we could defend ourselves on our own. We simply could not do it.

We then have to consider what schemes for joint defence of other communities are being prepared, either in Western Europe as a whole or in the world as a whole. What is our defence scheme in relation to the United Nations Organisation? If and when we become members of the United Nations Organisation, we will, as every Deputy knows from the debate on the United Nations Organisation, have to contribute a fair and reasonable proportion to military security. If we are to get anywhere in defence matters, we must consider our position as a possible member of the United Nations Organisation and the implications of that membership, particularly in regard to finance. What military establishment will we be expected to keep under the charter? What men and material will we have to provide from time to time for the purposes of the United Nations Organisation? Approaching the problem on these lines, we might look a little ahead, to see what our position will be eventually and what amount we may have to raise to foot the bill. In raising these moneys, we are acting not so much as militarists as policemen. The job of the United Nations Organisation, if it ever gets under way, is to police the world in such a way that no aggressor can get away with it again. I would prefer to see our defence problems approached from that angle, with its emphasis on peace, rather than from the war angle. The emphasis should be on our role in any future war being that of the custodian of international law and order and the custodian of peace, rather than that of joining with an aggressor, whoever he may be, in any military adventure which may take place in any part of the world. That is a prospect which we must face in the very near future.

The other prospect is nearer home. Many nations, like Deputy Kennedy and other speakers, thought of building up a strong army to the limit of the available resources. Those nations realise sadly that, no matter what they may do now or in the future, it will be infinitesimal to prevent an avalanche such as smothered them in 1939-40. We all know what happened between 1939 and 1941, when many of these small Powers, which had gone to the limit of their resources in expenditure on defence, were simply brushed aside by military machines. It looks as if all their military manoeuvres and training and their vast expenditure went for naught overnight. Not one of them could stand up to the military aggressor, fully equipped and ruthless in pursuit of military objectives. That was the position of all the military nations in Europe, including some of the greater Powers.

We have to ask ourselves in all seriousness what the lessons of that war are for us. Are we to embark on a policy of playing with soldiers, or can we do something practical that will redound to the benefit of the country if such an emergency should arise again? I think that the defence of these countries, that the defence of Western Europe is one defence, or there is no defence. There are many experts who will tell you to-day that, in view of the development of atomic energy and atomic strategy, the British Islands are indefensible in any future war, that any highly industrialised or urbanised country, such as Britain or Japan, with any concentration of populations that cannot be shifted into the vast open spaces, is, by virtue of recent atomic developments, indefensible. The only countries likely to have any defence against atomic strategy are those with vast open spaces, such as the United States, Canada, and, perhaps, Australia.

These are considerations which are disturbing the minds of politicians, statesmen and military men everywhere. It is a realisation that the whole scheme of military science, the entire strategy of previous campaigns and of military knowledge, has gone by the board and that we are faced with an entirely new problem. Even the most expert soldiers to-day are merely poking their way to evolve some sort of system that can be regarded as a defence. I do not say that we are not thinking on those lines in this country. I am sure the Minister and his advisers, both civilian and military, are considering all these problems, but I raise them as I feel that they must be considered. Small as we are here, by virtue of our geographical position we are the most western outpost in Europe and the pivotal air centre in the Atlantic air world, the pivot in Atlantic defence of the western hemisphere. We cannot get over these facts, though brutal facts are hard to face. We have to ask ourselves, therefore, taking the long view, what we can do in practice to defend ourselves, in the first place, and then to render assistance to people who may be attacked.

Mr. R. Walsh

The Deputy has said we can do nothing.

Mr. Coogan

I am not saying that we can do nothing, but I feel that, in establishing an Army of 12,860 men, we are simply doing nothing.

Mr. R. Walsh

Will we abolish it altogether, so?

Mr. Coogan

I did not say abolish it altogether. Let me come to that. I want to raise other issues now. A new navy is being established. I do not know if it is to be classified as the nucleus of an Irish navy or whether these boats we are getting are simply to be fishery patrol boats, to keep the marauder away from our fishing grounds. Are we serious as a people in taking up naval development on the lines on which we are taking it up, of having five or six small patrol vessels? Are we serious in saying to ourselves that we are, by incurring that expenditure, contributing one iota to the defence of the country? Does any Deputy believe that by establishing a small naval force of that kind, we are getting anywhere?

Mr. R. Walsh

Let the Deputy stick to the line of argument he was on.

Mr. Coogan

The Deputy put me off it. We are embarking on a navy which the Minister has told us is merely an administrative departure. Provision was made in the Estimates for certain expenditure, but the House was not told what that expenditure was really intended for until the actual purchase of naval vessels had been made and until a naval scheme for training and the manning of these vessels had been drawn up. I want to know from the Minister if we seriously contemplate setting up a naval establishment, what is the purpose of that naval establishment, and, above all, how does that naval establishment fit in with the British Navy, on the one side, and the American Navy, on the other, or is it just a stunt of our own? Are we indulging in the mere vanity of saying we have a little navy? I want to know exactly where we stand in that matter, because I feel it is a matter which is concerning a number of people in the country. I feel that a number of people in the country regard a development of that kind as futile from either the national point of view or the security point of view, and, from the point of view of finance, it is an expensive plaything.

I do not know if we have an air policy, on the other hand, and how far we propose to go to develop an air force. I think the experience of everybody in the House tells him that the two go hand in hand and that the country attempting defence to-day which does not put the primary weight upon air defence is simply toying with the problem. Have we an air defence policy and how much do we propose to spend on air defence? I have seen a letter in which we get the extraordinary position that an officer of the Air Corps reserve knows nothing of the abolition of the Air Corps reserve until he receives a letter a few days ago informing him that the air reserve section to which he belongs has been abolished and that if he sends in his resignation within a certain period, certain things will follow. That officer is a capable officer and it cost a good deal of public money to train him and put him into his job. He is still an active pilot, and I should like to know what we are doing in that respect. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Here we have a position in which an experienced pilot, certified fit for service as recently as a few months ago, certified an A1 pilot and acting as a pilot to-day, is told that he is no longer wanted and that the section to which he belongs has been abolished.

I do not profess to have any intimate knowledge of these matters, but I want to know what is our position. What is our air policy? What are we doing? Are we abandoning such little air force as we had, because, if we are it seems a most extraordinary development, when the rest of the countries of the world who are giving any consideration to defence problems are endeavouring to develop an air defence arm of some kind. To my mind, if we seriously approached these matters, we would be considering air on the one hand and some form of sea defence, on the other. I do not know to what extent we are free in the matter of developing either air or naval defence and I want to know from the Minister if there are any restrictions on our capacity to expand to the limit of our resources, either in respect of an air arm or a sea arm. Are we restricted to any particular types of aeroplanes or any particular types of naval vessels, because, if we are, it seems foolish that the Minister should come here and ask for money.

I want, in other words, a realistic approach to these matters and I do not want people to blink the main issues. I am not advocating that we should abolish the Army, air force or even the navy, if the Minister can show me that these things are practicable propositions for us, which can, in the event of aggression against us, be worth a tinker's curse to us and that our Army, our air force and our navy will not disappear overnight as happened in the case of many armies, many air forces and many navies on the Continent six years ago.

When I think on these matters, I am often reminded of the Danes who had an army of something like 100 men when the Germans marched through. In order to preserve their national pride and honour, the Danes put up a token resistance and then proceeded to let the Germans march through. By doing so, they saved their country from abominable destruction and they preserved their economy. They might have been bigger heroes in the eyes of some people in the House if they had allowed themselves and their cities and towns to be destroyed, but they took a very common-sense view of the matter and said: "We cannot resist these hordes of Huns. We have only one thing to do—make our protest—retire and leave them to it". They did that, and, to my mind, took a very sensible viewpoint. I throw that out merely as one of the things we should consider in this matter of defence.

I feel that there is a good deal in the argument put forward by Deputy Norton that there should be some form of committee or council—call it what you will—which would, once and for all, go into the whole matter of defence, with the information available to the Department of Defence and to the Minister in particular, thresh out the whole thing in a commonsense way and arrive at our eventual policy. We must have a policy. Everybody knows that in these dangerous times we are living in and the more dangerous times which have just passed over, any country would be foolish not to give serious consideration to these problems, but all I appeal for is that our approach to these problems will be realistic. I see no way of achieving a realistic approach to them unless we are prepared to hammer the problem out in a non-Party atmosphere. I do not think there is any political advantage to be gained one way or another from whatever attitude a Deputy may adopt in relation to these matters. We are all sufficiently nationallyminded and sufficiently interested in the security of our country and the safety of our people to realise that we have to approach these problems in a practical way, see what we can do and decide what is the limit to which we can go and then stop there, once and for all.

I do not intend to dwell on the other aspects of the Bill which have been mentioned. They have been dealt with by many other Deputies and I do not want to cover the ground covered by previous speakers, except to appeal to the Minister to examine, even at this late hour, every one of these cases which have been complained of. If an injustice has been done I am sure he can even yet find a way of rectifying any injustice that unwittingly may have been perpetrated on a particular officer. I do not know any of the facts. I do not know any of the officers. I do not know anything, good bad or indifferent, about the matter, but from listening to previous speakers I gather that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction and that certain injustices, unwittingly, may have been perpetrated. I would appeal to the Minister, therefore, to re-examine any doubtful case and to give the benefit of the doubt, as any court of law would do, to the officer concerned.

Deputy Halliden is incorrect when he says that the amount is £4,600,000 this year. The Minister is introducing a Supplementary Estimate for £630,000, so that our defence expenditure this year will be £5,206,310. I do not know if that sum would meet the bill that may be presented to us by the United Nations Organisation, but I would venture a safe guess that in regard to our population and our wealth it is probably considerably above what any United Nations Organisation would ask of us as a contribution by way of men, money or materials, to a world organisation.

Mr. R. Walsh

The Deputy does not know.

Mr. Coogan

I do not know because these things are entirely in the air. I do not believe anybody knows. These matters have to be considered. That is why I say we should not commit ourselves to any figure of expenditure until we know what is likely to be demanded of us by these people. I take it that when we take up our membership of the organisation, if we are let in, if Joe Stalin has the good grace to withdraw his objection, that we will be committed to certain expendi- ture as a member nation, that we will be asked definitely to guarantee a certain establishment, to be available for services anywhere in the world, at any time, perhaps on notice from the United Nations Chief of Staff's Committee, or some body of that kind. Some military committee will take over and we, as a member nation, will have to take our fair share of the job of policing the world and of fighting any aggression that may arise. It is for that very reason that I do not want that we should commit ourselves now to an expenditure that we cannot foresee. I want to see if our people here, particularly the Minister, can get some idea of what is expected from us in that direction and then, having ascertained our position as a member nation, we can do whatever extra is required of us. I feel that, from a purely defence point of view, it is futile for us to attempt any scheme of defence except in collaboration with some form of alliance of Western Europe or else with the United Nations Organisation, or with both.

It is open to us to be a member of a Western European or general European alliance and at the same time to be a member of the United Nations Organisation. There is nothing in the charter to prevent regional defence alliances and it may be that we may find ourselves having to consider joining two forms of defence alliance, one regional and the other a world security system and, whichever it is going to be, or if it is going to be both, we will definitely have to find the money. We are not going in there merely as club members, to slip down in an armchair and fall asleep. We will have to put up the men, money and equipment. It is for that reason that I want from the Minister some indication of where we are drifting in this matter of defence, if we are drifting, or what exactly we are leading up to. It is only fair to the country and to the House that we should have that information. I am not looking for State secrets, for defence secrets, or anything like that. I only want the broad outlines of the policy which I feel the Minister and his colleagues should be pursuing in these matters. The defence of the greater part of the world to-day is an international matter. The security of nations has become so interdependent that you cannot divorce one from the other. You cannot think in terms of national defence here without at the same time considering your whole international position. The two are tied up together. I wish we could see the day when we would have no defence Estimate in any national Budget and I am sure many other people would wish the same. While we have the present position obtaining in the world we have to face up to it but I ask that it would be faced up to in a realistic fashion, that we should not indulge in any vain-glorious schemes here and should not become jingoistic or chauvinistic.

Mr. Bartley

There are very few Deputies in the House sufficiently well informed to be able to make up their minds as to the size our peace-time Army should be but the references to that matter have promoted me to inquire of the Minister as to the reason for not introducing conscription at the beginning of the emergency. Was it not because we had not a military machine capable of handling a conscripted Army, and that that was in fact the main consideration which decided that particular matter? In the event of any emergency comparable with what we have had, the question of conscription will become a very vital one. When the war broke out in 1939 the volunteer force which was then fairly well trained was called up and I know that in my constituency the vast majority of the volunteer force were men who had agricultural knowledge and who were required on the land and that it was impossible to get them exempted from military service, at all events for a very long period. The territorial force took the form of a voluntary organisation. There was one very serious anomaly arising out of that position, that you had workers of very important productive capacity retained in the Forces and at the same time men who had not been engaged in productive work allowed to do their military duty in the voluntary local force. In my opinion, conscription, if you like on a selective basis, would have eliminated that anomaly and the economy of the country, in the production of food and fuel, would have benefited enormously. There are a great many people who believe that the reason why you did not have that system was because there was not a military machine capable of handling it. If that is so, it is obvious that such a machine should be the basis of the new military peace establishment. The Minister ought to consider the peace establishment from that point of view. However, the military authorities are the best judges in that matter.

I was interested to hear Deputy Cosgrave refer to discrimination on political grounds in the Army, because I have heard a similar statement made from the opposite point of view. I have been told that men who were supporters of the Government did not have a chance of preferment in the Army in the officers' corps. It was not merely on the basis of whether a man had been pro-Treaty or anti-Treaty. If he had been pro-Treaty, and was now a supporter of the Government, his chances were poor. He might have been anti-Treaty at the time of the civil war and would now be a supporter of Fine Gael, and his chances were quite good. That is the way the case was put to me. I am inclined to look on that type of criticism through the spectacles with which Deputy Cosgrave has presented us. It seems to me the two criticisms cancel each other out. I was glad to hear the Deputy making that criticism; it gave me an angle on what I had heard.

The officers have been frequently spoken about in this debate. I should like to put in a word with the Minister for the rank and file who are married. There is great need for an extension of the quarters for married soldiers and non-commissioned officers. Perhaps this is not the time to advocate an extension of building for Army purposes, but, when the position eases, I hope the Minister will do what he can to provide adequate married quarters.

The main reason why I rose to speak was to inquire as to the intentions of the Army authorities with regard to the first Irish-speaking battalion. Recently I transmitted to the Minister a complaint in connection with the training of this battalion. The complaint is that men who joined the battalion are sent to the Curragh for training and they cannot get their training through their own language. The reply I got from the Minister was that the words of command are all in the Irish language, but I think the point of the complaint which I received was not just that; it was that the atmosphere and the life of the soldier generally in the Curragh is not what it should be for a man who wishes to serve in the first Irish-speaking battalion. I believe there is a good deal of substance in the complaint and I will ask the Minister, if it is at all possible, to see that the training is carried out at Renmore, Galway.

I have been told, on authority that I think is reliable, that the present arrangements for training are preventting men from the Western Gaeltacht from joining the battalion and some men who presented themselves at Renmore, when they found they would have to go to the Curragh, went home again. It is a pity that this battalion should be hampered by a regulation of this sort. I should like the Minister to examine the complaint and, if it is possible to remedy it, I hope he will do so.

Mr. Corish

I am not very conversant with the dismissal of certain officers from the Army within the past few weeks, but I claim to be conversant with the position of some soldiers who were discharged since the end of the emergency. To some extent, these men have been treated rather unfairly by the Department. I would like to advert to a few examples in which I consider, and the men themselves consider, they have been treated unfairly. It is a fact—at least, it has been given publicity—that for certain positions under the Local Appointments Commission, and elsewhere in different Government Departments, ex-soldiers were told they would be given credit for some of their years of service in the Army. How did the Minister decide on the 11th May, 1945, as the date up to which men should have served in the Army before getting credit for years of service? I think the 11th May was the date of the cessation of the war in Europe. Important as that date may be, I do not think it is so important as to deprive a man, who had been discharged from the Army a week or two previous to that, of being eligible to apply for a job under the Local Appointments Commission.

There are many cases in which this rule by the Department of Defence applies. If a man served a certain period in the Army, irrespective of whether or not he was discharged after 11th May, 1945, he should be given some credit for his service. He did a certain job and the people are grateful to him for making himself available. I think the Minister should consider wiping out that date and giving credit for actual service in the Army, irrespective of the date of discharge.

I believe this applies also to the giving of hackney plates to ex-members of the Defence Forces. It is generally accepted by the public that facilities are given to discharged soldiers to get hackney plates so as to engage in the hackney business but, under the Local Appointments Commission, where these men were discharged before 11th May, 1945, they are debarred from getting this facility. The Department have treated these men unfairly in many cases. It has been proved that the applicants have never been given the benefit of the doubt.

I must complain strongly of the failure of the Department of Defence to have a decent check-up on men when they join the Army. There is a lot of contention, when pensions are applied for, as to whether disability or disease was contracted while the man was in the Army. A lot of the trouble could be obviated if there was a proper medical examination on entry. True it is that some diseases and disabilities cannot be ascertained and it cannot be established whether the disease or disability was contracted while in the Army, but in a lot of eases, if there was a more careful check-up on admission, there might not be such trouble subsequently.

I feel reluctant to talk about the strength of the Army or to take the line taken by some Deputies; I do not feel competent to engage in such debate but, nevertheless, I would like to make a few personal observations. The size of the Army was referred to at length in the course of this debate. My idea is that the Army should be in proportion to our population, and this could be regulated to some extent by the example of some big powers. Deputy Coogan instanced the case of Denmark and he said an army of 100 men made a token resistance to the Germans when their country was invaded. We are entitled to ask the Minister for Defence if it would be desirable in this country to make such a token resistance if we were attacked. Is a token resistance worth while? We can be all very Irish and very national and glad to shed our blood for our country, but practical people will ask if this shedding of blood would be justified if we knew beforehand that there would be only a token resistance and that ultimately we would be defeated. We are entitled to ask the Minister what would the position be if we were attacked.

The question was widely discussed in the first few years of the war and people asked what would be our position if Britain attacked us or if the Germans tried to invade this country. If Britain invaded this country, would we form an alliance with Germany or, if Germany attacked us, would we form an alliance with Great Britain? We are entitled to hear from the Minister what force the Government would have in this small country if such an attack should take place. We must admit that even the present time is not a time of peace, and that seeing the antics of some of the largest powers in the world to-day the world is liable to be disrupted again. If trouble started, would we be treated much in the same way as small countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? These three countries have to all intents and purposes disappeared from the map of the world and nobody has raised a question. Is this to be the fate of Ireland in case of a future war?

There has been some talk as to the necessity of a navy and an air force. Is our Navy going to be a navy just in name, a navy which will have very few ships? Is our Air Force going to be an air force in which we shall have very few aeroplanes and for what purpose will these be used? Every person in the country knows that, unaided, we are not capable of defending this country if the necessity arose. If every single man, woman and child were armed and trained in military tactics, it would be impossible for the Irish people to make even a show of defending this country. Possibly people may think that this is a question which should not be discussed at this time now that the war is over, and most people expect that another war will not break out for some considerable time. Again I say, when we see the antics of a country such as Russia—and the Russians were ruthless in downing countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—such a thing could happen to us if another war started. From that point of view we should have a pooling of the ability and intelligence of all Parties in this House to define a policy of defence, a policy which will ensure that we will always live as a nation and that we shall not be swallowed up by any major power, a danger which would become imminent in case of a future world war.

Captain Giles

Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the most discursive debates we had this year. I think the Minister is to blame because he has put nothing tangible before the House on which a proper debate could take place. We cannot discuss policy properly unless suitable material is put before the House. It is very unfair to have such a vague measure as this Bill brought before us year after year. Army grievances are nothing new. It is nearly 20 years since I left the Army. At that time the Army had a grievance and there was almost a mutiny. From that day to this, we have heard of many Army grievances. I agree that when you are changing from a war footing to a peace footing there is always a certain amount of trouble and great caution has to be used. We should be very slow in retiring a large number of men and throwing them on to the labour market. At the present moment there is far more danger than existed in my time because of the manner in which the youth of Ireland have been trained in the use of arms, for the last five or six years. If you create any trouble in these circumstances you do not know where it will end.

One thing certain is that we must be proud of the loyalty and the spirit in which the old Irish Army was formed and of the manner in which the control of this Army passed from one Government to another. There was never the slightest hitch and there was an entire absence of cliques. The personnel of that Army was perfectly loyal to the country, and to-day we can pay a glowing tribute to them from the highest to the lowest. They have served their country well, and we are all proud of them. We are told now that some of the old veterans are to be thrown on the scrap heap. I think that is a shame and a disgrace. As an old serving officer—in fact, the only officer in this House who came straight from the first Army into public life—I am, of course, excluding officers like General Mulcahy and General MacEoin who were at the head of the Army; I am the only one of what might be called serving officers who came into political life—I am glad to be able to defend here the rights of my old colleagues who at the present time find themselves in dire stress. Twenty-four men with long service are now to be thrown on to the labour market with half a pension, without any prospect of employment for them. In my own county I recruited a vast number of young men, from the rank of private up to the rank of captain, and I am proud to say a good many of them are still in the Army giving loyal service.

I want to see the men who are now being thrown out of the Army given a fair chance to maintain themselves in civil life, decently and honourably. some of these men are being retired —and I do not care why they are being retired—before they have completed the term which would entitle them to a full pension, it is the duty of the Government to allow them the full service which would entitle them to draw the maximum pension. If it is necessary for them to give two or three years more service before they would be entitled to full pension rights, it is the bounden duty of the Minister to allow them for that service.

I should be glad to see these old veterans getting fair treatment and coming out of the Army. I want to see them coming into Irish public life. I want to see them going on public platforms and taking an active part in the political life of the country so that we can restore the old spirit of selfsacrifice, decency and honour which was the foundation of the old Republican Army. This House lacks strong manly men who are not afraid to speak the truth, irrespective of the Party to which they belong. After all, a man is a man and he should be singleminded enough to express his own opinions on the many questions which are discussed in this House. He owns his soul and we hope he owns his body. He should be able to speak his own mind on the many important matters that come before an Assembly such as this. That is why I should be glad to see the old soldiers who are now retiring from the Army, and who have the requisite ability, coming out to serve the Irish people and taking their due share in political activities on an Irish platform. They are not the type of men who would come in here to form cliques or to seek jobs for themselves and their friends. They are men who will give the same unselfish type of service in this House as they have given in the Army.

So far as the Army itself is concerned, I am satisfied that it would lead to a great loss of public money and to the imposition of a big burden on the taxpayers to have a big standing Army in this country. I believe that all that is needed in present circumstances is a small foundation Army and that, having regard to our financial capacity, the most that we should spend on the Army is £2,000,000 or £2,500,000 per annum.

For the last 15 or 20 years young men have grown up in the country with a different outlook and a different spirit from those I knew 25 or 30 years ago. They are far more soft-hearted than the people of a former generation. They want to get things easy and to make money quickly. They do not want to plod along or work as the old generation did. For that reason, I would like to see compulsory training for every young man. I do not mean that in the military but rather in the social sense. I would like to see character formation undertaken in the case of the young generation. They could be brought together at proper centres and put under instruction whether in the military, the social or economic field. I would like to see our young people at about the ages of 14 or 15 getting a two years' course in social life among properly conducted people. In that way they could be given character training and a proper national outlook. They should be taught how to conduct themselves in life, how to act honourably, to refuse to tell a lie at all times and how to handle a gun if needs be. They should also be taught how to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy now deal with the Bill?

Captain Giles

I am to a certain extent dealing with the type of Army that I would like to see formed here. I do not believe in having a big Army standing idle. Since 1924 we have had a fairly big Army which has been a definite burden on the country and it had nothing to do. I dare say it had to be there, but it had nothing to do, so that the money spent on it has been more or less dead money. At the end of every five or ten years there had to be a cheap sale of Army equipment. Most of that equipment is bought by Jews and people from the back streets of Dublin. It is sold as scrap and those who buy it make fortunes overnight.

I am satisfied that a lot of "ballyhoo" went on during the last few days. It was just a lot of "tommy rot." We had outbursts of patriotism from men who displayed very little of that 25 years ago when it was needed. I am one of the very few who took an honest, manly part in the fight for independence that was carried on in the Midlands. I took part in the capture of police barracks. Very few of those who spoke did that. I was one of those who captured the barracks in Trim in which there were 26 fully-armed men. We had to fire one shot to effect that capture. We had men here attacking Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Higgins for speaking out their minds. Some of those attacks were made by cowardly crawlers who never did anything except perhaps that they served a few months in jail because a policeman did not like the look on their faces. They were not in jail because they had fired a shot or carried a gun.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the Bill.

Captain Giles

I am referring to the disgraceful attack that was made by certain men in this House on two Deputies for speaking out their minds. I know what I am speaking about, and I know the facts of the situation. We had not 200 men in the Midlands—in Meath and Westmeath—that were worth a damn, but when the Truce came I suppose there were 5,000 applications from men there clamouring for pensions. That is the glorious Ireland that they lived for and died for. But at that time the devil a one of them wanted to die for Ireland. Between 1922 and 1924 we could not get one of them in the Midlands to fire a shot. They would not come within ten miles of a barracks. Yet these are the people who would get up here and attack a man like Deputy Mulcahy who lived through fire and sword for five or six years. Nobody in the country lived a life such as he except Michael Collins, God rest his soul. If any man would get up and dare raise a finger to Deputy Mulcahy, then I say it is a disgrace and a shame.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the Bill.

Captain Giles

There was a reference made to the patriotic endeavour of different countries. I believe that half this so-called patriotism is false patriotism. We have very little genuine patriotism in any of the small countries. We heard a lot about what some little countries had suffered in the last war. What are they suffering to-day and why are they suffering? They are suffering for the same reason that we suffered in the past. Why had we a civil war here? The reason is plain to be seen now—because we had too many little demi-gods.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to deal with the Bill or resume his seat.

Captain Giles

I ask the Minister to be honest and manly with the men who formed the Army now that they are being retired. They should be retired on full pension. If necessary let years be added so that that may be done. The men who served in the L.S.F. and the L.D.F. and who were disbanded also have many grievances. They gave decent, loyal service. At the end they were hardly thanked for their service. They asked when going out that they should be allowed to take with them their pair of boots and their great coat. It took six months before that concession was given. In my opinion these men should have been given a gratuity of at least £10. They were surely entitled to a little gift like that from the nation which they had served so loyally. Instead, they got what the soldier always gets—the jack-boot. The Minister owes a duty to those men who stood loyally by him and by Ireland, and now when they are retiring he should give them an honest, decent return for their long service.

Mr. Briscoe

This debate has centred itself around two or three main items. There has been a general demand for an explanation from the Government or from the Minister, as to whether the Government have in fact a defence policy. In addition, there is a request for a detailed laying before the House of the methods as to how a defence policy would be carried out. My view of the situation is that this nation, through the people, has shown without doubt that it has a policy. Consequently, the policy of the Government is that the nation's independence, so far as it has been achieved, is to be defended, whatever the occasion may be and no matter where the attack comes from. I believe it is generally understood that the policy of the Government is in accordance with the wishes of the people of the present day and with the traditions of the people as a whole throughout the centuries that have gone on. That policy is that this nation will be defended in relation to its survival as a nation and as an entity in the world. But, as regards details—as to how many soldiers we should have, what types of war machinery the Army should have at its disposal, where we are going to have our defence posts and so on—it is beyond my comprehension that Deputies should ask to have these details disclosed here. After all, if we have an Army, we have a headquarters staff which is charged with the responsibility of keeping the country protected from a defence point of view. It must necessarily change its views from time to time and may change situations as it sees them. We must rely upon experts in the Army, who have the responsibility of taking care of this nation's rights, if they are challenged, to do their job properly. It is not for us across the floor of the House to say whether one person happens to be a better general than another. That should be left to the experts. That is my view as far as defence policy goes.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy advocating that the defence policy should be settled outside?

Mr. Briscoe

I find it difficult to make the Deputy, who stands before this House as an intelligent Deputy, realise that he is asking me to explain what I have said. I think it is as simple as A.B.C. I stated that this nation has proved by its actions during the last 750 years that its policy of defence is one of defending freedom. Any Government, and particularly this Government, should bear in mind that it is charged by the people who elected it to see that the nation's independence is defended. To that extent I say that the policy of the Government is one of defence. The details as to how this country should be defended are a matter for experts, who are professional soldiers. They must decide that. In this House we cannot possibly decide how many machine-guns, how many rifles or what defence positions should be needed. These are matters that should be left outside the House to be decided under the Minister who is responsible for the Army and to this House for its activities. I hope that is quite clear.

Mr. Dillon

As clear as mud.

Mr. Briscoe

Then the Deputy is not as intelligent as he asks the House to believe. I think everybody else understands what I mean. Deputy Dillon is neither competent nor has he the right to suggest what our soldiers should do in the event of this country being attacked by an outside power. There have been references to the position in the world at large. Deputy Coogan, in a most extraordinary contribution, expected to have our defence policy defined in relation to world affairs. He suggested that our defence policy should be fixed now, although nobody can say what is going to happen. All I can say is that this small nation has asserted itself in the past and will so in the future in its defence. It will have to make the best decision it can.

Some Deputies suggested that it might be better to have no Army, because, with the development of science and the advent of the atomic bomb, some powerful nation might come along and squelch us. Because of that danger it was suggested that we should not have the responsibility of defending ourselves. The position of this country has been unique. People in another country are in the same position. While we may be conquered we will, if we resist and defend ourselves, survive as an independent people. Even if we were under foreign domination, no matter how long resistance would be necessary, that resistance could rise—I say rise advisedly—to a point at which volunteers would resort to guerilla tactics. They might be termed assassins by their opponents—a word which was used shortly before the Truce—rather than have to submit to domination by outside people and in order to survive as a separate nation. People should examine all aspects and should recognise that we are in control of our own affairs in this part of our country. We can only show the world that we are prepared to defend ourselves if attacked. If we had no defence possibilities when the recent world war was raging, the position here might have been vastly different. The manhood and womanhood of this country were prepared to throw themselves into the breach if the necessity arose. I believe that spirit made those who were thinking of and advocating invasion or occupation of this country think twice, because capture is one thing, subjection is another thing, and is sometimes a very costly operation.

I ask the Minister to do me the honour, if I may put it in that way, of reading a speech that I made on this Bill last year. At that time I asked him to remember that men in the Army, whether privates or officers, who served this nation in peace-time or in the time of danger should get somewhat better consideration than they received in the past. I drew his attention to the difference that there is between the clothing provided for the private soldier and the officer. I understood then that there was in contemplation a design for a better uniform which would be made of somewhat better material. I should like the Minister to remember that the private in our Army is just as much a man as the officer. He may not have the same education but he certainly has the same human feelings. Sometimes it may be considered degrading for an officer, who may have a brother a private, to be seen associating, so marked is the difference in uniform.

I should like the Minister to consider also the possibility of providing better accommodation for soldiers than has been available. My view of the situation is that the present accommodation was inherited from another Government that has long since departed, and that had to employ soldiery and levies to live in barracks amongst a people to whom they were not welcome. I think if the Minister would instruct some of his staff to make a special examination of that situation, it would be found that many small things could be done which would improve both the lot of the soldier and the officer. I say that because I know the feelings of the men in my constituency. They find themselves when moved from their homes under present conditions not quite happy in the Army. Whatever Government we have I believe that within our resources an Army must always be kept up because it will always be the nucleus of a defence force when needed, or if you like, in the event of danger. I ask the Minister to get some of the officials to read the remarks I made last year with a view to examining and doing what I suggest.

A great deal of talk has gone on about these officers being badly treated. I met one of the officers affected and he told me that he was annoyed with the Press for referring to this matter in a manner which would give the public grounds to believe that disciplinary action was being taken against the officers for some offence. He told me that he had served for, I think, 25 years and he felt that he was being fairly and generously treated.

Mr. Dillon

Name.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not like the Deputy——

Mr. Dillon

Thank God for that.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not like the Deputy who will read from papers certain things which he accepts as facts and sometimes finds that they are without foundation.

Mr. Dillon

If I take libel actions against newspapers, I pursue them. I do not drop them.

Mr. Briscoe

These matters are done on the advice of lawyers. The Deputy has a habit of coming in here and referring to all kinds of people in the most extravagant language. Then, on the next occasion, he holds himself up as one of the most charitable Christians in the House. Those who read the reports of the debates of the House will be able to judge whether the terms "liar" and "blackguard" are applicable to people outside the House; on some occasions they could be applied to people in the House. It is a rule of the House that, if a Deputy asserts that what he states is true, that assertion is accepted. If the Minister wants the name, I shall give it to him. The Deputy has, on several occasions, refused to accept anything in confidence. I shall give the name to anybody in confidence.

Mr. Dillon

Nobody wants it in confidence. We want it in public.

Mr. Briscoe

If necessary, I shall give it. One of those officers told me that he was quite happy and satisfied regarding the matter and that he spoke for a number of others concerned. I think that this motion exaggerates the position. I only hope the Minister will continue to carry out the policy he has pursued since he was charged with the responsibility of office and that the country will continue to provide the best types of Irish manhood to fill the posts in our Army so that, if the occasion arises, we shall be in a position to defend ourselves. I do not want to be misinterpreted when I say that. I heard Deputy Kennedy speak of the possibility of another war and Deputy Keyes later suggested that he was hoping for another war. Deputy Kennedy feared that that would happen. I say that if the event, which all of us must fear, comes to pass, we must be ready to defend ourselves as we did in the past and as we were prepared to do during the past six or seven years.

Mr. Cogan

The speeches from the Government side of the House have revealed an extraordinary mentality. Dean Swift said that it is better to be in our graves than to live in slavery to slaves. Members of the Government Party, having subjected themselves to slavery, are now anxious to impose that slavery on all sections of the House. We must, says Deputy Briscoe, leave all matters of defence to the Minister and his expert advisers. The House has no right to inquire as to the number of rifles or machine guns which are required by the Army or which are being used by the Army. I think that this House has the right to inquire as to the number of machine guns or rifles required by the Army and to decide how many million pounds should be devoted to the use of the Army and how many thousand men should be retained in the Defence Forces.

There is a widespread and definite opinion in the country that the demands being made for defence at present are excessive and unjustifiable in the uncertain conditions which prevail. No man can say on what lines or in what way the next war will be fought. It is the invariable custom of middle-aged military experts to fight the next war upon the experience of the last war or to plan the next war upon the experience of the last war. That habit of mind has been disastrous in many condemns and it is very expensive for our nation at present. That habit of mind is revealed in the policy which condemns poor people, and people with small incomes, to shiver in their homes for lack of fuel because the military experts have decreed that no trees adjoining or near a roadway or public thoroughfare should be felled.

It is time there was a realistic approach to the problems of defence in peace-time. We should be free from the attempt by the Government and their supporters to impose silence upon all criticism in this House. Deputy Kennedy wrapped the national colours around him and said it was unpatriotic to criticise defence policy, that criticism of defence policy voiced in this House would be splashed across the English Press.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Cogan

No Deputy should allow himself to be intimidated by the suggestion that his criticism of the Government or of Government policy would bring discredit upon this country. That is a shield which the Government and their supporters have sought to erect to protect themselves from criticism. More discredit has been brought upon us and more general lowering of our prestige has resulted from things members of the Government Party have said and done than from anything said or done by Independent or Opposition members of this House. Deputy Briscoe's fierce defence and glorification of terrorists will not raise our prestige in Great Britain or elsewhere. We should recognise the fact that this is a free Assembly, that we have the right to criticise Government policy, particularly in a matter which involves the expenditure of enormous and everincreasing sums of money. An Army of over 12,000 men, to be properly equipped over a long period, is a grave undertaking, which must cause very great concern to every member of the community. The tying up of 12,000 of the best of our manhood in the Army, keeping them from civilian occupations where they might be able to add to the national wealth, is a matter of very great concern. In justice to the people, in justice to the taxpayer and in order to safeguard the economic position, we should think twice before committing ourselves to such enormous expenditure.

A matter was raised here in the course of this debate which deserves consideration—the matter of injustice to certain members of the Defence Forces. Deputy Kennedy said that the present Government took over an Army which was a credit to the country. He might have gone further and admitted that the Government took over an Army which was a credit to its own rank-and-file and to its officers. It is a grave and serious injustice and a danger from the national point of view if men of that Army are wronged or allowed to labour under a feeling that they have been wronged. Deputy Giles made a general appeal on behalf of those men and I would like to support it. The number of men involved is not great and it should be the duty of the Government to see that they are not allowed to labour under a sense of injustice. We should get away from the type of hysterics which we have heard from the Government Benches and should approach this problem in a reasonable way.

Mr. Byrne

I would like to ask the Minister a question. Is he aware that soldiers who, after 21 to 25 years' service have left the Army on a pension of £54 a year, have been denied relief work through a municipality because they are not sent by the Labour Exchange and the Labour Exchange will not send these ex-soldiers out on Government-subsidised relief work as they have 21/- or 22/- a week in pension and they are not drawing £1 a week from unemployment benefit? If a man draws £1 or 22/- from the Army, which is a Government Department, surely he is just as much entitled to get relief work as the man who is drawing £1 a week from some other Department? Would the Minister get in touch with the Department concerned and ask them why they debar soldiers leaving the Army on such a small pension from getting work? I mention specially the Sheridan case, of which he has some knowledge and about which I wrote to him some weeks ago. This man has a wife and family. He came out of the Army on £54 a year. If he had come out with only £52, he would be eligible for work, but because he has a shilling or two more than £1 a week in that way, he is debarred from work on relief schemes.

Mr. Kennedy

If this debate does not finish at 7 o'clock, does it go on again to-morrow?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not the decision in that matter. I presume that it does.

Mr. R. Walsh

Were it not such a serious matter, it would be amusing to listen to the contradictions of different speakers in regard to this Bill and the proposed expenditure on the Army of £4,600,000. This House unanimously accepted the proposal of the Government to enter the United Nations Organisation. As Deputy Coogan observed, when we passed that resolution we accepted the commitment that whatever the demands of the United Nations Organisation may be we would accede to them. Yet we have Deputies occupying the attention and the business time of the House for hours, criticising the expenditure of £4,600,000, while at the same time they are prepared to accept a proposal that, if the United Nations Organisation ever functions and asks us to contribute £12,000,000 a year, we will do so. Let us be consistent. If it is too much to spend £4,600,000 on our Army, it is far more indefensible to commit ourselves to an unknown expenditure of possibly gigantic dimensions.

We must ask ourselves whether the independence of our country is worth preserving. Was it ever worth fighting for? Is the amount of independence we have got worth fighting for now? If it is not, let us say so and let us unanimously agree on that point just as we have agreed to enter the United Nations Organisation. Let us not try to pretend to be in favour of the defence of the independence of this country—or of that portion of it which we control—and at the same time pretend to be against the provision of the means of defending it.

Regarding the criticism of the new naval service, I have been long enough in this House to remember when members of the Opposition condemned in no unmeasured language the raids made by foreign fishing fleets on our fishing grounds, when we had absolutely no means of resisting such raids except one vessel which, from what we know of it, was not remarkable for its speed. If there is another war and we are neutral, as we were in the recent one, we must have some means of preserving the neutrality of our waters. We must at least provide observers to see that that neutrality is observed, that is, the men who will be able to find out if our neutrality is being broken by any of the Powers engaged in such a war. One could become very hysterical, as Deputy Cogan has said, but it is not my intention to become hysterical. All I will say, in conclusion, is that, if we are to accept the statements from the Opposition Front Bench, any man who died for this country and any man who died anything for the country in the way of working for its independence or its freedom was a damn fool.

Mr. Coburn

I do not like to say very much with regard to the Army because I think that the least said about the Army in this House or outside the better. The work of the Army should be left to those in command of the Army, but, as a Deputy representing the country and knowing the country's resources, I feel that, much as we would like to have a big Army, we should only have an Army which can be provided from the resources at our disposal and at the moment we are not in a position to spend £4,500,000 on an Army of 12,000 men. I often feel that sometimes the strength of a nation, and even the strength of an individual, lies in utter helplessness. That could be put forward as a sound argument, that the more defenceless a country is, the stronger it is so far as safeguarding its independence is concerned.

I remind Deputies on the opposite side, especially Deputy Kennedy who spoke about what was said on this side, that these words were used by the Taoiseach as far back as 1927. When the Defence Forces Bill was introduced in that year, he said he saw no reason for a large standing Army, that it could not be effective in preventing an invasion, for instance, of our coasts by Great Britain. "Our defence will lie," he said, "in having a territorial volunteer force which will make it impossible for that power"—meaning England-" to establish its rule here amongst us." The present Minister for Industry and Commerce made a similar statement—that it was a farce to have a standing Army here of the size they had then. The size of the Army was then 5,000 men. It is sometimes a good thing to have a long memory when one hears some of the speeches made here, especially the speech made by Deputy Kennedy.

I feel to-day that an Army of 5,000 men would be quite sufficient because I honestly feel, without meaning any disrespect to the Army, to its powers or its efficiency, that we could not effectively defend this country if we were invaded. Let us make no mistake about that. The statement that we could is just about as honest as the statement that we were able to support ourselves during the war and provide 100 per cent. for the maintenance of our people. That is a fallacious theory from which we have suffered for a number of years past. We could not so support ourselves and our people would have starved, were it not for the goods we got in from outside.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

We did support ourselves.

Mr. Coburn

Not at all. We would have starved but for all the things we got from outside countries.

Donnchadh O Briain

Is any country in a position to do so?

Mr. Coburn

That is something which I am prepared to say from any platform in Ireland. Let us be realists in this matter and let us not try to "cod" the people by telling them we could support ourselves and could defend ourselves, even during the last war. It was Great Britain and America who saved us, and well we know it. There is no use in trying to hide that fact. Consequently, if we are to spend money on an Army, we should see to it that our defence plan has some relation to the defence plans drawn up by the Governments of Great Britain and America. The Minister hinted at that in his statement when he said that it was the intention to send officers across to England. For what? To learn the latest about military science of every description. Why not be honest and say here that we are in agreement with England so far as the defence of this country is concerned?

Mr. Traynor

Every nation in the world is doing it.

Mr. Coburn

Why not be honest and say straight out that anything you are doing is being done in accordance with the wishes and with the support of the British and American Governments, and not indulge in this camouflage of telling the poor fools at the cross roads and on the bogs that England is the only enemy, forgetting the fact that the Taoiseach said that this country would never be allowed to be made a jumping—off ground for attacking England. We are to spend £4,500,000 on the Army which we cannot afford to spend, and I think we should at least have an honest statement from the Minister, with none of this camouflage about sending a few officers across to Great Britain for training. We know what would have been said if that had happened during the régime of the Cosgrave Government, when the Army was styled the Army that was to keep this country in subjection.

It would be much better if the Minister said that any measures we take are taken after consultation with the British and American Governments. That is the only return we can get for the expenditure of our £4,500,000. The statement that we could defend ourselves against invasion after the experience of the last war and of the weapons used in it is one that should not be made by any sensible man. We are not in a position to defend ourselves, and the sooner we recognise the fact the better, any more than we are in a position to maintain ourselves in similar circumstances. It has been proved that we are not.

I feel that we should have a statement from the Minister as to what really will be the defence plan for this country and as to what he proposes to do in connection with the defence plans of Great Britain and America. We cannot get away from the fact that the people of Great Britain and America are the people who have most in common with the people of this country, and we cannot get away from the fact that Russia has taken away the independence of any country in which she has secured a footing, such as Latvia, Lithuania and all the other little countries in the north, and that the only forces which stand between us and Powers of that description are the combined forces of Great Britain and America.

Mr. Kennedy

And Northern Ireland.

Mr. Coburn

Northern Ireland, if you like. It was very useful to us to have Northern Ireland during the past six or seven years, as I know. I had seven trains up and seven trains down as a result, and there was nobody so pleased that we had Northern Ireland as the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Government, so the least said about Northern Ireland the better.

Mr. Kennedy

Plenty has been said about it and will be said about it.

Mr. Coburn

We got much more than we gave. We should be honest in this matter of defence and should drop the camouflage that we are standing on our own. We are not. We are in secret agreement with England and we have conversations and consultations with her at every turn, and why not tell the people fairly and squarely that that is so?

People have peculiar opinions about this question of armies and fighting for the independence of one's country. I want no one to fight for me. If it comes to that, I take off my hat to the man who is prepared to fight for his country and I will do the same, if given a proper opportunity, but at present we are not in a position to spend £4,500,000 on an Army of 12,000 especially as, if we are honest enough, and if we can get assistance from the Government whose interest it is and to whose advantage it would be, we can form an alliance in so far as the defence plans of this country are concerned. Considering the plight of our people, especially of the old age pensioner, ploughing his lonely furrow on 10/-, which was the amount given 13 years ago, although the cost of living is now about six times what it was then, considering all the people on poor relief, considering the lack of fuel and other disabilities from which our people are suffering, we should not spend £4,500,000 on an Army. I move the adjournment of the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Debate adjourned until to-morrow?

General Mulcahy

On that question, Sir——

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not decide that you must sit to-morrow. It means the next sitting day.

General Mulcahy

Could we get it clear? It was arranged that we would sit on Tuesday and Wednesday this week on account of the train service so that Deputies would be able to return home on Thursday and that, in the week after next, we would sit four days. Is the Adjournment now until next Tuesday week?

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Jan 1947

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1947—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Corish

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 1947