Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1951

Vol. 124 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1951—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Defence (General MacEoin)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It was the intention to take the Second Reading of the Defence Bill, which was circulated to Deputies towards the end of November last, before the Christmas recess. The parliamentary programme did not, however, permit this, and there is not now, of course, any possibility of having that Bill considered and passed before the end of the present session.

It is necessary, therefore, to continue the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts for a further period and the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1951, proposes to effect this continuation for a period of 12 months. It may be added that, even if the permanent measure were passed by the Oireachtas and enacted, a breathing space would be required to enable all the necessary regulations and administrative measures consequent on the provisions of that Bill to be prepared.

If the Defence Bill is enacted early in the year, it may be possible to repeal the Temporary Provisions Acts before the 31st March next but this, of course, will depend upon the extent to which the necessary regulations, etc., can be prepared in time. It will be realised that the Defence Bill is one of the longest measures to appear before the Dáil and that considerable revision of existing regulations and administrative measures will arise from the enactment of the Bill.

Mr. Traynor

The Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, coming before the Dáil as it does annually, usually provides an opportunity for members of the Opposition to raise questions relating to defence and to the Army. In the normal way, with the Estimates coming along, these matters can be debated in full. However, more than 12 months ago, the Defence Bill proper, that is, the permanent Defence Bill, was introduced. I think it was introduced in the month of December and this House ordered the Second Reading for 15th February. Almost 12 months ago, I asked the then Minister for Defence if he would give us a specific date on which we could discuss matters of defence. The then Minister, apparently, was not prepared to give us a date and he gave as the reasons that he could not control the activities of the draftsman. Twelve months have passed and we are still awaiting the Second Reading of that permanent Bill. I do not think the Bill is one which will cause the House very much trouble. It is not, as far as I can see, a very controversial Bill, but it would afford the House a splendid opportunity of general discussion on defence. If the Minister can assure me that the permanent Bill is coming along in the near future, I shall not discuss this tempoary measure at length. The people, naturally, are entitled to be kept as informed as possible on the danger situation that exists in the world to-day and, from that point of view, we on this side of the House, naturally, would be inclined to discuss this Bill at greater length if we were not assured that the permanent Bill would be coming along in the near future. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the Second Stage of the permanent Bill will be taken at some early date?

General MacEoin

At a very early date.

Mr. Traynor

Then I do not think that I will raise any matters of defence just now. We can avail of the opportunity which the permanent Bill will provide.

Captain Cowan

The introduction of another Temporary Provisions Bill is something that causes me considerable concern. Since I came into this House three years ago, I have pressed very strongly for the introduction of a Defence Forces Bill which would enable this House, for the first time in 28 years, to discuss the provisions under which the Army is administered and under which discip line is maintained. I have received every conceivable assurance that the permanent Bill will be introduced at an early date. Last year, when there was some opposition to the Temporary Provisions Bill being enacted for another year, the House was assured that, if we agreed to extend the life of the Temporary Provisions Bill until, I think, 31st March of this year, the House would in the meantime have an opportunity of considering in full the permanent Bill and of dealing with it. That assurance has not been kept.

I think the House can justifiably complain about what has happened in connection with the Defence Forces Bill. No matter what assurance the Minister may give now that the Bill will be brought before the House at an early date, it is clear that that cannot be done. It is clear that the Defence Forces Bill cannot be brought before the House before next autumn, because the volume of important legislation, Estimates, financial business, the Budget, the Social Welfare Bill, the County Management Bill, is such that any assurance the Minister can give cannot possibly mean that the Bill can be discussed before next autumn. By that time there may still be a volume of very important legislation awaiting consideration by the House. I am not familiar with procedure.

Mr. G. Boland

After three years he ought to be.

Captain Cowan

I am not familiar with procedure. I think that may be accepted.

Major de Valera

I think the Deputy protests too much on that.

Captain Cowan

No. I am not familiar with procedure, because I have not seen it. Is there a possibility that the permanent Bill could be committed to some select committee representing all sides of the House? I do not know whether that can be done or not. If it can be done, it ought to be done, so that quite a lot of the administrative and discip linary machinery that is in the Bill could be discussed by representatives of all Parties in the House and by any Deputy who would like to be on that select committee. In that way, possibly, we would get an opportunity of examining in detail the matters that are included in the Bill.

I want the House to realise that, no matter how sincerely the Minister may give an undertaking that the Defence Forces Bill will be brought before it as soon as possible, that assurance cannot be kept because of the volume of legislation and business that has to be done. I would rather have no assurance from the Minister than the sort of assurance that we have had, which has not been honoured.

The position, therefore, is that we are asked to extend this temporary legislation for, probably, its 28th year. Realising that there will be no opportunity for months at least for the House to consider the permanent Bill fully, I think I should avail of the opportunity to refer to the Army, the strength of the Army, Army policy generally.

The object of our Defence Forces is to carry out the defence policy of the Government. What is that defence policy? Have we decided, in any eventuality, to entangle ourselves in a possible future war? If we have decided to entangle ourselves in a possible war, is the Army organised, is it of sufficient strength, and has it adequate armament for the purpose? If the policy is to maintain neutrality, have we the military strength, the military equipment and the military organisation sufficient to maintain that policy of neutrality, or, if we want to go further and recover by force part of our national territory——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now travelling a bit too far on Partition. He will have his opportunity on the main Estimate.

Captain Cowan

If the Chair rules that I cannot refer to that I will not, but I should imagine that it is one of the matters that ought to be considered in connection with defence policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think so.

Captain Cowan

Very well.

An Ceann Comhairle

There will be other opportunities.

Captain Cowan

I realise that I have often been on more slippery ground.

An Ceann Comhairle

No comment.

Captain Cowan

Those are matters which, I think, ought to be considered in connection with this particular Bill. No matter what may be said, either in this country or in some other country as to what our policy might be in the event of our national territory being reintegrated, I think we should have a very clear statement from the Minister that this country is not tied, or does not propose to tie itself in the future, in regard to these particular matters.

Now, whether it will be our intention to participate in a future war or whether it will be our intention not to participate in a future war, but to maintain a policy of neutrality, either decision necessitates a considerable military force, not necessarily a permanent force, but a military force armed adequately, equipped properly and properly organised. I think it is the general concern of the public that our Defence Force should be strong enough for any such test that may face it in the future.

I referred yesterday, in an incidental way on a supplementary defence Estimate, to a matter that does affect the strength of our Defence Force. Are the Defence Forces strong enough? Have we enough personnel in the permanent force, and have we enough officers, N.C.O.s and men in the Reserve, and have we enough officers, N.C.O.s and men in the F.C.A.? If we have not the strength at the moment, is it the intention and determination of the Government to bring all those component parts of our Defence Forces up to that proper strength in the immediate future? In connnection with that matter, I would like to put before the Minister a point of view which I expressed in this House to his predecessor, that we have in the country a very large, well-trained body of officers, N.C.O.s and soldiers who have rendered service over a long period to the country, and who, because of an artificial age limit, have been discharged both from the regular force and from the Reserve. That large body of trained officers, N.C.O.s and men ought to be made available for the Defence Forces so that they could contribute the knowledge they have gained and improve, by their service, the efficiency of the Defence Forces.

Some few years ago a decision was taken to impose an arbitrary age limit that eliminated some of the most valuable material we had from active association even with the Defence Forces. I pressed the Minister's predecessor that those individuals ought to be brought within the Defence Forces again, and that their services ought not to be lost to the country. I think that, with that point of view, the Minister himself, from his long experience as a soldier, must agree. Even in the Regular Army at the moment, although the age limits have been increased somewhat, officers are reaching the age when they are compelled to retire on pension. They are paid a pension by the State, but they are completely cut away from rendering any further service to the Defence Forces. That is an unwise policy and it is wrong. Even in America, shortly after the last war ended, there was that idea of retiring officers and men in their prime from the army. After a short time they discovered that that was an unwise policy and they decided to bring back quite a number of those experienced soldiers into the American forces. We are not a great country like America; we have not the reserves of man power or material which they have. We are short in man power and we are very short in material. That being so, the State ought to get every ounce of energy, efficiency and service that they can from the people.

I press the Minister very strongly to revise these age limits and to ensure that when an officer retires from the Regular Forces he will become a reserve officer for a number of years until he reaches an age when it is reasonable to assume he will not be fit to fight any longer; that those very experienced officers of the old reserve, men who were comrades with Deputy Major de Valera and myself, be recommissioned in the reserve so that they can render service to the country. The officers who have been retired under the age limit are willing to serve longer. But the foolish policy in operation prevents them from doing that. We give them a pension which I do not consider adequate, but, nevertheless, it is a substantial one, and we say: "We do not want your help or assistance; we do not want your service any longer. If a crisis comes, we shall look for you and we expect you to come in and we will have some sort of ad hoc organisation or disorganisation.” I suggest to the Minister that that very large trained body of officers, N.C.O.s and men who have rendered long service to the State, who are still young enough to fight, young enough to concern themselves with the administration of all these new units of the F.C.A. which must be formed, young enough to carry out administrative duties and responsibilities, should be invited to renew their active association with the Defence Forces either as soldiers, N.C.O.s or officers.

I think Deputy Traynor and Deputy Major de Valera would agree that when the last emergency came and it was necessary to recruit a very large body of men, the units that contributed most to the organisation of that large body of men and to the training of them were those officers and N.C.O.s who were known as the A and B Reserve. Tribute was paid to them by the then Minister for Defence, by the Chief of Staff and by general and other very responsible officers. When there is a world crisis, it does seem strange that those people should be left at home doing nothing, with their very valuable knowledge and experience going to waste, when that knowledge and experience could be utilised in building up the F.C.A. This is not a wealthy country; it is not a country which can maintain a very large Regular Army. That being so, it has to do the best it can with the resources at its disposal. The amount of money which it would cost to pay the salaries or wages of those trained experienced individuals would not be very much, but they would contribute more than one hundred fold to the success of our Defence Forces if they were permitted to make their services available.

There are quite a number of matters which I might speak about but, like Deputy Traynor, I shall leave the most of these matters over until we have a proper consideration of the permanent Bill. I do think it necessary to say that we have had three Governments in this country, the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government, the Fianna Fáil Government and the present Government, and none of these Governments has treated the ordinary soldier, the N.C.O. or officer as he ought to be treated. The rate of pay given to our soldiers has been a scandalous one; the rates of marriage allowances have been scandalous; the rates of lodging, fuel and light allowances have been scandalous. On occasion, we pay great tribute to the wonderful men who manned our Defence Forces in time of danger. We are very generous in our comp liments to them, but we are not so very generous in the way we are treating them. The soldier ought to be paid a reasonable wage, and it is because he is not being paid a reasonable wage that we have the position to-day that it is almost impossible to obtain recruits for our Defence Forces. There has been talk about advertisements to persuade young boys to join the Defence Forces. Those advertisements are no use. Every individual soldier is a standing advertisement for the Defence Forces. If he is satisfied and happy, he will attract his friends to come into the Defence Forces. If he is continually grousing, if he is continually broke, if he cannot stand his round in company, he is no advertisement for the Defence Forces. I think everyone will agree that whatever the future of this country and, indeed, of the world may be, it is time that we made provision for any eventuality that may come upon us. It is necessary that there should be an increase in the Regular Army. That increase can only be brought about by making Army service attractive. I urge the Minister strongly to ensure that pay is increased and the present rates of pay are improved. If he does that, he will get all the men he requires to man our Defence Forces without any great difficulty.

Improved conditions of service are also important but I think we can leave that matter to the Minister. It will only be necessary for us to bring complaints to his attention from time to time in order to have the situation remedied. I hope that the recommendations I have made to the Minister will, in turn, recommend themselves to him and that we shall have as a result of his good offices a contented Army for the first time in the history of our country. I have had long experience of the Army. I have never known it to be either happy or contented. I have known the finest of young men longing for the day when they could shake the dust of Army service for ever from their feet. That is not as it should be.

In times of crisis, in times of war and in times of emergency when there is the possibility of a fight soldiers will remain in the Defence Forces because of the element of excitement. When the time of emergency, war and crisis passes, and they must return once more to the drab routine of barrack life these young men will not remain in the Defence Forces unless conditions are attractive and rates of pay are good. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the brave young man who is prepared to take up arms to defend his country and to lay down his life for it should not be treated as the cinderella of our national services, paid as a pauper might be paid.

Mr. Keane

I support everything that has been said by Deputy Captain Cowan. Unless some improvement is made, a very small number of recruits will present themselves for national service in our Defence Forces. I would appeal to the Minister to do away with the differentiation that was introduced some 12 or 18 months ago as between junior and senior officers in relation to rates of pay and subsistence allowances. The first and second lieutenants were completely overlooked. All others received an increase. Indeed, for the first time in the history of our Army a differentiation was made between senior and junior officers. There may be some substantial reason for that. I think the Minister used the analogy of the Civil Service for comparison purposes. No real comparison exists. The Army is a drab vocation in peacetime. In wartime the soldiers are there prepared to risk their lives at any moment in the defence of their country. I think it was Rudyard Kip ling who wrote about "Tommy This" and "Tommy That". We can say "Paddy This" and it is "Mr. Paddy Murphy" when the fighting is to be done but, when the fighting is over, the position is worse than it was before.

I would appeal to the Minister, too, to make provision for married men. Surely we ought to be able to establish permanent military centres here such as our old enemy established when she was in occupation for her married soldiers. In Fermoy married soldiers are living under the most primitive conditions. I know that recently local authority houses are being made available to them, but that is a very recent innovation. I think the Department of Defence should provide accommodation for its personnel. They should provide permanent married quarters.

I trust the Minister will do something to rectify the position with regard to the first and second lieutenants and the differentiation that has been made. They are the people who bear the brunt of the training and organisation and of the administration at times. These officers should be put on the same basis as the senior officers.

Major de Valera

Some of the speeches that have been made since the Minister presented this Bill and Deputy Traynor spoke on it have widened the issue and one is left with a choice of either broadening this into a plenary debate or dealing with it as an item of business to be passed over with expedition, leaving the general debate to a later occasion.

I think in all the circumstances it is better for this Party to adhere to what Deputy Traynor said and I do not intend to elaborate on any of the points raised. I will, however, offer a few remarks to the Minister. He will, during the recess, have an opportunity of finding his sea legs in his new office. There have been matters touched on which he could very well note and he can be sure he will hear more about them at a later stage.

The second point is that the debate on the Estimate will be general and unrestricted and there is no opportunity being lost in not going into details now.

I would like to make these remarks about the Bill. The way some Deputies have been talking, one would think the provision of a temporary Bill each year was, so to speak, due to inaction on the part of Governments in not presenting a permanent Bill, and that that went on for something like 28 years. It might be no harm to reflect on this fact. There is a very good constitutional tradition for a temporary Bill each year. I think it arises in other Parliaments, but there is a sound idea for it. The idea was that if you give the Executive an Army only for a year, it has to come back to you to account for it and, therefore, you have an assurance or an insurance that the matter must come up for discussion each year and that the Legislature has control over the armed forces of the State. That was the basic constitutional idea behind it.

But things have changed, in that the opportunity always comes up on the Estimate now. It is necessary to vote the money, so the constitutional safeguard involved in having an annual Bill is not so important as it was once considered to be. There is a case for a permanent Bill and I think we are at one on this, that a permanent Bill would be desirable. It is desirable it should come forward as quickly as possible once it has been presented to the House.

I would like to make this comment about the Bill, and Deputies should realise it, that the permanent Bill, beyond providing for the existence of the Defence Force, does nothing more thereafter than to provide for its administration in the sense of maintenance, discip line and so forth. It in itself is not to be taken in any way as making provision for the implementation of a specific defence policy. The passing of the permanent Bill will lubricate and make more efficient the administration of the Army and so will contribute to the efficiency of the Defence Forces. But it will do no more than a temporary Bill to enable the Government to put a positive policy into force here or develop the Defence Forces as the times demand they should be so developed.

What we have to do to-day is simply to pass a provision legalising the existence and the maintenance and the development of the Defence Forces for the coming year. There is nothing more than that actually to be done on this occasion. We will join issue with the Minister. He can look forward, I think, to a fairly complete discussion on this matter when his Estimate comes up.

Mr. Keane

You will join battle.

Major de Valera

On the question of pay, which Deputy Keane mentioned, perhaps I would help the Minister if I refer him to a series of questions asked on this matter by a number of Deputies extending over the past year. There some information was given and later the Minister will be able to ascertain that his Department furnished me with some details and these, I think, could more profitably come up on the Estimate. There is no doubt there is a case now for the revision, or the examination at any rate, of the question of pay to the forces. There is also the matter which we discussed last night, and I will take the opportunity to mention these B.A.O.s to the Minister. Beyond that, I think that every Deputy will agree that it is a necessity to pass this Bill. It must be passed by the end of this month. There is no valid reason, however, for offering any opposition to it in principle and, as we are agreed that the debate will be unlimited on the Estimate, I think we could profitably give the Minister his Bill in all its stages now.

Mr. Byrne

In my capacity as a member of the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee I have come in contact with a number of soldiers seeking housing accommodation and, in most cases, their wages do not permit them to pay the rents required. I would put to the Minister, as I have put it many a time—and I was glad to hear one of my colleagues making reference to it—the desirability of the Government putting up a fund and creating a housing trust that will house not alone their soldiers but their ex-soldiers as well at a reasonable rent, a rent which they can pay out of the pensions which the Government will know they have. It is unfortunate for some of these young men who are leaving the Army, married men with families. These men leave at a rather early age. They have to seek housing accommodation and they are not able to pay the rents demanded. Then they come along to the local authority and that local authority has to try to find places at suitable rents for them.

If the idea were considered sympathetically by the Defence Department it would be their duty to create a housing fund and build houses for their soldiers and ex-soldiers at rents which these men can pay from their pensions. It would be a very commendable thing. I am aware of the fact that the young married soldier especially is not able to meet his friends on equal terms no matter where he goes because of wages and conditions. The wages you give a soldier to-day are not sufficient to put him on a par with his friends of the same age and enable him to indulge, if it is at all possible, in the little luxuries in which they can indulge. I put it to the Minister that the Army men should be paid a higher standard of wages and allowances.

With other Deputies, I agree that the Bill is necessary. I hope that, under the new Minister, the improvements suggested for the Army by Deputies on every side of the House will be carried into effect. The young men who may like Army life and who look to Army life should be encouraged in every way and should not have a grouse because of the conditions. It is up to the Minister to make a contented Army.

Mr. S. Collins

I rise to direct the Minister's mind to certain facets of this matter which I feel need urgent attention and I do so, in a way, in anticipation of what I may have to say subsequently on his Estimate. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the fact that the Minister has gone back to Defence, if I may put it that way. I feel that, with his understanding of the Army, there should be a better era in front of it. I want to direct his attention to certain problems which I and former colleagues of mine, ex-officers, have found to be paramount at the moment. Deputy Byrne was concluding when I came into the House and was addressing the Minister on the question of pay in the Army, and I want to direct the Minister's attention to it, not from the social angle, but from the angle that we are undoubtedly facing at the very least semi-emergency conditions, with the prospect of a deterioration into worse conditions. The Minister will have to face immediately the question of expanding the Army, of getting recruits for his Army, and he can only do that by an amelioration of conditions and by making conditions for reservists and for the F.C.A. infinitely more attractive.

The Minister yesterday indicated that there was difficulty in keeping a rural force on its toes in times of peace. That difficulty can be overcome and the Minister must face the task of overcoming it immediately by making the work of the F.C.A. more varied and more interesting, and by making the conditions under which they meet and the amenities for their meeting infinitely better than they are. The Minister will have to face the problem, and very quickly, of trying to reinterest the vast section of trained personnel throughout the length and breadth of this country in the Reserve of the Army, and I do not think he can do that unless he comes to grips very quickly with the stern problem of trying to wrest a little more out of Finance.

I think it is the experience of any of us who had the honour to serve in Óglaigh na hÉireann that there is a wealth of goodwill and effort there which merits infinitely more consideration and infinitely more remuneration than we have been able to give it. It is a highly specialised training, and, while I do not want to go into detail on issues of pay and so on—there will be a later occasion for that—I should like the Minister to appreciate that the wealth of goodwill that awaits him in the Army can be stimulated by an earnest effort on his part, in his initial stage as Minister, to put right some of the old grievances and to grapple with Finance, whose latest scheme, under the recent Army pay increases, has been to give with one hand and to grab back with the other. There are matters in the Army that are causing grave disquiet. It was brought to my notice recently that where an unfortunate officer, by his effort, merits promotion, the rent of the apartment given him by the Army—not moving out of the house he is in, but merely if he happens to rise from captain to commandant—goes up by £40 a year. These circumstances are Gilbertian and they are appalling, when one realises that the efforts of a man earning promotion for himself on his merits, without changing his abode at all, can mean an increase of £40 a year in rent.

I want to say in a very earnest way —we will have a very full and frank discussion on the whole issue of defence on the Estimate—that these are immediate problems. There is this unrest there and I and Deputy de Valera on the other side, feeling, in a non-political way, that the Army is something of which it is worth while keeping the goodwill, an Army that has stood loyally by all Governments and an Army which lives in that tradition to-day, feel that it is time for the Minister to come to grips with the main issues causing this disquiet. If the Minister does so, I am absolutely confident, and I am quite sure that any ex-officer in this House has the same confidence, that the goodwill which expanded the Army into the huge emergency force during the emergency is still there to give the Minister all the encouragement he wants if the day should come when he will call on it again.

General MacEoin

I only hope that. I shall be able to live up to the very high expectations which have been expressed of me. All I can say in that respect is that I will do my best. Some very important points have been raised and I take it that I should accept these merely as notice of pleadings of what is going to happen when the Estimates come on.

Major de Valera

But not an exhaustive notice.

General MacEoin

Not an exhaustive notice, but the headings under which the offensive will be taken. For that reason, I am very grateful to Deputies for the manner in which they put them forward. Deputy Cowan raised a point about the undertaking of my predecessor to bring in the permanent measure. He went a good way, because the Bill has been produced and circulated, which, in itself, was a very great task. An opportunity for the Second Reading of that Bill can be provided, I am sure, long before the time suggested by Deputy Cowan, but I do not say that it will be passed, because it is a very large Bill with a great number of sections, and, as it is a Bill which must be kept in the Committee of the House, it will require a good deal of attention. Having some experience of the Army Acts in the past, I know that certain sections were given twists which they were never meant to have when originally passed by the House, and I would like to see this Bill examined in very great detail.

The question of policy has been mentioned, and I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to it in any great detail. The Government has declared its policy in relation to the international situation. The question has been asked whether, if it was neutrality, we were in a position to defend it. I think so. I am perfectly satisfied that this country would be able to put up a very decent show and would be able to hold its own for a period longer than even the strongest of them might expect. We have proved that in the past. There is one point in respect of which I am in agreement with some of the speeches made, that is, the retirement of Army men too early. While I might not be able to run as fast as I was 20 or 30 years ago, I might fight the better by having to stand and I would know how to do it, and there is a lot to be said for retaining the services of those who are in a position to serve. I can assure the House that it is a matter to which I will give serious consideration, in consultation with my staff.

On this question of defence, it has been found in recent years that, even where the main army has been broken up, the column or underground movement, which was practically established for good here as a method of war, is a very effective weapon in the defence of a country against aggression from outside, or even when occupied. Therefore, I think we should leave that matter to a further date, and I hope that, either on the Estimate or at some other early opportune time, I will address myself to that problem and say what I do think of defence, in so far as it is in the interests of the State to give it. I will be as communicative as I can be to the House upon every matter relating to the whole defence system. The House is entitled to that. Perhaps, if necessary, there are other steps we could take to let the House know what the conditions are.

I am very anxious about the question of reserves. There is a very large number of trained personnel in the country, not only of our own forces from the last emergency, but citizens of our own who have served in other forces. In the interests of the State, these persons should be made use of and brought in to defend this country, if necessary. Of course, there may be arguments against that line but, at the same time, I would be quite prepared to serve with them and have them in the Defence Forces. I would certainly like to have them if I were commanding in the field. I think I could make very good use of them. The question of reserves is one to which I will pay very much attention in the future.

On the question of pay, of course, there has always been a problem. In peacetime, military personnel never got what they were entitled to. They got it when they were fighting, all right, and all sorts of inducements were given while the war was on. Then, when it was over, as everybody knows, they were not so well thought about. That was really something that the soldier had to suffer. Because he did serve in the Army, it was nearly a bar against him. In so far as that can be rectified, in this country, as far as I am concerned, I will try to get over it. The question, of course, is conditioned by the amount in the kitty. The question of finance is involved in any country but in this country in particular it is a very serious matter that cannot be lightly dealt with. Whatever force we have, it should be the most contented and loyal force possible.

On the question of housing, I do not want Deputies to mix up the situation as it is now with the situation in the days of the British occupation. Remember, the barracks that they built in Fermoy or elsewhere were garrisons which they had for the purpose of calling on them to assist the semi-military police force, called a police force, when required, to keep us in the position that, according to them, we ought to have been kept in. If we are building up a Defence Force here at the moment, it will not be in the interests of the State at all to pin them down too tightly to the garrison situation because it would not take an atom bomb, or anything like that, to eliminate that garrison very quickly. I am in favour, in so far as it can be done, of dispersing armed forces through the civil population. In that connection, I am also very much in favour of the F.C.A. line of defence as being a very important one. The possibility of an emergency is all the more reason why we should not at this stage start building something that might be knocked down quicker than we put it up.

There is the question of retiring ages. There may be a year or two wrong in this list which has been handed to me as being approximately correct. They are extraordinary captain, 51; commandant, 54; lieutenant-colonel, 57; colonel, 60; major-general, 63.

Mr. Byrne

They are only boys.

General MacEoin

That is right, when one considers the ages at which some men have rendered very valuable service.

Captain Cowan

Reserve captains were thrown out at 48, which, I think, was shocking.

General MacEoin

Yes. Subsistence allowances and many other things like that have been mentioned but I do not think I should go into them at the moment. On the Estimate, which I will try to get as early as possible, I will deal with them. I will take Deputy de Valera's advice to try to get my sea-legs under me. I do not know if he means that I ought to see the Navy as well as the Army. I will try to be in a position to give the Deputies, as I have promised, all the information to which they are entitled.

In conclusion, I might say that, for years, this question of a permanent Army Act was raised by the Opposition when they were in opposition before and it is raised by them now, but when they became a Government they were not able to produce it. There is a great constitutional safeguard in having an annual Act to establish the forces of the State, because when you have the permanent Army Act, although there is the safeguard of having to vote the money, if the members of the Defence Force are legally in existence and if Parliament decided not to pay them, there is the danger that they might try to take it.

Captain Cowan

The great danger in 1923 was that the House was asked to pass the Bill in a couple of hours. The House never considered it and it has never been considered since.

General MacEoin

I do not accept that. It has been amended. It is true that in 1923 the Bill was passed in a hurry.

Captain Cowan

A couple of hours.

General MacEoin

But nobody will say now that the Temporary Provisions Act, as it now stands, has any relationship at all to the one that was passed in 1923. It has been amended over the years in many respects.

Captain Cowan

In so far as it could give final power to cripple the Army, yes.

General MacEoin

I will not say that until I examine it further to see what state I find it in and the state I left it in. I do not think I need say any more at present, except that I am grateful for the manner in which the Bill has been received. We must have it passed into law by the 31st instant.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Major de Valera

The only thing I would like to say to the Minister is that any remarks we made about the Army are not to be taken as indicating what attitude will be taken. I want to leave the scope of the debate as wide as ever, when it comes to the Estimate. I am referring to what the Minister said about the pleadings, so that there may be no misunderstanding about it.

General MacEoin

That was only a jesting remark.

Major de Valera

I want to make that explanation so that the Minister will not be taken short. The whole field will be open.

General MacEoin

I suppose we will be confined only by the rules of order?

Major de Valera

Yes.

Question agreed to.