When speaking on this Estimate a few days ago I said there were a few points to which I wished to draw the Minister's attention. One point I should like to stress, as I did 12 months ago, is that it is unfair and unjust to ex-Army men who are in receipt of pensions, that if they are lucky enough to secure employment, even of a temporary nature, with a local authority it interferes with their pension rights. Many ex-Army men are employed in industrial concerns such as Bord na Móna, very often at very good salaries, and yet their pensions are not interfered with. I believe it would be a proper course to have this matter investigated to see if it is possible for these men, who may be lucky enough to get a job even as a porter or in some temporary employment with a local authority, not to have their pensions interfered with.
Mention has been made of the present strength of the Army. I should like to know if we could be given any indication as to the number of young men who joined the Army some two years ago and whose period of service is nearly completed who intend to remain in the Army or how many of them intend to leave it. That is an important matter in view of the point being stressed about the total strength necessary for the Army and the amount of equipment necessary for that strength. From the information available to me I believe, as I stated 12 months ago, that the recruiting drive in the 1946-47 period was not a success.
The Minister stated recently, in reply to a parliamentary question, that within the 12 months ended 31st December last over £12,000 had been expended on the advertising campaign for the Army and the Navy, and I should like to know what reason there is for saying that the present recruiting drive will be a success. Every section of this House, at all times, made it clear that they never opposed any publicity that might be given in connection with any such recruiting drive. However, we can come to some fair conclusion or decision in connection with the possible strength of the Army within the next 12 months if we can get an indication as to the number of men who are prepared to continue in servicewhen their two-year period is practically finished.
Deputy Major de Valera, Deputy MacBride and many other members expressed their views in connection with the strength of the Army which they would consider sufficient for this country. Perhaps this is a question on which we may hold different views. As Deputy Major de Valera asked what our opinion might be, I will say that, first of all, we should base it on common sense. Facing the problem from a common-sense point of view, I believe that even a smaller Army than that visualised by the present Minister and the present Administration would be sufficient, provided that Army were well paid and well treated.
Our experience from the past, particularly in the 1940 to 1945 period, justifies the point expressed by many outside this House, that the training that was given to members of the L.D.F., as it was known at the time, undoubtedly depended on the availability of good instructors from the Army. I know from many men who were regular soldiers in the Army down in the South that if the members of the L.D.F. were brought up to a high standard of efficiency at that time, it was undoubtedly due to the training given to them by such highly qualified instructors as we had in the Army.
If we are to continue a policy of having such highly-skilled instructors we must, first of all, consider their conditions and their prospects in the Army and how far this country can go to give them in the years to come that feeling of satisfaction and security. The larger the Army we have the less hope we have of giving a real feeling of security and satisfaction to them. While this is a matter on which, perhaps, every member here may hold somewhat different views, it is one on which it is only right that we should express our views.
There is one viewpoint which has been stressed by Deputy MacBride in particular, and with which I do not altogether agree. That view has very often been expressed inside this House and outside. He mentioned the desirability of a period of training for sixor 12 months for all young men. I believe it was a mistake in the past to discontinue the system whereby physical training was obtained, not through an army but in our national schools. There was no question, in such a training, of military weapons being used, and if we are not prepared to go so far as to force on growing youths training through military service, where munitions, rifles, etc., are employed, that system of physical training would be very beneficial if given to those boys in the national schools. We would not then have to consider the continuance of such service in the Army.
Whether we like it or not, if we are going to continue a policy whereby it is necessary to spend a large amount of money year after year on such military training, the procuring of weapons of war and all other items concerned with it, we must realise that the over-all picture in this country cannot give us the hope of a continuation of that policy, due to the fact that, as stated clearly by the present Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, under-production exists in this country. We know it is not feasible to stop the emigration of young men in order to put them into the Army. Even during the emergency there was a leakage of man-power from the Army into other countries. I do not wish to labour that point any further except to say again that that physical training, if it had been given in the schools, would have helped the policy in connection with the views expressed by Deputy MacBride.
If we go back in our minds to an earlier period we will recall that there was a course adopted many years ago by an Administration in this country of sending officers of the Army to American colleges for training and specialised courses, which was a very good idea. However, I believe that the present system whereby we send half a dozen recruits from our Irish Navy to the English Navy for such specialised courses is not correct. If the American authorities are so advanced from an Army viewpoint they are also advanced to the same extent as far as the Navy is concerned. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to belittlethe ships we have for our Navy. We are a small nation, and we will have to build up as we go.
However, if we study this from another angle I see the danger that when young Irishmen who give service to this nation in the Irish Navy, are sent over for specialised courses in the British Navy, and see all the equipment, all the modern warfare and shipping facilities they have in Britain, they may begin to suffer from an inferiority complex where there own country is concerned. The ultimate tragedy will be that these young men will develop a desire to leave the Irish Navy and transfer to the British Navy. If we are to send these young men for specialised courses, it might be much wiser from the point of view of the welfare of the country and of the young men themselves to send them where we sent the Army officers.
There is one final point I wish to mention. I spoke last week of various viewpoints in regard to the Navy. I believe it is a tragedy, that while history shows the great record of Irishmen in regard to naval achievements— in the American Navy, in the South American Navy, in the English Navy, in the Australian Navy and even in the Japanese Navy—by implication we are asked to admit that the control of our Navy in certain key positions—I do not mean from the ministerial point of view—must be entrusted to natives of other countries. Surely considering the long seafaring tradition behind the Irish people, it is a sad commentary that we must go outside our own country to get commanders to help us to build up an Irish Navy? We realise the necessity of building up a Navy for purposes other than warfare—for the protection, for instance, of our fishing industry—but I venture to suggest that the sooner we recognise that there are young men in this country capable of filling the leading positions in our Navy instead of bringing in foreigners, the better it will be for the people of the country generally.
