With the exception of the little breeze that was wafted in here from the Wicklow Hills by Deputy Everett, I think I could honestly say that these Estimates were debated in what I might describe as a rather serene and calm atmosphere and, generally speaking, the discussion went on in a helpful atmosphere. Nevertheless, I am somewhat bewildered by the volume of advice which has been tendered to me and, through me, to the Army authorities, on how to save money and how to spend money on the type of equipment which we do not want and the type of equipment which we should have; on the necessity for compulsory service to rope in more men; and, again, on the desirability of having a small army. It was, however, as I say, all given in a spirit of good fellowship and intended at least to be helpful. Of course, Deputy Rooney, when he was speaking, gave it a somewhat political tinge. He distorted a few of the statements which were made here from time to time to suit his own ends, but beyond that, there was not very much to say about his speech.
It was rather more pleasant to listen to Deputy Seán Collins giving his views when he opened the debate on this Estimate for the Opposition. I was rather pleasantly surprised by the line or argument which he took and the advances which he made in his views in regard to the Army generally. The Deputy may not take it as a compliment from me when I say the views which he expressed here were more akin to the views which we hold on this side of the House than to the views which are held by the members of his own Party. I can only hope that in the course of time he will, perhapsbe able to induce some of his colleagues to share his views.
He asked in the course of the discussion how he could help in advancing the cause of defence in which he himself was interested. One of the ways in which, I suggest, he could help would be that which I have just mentioned. If he could convince his colleagues of the necessity of retaining an Army of the strength which we on this side believe to be the minimum that we should possess, I think he would be doing a very good day's work for the State generally.
Most Deputies who have spoken in this debate agreed that we must have an Army even though some of them mistakenly think that it is an expensive luxury. I think that the only question we have to settle here is that of the strength of the Army. I have on numerous occasions pointed out that the figure of 12,500 men which has been bandied about here, and which has become a kind of obsession with some of the Deputies on the opposite side, is not our reckoning of what the minimum strength of the Army should be. It is the opinion of the experts which the State employs to deal with that organisation. I am very often inclined to think that this House holds too many armchair generals who criticise the experts' views, I would say mistakenly. If a contractor undertakes a job of work and makes an estimate of what he requires to carry out that work, it is very questionable if a person of little or no technical knowledge should start disputing with him in regard to his estimate.
I do not think that it would be logical or that any sensible man would do so. Yet we find in this House people who, beyond the fact that they are Deputies and have been elected by the people—Deputies who to all intents and purposes have no special qualifications to speak on this subject beyond that which might be described as the point of view of the man on the street —dogmatise on the question of the strength of the Army as if they had spent their whole lives studying military subjects, military tactics or strategy.
I should say—if I am not making amistake, Deputy Major de Valera in the course of his remarks mentioned the fact also—that the peace-time establishment of 12,500 is not the minimum establishment that the Army asked for. The minimum establishment that the Army authorities sought in 1946, when they put their scheme up to the Government, was 15,000 and the Government after very careful examination and a most minute scrutiny compromised to the extent of reducing that figure to 12,500, a reduction of 2,500, in an effort to save the taxpayers even to that extent. It was done only after discussion with these experts, making the case clear to them that it was due to the financial position rather than to any disbelief of their assessment of the requirements of the Army and naturally they had to accept it as the next best thing.
I should like to impress on Deputies who have spoken, and who have not got that background of military knowledge which is required, if the Estimate is to be debated in the way in which I am sure the Army authorities would like it to be debated, the fact that in the 12,500 figure which represents the Defence Force in peace-time are to be found a very large number of non-combatants, men who could not in any circumstances be put into what may be termed the fighting line. The people I have in mind would include the administrative officer, who cannot in any circumstances be done without by reason of the fact that there must always be that type of officer to keep the organisation going. Then there is the Medical Corps which, as Deputies are aware, is a non-combatant corps and would not be used as combatant personnel. There is also the School of Music which takes up quite a number of men, and there are many others of one type or another who would not be counted as effective fighting units. I cannot say with certainty what percentage these various sections would represent but I am almost certain that they would represent almost one-third of the strength of the Army. These are matters of which Deputies should be fully aware when they are considering the question of the strength of 12,500 men in the Army.
I might also point out, when we talk about a small army, that this is not an army in the sense that armies are known abroad. The 12,500 men, if we had them, would not comprise one fighting division. They would be less than one fighting division of a modern army. When we talk about a small army, therefore, we are talking about something which, if it were smaller than this Army, would be to all intents and purposes of very little use. Apart from the fact that this 12,500 men is the cadreupon which an emergency army can be built, it is also intended to feed the Reserve. Quite a number of Deputies spoke about the depletion of the Reserve and, if things were to continue, not only would we have no Reserve but we would have no Army. Even though we have been reasonably successful to date in our recruiting campaign—I think we have recruited something over 5,000 men since we started a little over a year ago—we have not yet reached an Army strength of 11,000. I mention that figure because I think it should give food for thought. Even though we have recruited 5,000 men we have not yet topped an Army of 11,000, much less having reached a peace-time strength of 12,500. In order to reach a figure of 12,500, therefore, we would have to recruit to an even greater extent and at greater speed than we have achieved over the past 12 months.
The main purpose of having 12,500 is not, as some Deputies seem to think, for the purpose of having an Army ready to go into battle and fight immediately an enemy attempts to assail us; the main purpose of this peace-time Army is to turn out first-class soldiers. It is the endeavour of the Army authorities so far as it is humanly possible to make every private soldier efficient enough to become an N.C.O., if necessary. He is trained to that very high standard. It is the object to train every man who becomes an N.C.O. to the standard of a junior officer. The purpose of that is to have the nucleus of a training establishment in the event of emergency.
I do not think Deputies have considered all these points when they talk about a small army. It has been suggested that the only army we needhere is one to preserve internal order. If that is all we require we do not need an army at all. The police force can be strengthened to do that work. That force is already armed with all the necessary legal powers to preserve order and, if that is all that is required it would be unnecessary for us to have an army at all unless, of course, as some Deputies advocated, for ceremonial occassions. I doubt if it would be fair to ask the people to provide an army for that purpose only. The only purpose an army can have here is the purpose for which it is maintained at present, namely, to be in a position to deal with any emergency likely to come upon us as far as lies within its power. Some Deputies in the courses of the debate almost suggested that we should not defend ourselves in an emergency. I hope that view is not shared by very many. I think Deputy Rooney is one of those who voiced that opinion.
