Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Apr 1956

Vol. 156 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Defence (Resumed).

Mr. Desmond

In discussing the Vote for the Department of Defence, I think we are faced with this question: are we condemned for ever to live in a state where we hear of nothing but wars, approaching wars and preparation for wars? The attitude of the Labour Party for the past six or seven years to this Vote is well known. Not alone did members of the Opposition Party not agree with the approach of Labour Deputies to this Vote, but, in particular, one Opposition Deputy—he will probably speak on this Estimate— childishly, in my opinion, went so far as to try to suggest that the opposition of the Labour Party to the financial commitments in relation to the Estimate for the Department of Defence meant that not alone were the Labour Party advocating a reduction in the Army but also leaving the country open to invasion. We consider that such an approach is somewhat outmoded and outdated. Whether or not that member will continue to adopt that attitude in relation to our remarks on this Vote I do not know and it does not make any difference to us.

We were recently admitted to membership of the U.N.O. We take it for granted that the main factor governing the attitude of this world organisation is or should be an approach towards world peace. In passing, I might refer to the wise remarks of the Taoiseach quite recently when he said that he, his Government and this Dáil hoped that membership of this organisation would mean, in regard to the international situation at the present time, that we would have an opportunity of offering something of far more value than would-be improvements in world armaments, and all that goes with that. If our membership gives us an opportunity of letting the whole world know that we stand for peace and not for war, then I believe the Labour Party are justified in this House in drawing particular attention to the wastage which we believe to be apparent year after year, so far as this Vote is concerned.

Deputy Traynor said, and rightly so, that this small country has given many nations leaders of their navies. We can claim that Irishmen built up navies on the American continent Furthermore, we are all aware of the part Irishmen played in the past in relation to a navy just across the water from us. However, as far away as Japan, it is well realised and understood that Irishmen gave naval leadership. The tragedy, however—and I think Deputy Traynor must admit it— is that, when we wanted leadership for our Navy in 1946-47, Irishmen were not suited. The Minister must know that what applied then still applies and the remarks I made in relationship to our Navy last year still stand as correct. Mention has been made of the reduction of over £40,000 for the Navy. I do not believe that that reduction is going to make any difference in relation to the problems facing that arm of our Defence Forces.

As I tried to explain here last year, there has been, over a large number of years, unwanted and uncalled for waste in this section in this Vote, and I still say to the Minister that the boats purchased from foreign powers could not be described as anything but two old hulks. I do not know who is responsible for their purchase—whether it was the present Minister or his predecessor—but it was an example of the usual squandermania that has been so apparent in relation to some sections of this Department.

Furthermore, when we consider the work of Irishmen in building up the navies of other countries, and when we consider that seven or eight years ago in our Irish Navy, we had to approach the Navy personnel of another country to teach table manners, or what they call etiquette, to our young Irish recruits, I think it was a disgrace. It seems to me fantastic that our naval arm should be treated in such a manner.

Deputy Traynor spoke about the necessity of keeping up the amount of money to be made available for the sending abroad of Army or Navy personnel in order to improve their education by studying the installations of other countries. The less humbug we have about that the better for ourselves, because, if you send a young Irishman on board a British battleship, he will never again want to come back to our own small Navy. Too many Irishmen have been put in the position of going aboard the battleships of British and other continental countries. I do say that the Navy at the present time is, in my opinion, a dead weight.

Although I got little satisfaction 12 months ago when I mentioned what I considered was wrong with our Navy, I still say that the sooner we adopt a proper outlook in relation to the overall expenditure on the Navy and the sooner we are prepared to give to the young men in that Navy, who have prepared themselves for it, opportunities of leadership, the better it will be for ourselves.

One part of Deputy Traynor's speech last night appeared to me to be quite important. He mentioned that, in relation to the purchase of the necessary equipment for the Army, some of the people connected with the Department were sent to the Continent and told to buy what they considered best. They got the opportunity of travelling from one country to another, and, during that tour of inspection, they were told to purchase roughly £2,000,000 worth of equipment. I wonder was that a wise thing to do? I hope that some of the purchases made by these men will not turn out to be anything like the fiascos which some of the purchases made by the Army in the past turned out to be. I wonder if it is true that we have, in Dublin and in the Curragh, at the present time, many items which may have been bought under the heading of equipment which will stand forever as a monument to the purchase of antiquated items from other countries.

It has been so in the past, and if we are to continue to do this, I want to say that it is a shortsighted policy. We all know that there are people in this Department, as there are in other Departments, who wish to be thrifty in regard to other Departments, but who desire to see the most modern techniques and equipment made available to their own Department.

We of the Labour Party believe that there is an opportunity for a reduction in this Vote, but there is one item which was mentioned by Deputy Traynor, and in this I agree with him, that is the reduction in the amount for barrack maintenance. I do not agree that there should be such a reduction. I do not say that we should provide extra money for barrack maintenance in order to keep in employment men who may have a claim on us in relation to employment. I do consider that, in relation to the maintenance of barracks, there is necessity to provide the money, because, in many of these barracks at present, owing to the shortsighted policy of failing to provide the necessary money, we have men living in very bad conditions.

Deputy Corry mentioned last night the necessity for the building of houses for Army personnel, and the Minister said that a certain number of houses were to be built in the Curragh. Why must we, in Cork at any rate, have to face the problem year after year of trying to house members of the armed forces, men who are urgently in need of houses? These men have a right to secure the tenancy of houses, but it is left to the Cork County Council to provide them when the Department of Defence have failed in their responsibility to their own men.

Deputy Traynor last night concentrated on the need for a larger Army. It is a bit of a joke to suggest a larger Army when little or no attempt is being made to house the members who at the present time are living under such bad conditions. In these areas adjacent to Cork City, Ballincollig and elsewhere, we have to provide council houses for these men, and, between the State and the local authorities, the extra money must be provided to make up the economic rent. It is not fair that the Department of Defence should, year after year, put us in that position. If some of the money being spent in other directions were spent in building decent houses for the present members of the Army, with their wives and young families, who are condemned to live in the conditions I have mentioned, it would be far better spent. There would be much more peace and happiness where these individuals are concerned, if that were done, than will result from the expenditure of money in the other directions in which it is being undertaken at present.

If we question the various ways in which money may be spent in relation to this Vote we can, of course, be branded as troublemakers, but I do not mind. It is extraordinary for any member of this House or, indeed, for the general public who have occasion to travel in the south to see so often the large fleets of Army lorries travelling around the country from one post to another with nothing in them in the way of materials or anything else, but having at the back of the lorry the letter "L", telling you that there is a man learning to drive. It is about time that the squandering that is being done in respect of petrol for that purpose was stopped.

Mr. McQuillan

Wait till there is a new tax on petrol in the Budget.

Mr. Desmond

It is the State that is paying for it. This has been going on for years and years. We see Army lorries at every corner and that is why I believe, as so many of the people in the country believe, that there is no attempt to save money in this Estimate.

There are many other ways in which economy could be achieved. A few years ago, I had occassion to draw attention to another matter; of course, nothing was done about it as far as I am aware. If a job is being done under maintenance, for instance, and the cost is £50 or £60, the foreman in charge, in filling in the sheet for returns, must almost put down the number of nails used, must practically measure to the last inch the amount of timber used, must have a most accurate measurement of the weight of cement used; but if there is a job being done costing thousands of pounds, all he has to do is to make a return in bulk. Surely if there is any danger of anything being done in relation to materials under any person's control, if that person has any desire to utilise some of those materials for some other purpose, the only opportunity he can avail of is when he is doing a large job.

Furthermore, we have officials from the Department, decent, honest men, who go down to the various outposts. They will count the number of bulbs, measure up everything, see whether there are 20 or 30 locks, and so on. But before these men leave Dublin— it is true they come from the Department of Finance, but they are dealing with the Army Vote—there has already been a check on the stores in the various depots and at the various barracks concerned. There is an accurate check made by the Army authorities locally. To send out officials from Dublin, maybe for a week or ten days, to double-check all these things is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time. Perhaps the Minister does not agree with me. I do not mind whether he does or not. I am not speaking from just hearsay; the facts are there.

General MacEoin

The Deputy is advocating the abolition of the Auditor-General.

Mr. Desmond

I am advocating the abolition of autocracy and waste of money. I believe that, even in regard to Cork harbour and other places where this system is in operation, the Army authorities are sufficient to check these stores and their world should be taken for it. If it is, you will find that the returns will be correct and that the cost will be much lower than at the present time.

Money cannot be found for maintenance, or at least a reduction must be made. Members have spoken about the wisdom and the desirability of getting jet planes for the training of our Air Corps members. That may be all right, but from what I have read recently in the newspapers, I understand that to improve the aerodrome surroundings and to purchase a few of these planes nothing less than £1,000,000 is required for the Army. This is at a time when the world is clamouring for peace and when we are bemoaning the existence of a serious adverse trade balance.

We are not satisfied that such a large amount of money should be made available under this Vote. I believe we are just trying to ape our financial superiors in other countries. It is strange that, on my left and right, we can get opposition to this. It is strange that two leading soldiers of their own time, who had not the opportunity of learning anything about jet planes or indeed any opportunity of squandering large amounts of petrol in travelling around the country, were able to prove, as many men like them proved, a far more dangerous enemy to the British Empire than many people who at present are enjoying all the facilities made available. It is because my respect is so deep-rooted for men such as the Minister and the leading member in Opposition in relation to this Vote, that I am convinced that the quality of Irishmen is such that they can prove themselves at all times, as they did in the past, worthy of their country and prepared to defend it at far less cost than we are providing for now.

After all, the policy of this Government and that of the Fianna Fáil Government in previous years—and we know it will continue to be so—while part of our country is still not ours, is a wise policy under all the circumstances prevailing and is based on the belief that we cannot recover it by force. That being the case, who is the enemy and for what is the preparation to be made? Is it because of our membership of U.N.O. that we must keep up a large Army? Is it because of our desire to show our importance in U.N.O. that we are to have jet planes?

I believe first things must come first and there are many things that should come before the large expenditure in this Vote.

There is one outstanding sore in relation to the activities of the Department of Defence. It is a grievance that has existed, not merely during the present Minister's period of office, but over the years. In spite of the pleading of many people in Cork City and in spite of the fact that many business people and organisations have drawn attention to the adverse effects in the Cork harbour area, there is still a lack of bunkering. The Department's cooperation in relation to bunkering in Cork harbour has been requested. Yet, all down the years, irrespective of who may have been Minister for Defence, the answer was "nothing doing". That in itself indicates to many people that the Department of Defence wishes to keep completely aloof from the people.

As I said 12 months ago, there is no greater indication of that attitude on the part of the Department than the fact that, in order to succeed in the Army, young recruits must learn that the higher up the ladder they get, the more snobbish they must become. They are not allowed to go into a public-house with a friend. They are not allowed to go into a restaurant. They must go into hotels because they are Army officers. Give the members of the Army their freedom. Many of these young men do not want to continue this snobbery and autocracy. I know many lieutenants in the Army who often wish to go into a restaurant for an ordinary meal with their friends but under the Army code they dare not do so, as officers of the Irish Army, but must go into a hotel.

Remember, half the trouble in one of the Central European countries was caused, interally, by the fact that one part of that country was always known as a strong military area and there was strong autocratic use of the army. Do not let it happen in this country, with an Army that is respected by the people and that wears a uniform that is respected, that the differences between the Army and the people will become more sharp and more noticeable by the fact that the people who are in the Army are compelled to live up to a much higher standard than they ordinarily desire in ordinary life.

I did not intend to dwell at length on this Estimate but it is only fair for me to say that the greatest credit is due to the members of our Army Equitation School and the men who travel to other countries to prove that Irish horses and Irishmen can hold their own with the best. Twelve months ago I drew attention to this matter. I am glad to see that within the last 12 months so much success has been achieved but I do say again that in this matter a little more fair play could be given to the personnel concerned and a little more charity, as it were, could be displayed, financially. They should be allowed a little more than they are being allowed because, financially, to many of these men membership of the Equitation School is more a loss than anything else. They are ambassadors of goodwill from this country and they are proving the quality of Irish horses. We are hoping for sale of these horses in other countries and they are the best salesmen we have. If they are, they are entitled to, and should get, a much higher allowance while travelling than they are getting at the present time.

Major de Valera

At the outset of the Minister's statement, which, unfortunately, I did not hear personally, we had hoped for some statement in regard to policy. There have been some changes affecting the general situation over the past five or six years, indeed, over the past ten years, and whereas, some time ago, we used to discuss these matters here, we have not done so for quite a time now.

There are two factors, of course, which influence our defence situation particularly. One is the development in the technique of warfare. There is also a direct relation to the fact that the application to join the U.N.O. has now been accepted; we are now a member of that organisation. It would have been opportune for the Minister to have made some statement in regard to these matters.

It is true that, although there appears to be a certain easing as far as the scare headlines go, the situation in the world at large is by no means resolved. There is still hanging over the world the possibility—that is putting it soberly—of ultimate trouble and most countries in the world find it is not possible to neglect that factor.

The last speaker referred to the amount of moneys that were being spent on defence. If one looks a little bit further from here one finds that, in spite of all the talk about disarmament and various proposals for peace, colossal sums of money are still being spent. There is still a very definite diplomatic activity that clearly has a relation to strategy. This disarmament talk, which is common, is very reminiscent of what we read in the papers in the '30s, and we know what followed Kellogg Pacts and all the rest of it.

I am not painting that picture in order to try to show that there is an immediate likelihood of war or anything like that. I merely want to point the sober lesson that there is a situation there that cannot be ignored, that is all the more difficult—certainly difficult for people who have to make decisions by virtue of the fact that it is so balanced—almost impossible to prophesy as to what will ultimately happen or even as to what may happen to-morrow.

While that is the position, we cannot appeal to history very much for a guide because I am afraid the guide that history would give us would be absolutely too pessimistic. If we were to follow the indications of history, I am afraid we would gird ourselves for the worst. The human race is still optimistic and we are always hoping that the new history will at last be made, the history that will show that the trends that have operated for so long, in practically the whole of human history, will not operate any more. That is rather a large hope to bank on when it comes to practical decisions.

There is a serious situation in the world, although it has eased in the Far East, perhaps. We know very little about it but you have in the Near East a situation which is explosive enough. When there was an explosive situation back in 1950 in the Far East when it had repercussions here and everywhere else, economically and otherwise, I have a very clear recollection, towards the end of 1950, of seeing in this House a Government and Ministers who had ridiculed the idea of preparation for defence, who had a declared, positive policy—unlike the present Minister who has not declared himself—of cutting out the Army. I saw these very same people coming in here at the end of 1950 declaring that there was an emergency and in that hour attempting to develop the defence mechanism.

We can go back a little bit further and see before the last war the hurried and inadequate action that had to be taken, without the time to take it properly, when the emergency came upon us. I am not going back into all this now because I put it on the records of this House very thoroughly some years ago, but the point that follows from it is that the facile, the easy, the soap-box approach to the question of defence, is unreal and dangerous. You can always argue that defence provisions are not necessary to-day. It is not necessary to-day, but it is an insurance. If you are thinking only about to-day you have no answer, but the trouble is that when the day comes that you have to do something about it, what you did about it to-day may make all the difference. For those reasons, I think the Minister should have adverted to the present situation as his predecessors on many occasions adverted to the situation then existing.

It is only a short while since the probability of a conflagration was regarded as substantial. It then seemed as if the general situation was easing and that there might be a hope, in view of the fear of the devastation that nuclear weapons could cause, that differences in the world could be resolved, as I say, in spite of the lessons from history. Just as one feels that there is ground for such hope, as the situation appears to case in the Far East, in the Near East the flare-up starts again. Whether it is in Palestine, in Cyprus, Algiers, or anywhere else—from any of these spots, the spark can spread and it can certainly be sufficient to put into reverse trends towards peace.

These changes are there that vitally affect the Minister in his function and the very purpose for which he is there, but no comment has been made. I know that the Minister, if I were to take the type of line that is sometimes taken, could very justly say: "Do you expect me to be a prophet?" I do not, but I think it might make it much easier for the Minister to secure co-operation in getting the funds which he needs to discharge his responsibilities if he gives the House some indication of the reasons for the policy which he is adopting. We are, therefore, forced to discuss this Estimate on the basis of isolated figures, on the basis that we have Defence Forces and that is that, without any relationship to the situation which we have before us and which affects our outlook on this matter.

Could the Minister, for instance, give us his estimate as to what line we should take? Does he say, for instance, that prospects for peace are so great now that he considers it unnecessary to maintain the Army at the strength at which it is, and that he can economise on the Defence Forces? If that is the Minister's view, then I think he should tell us that and allow us to discuss it here——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He said he would be prepared to introduce a Supplementary Estimate if he can get recruits.

Major de Valera

You are always prepared to introduce Supplementary Estimates, or supplementary anything, to get out of the difficulty of the moment. Let me go on with this in all seriousness——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am only saying that the Minister did, in fact, cover that aspect of it in his opening speech.

Major de Valera

I did not make any insinuations about the Minister, but it is just like the Deputy's Party to talk about Supplementary Estimates in the future—do not get me going on that. To come back to this discussion, I say these things with a realisation of the indefiniteness of the Minister, the necessary indefiniteness in regard to some of these things, and also with a realisation of the fact that we are dealing with estimates for the future which are naturally very largely uncertain. If the Minister's estimate is that there is no danger for, say, four or five or six years, and that he thinks that at the moment he could adopt a contracting policy, then let us have that point of view and let us discuss it, even though some of us may not agree with it. On the other hand, if the Minister would agree with the view which I hold that things are by no means stabilised to the extent that we could afford to forgo what we have in the line of defence insurance, then he can reply on the support of those of us who believe he would be right in that view in efforts to get the funds that he needs to make the policy that would flow from that estimate effective.

If we had any clear view as to what opinion the Minister has—and I know the Minister's view would be largely conditioned by the advice and information he gets from his Department, but we are strictly correct in attributing it to the Minister here—we could go further, but as it is, in the absence of any such definite indication, it is difficult to go further. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister in any way by forcing a more detailed discussion on that matter.

The next thing—and I do not think we should run away from it—is that there is a defensive commitment—it is contingent if you like—in connection with our U.N.O. relationship. That matter has not been discussed adequately. It is not so much a question of discussion but, I think, of ministerial policy in regard to these matters which has not been adequately discussed in the House. What are the repercussions of that commitment so far as the Minister's Department is concerned? What is involved, and what must our attitude be in regard to that? Our membership of that organisation does involve certain commitments of various sorts. I understand it involves commitments in another direction, because already we are committed to matters of policing.

Therefore, the question is: how does this commitment affect the defensive picture here at the moment? That is not altogether an idle question, in view of the possibilities in the world as it is. These are two general heads under which, perhaps, the Minister might feel he could enlarge when making his closing speech, if he did not do so in his opening statement.

The next head, and I think the Minister did touch on it, is the question of the technique of war. There is no doubt that there are two factors which have completely changed the outlook of people in charge of defence or offence in any country. These factors must dominate the whole of anybody's defence thinking in this modern world, that is, for any sizable conflict. These are the technical progress in the matter of air power and the advent of nuclear weapons. There is also the question of guided missiles.

We already have had a touch of what air war can mean and the bringing in of the third dimension does make a great change, and does bring about the position where you have to think in terms of all territories and not in terms of putting up a barrier where you can hope to hold the enemy army as was thought up to 1914 and, in fact, long afterwards—nearly up to 1939. Up to then, it was legitimate to hope that you could successfully establish boundaries that could be held and it was legitimate to hope that you could protect areas behind these boundaries from actual damage and contact with enemy forces. That is all gone now, of course. Every spot is accessible and because every spot is accessible, protective measures, at any rate, in contrast to offensive measures, are rendered necessary. In view of that, we must try to select the probabilities and do the best we can.

These are radical changes and radical developments in our time which make the problem of defence itself, for a small country like ours, a very difficult, serious and, some even think, a hopeless one. It is thought to be a hopeless one in the absolute sense—the absolute sense of defence against all comers; but there is one bright spot in the picture, that is, that it is only in the exceptional cases that we would be likely to be faced with the absolute problem. It is more likely that other factors will come into play, that hostilities that might affect us would be only part of a much larger scheme and that, hiding in the wood, we would have a better opportunity of defending ourselves. The last war showed us that that hope is by no means an illusory one.

The impossible, if you like, from the point of view of people who think there is no defence and no hope for us, is the most likely to happen. The impossible happened on the last occasion and it can happen again. After all, it has been happening to the Irish nation over the past 700 years. There is always a very good chance of all factors working out much more favourably than just the possibility that you will meet overwhelming forces steamroller fashion which will completely annihilate you. In this situation, it is not at all futile to think in terms of what you will do about defence, but the trouble is to know what action you should take here, in view of the possibility of wholesale use of nuclear weapons. You are facing a gamble, the gamble that you may become the central target. In such a case, there is very little the Minister can say about it.

Mr. A. Barry

That is a classic understatement.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Not afterwards, anyway.

Mr. McQuillan

It would shorten the discussion.

Major de Valera

You would never know what tune you would be playing on the harp. But to be more serious, there is always the possibility, and it may be a probability—it is 50-50—that the worst that can happen is that you will be in a pocket which will not become seriously involved. Mind you, you can still even be neutral. There is no reason why what happened in the last war should not happen again. There is always the possibility that hostilities will bypass us or pass over us. That is just as likely to happen as that the great powers of the world would suddenly single out this island for annihilation or that they would unload two or three uranium bombs on it. Why take the pessimistic view that the big powers would decide to unload their costly weapons on this island to liquidate it? Remember these things cost a lot. They are extremely precious. They cannot be released on a country like .303 ammunition.

It is most unlikely that this country would be slap-bang in the path of such hostilities, like the town of Caen was in the Normandy invasion. As I said, there does not seem to be any good reason why they would waste the stuff on a nation like ours. But another point relevant to what I am saying is that if you are wide open to be dealt with by gunpowder, not even by high explosives, there is the danger that an effort might be made to take advantage of you. That is a reason why we should put our defences in order. It is much more costly to do anything to us, if we are organised.

But to get back to the train of thought I am trying to elucidate: Without denying the problem that is posed by nuclear weapons, by improved air power and by guided missiles, there is, nevertheless, a very rational and practical hope for us in relative isolation to survive in the manner in which we survived during the last war, virtually unscathed. We can do that, however, only if we take precautions to look after our own house and to organise our own affairs in an effective way.

That brings me to a few more questions for the Minister. I do not know what the Minister will say about general policy and about whatever commitments there are in regard to U.N.O. membership. I still presume the Minister's policy in this regard is that of looking after ourselves. He is not considering defence from the point of view of being swallowed up in, or becoming a partisan of, any particular group or arrangements. Therefore, on the basis of what I conceive to be the Government's policy and the Minister's policy, as it was the policy of his predecessor, that is to say, looking after ourselves, trying to protect our own people, and not getting involved in anything unnecessarily—I presume it is still the policy, since policy has not been stated to be otherwise—and, secondly, taking whatever the Minister may care to say about these two matters I mention, that is, the present situation as affecting defence and the U.N.O. commitment, I should like to pose a few more heads or questions for consideration.

Firstly, will it not still be necessary in all the circumstances of the present day to provide garrison forces, by which I mean those forces, ground forces—that is Army and Navy services —to occupy our own territory, to garrison it from the point of view of local protection, or what I might call the functions of local protection? I do not mean defence in the sense of meeting a full-scale modern offensive. I call it local protection, or the type of duty which in the old days used to be called the duties of lines of communication troops. Do we, or do we not, need forces to discharge these duties? Do we not need to maintain these forces, first of all, in a position in which they can be distributed over the country according to some scheme—the best scheme that can be thought out— to discharge that role? Must they not be equipped to enable them to discharge that role? Will that equipment not involve small arms, mobile light artillery, modern transport, signal equipment in particular, communications equipment, medical stores, and all these other things? Are not all these things still necessary?

I can talk with much less confidence on these matters to-day than I could some years ago when I had a more intimate contact with the subject. But, if one can judge from what is being done, say, in regard to the bigger powers and their attitude to land forces, if one can judge from the method in which the West German Army is being revived, from the setting-up and operations of these combined headquarters in Europe, from the activities of the American defence forces and the activities of the forces which Russia is maintaining, and so on and so forth, I would imagine that there is still a vital and a necessary rôle for the man on the ground and that what was once said in relation to navies still holds good: when it comes to a question of holding ground we must have the infantry. That was once posed as the limitation put on naval action and, of course, naval action has now been superseded by air action.

There is the question: Is this equipment needed? Are the men needed? The next question is: What can be done to safeguard the population? After all, in war the ultimate and critical final thing is for the attacker to break the will and for the defender to maintain the will of the population, the will of the community involved. It is, in other words, the people. In any trouble that may come, our primary essential, the simple basic take, will be to keep our own people in their own country and to protect them as far as possible from devastation and from being ousted by any route, from the possession of their own land. Taking that simple rôle, can we not do something then to afford protection to the population? Take the vital question of food. The Ceann Comhairle need not be alarmed and think I am now going to go off on agriculture, industry or anything else. Take the vital question of food from the point of view of defence, of food organisation and the availability of food, of fuel generally and fuel for transport, of medical supplies, of the evacuation of people from threatened areas or even from partially devastated areas. I think it would be a wrong attitude on our part simply to throw up our hands and say there is nothing one can do about it. To my mind, there is a lot one can do.

It will only be an accident, for instance, if somebody drops a uranium bomb in the middle of the Bog of Allen or, perhaps, it might be more appropriate if I said in some mountainous area, or somewhere like that. That will only be an accident like the well-known incident of the bomb hitting the cottage in Carlow in the last war. That was an accident. There was no purpose to it. Now, there are areas to which the people affected could be evacuated, if the plans are there. I know quite well that the frightening thing for anyone contemplating this is the cost of the operation involved but that should not stop us planning and going a certain distance. It was what one might call the planning, even dream planning, that was done by an army deprived of all actual preparation, as was the case with our Army before the last war, plus what that Army did manage to do, and what was done, that enabled us to meet the emergency situation. If any of the major actions, which had been taken before the emergency, had not been taken we would not have been able to meet that emergency situation. That, I think, is a fair lesson to be learned from the history of that time.

Now, in the same way in the situation that may confront us, one will not be able to provide everything effective overnight but one can go a long way towards making it possible, when action becomes necessary, to do something effective. I am still optimist enough to think that, if we go that far ourselves, Divine Providence will help us to control the situation, as happened on the last occasion.

I would like the House to recall for a moment that practically everything that is being said to-day about nuclear weapons, and all that kind of thing, was also trotted out whenever the subject of war came up in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, and even on the actual outbreak of hostilities in 1939. What did we hear then? I think the Minister will recollect that at that time the terrors of poison gas, both for the armies in the field and the community at home, constituted the main threat. Poison gas, so far as armies in the field were concerned, was one of the worst weapons armies had to face in the First World War; poison gas, biological weapons, devastating air power, and that with planes limited to a speed of 200 miles per hour—all these things were talked about with the same assurance. The cynics away back in the 1930s were so very certain there was no hope for anybody when World War II came because of all these weapons. World War II has come and gone. It was a terrible tragedy. It was a desperately costly business in human life and endeavour. But the human race is still there. Not only that, but we are here as one community concerned. Even the devastated nations are still there as communities.

That is a very sobering thought. It is, therefore, a question of minimising the damage that one may have to face and one may have to suffer. I stress that point merely because I know people will say: "Atomic bombs—that is the end of it." As I said before— and I say it with a complete realisation of the potentialities—I do know that one nuclear bomb here in the centre of this city would practically wipe out the city. But I also know that the human being and the human race are particularly tenacious of life. There is always a certain residue left who manage to hang on. The problem is how we can make that residue bigger than it would be if we took no precautions at all. However, in the absence of specific information, I do not feel that I would be very helpful in going into any further detail on that matter, but I think that the Minister might give us some information in that regard and might indicate what could be done. I am convinced that some measures might be available to us and that, at least, we should have some plan of living if a war situation should so arise.

I should like to make a few comments on the Estimates as a whole which, by and large, I find a little disturbing. I am going on the assumption that we need the men; we need the Defence Force we have. If you take the increases in the Vote you will find that the pay, both for military and civilian personnel, is substantially increased. There is an increase of £111,252 for the pay of officers, cadets, N.C.O.s and privates. That is A. There is an increase of £10,847 for the office of the Minister for Defence— salaries, wages and allowances. I am omitting such minor items as the payment of chaplains, but the increase for the officers of the medical corps would also be substantial. However, we can confine ourselves to the main heads here. The point I want to make is this. Take the increase in provision and allowances in lieu, which is £39,678. That is K. Take the increase in petrol and oil, £7,450; the increase in clothing and equipment, £54,444; fuel, light and water in kind and fuel oils, £14,000. If you take all these increases you will see that they are substantial. They are all cost-of-living increases, simply a reflection in the Minister's Department of the increased costs that are to be found everywhere at the present moment.

Turn now to the sub-heads in regard to personnel. Take the question of officers and you will find that the total allocation for officers is slightly down, notwithstanding the fact that the deductions in respect of numbers being below strength is also slightly down. There is an under-strength indication also in regard to the other ranks. When one takes that into account, it is quite clear that the net decrease of £217,210 does not represent the contraction. As the Minister says, there is a contraction in the Defence Forces and it seems to me that it is significant now, although the numbers allowed for are, by and large, the same or very similar to those allowed last year, that the end of the year will indicate that these Estimates are formed on the basis that you will have a smaller strength.

The Minister himself has admitted that the wastage of personnel is greater than the intake and I think he did ask for recruits, and he will get whole-hearted co-operation in that. Without going into a long argument, I do not think we can afford, if we are going to have any Defence Force at all, to put the Army below what it is at present. The reasons for such a statement are very simple, and, since I have put them on record here in detail before, I do not feel I would be entitled to delay the House with the details again. However, they can be summarised in this way: It is a sizable Defence Estimate; you are spending a sizable sum. Do not let us fool ourselves. You have to face the decision: either cut it out altogether or pay something that will make your defence insurance a reality in some sense of the word. I feel that if we go any lower than we have, that you run the risk—there is nothing sacrosanct about the actual figure — of paying money for a full Army.

The only thing that saved us the last time was the fact that there was a fairly substantial First Line Reserve there. There was a large number of old A Reserve officers, N.C.O.s and men available at that time who filled the gap, and there was some First Line Reserve from the Volunteer Force which was also there. There was also a remnant of the B Reserve. If those Reserves had not been there, particularly the First Reserves with considerable first line and wholetime barrack experience, we would not have been able to get by. In the present situation you have no A Reserve or anything corresponding to it. The F.C.A. will discharge, to a large extent, the duties that the Volunteer Force was there to discharge before the war, but most of that force was absorbed into the emergency Army. The F.C.A. would not be completely absorbed in the same way. These people, in the very nature of things, cannot readily supply the deficiency that is there and to the same extent, say, as the old A Reserve officers did. In that situation, it is highly important to keep up the numbers to the greatest extent possible.

There is another reason from the point of view of the Defence Forces themselves. Some of us have seen in the past the way guard duties and routine duties completely absorb the energies of officers, N.C.O.s and men, who are completely worn out with an overdose of that type of duty, with the result that proper training and proper missions had to be completely neglected. You do not want that to happen again. Secondly, if you are going to attract the proper type of man to the Defence Forces, you want people in the Army to feel that there is some kind of future and some kind of career in it. Another difficulty as far as the ranks are concerned is that, when a private soldier joins the Army at the moment, he feels that there is no future in it. He very often goes in as a young man and he may be very enthusiastic but, when the time comes for reattestation, he gets out. You want to be able to encourage a certain percentage to make a career of the Army and you want particularly to get N.C.O.s. It would be a good thing if in some way you could build up a first line reserve by means of the out-flow from them.

There was one problem we never really tackled here and that was the problem of placing soldiers after they had done their service. Too many of them left the Army "browned-off", without any further interest. With regard to officers, the opportunities for promotion in a small army are meagre enough, but it is these opportunities for promotion that will, in the main, attract the good men and keep up the interest of those people who are already there. If young men in the junior ranks find they have to remain there until middle age, and that the prospects of going further are too remote, you will not attract the best and the people who are there will very soon lose interest, because of the absence of incentive. These are the reasons why, if we are going to have a Defence Force at all, we should keep up the strength of the Army and keep up its equipment.

On the question of equipment, Deputy Desmond talked about wastage in the Defence Forces. The trouble was that, in the nature of Defence Force training, you were bound to have a certain amount of wastage. The trouble was that there was such a tight control that sometimes legitimate training was not possible. That was my experience, and I am sure the attitude of the senior Army authorities and the Department towards that matter has not changed. I think it is rather a slander and does not help anybody to suggest that there is actually internal wastage or misuse, although it is all right to suggest that too much may be spent on the Defence Forces generally. By and large, the former suggestion is an unfair allegation. It is necessary that petrol should be used in moving troops around. The very nature of military training and activities, even if one is only mapping, involves movement and that involves transportation and petrol.

I was amused by the suggestion in regard to the Auditor-General. Quite rightly, the Army and the Department will check very carefully on stores. If they did not, we know what would happen. The Auditor-General has to be satisfied, and, if he sends down his team, it is simply a problem of business, of seeing how much you are going to spend on your accounting system and that you have order and security. I think the suggestion that the Auditor-General's people were lax in relation to excessive expenditure on defence is not a fair criticism.

General MacEoin

I put that interpretation on what Deputy Desmond was saying.

Major de Valera

The point is——

General MacEoin

It might not be fair.

Major de Valera

The reason I am coming back to it is that you do not have excessive, shall I say, civilian check on the military check. The quartermasters have to return their checks and there are inspections, as there should be, from time to time. As far as I know, the thing is not reduced to an expensive fetish. It is certainly tight enough, but that is as it should be. It was the suggestion that there was a looseness in spending by the Department on the Army that I rather felt was an unfair one. If one thinks that the amount of money spent on defence generally is excessive, that is another matter.

There is sometimes a lot of talk about antiquated equipment. In the nature of things, equipment is not going to last for ever. The guns of 1914-18 could not have been expected to last for ever, although a lot of the stuff of that type was very useful in 1939-1940. The point is that our Defence Forces in general, both our civil and military—I say this with a certain amount of personal knowledge —have been conscious of that difficulty and have had to face very squarely the problem that any equipment you buy will be out-dated sooner or later. With military equipment in modern times, it is a matter, perhaps, of a few years. You are faced with the nice point of balancing whether you will get this particular type of equipment now or wait for two years and get something better. In the meantime, however, you have to train and form your estimates on that. That is problem No. 1. Problem No. 2 revolves around the question of what can be got. Suppose the Minister had in mind to buy a couple of nuclear bombs for the purpose of training, where would he get them? Not only is there a problem of obsolescence, but there is also the problem of availability. Then there is the problem of having something to keep the forces going. Those requirements must be balanced.

We must have something. It is no use having wooden sticks. We hear a lot of talk about Irishmen being the best soldiers and their having done the job before and all that kind of thing. I have the greatest regard for the men of the past and the present, but you cannot put up even a superman with a big stick against even an old-fashioned Wild West Colt repeater, not to speak of a more modern weapon. It is "all my eye" to talk about having done it before. It would not be done before, unless you had the equipment to do it.

People who talk like that forget that, even 50 years ago, during the time of the Boer war, a sizable body of men, if they only had rifles, could challenge successfully for a period any Power in the world. Fifty years ago, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 men armed with the rifle which was not even an automatic in the modern sense, but simply a repeater, could stand up to anything in the world in those days.

Let the Minister not be deterred from making arrangements for equipment by the kind of talk I have mentioned. Let him not be deterred from providing the forces with the equipment they need. The Minister should press forward to ensure that wastage of men does not continue. He should keep up the strength of the Army, both from the point of view of the men in it and the task that has to be done. From the point of view of those officers and people who have made a career of the Army, as much as from the point of view of the country which needs the Defence Forces, he should make a drive to keep up the strength and he will get the necessary support. In regard to general policy, he should indicate what line we can take in the matter and in regard to our relationships externally, in the light of our joining recently the U.N.O. I think the Minister might possibly tell us a lot more.

Mr. McQuillan

I am going to resist the temptation to follow Deputy Vivion de Valera down the byways of the maze of the international situation— the situation that exists in the Middle East and elsewhere. If we are to make up our minds on having an army, then we cannot have it on the basis that we are going to follow Deputy Vivion de Valera in his arguments that, because there are "trigger" spots in the Middle East and elsewhere, and that there is a danger of a conflict of a serious nature breaking out at any moment, we have a direct interest in any of these conflicts with the result that any localised conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere will have a bearing on our security or safety. If we were to follow his line of thought we should base our defence system, the cost involved, and so forth, on what is likely to take place in these troubled areas.

The principal statesmen in the world to-day are asking and begging that, by some means or other, peace be established. It is coming to the stage when the great nations of the world realise that to indulge in warfare on a global basis is a suicidal performance for the entire world. The position is that the two great powers to-day, with their hangers-on, have decided that discretion is the better part of valour. It has almost reached the stage now that it would be an impossibility for one or other of these great nations to spring a surprise and wipe out the other particular great power. Once that stage of stalemate has been reached, we can get a world-wide practical reduction of armaments.

It sounds nonsensical that we here should talk as if we were the centre and the guiding power of a far-flung empire. We have no oil interests in the Middle East. We have no ivory or mineral resources to protect in Africa. The question of our suitability, from a tactical point of view, is very limited. The situation has changed immensely since the 1939-45 war. There is no use in trying to say, in this connection, that history repeats itself. That is sheer nonsense in a matter like this. A completely different situation obtained prior to the outbreak of the 1939-45 war. Different countries were involved. The balance of power lay in different hands. To plan on the basis that we should repeat the preparations that took place from 1939 to 1942, and that that repetition should take place again, is, I think, a wrong estimate of the world situation.

It is suggested here that our main interest is to protect ourselves. Whom, exactly, do we mean by "ourselves"? Are we referring to the people in the Twenty-Six Counties because, if we are, we are living in cloud, cuckoo land. We are in no position to protect ourselves by our own manpower or with the weapons at our disposal if a strong power from outside felt it desirable in its own interest to make an attack. Let us be quite clear and frank at this stage because we can look back on it now and there is no heat involved. We were free the last time because of good statesmanship and the fact that the big powers were played off. That was possible because a substantial Defence Force was held here. We all knew that if an invasion took place the country would be submerged within a short space of time if we were dependent on our own resources. The aim was to have sufficient forces here to hold the position until aid would come from outside. That being so, the great powers were guessing as to whether or not it would be worth their while to invade us. That refers to the Twenty-Six County area.

When we examine what took place in the Six Counties we must bear very fully in mind that the very fact that the Six Counties were available to Britain meant that, to a great extent, we were safe from interference by the British or the Americans. So far as Britain was concerned, the U-Boat menace was finished by the utilisation of stations and installations in Northern Ireland. The life-line of munitions, food and men from America to Britain was kept free through the utilisation of bases in the North of Ireland. Consequently, whether we like it or not, portion of this country played a very big part in the last war. That was the position at that time. I do not think that position can arise again.

As Deputy Major de Valera pointed out, we have now become members of the U.N.O. Whether our people realise it or not, we have accepted certain responsibilities. We cannot have it both ways any more. We cannot talk and preach and prate to the world about the evils of certain philosophies.

Mr. A. Barry

We can keep on doing that, anyway.

Mr. McQuillan

We cannot do that without showing, even in a token way, our sincerity. I am speaking purely for myself when I say that if we criticise and point out that it is one of our fundamental beliefs that Communism must be stopped, we shall have to be prepared to play our part. If we say that Communism, which looks like engulfing a great part of the world, must be stopped and if one of the functions of U.N.O. is that an end will be put to expansion with regard to certain great powers, then Ireland will have to take her rightful place. We shall have to make our contribution apart from just shooting our mouths off at the various meetings that take place in the U.N.O. Assembly. That means that it is quite likely that, if another situation arises, our neutrality, as such, will have to be considered in a different light. It is not a question now of Germany, Italy or America. According to the Taoiseach and most of the spokesmen in this State, we shall have to come down on one side of the fence or the other so far as future conflicts are concerned. Let us be quite clear and frank about it, that is the position, now that we have taken our place in U.N.O.

If, in 1938, we had the Six Counties as part of the 32 Counties, and we were charged with the defence of the 32 Counties, is it not only reasonable to suggest that our defence bill would be one that the country could not at any stage afford? Is that not quite true?

Major de Valera

As regards 1939 or now?

Mr. McQuillan

As regards 1939. If Partition had been solved from 1938 and the Government here was charged with the responsibility of defending the 32 Counties, what would our Defence Estimate be?

Major de Valera

It would be very big.

Mr. McQuillan

Yes, and could we afford it? We find it difficult to afford the money that is being made available at the moment.

Major de Valera

How did Switzerland do it?

Mr. McQuillan

That is very different, but I am not going to enter into a discussion on it. The difficulty I am now talking about is that if we had the 32 Counties in 1938, we would have been faced with a far greater problem than that with which we were faced with the Twenty-Six Counties.

The time is coming gradually when we are taking a greater interest in world affairs and when, through our membership of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, we are accepting a certain amount of responsibility. If we are doing that, it is up to the people of this House to acquaint the public outside of the position as it is.

We have, in the Estimates since 1946-47, made provision for a standing Army of 12,500 men. In spite of the efforts of the different Ministers for Defence, that figure has not been achieved. I have listened to different Ministers here, in all sincerity, appealing to the young men to come forward and serve. The plain fact of the matter is that the young men have not come forward. I hope Deputies will not misrepresent me in what I am now going to say, but I think we will have to re-examine the whole Defence Department. If we are to spend as much money this year as we have been spending in previous years on what, to my mind, is practically a paper Army, composed of officers and civilians, we are not justified in expecting the public to pay for that type of army. Let us have one or the other. Let us have a real army, or else let us scrap it altogether.

This is the position. I am now going by the Book of Estimates here and we have a total, under sub-head A and sub-head E, of officers, including medical officers, but excluding cadets and naval officers, of 1,226, and the pay for those officers is £1,030,000. That is a little over £1,000,000 to pay for the officers, and the total amount for the payment of the troops, that is, the privates, is £1,191,000. There is very little difference in the Estimate in the amount of money being spent on the salaries of officers and the salaries of the privates.

The Army, as far as the officers are concerned, is practically at full strength, and it has been that way for years. To my mind, that has a demoralising influence on the officers, to say nothing of the demoralising influence it has on the troops.

In addition, we have a strength of 414 captains and 384 first and second lieutenants. In other words, you have more of a senior rank in the Army than a junior, and it has always been the case that a man in senior rank requires two juniors to keep him in his position. Here we have more captains than lieutenants and second lieutenants. I think that if the public really realised the number of dug-in wallahs, Army brass, and civilians that are attached to the Army in some shape or form, there would be a march on this House from the outside and it would not be safe for Deputies to come into it. G.H.Q., because of civilian personnel and senior brass, is like a rabbit warren. As far as the rabbit problem was concerned, we had to import myxomatosis to deal with it, but I do not know what the cure is for this other problem at the moment.

I find that most of these people are 100 per cent. but their job is to try to justify their position. They move around and try to create some sort of a busy atmosphere, in order to justify the fact that they are employed and that there is nothing for them to do.

That is just one aspect of the matter. Let us take the number of civilians in this Army. Certain Deputies have pointed out that, due to their records, a certain number of civilians should get first preference in regard to employment. I have no objection in the world to that, but is it an Army you have or a social welfare bureau? The civilians attached to the Army, either as civil servants or civilians proper, under sub-head C, number 1,723, costing a total of £682,966. Under sub-head Y, civil servants, we have 525, costing £288,891. As the total, we have 2,248 civilians attached to the Army, and their total pay is nearly £1,000,000—it is £971,857. Remember that the pay of all the privates in the Army is £1,191,000. The pay of the civilians attached to the Army is almost as great as the pay of the privates in that Army.

Let us look at it in this way. We have a civilian to every four privates in the Army; we have an officer to every six privates; we have an N.C.O. to every two privates. It works out that, taking the officers and N.C.O.s as such, for every officer, commissioned or non-commissioned, we have a man and a half. I do not think we are dealing with defence in a practical manner when a situation like that exists. This is happening at a time when we have a savings committee set up, which, through the wireless and other propaganda, is urging John Citizen to save his money and so make more money available to the State for productive purposes. How can we expect John Citizen to pass any heed on these pleas to save made on the radio or otherwise if such an example is set to him by a State Department? I want to bring it forcibly home that we will have to have a proper Army instead of what we have at the present time, one just composed of officers and N.C.O.s. We must get them in and it has been proved that the policy adopted for the last six or eight years has not succeeded in bringing in recruits.

Before I deal with my suggestions with regard to the recruiting campaign, there is another point I want to mention and here again I am sure some Deputies will completely disagree with me. The overall picture in defence is an Army, an Air Force and a Naval service. The main force we have here is the Army and the F.C.A., and we want to be practical. There is a number of people here who went through the mill some years ago, otherwise we would not be here to-day. Those are men who had practical experience at the time and it is to those men I am going to address these comments with regard to the present expenditure on our Air Force.

Deputy Vivion de Valera pointed out with regard to equipment that one of the big difficulties involved was that you bought equipment, utilised it and held it for a certain time and then new equipment was being made available. There was an in-between stage when you could not know whether it was right to purchase this year or to wait for two years. That difficulty is there in regard to equipment but it will be there in a more important way with regard to planes of one type or another and in regard to the training of crews, whether they are going to be trained in this country or outside it.

A decision was taken here to equip our Air Force with a number of modern planes. These planes were for fighter operational training purposes and the type of plane envisaged to be bought was the M.K. Vampire. I want the House to note that the decision was made to purchase a squadron of this type of plane but that decision was not made known to this House. I doubt if it was made known to the Minister for Defence, judging by the wording of the announcement and the way it was broken gradually to us and to all concerned that a decision had been made to purchase three planes of the Vampire type. We read a good deal in the newspapers recently about the arrival of these planes next June.

The public believes that three planes are coming but in order to allow these three planes to manoeuvre and to be utilised in this country for the benefit of training Air Force personnel, it was found necessary to lay down new concrete runways at Baldonnel. They will be completed very soon and the total cost involved is £537,850. That is a nice sum of money and is borne by the Board of Works in the Estimate for Public Buildings. The total cost of the planes that are going to use this runway, at a capital cost of £537,000, is £147,000. Of course, when we realise what is at the back of it we know that the three planes purchased are only the thin edge of the wedge. The total number of planes in a squadron, which is the recognised unit, is nine and these three are only the first lot coming in. Naturally, if they were all purchased together, there would be a howl in this House and in the country, but three can be obtained this year and three next year or maybe the six. So far, if we count the cost of the runways, the cost of the training of airmen abroad, the cost of spare parts and the estimated cost of the nine planes, it will bring expenditure to over £1,100,000.

That may be all right and that situation may be desirable but I am putting this question to the members of the House: is that capital expenditure essential and is it wise for the limited amount of training which will be given? Will a businessman lay out £500,000 on something that will only give him a very limited benefit?

Mr. A. Barry

What about the training of commercial pilots?

Mr. McQuillan

My point is that the advantages in this connection will not be such as would justify that expenditure.

Mr. A. Barry

They must be taught how to fly jet planes anyway.

Mr. McQuillan

I can assure Deputy Barry that if we want to train pilots —and I believe we should train them— we can have them trained as we have trained them already. I see nothing wrong with having our pilots and our Air Force men invited to America, to Britain, to France, or Switzerland and letting them be trained in the most up-to-date planes. But I do not see why we should take upon ourselves the onerous burden of providing the capital cost of training a limited number of these pilots. I do not deny it is desirable, but first things first. If I had the responsibility for it and if it were put to me, my argument would be that before I would consider the welfare of a limited number of people like that, I would spend the £500,000 that is being incurred on the runways on the erection of national schools where we could give a solid education to the ordinary people in the country first, and then give them these other things.

Mr. A. Barry

It is not as easy as that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! Deputy McQuillan is in possession.

Mr. McQuillan

The present situation is not easy and I think Deputy Barry is one of the few men in this House who realises it is not easy. It is not going to be easy in the next three or four years and if it is not going to be easy in the next three or four years, as Deputy Barry realises, it is time we woke up to the fact that we cannot go on living in cuckoo land. If there is money to be spent, let it be spent on the most important fundamental matters. We are down now to less than 8,000 privates in the Army and in spite of the Movietone Newsreel pictures and attractive advertisements in different parts of the country, the recruiting drive has proved a failure. I know that from January, 1955, to the 18th February, 1956, 2,868 men applied to join and of that number 1,520 were accepted. Of the remainder, 417 were below the accepted physical standard and 52 were sub-normal, although no educational test was carried out. I wonder what they were like?

The reason I mention all this is to ask are we attracting the right type to the Army? Let us take, for instance, the Garda Síochána. Look at the application list for the Garda Síochána. Look at the rush and the competition to get into the Garda Síochána because it is such a fine upstanding force, because Gardaí have to be educated men, of fine physique and first-class character.

That does not apply to the Army. There are plenty of young men in this country who would join the Army and make a career of it but at the present time they know that they may be put in with very doubtful characters. There are many parents who will not allow their sons to join the Army on that basis. It is regrettable. We must change our outlook with regard to recruitment. If we are to have an Army, let us have the best men in it.

As far as the officer and N.C.O. personnel are concerned, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and regard for them. Physically they are of an excellent type. They are educated, alert and intelligent. It is too bad that we are unable to have the same material available in the ranks. Until we change our tactics, until we stop looking for a cheap Army, in the sense that we are prepared to pay huge sums to civilians attached to the Army and only small allowances to the men, with no security with regard to reasonable pensions and so forth, we will not get the right type for the Army. The problem must be faced on that basis.

Deputy de Valera made a very good suggestion when he pointed out that a young recruit is enthusiastic and keen but, having done his initial term he is disillusioned, "browned off" and goes out. There must be some reason for that. Of course, there is a number of reasons. Even if the young man does go out at that stage, he is trained. It devolves upon the State to ensure that when he goes out he is trained for civilian employment and that there is a bureau to ensure that he is placed in a job outside the Army, a job that suits him and that he is fit to hold. It would not present insurmountable problems at present to develop that idea.

To deal with actual grievances, of course, would take a week. I shall deal only with a few. In some cases what I have to say will be repetition of what Deputy Collins and Deputy de Valera said. There are the heartbreaking, morale-breaking fatigue duties that devolve upon the privates at the present time. It could not be otherwise, having regard to the fact that for every officer there are six men. The officers have batmen. The number of men engaged in fatigue duties, cookhouse work, stores, cleaning of various offices, latrines and so forth, leaves the number available for actual training very small indeed. Consequently, those who are in training have no interest because it is farcical to be training with only ten men where there should be 100. You would need an Alice in Wonderland mentality to imagine the remainder, to cod yourself that there are 90 men there along with the ten that are present. I have seen that kind of caper and it takes away from the reality of exercises or training.

There is a feeling of dissatisfaction amongest N.C.O.s and men at the present time. The Minister knows that. The impression is, especially on the part of N.C.O.s, that whatever allowances or pension increases are given for Army personnel, the officer personnel seem to get the whole kitty. The mentality exists, that each time there is money available for the kitty, the N.C.O.s are the last to get their share. Even amongest the junior personnel of the commissioned ranks that feeling prevails. I do not know whether or not the Minister will be able to clarify that matter. I do not know whether or not the impression goes back to the first increase that was given after the end of the emergency but I think it was a fatal mistake at the time to allow the Army headquarters to decide in what way the increased remuneration would be rationed. Evidently when the money was voted by the House the top senior ranks put their arms up to their elbows into it and there was not much left for the junior ranks. That does not create a good spirit in the Army. It creates the very opposite—dissatisfaction.

As far as this Estimate is concerned, I suggest that it is unreal and unfair to the general public to have the statement repeated here year after year that we are anxious to get recruits and cannot get them. That is no answer to Deputies. It is treating them as if they had no intelligence or no knowledge at all. It would not be too bad if there were no money involved but the tragedy is that there is such a large amount of money involved that it is up to every member of the House to ensure that it is properly spent. If we cannot get recruits, how is it that we have to carry on the top the same civilian personnel as we would have to carry if we had an Army of 15,000 or 20,000? That is what I find inexplicable.

It seems to be the same with every democratic country. The same trouble arose after the end of the war. They had an awful job to peel off the barnacles that were attached to the old ship in the form of civilian personnel and so forth. They cling on. Naturally, it is up to themselves to ensure their own livelihood. I am not suggesting that the Minister should use the tomahawk on those men and throw them out of employment. Many of the civilians could be redistributed in other Departments as part of a general overhaul and economy drive. The Department of Defence must play its part in that economy drive. Deputy McGilligan and other Deputies have said that there could be a reduction by 25 per cent. of the Civil Service. I am in full agreement. A start could be made with the Department of Defence.

The trouble is that, in order to take that necessary action—it has become more necessary than ever before—there must be very strong Ministers. It is only human nature that a Minister will say: "This was all right when my predecessor was in; I will not change matters now." If that is the attitude let us know it. Let the public know that there will not be any real attempt made to reduce the cost of Government. I maintain that, as one particular aspect of the Government service, the Department of Defence can do with a first-class pruning. Army personnel will not be harmed by doing this when you have not sufficient privates there to fill the establishment, although you have no shortage as far as civilians and civil servants are concerned.

If the Minister wants to do a good job, as far as the recruiting drive is concerned, he will bring in the senior officers of the Army and get their opinions on how conditions for the ordinary private can be improved. When he gets these opinions, let him deal with them himself before the Department of Finance get hold of the proposals because undoubtedly, if any proposals like that get into the hands of the Department of Finance, and if they find it means extra money, no matter how anxious the Minister's Department may be to go ahead with the ideas, they will be only small boys when up against the Minister for Finance. I know that is only natural, but the Minister himself is in a position to point out that, as far as the Army is concerned at the moment, the situation that exists is unreal. If the Minister wishes to justify the Army to the Minister for Finance let him put up practical propositions for the men coming in.

Deputy Desmond—and this is all I have to say on the Estimate—pointed out something that is perfectly true, even though I am sure other Deputies would not believe it. The training system evolved for cadets in recent years shows an extraordinary mentality by the powers that be, by the instructors. Naturally, of course, directions are given to them from G.H.Q. Cadets are trained in the most extraordinary manner as far as etiquette is concerned and they are given a false impression of what their standing should be in this country. Their training must be based to a great extent on Sandhurst and these snob British military training colleges. Deputy Desmond related one incident, but I know that if Captain John Murphy from Ballydehob goes home he is not supposed to have a lemonade in the local pub——

Major de Valera

That is only in uniform, surely?

Mr. McQuillan

In uniform.

Mr. A. Barry

Do you not think it is a good idea?

Mr. James Tully

Why?

Mr. McQuillan

I have seen American Army Officers in this country in uniform and they were not ashamed if they went into a pub.

General MacEoin

What is the regulation preventing our men from doing that?

Mr. McQuillan

It is like the regulation below in the Curragh where the men had to wear great-coats buttoned up and when a few of them opened the great-coats in the middle of the summer they were practically court-martialled.

Mr. James Tully

That was the Deputy Traynor style.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not suggesting that the Minister or the ex-Minister has anything to do with it. I am only talking of what I saw in the Army myself and of what I know is happening at the present time. Let us take the snob mentality displayed where married quarters or married personnel, whether commissioned or non-commissioned, are concerned. There is a new church being built in the Curragh according to the Minister's Estimate. I always thought that all men were equal in the sight of God, but when I was in the Curragh, I found that if I knelt in the back seats, as an officer, I was likely to be taken before the Command O.C., that no officer could kneel in any back seat, that he must go up in front. I found that certain seats were reserved for the senior officers' wives and officers, and that N.C.O.s' wives were separated from officers' wives inside the church. Deputy Barry may not believe this, but it is perfectly true.

I know there must be a certain amount of discipline, but I do not believe in going too far with discipline, and it is a well-known fact that the offspring of the officers and commissioned ranks are not entitled to mix with the offspring of the N.C.O. element. I know of one case in which the names will never be disclosed where an officer was, as the expression is, courting the daughter of an N.C.O. He was called in by the Command O.C. and told it was against Army principles for an officer to be seen "doing a line" with an N.C.O.'s daughter. He was told that would mean no promotion for him in the Army.

General MacEoin

That was under section so-and-so?

Mr. McQuillan

That officer's comrades were promoted to the rank of captain before four years were out while that officer himself got his promotion after eight years.

Mr. A. Barry

There was no other reason?

Mr. McQuillan

He is one of the best officers in the Army.

A Deputy

How did the courtship finish up?

Mr. McQuillan

As far as he was concerned, as a result of telling the senior officer concerned he would not accept this ruling, he was transferred 60 miles away. But he married the girl—he was a man. His promotion did not come until he had to get it through length of service. If the Minister wants full particulars of that case I will give them to him. The reason I mention that is that I consider this is a scandalous mentality to be displayed where every Member of this House came from the bogs, and some of them look as if they had never left the bogs. We have John Murphy, a private from the bog, and Captain Paddy O'Brien, who also comes from the bog, and the Army regulations are such that Captain Paddy O'Brien cannot talk to Private John Murphy except the latter says "Sir, this" and "Sir, that," and as far as recreation is concerned they must be kept poles apart.

You had in Germany what is known as the Prussian mentality. They had professional soldiers.

Major de Valera

A first-class army.

Mr. McQuillan

They may have had a first-class army, but I do not want that mentality here and you can have it here after a while, because if you have it among the officers to-day, when their sons join the Army you build up that mentality gradually. You will have a certain amount of it where you have a professional army, naturally, but I want to see it limited to the smallest degree here because the name that Ireland likes to have abroad is that it is an island of saints on the one hand and fighters on the other.

Mr. A. Barry

You are leaving out the scholars.

Mr. McQuillan

We should be quite clear that the views we have about ourselves and the beliefs we have in our prowess, knowledge and holiness very often do not coincide with the views expressed about us by people outside this country, and the sooner we stop living in a cloud-cuckoo land the better. Many people outside the State have the impression that the average Irishman is a man with a Bible in one hand and a time-bomb in the other.

Mr. Coogan

Or the pint.

Mr. A. Barry

Or is it a copy of Time?

Mr. McQuillan

Perhaps the Deputy and I read the same items in Time. We must change that mentality.

I have dealt with grievances in the Army in so far as they involve N.C.O.s and men. I hope the Minister will take the necessary steps to have the Army put on the same basis as the Garda Síochána; in other words, that there will be the same competition to get into the Army as there is to get into the Garda. If he does that, he will not have any trouble in getting the necessary money from this House to pay the personnel. The efforts being made to try to get the young people into the Army by the beat of the drum, so to speak, through the lowering of the recruiting age, have not been successful. We have come to the stage now where we have to change our whole mentality and I am asking the Minister to do that in the coming year.

Mr. A. Barry

I do not know why I should think of the story of the old woman who said that all the soldiers in the regiment were out of step, except her own Johnny. Of course, there is an air of unreality about our debates here on the Defence Estimate. There will be such an air of unreality about any discussions on any defence forces in any country in the world in peace-time. I have a private theory that peacetime soldiering is not an occupation for adults. Perhaps that is one of Deputy McQuillan's theories also. However, we have got to keep the thing going and the type of unbalance Deputy McQuillan quoted is, I think, probably exaggerated. But it is a normal type of thing in peacetime armies.

Speaking on this Estimate last year, in my first contribution to a Defence debate here, I said that our intake and maintenance figures would continue to be very bad, unless we improved pay and conditions; that that state of affairs would continue unless we pay our men better, house them better, clothe them better and pension them better. If we do not do those things, we will not keep the men in the Army. What happens is that the desirable type of young recruit Deputy McQuillan is looking for sees the kind of man we all regard as the first class senior N.C.O., who has served all his adult life as a soldier, afraid to leave the Army because he has to go out to a life of poverty. That is hard on the old N.C.O. and it is very easy to understand why the young man who sees him says: "This is no place for me." Unless we say we are going to pay our Army personnel very well, unless we are going to clothe them well, house them well, and pension them well, there will always be this air of unreality when we talk about the Army here.

I intend making only a few points. I should like to talk about the old officer class. I hope Deputy McQuillan will agree with me when I say that we are getting near the end of the generation that created the State in which we live. The roll call of the men who created that State by arms is getting very short. There are very few old officers left. The very small group of them who left the Army after the last emergency left with inequality in their pensions compared with those who retired after that time. That is what I would call an historical unfairness which I think this Minister should try to redress, particularly because he is who he is. He is regarded by every good Irishman as being a very good person to be Minister for Defence in this country, and I think he must see and must insist that the small group of officers who came over from the I.R.A. and who had to retire because they were old men who were dying off rapidly should not be conscious of a disability in reward.

The sum involved in redressing this complaint would be very small. It would be very small as far as the House and the country are concerned, but it would be very big as far as the individual men are concerned. I hope the Minister will put that matter right quickly. I should like to add to that a plea on behalf of the older N.C.O.s who are retired with most miserable pensions, having given their lives on the barrack squares of this country. Their miserable pensions would make one hot under the collar.

I should like to stress the importance of keeping attested men to do full service in the Army School of Music. This is not very important in a general way, but it does bear examination. The standard set by the Army School of Music is very high. The men have to attest for a long period, because it takes a long time to make an Army musician of top quality. Several functions were performed by them. They helped the symphony orchestras in this country and were always available to these orchestras. We have got to the position now, however, that the Radio Éireann Orchestra and the orchestra in Cork have been unable to get specialist brass and wind instrument players from the Army School of Music. The musicians are gone. They have been released in unreasonably high numbers on compassionate grounds, very often after three or four years' training. These men are attracted by the high money they will get for playing in dance bands here or abroad. That was not the intention when the Army School of Music was founded.

I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made in the building of houses adjacent to the Cork barracks for married personnel. That question has been raised here every year.

I trust the Minister will refer to the case made by Deputy McQuillan about the obtaining of jet aircraft and the provision of runways for them. I take it this is part of the larger picture of the Air Corps making available civilian pilots to Aer Lingus. If that is so, I will accept it, but I think the price of the service is too high.

Deputy Major de Valera referred to long term plans in regard to the possibility of an actual emergency here —things like civilian protection and the maintenance of food supplies. I think it would be a very good thing if the Army decided to weld the organisation of the F.C.A. into a weapon that could deal effectively with that kind of crisis or emergency.

Mr. J. Lynch

My knowledge of the Army and the Defence Forces generally is very limited. I was a member of the Auxiliary Defence Forces during the emergency and I was trained in that force in the use of the rifle. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot speak with the same knowledge of the Army as Deputy de Valera and Deputy McQuillan. But it is, I think, a pity that even still there is not a proper appreciation of the functions of our Army. Members of this House cannot evade responsibility to some extent for that lack of appreciation. Even Deputy Barry, who usually approaches matters here in a responsible fashion, has just said that he treats membership of the Army as something which is not appropriate for adults in peace-time.

The Army has a broader function than just being there to defend the country in wartime. Too often, sight is lost of the fact that the Army in peacetime has the function of maintaining the civil power and civil authority. Fortunately, in this country, the Army has not been called upon to perform that function in the more recent past to any serious extent. Nevertheless, we all know that that danger is there and, as long as others are anxious to bear arms within the State, and not as members of the recognised Army, there is every reason for ensuring that we have a properly equipped and fully efficient Army to maintain our civil power and authority. If some of these young men who have been trained in arms, but not in army discipline, could be made to realise that, by becoming members of our own Army, they would be achieving best the goal they obviously desire, and if they were made to appreciate the value of our Defence Forces for that purpose, then I think our Army would claim more respect from that element, at any rate, than it commands at the present time.

Some of the points I wish to make are prompted by what I have heard other speakers say. Deputy McQuillan referred to the courses in etiquette, courses of which he apparently complains, as being part of an officer's training. I do not think there is anything wrong in taking courses in etiquette; in fact, I think such courses should be extended to N.C.O.s and men also and to other branches of our public administration where teaching quarters are provided. I object strenuously to this segregation of classes within the Army. Our Army is too small for that kind of thing. Discipline is all right in its own way; it should be confined to the official activities of Army life and, beyond that, I think the men and their families should be free to circulate as they like amongst their neighbours. If, as Deputy McQuillan said, it is true that attempts have been made to prevent officers courting the daughters of N.C.O.s. I think that is a deplorable attitude to adopt and more deplorable still is the fact that the wives of N.C.O.s and junior officers are segregated in church services.

I want to support the plea made by Deputy Barry for housing of Army personnel, particularly in the Cork area. As in Dublin, there is still a very acute housing situation in Cork, and very frequently we have members of the Defence Forces, private ranks and N.C.O.s, with large families, seeking houses from the corporation. Apart altogether from facing up to the responsibility of providing houses for its own personnel, I think the Army and the Army authorities would benefit considerably by having housing facilities available for the men who enlist. If a man enlists and gets married after three or four years and can be accommodated in an Army house within the precincts of Army property, then he will take a healthier and more active interest in Army life; he will have an opportunity of living with his colleagues, and his wife and children will have an opportunity of mixing and playing with their counterparts. In the long run, I think that would make for a livelier interest in Army life and better N.C.O.s and officers. Possibly that might be regarded as somewhat altruistic.

From the economic point of view, we in Cork realise the urgency of the problem of providing housing accommodation for Army personnel. Goodness knows, if there is sufficient land available to any authority in Cork at the present time, it is available to the Defence Forces. They have a very good site available and I respectfully submit, without in any way trying to give the impression that I know more about the use of Army property than the people whose responsibility it is, that there is sufficient land under Army jurisdiction in Cork for Army housing purposes. That would relieve the local authority there of acquiring a certain amount of land and paying a very high price for it.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is one not only of local importance, but of national importance. It is the lack of bunkering facilities in Cork harbour. For many years, a demand has been made, and is being made, for these facilities and, on occasions, the Cork Deputies have joined with deputations from the harbour commissioners and others to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to the Minister for Defence seeking the provision of these facilities. The lack of these facilities is detrimental, not only to the Port of Cork, but to the interests of Irish Shipping, Limited, generally, and also to the interests of the Cork dockyard. It is an unfortunate fact that too often ships that have come to Cork, either to discharge a load or get serviced there, are unable to be bunkered in Cork and have had to go to Devonport, or some other port in the South of England, for bunkering facilities.

The tragedy of it all is that, with a little expenditure and a little "give" on the part of the Department of Defence, these facilities could be provided. The time has now come when we should make up our minds whether or not bunkering facilities will be provided in Cork harbour. If it is the intention to provide such facilities, then some indication should be given as to when; if it is not the intention, at least that should be stated definitely, and we should not have this holding out of a possibility of a little being done or of there being a little "give" on the part of the Department of Defence, perhaps next year or the year after. The fact is that the present position is detrimental to shipping as a whole and to the economy of our port.

Finally, I support the other speakers who have urged that we ourselves should take a more serious view of the Army as a career and the best way we can do that is by measuring and marking our appreciation of the Army by the requisite and appropriate remuneration. There is ample room, particularly in the lower ranks, for stepping up salaries. By doing that, we will create the conditions we all desire to see in the Army: first of all, a sense of security and of happiness amongst Army personnel; and, secondly, in order to attract the right type of individual to Army life, proper remuneration and facilities, so that he will be satisfied with the life he has chosen and so ensure that, instead of hopping in for one or two years, he will remain in the Army, pursue his training properly, and will thus be able to pass on the knowledge he has gleaned to other people who will come in after him. In this way, we will be ensuring a degree of continuity of men who are fully trained, and not just trained for a year or two.

Personally, I might be regarded as a young recruit who came in for a year or two years, and the training that I received during the emergency has now passed from me, because I was not able to spend sufficient time at it. If we make Army life more attractive, instead of showing it on newspaper advertisements as something most desirable—in fact, showing it in such a light as to make it in reality a disappointment and a disillusionment to the people who are undertaking it— if we prove that Army life is such as we do display in our posters and newspaper advertisements and show an earnest of that by giving them proper salaries and pay, I feel myself that we will go further towards creating in the public mind an appreciation of what the Army is and what it should be than we will by all the talk we have here and all the newspaper advertisements which are displayed.

Mr. James Tully

Having listened here to the speeches made by ex-officers of the Army and by the hurlers on the ditch, who usually know more than the Army man himself, I should like to speak as one who served for a period during the emergency as one of the rank and file. I agree with a lot of what has been said, particularly by Deputy McQuillan and by Deputy Jack Lynch, but I was appalled by the statement made by Deputy Barry that peace-time soldiering is not for adults. Poor fellows! I do not think he really meant that, because, if he did, I am sure that he did not realise or did not take time to think that, but for the peace-time soldier, there would be no Army at all during times of emergency. It is the people who serve during these times who provide the nucleus from which the Army can be built up during periods of emergency.

I think the difficulty in obtaining recruits for the Army at the present time is due to two very definite causes. The first is the fact that, when we had a very substantial Army during the emergency period in this country, that Army was very badly mishandled—not by the Minister himself, because I am sure he would not do it and that he was not aware of it—by those in charge of the various units who thought out their own particular ideas of punishment for crimes which were not committed. The system adopted in some units, where serving soldiers were required to do all sorts of peculiar things completely outside Army training, did succeed in souring the young men of the country against Army training. I know it is very regrettable, but, nevertheless, I do know that, during the emergency period, a tremendous number of young men, who had been trained at considerable expense by the State, actually deserted or, if they did not desert, they "got their ticket" one way or the other, in order to get away from that punishment system which was operated in very many units of the Army. That system should have been stopped by those in authority, but apparently they were unaware of it or, if they were aware of it, they did not think it worth their while to investigate the cause of it and stop it.

I am referring to the system where, in one particular unit, grown men— N.C.O.s as well as privates—were required to take the bed boards and trestles upon which they slept and scrub them white, so that they could be left during the C.O's. inspection on Saturday morning standing up at the ends of the beds; and, immediately the C.O. passed around, those wet bed boards were put down and the mattresses put on top of them. The men were then expected to sleep on that wet space during the night. That is only a small instance of the kind of thing that happened. Men were dragged out of bed in the small hours of the morning to take part in route marches over the country, and I may say that in many cases the only reason was that the C.O. "had a liver" and felt this was a good way of working it off. I am speaking now now as one who served in a unit and had experience of this thing happening time and time again.

I think that is one of the reasons why we find that the young men of to-day are not prepared to go into the Army and receive the same treatment as their fathers and older brothers received during the emergency period, when it was necessary to bring up the Army to strength. I would appeal to the Minister to see to it that things like that do not happen to-day. I would ask him to do at the present time what is being done across the water and try to ease restrictions and cut out what we refer to as "bull". I think he will find that will be one way of bringing recruits into the Army, and when they come in, if the conditions are right, as they should be, they will stay in the Army.

Deputy McQuillan referred to the snobbery which is encouraged in certain classes in the Army and I agree entirely with him. A certain amount of discipline must be maintained, but I am afraid that the Irish Army system has gone a long way too far, because, not alone is the discipline to be borne by the serving soldiers, but their wives and families are also supposed to be kept under the same strict discipline. In my opinion, it is insulting discipline in many cases inside barracks and even in church and I do not think it should be allowed to continue. The Minister would be doing a very good day's work, if he saw to it that that system was stopped.

I have no objection, as Deputy Lynch said, to special courses in etiquette being given to cadets, if the authorities feel they require them. If they feel they require brushing up, I do not see anything wrong with it, but I do take strong exception to the suggestion that the commissioned officer, who has only recently been commissioned, is not entitled to associate, nor is his family entitled to associate, with those of his neighbours who may be N.C.O.s or privates. I think that is one thing that could be dealt with very speedily by the Minister if he so wished.

The other reason which, in my opinion, is making it hard for the Army to get recruits is the amount of money which is being paid to people serving in the Army. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the present rate of pay for Army personnel is nearly enough. I know that the recent increases granted were welcomed by the people concerned, but surely nobody can suggest that any kind of standard can be kept up by serving soldiers, particularly those with families, if they find that they are receiving less than a labourer in outside employment. I do not know how the Army authorities consider that a man with a family can be expected to keep up any kind of standard, if he has to live on what he receives from the Army authorities, and I honestly believe that, if there is a decent rate of pay given to serving soldiers and that the recruit going into the Army can go back to his home district after a few weeks or a few months in the Army and be able to tell his companions that, not alone is he receiving a decent rate of pay, but that his conditions are very good, it will encourage recruits into the Army far more than any costly advertisements in the daily newspapers. If that system is adopted, it will achieve the desired effect.

I think also that there should be a further improvement in the type of clothing issued to Army personnel. I know that, over the past few years, a very big improvement was made, but there could be a further improvement. I do not believe it is right that the soldiers of to-day should be required to wear clothing which is entirely unsuitable as, for instance, during the hot summer we had last year and which we hope to have this year. There is nothing which lowers the tone of our Army as much as our soldiers going out with uncomfortable-looking, ill-fitting clothing during spells of hot weather. The Minister would do well if he could improve that position.

I agree entirely with those who say they consider that it is not right to expend the large amount of money which it is proposed to expend on jet planes and runways for jet planes. As a small country with a relatively small Army, we are overstepping the mark when we propose to spend such a tremendous amount of money on such a scheme. We should use the Army, such as it is, and have it trained properly, in conjunction with the F.C.A.

I believe that all possible encouragement should be given to the people in the F.C.A., because in many areas they spend a great deal of their time at and evince a great deal of enthusiasm for their work. The citizen-soldier of this country proved his worth in the past, and if at any time in the future we need somebody to defend us, we will rely in the main, and shall have to do so, on the citizen-soldiers who comprise the F.C.A.

I would suggest to the Minister that there should be a far greater liaison between the Regular Army and the F.C.A. personnel. Sending out an officer or an N.C.O. to do a spot of training on one or two nights a week with the F.C.A. is not the way this can be carried out. I would suggest there should be many competitions or manoeuvres—whatever you like to style them—between the F.C.A. and Army personnel. If the Department of Defence concentrate on that, they will find it will pay dividends.

I also believe that one of the reasons why soldiers who are in the Army, for a short period particularly, find that they are anxious to get back to civilian life is the extreme boredom from which they must suffer. I can assure the House that there is nothing so boring as to have a group of healthy men sitting around in barrack rooms doing nothing or going out for a spot of "square-bashing" for a couple of hours a day. If they are not doing that, they are simply put to menial tasks and there is nothing so boring or monotonous as to find that happening week after week and year after year. If the Army try to have some interesting courses and far more recreational facilities than they have at present, it will be for the Army's good.

A minute ago I referred to the spending of big sums of money and I gave my reasons. I strongly object to the system which was carried out during the Emergency of purchasing equipment without first checking whether or not that equipment was of any use when it was brought here. I state— and I challenge contradiction—that there was one instance where trench mortars were taken in at a very big cost and which proved afterwards to be absolutely useless because there were only a couple of dozen shells for all the trench mortars bought. In one instance I know, there were 100 trench mortars for which there were 200 shells. When one considers that these mortars fire 40 shells a minute, it is easy to see how soon they would be used up. What did the Minister for Defence propose doing when these shells were fired? Was it the suggestion that they should take up the trench mortars and hit the enemy on the head with them, because that was the only use they were?

That cost a tremendous amount of money and it is only one item. I am sure the same thing is happening to-day. I would ask the Minister to investigate whether or not there are guns and military equipment bought which will prove to be absolutely useless in a very short time. I would ask the Minister to have this matter investigated. There is no point at all in spending money which could be spent in improving the pay and conditions of our soldiers and giving this money away to foreign countries for equipment which they do not want because it is of no use to them or anybody else.

There was a suggestion made by a couple of Deputies that the housing needs of serving soldiers should receive more attention. I would agree with that and I think it is a slight on the Army that in many cases the soldiers stationed in an area have to go around trying to persuade local authorities to house themselves and their families. I know of one case where it was repeatedly put up by a county manager that it is no function of a local authority to house Army personnel. I think the Department of Defence could and should do something about that.

There is also the question of soldiers living in local authority houses who attempt to purchase their houses under the vesting Orders of the Department of Local Government. I raise this point, because I understand that there was some kind of an Order issued many years ago by the Department of Defence that such people should not be allowed to avail of those purchase schemes because they might be inclined to try to stay in that area and that it might interfere with the plans which the Department had of transferring them to other areas. I ask the Minister to look into that. If that is correct, it is turning the serving soldier into a second class citizen and I would object very strongly to any suggestion that that should be done.

We have another problem which has not, I think, been touched and that is the question of the housing of officers. It is rather unfortunate that in some areas officers serving in an outpost have to travel long distances for the purpose of getting housing accommodation. They often have to take accommodation entirely unsuitable. I would suggest to the Minister that, in areas where land is available and where a demand for accommodation from officers, as well as from serving soldiers, arises, he should consider the question of having such people accommodated with houses.

There are so many sides to this particular Vote that it would be impossible for me or any Deputy in a short time to cover them. I conclude by appealing to the Minister, as Deputy Barry did in connection with members who retired immediately before 1948. Deputy Barry referred only to officers, but I would like to include men who retired immediately before 1948. In my opinion, those were the men who helped to set up the State in this country. They were the men who were the backbone of the emergency Army. Some of those men, when they retired, were thrown out with a pension. I can say thrown out because many would have preferred to remain on for a longer period, if they had been permitted. They were thrown out either with no pension at all or with a pension which is a disgrace to any country and a great disgrace to this country that claims to have such Christianity in its heart.

Mr. Coogan

I rise merely to comment briefly on a few points which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. In the first place, I must express my disappointment at seeing such expenditure on "Vampire" jet aircraft at the expense of the taxpayers. I should like to see our Defence Forces supplied with helicopters which are most useful for sea and air rescue and many other purposes. I should like less expenditure on grandiose schemes, runways, and so on. We may have to parachute at a certain stage ourselves and it may be rough going, if we have to face the taxpayers with these high expenses.

The increase in the number of men joining the F.C.A. is heartening. It is in the interests of economy that we should encourage this force. I should like to know how many of our civilians working in Army barracks are members of the F.C.A. I should like a little more co-operation from them on that point.

The Minister has asked Deputies to encourage young men to join the Army. I hold that the Army should play a fairly good part itself in encouraging them to join in so far as we should have more Army parades. We never see the Army on parade in Galway, except perhaps once a year. We might hear the No. 1 band, but when do we hear the brass and reed bands give recitals? These are things that will catch the imagination of the younger men whom we want to attract into the Army.

Deputy McQuillan has been blowing a bit hot and cold. He wants to reduce the size of the Army and, at the same time, he wants to increase the number of privates. I do not know how he is going to arrive at that.

I should like our Army jumping team to attend our local shows. For quite a number of years, we have been asking them to come to our show in Galway and I hope we shall have the pleasure of seeing them there in the near future.

I do not think it would upset our naval service routine if they cooperated with our fishermen by using the latest equipment for tracing fish shoals. They could play a big part in helping our economy and it would not take up a lot of their time.

I should like the Department to give more co-operation to voluntary associations such as the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps and even to go so far as giving financial assistance under certain conditions. They are doing good work themselves, but they have to depend on voluntary funds. I would remind the Minister and the House that this was the first voluntary service to be in action in the recent war. They handled 500 survivors from the Athenia at Galway docks. They were established and on a footing long before the F.C.A., the Red Cross and many other similar organisations. It is a poor tribute to them, if they do not get some recognition. They have justified themselves very well and I should like the Minister to note that point.

We talk about equipping our Army. It is ridiculous to think that we can put ourselves on a war footing with any other country, because, when it comes to that, we shall have to depend on the great powers. If we take sides, or if we remain neutral, we may have to depend on what we have because we know how things went in the past. In the light of the latest development of nuclear weapons, our present equipment is as obsolete as the bow and arrow. However, I think we could play a part as an Army and, when I say that, I mean in the face of nuclear weapons. We are a poor nation. We cannot afford to spend millions on death-dealing equipment. In fact, we have to cut down on some of our services.

Is it the intention of the Army authorities to provide housing for Army personnel? For years, Galway Corporation has provided houses. They find it hard enough to do that for the numbers who have been on the list for many years. Is it the intention of the Department to build on the land which is adjacent to Renmore Barracks and which, I understand, is available?

I want to raise a point now which I do not like raising and, in doing so, I am expressing the opinion of a lot of our people. Certain disciplinary action was taken at Renmore Barracks in regard to a certain officer. He was a first-class I.R.A. man in his day. The disciplinary action was taken on what I might describe as a technical point. It is well known that over the years worse things have happened at this barracks and it is rather strange that this man was picked out and come down upon. The opinion of the people is that it was a very poor tribute to a man who had served his country so well. I am not blaming the Minister by any means. He knows what I.R.A. men were and how hard life was for them.

I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will give me some information on the few points I have raised. I hope he will tell us if it is his intention to provide helicopters for our Army in the near future, because I maintain they would be a great addition to it.

Mr. MacCarthy

Deputy McQuillan's speech displayed an extraordinary and reactionary attitude to the whole problem of national defence. To my mind, it was a blending of international politics, top line strategy, military tactics, flights of fancy, class distinctions and the carping futilities of a backstage Irishman. In considering the Estimate for the defence of our nation, I think we have to make up our mind, and if Deputy McQuillan's attitude is typical of the rising or risen generation, may God defend us from such indecisions—such beating about the bush in every possible way and having no set purpose in what we are talking about.

It has been said that the admission of the portion of this country that is free into U.N.O. is changing the whole problem of the defence of the measure of freedom that we have. To my mind, it is doing nothing of the kind. God has placed us here in an island home. Unfortunately, part of that island is occupied by foreign forces, but Deputy McQuillan states that it is easier to defend the rest of it. In other words, the nations of the world that are free, the small nations that are free, like Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, should say that they would let portion of their country be occupied by foreign forces and that it would be easier to defend the rest. Is that to be our attitude and the attitude of those small nations?

Should not our first attitude be to get our own frontiers free, so that we may develop our own system of defence to our own purpose? We are told, and we have been hearing it all our lives, that people are pleading for disarmament. If disarmament were to become effective, perhaps there would be no wars, but it is the big nations of the world that arm to the teeth and then look for disarmament. A big nation on a continent, if the small nations are not prepared to act for their own defence, can overrun and overwhelm their small neighbours by manpower alone, if the smaller people are not prepared to fight in their own defence.

We hear a lot of talk about equipment, but, on the question of disarmament, we have to make up our own minds as to whether we are going to have an Army or to disarm. If the House is prepared to disarm and if the country is prepared to accept that position, that is a decision to be made; but while we have an Army, and that Army is to defend our country, it must be equipped in an up-to-date way. We cannot leave the Army in the position that the Irish Volunteers of our day were in when they had to capture to-day the guns and arms with which they had to fight to-morrow. That was the position then. If the House wants it that way now, let it declare it so, but if we are to have an Army, let us equip it, so that if it is called on to fight, it will have up-to-date weapons to fight with.

People ask: "Why give them up-to-date equipment?" That has been said all down through the ages, and if the Irish Volunteers had thought that way, they would not have faced up to the greatest Empire in the world at a time when that Empire was mobilised for war and in the course of war. They did face up to that Empire, just as the people of every generation faced up to it. The people of our generation were more successful, because they had the will to fight and make sacrifices, and were supported by the people of the country to the utmost limit. That is how success was achieved. The ordinary people of the country played as big a part in that fight, by their attitude, as the men who were fighting. The people were often in greater danger than the men who were fighting, because these men had the arms with which to put up a fight and defend themselves. In the face of the greatest of brutality, the burning of our towns, and the firing squad, the men and women of this country struck for freedom and achieved a great measure of it. Is it to be the attitude now that we are to abandon that freedom and abandon ourselves to whatever fate may be in store for us?

The Minister is right. Let us leave the training of the Army to those who are trained for that purpose. If we are all to be military tacticians and international politicians, there will be very little done towards the attainment of our national purpose. If we get down to earth and see exactly what the position is in this country and what the possibilities are and make our plans accordingly, we will have our minds made up, and, when the occasion arises, we will not be grumbling about where we are going to get arms and what we are going to do to equip our small force. If the other nations of the world see that we are not prepared to defend ourselves and that we are going to become a back-door entrance for attack on them, they will take steps to deprive us of our national position and of our neutrality, if that is to be our national policy.

I think it is futile for members to speak in this manner and to talk about small, backstage things in the Army. In the games in which I am interested, and I am only interested in the Gaelic games, officers and men travel together, and play together, and, if the call comes, they will have to fight together. Of course, there are incidents which will occur, but these can be dealt with by the men in control and certainly there must be fair play, because there is always the right of appeal to the Minister and his Department. If men cannot take it sometimes and start grumbling and spreading disaffection, instead of taking up the proper attitude, we will not have a proper Army.

It makes me sad sometimes to hear people talk. Deputy McQuillan was talking in a disparaging way about men coming from the bogs and all that kind of thing. A great part of this country is bog and good men came from the soil, no matter what was its nature. In the past, they suffered economically through the stress of circumstances where they live. These people tried to improve their own position, thus leading to an improvement in the national economy and they did their best in the fight for freedom. That is not the way to speak about the people of our own race and nation—to try to disparage people who have a great heritage, a history of effort and endeavour over the centuries to restore the culture, the life and the economy of one of the oldest nations on earth, that years of oppression could not kill in us because we had national spirit which never will be killed while Irishmen survive.

I will go no further into that matter, but I think it is necessary to say that much about it. We must face up to the situation that confronts us. Nobody in this country desires war. Nobody but a fool courts or looks for it. We wish to be friends with our neighbours, but, at the same time, we wish to have our own rights established and desire the integration of our own territory in God's good time with our efforts well directed along those lines. We wish to have our rising generation prepared to achieve that purpose, to preserve our freedom in so far as it is attained and to spread it to the four shores of Ireland. In that way, the volunteer force, An Forsa Cosanta Áitiúil, and the ordinary citizens of this nation, having the proper attitude, will, as in the past, serve the same high purpose. We can then feel that, when Padraig Pearse raised the standard about this time in 1916 and called on the men of Ireland to strike for freedom, neither his efforts nor his ideals were in vain.

We are engaged in a discussion on this Estimate as to what it is proper to do for the defence of this nation, on land, on sea and in the air. There might be a difference of opinion as to the best tactics to pursue, but there can be no difference of opinion on equipping the various units for the purpose of national defence. The Army is small; consequently it must be efficient, and its officers must be top-line men. It must work as, in the past, not in mass formation, but as commandos, which was the successful method of our day in the flying columns. When some members complain that too many barracks are being kept open and that we should concentrate our forces in particular areas, I think that is a wrong attitude. I have no hesitation in saying that and that they should be distributed to work, as necessary, as commandos and in co-operation with the sea units we have. If the Minister purchased some up-to-date boats that could in peace-time be used for the preservation of our fishery grounds, that would be a step in the right direction.

We must treat our Army properly; we must feed them and house them properly and give them a chance of home life. I have been advocating that and I had hoped that the Minister was coming near home to us this year by building some houses in Cork, because I think some survey was made. I was disappointed to learn from his report that that does not seem to be so. I thought I had heard on pretty good authority that about 30 houses were to be erected there. I should like to see that going ahead and that the houses would not be too close to the barracks. The barrack grounds are wide and spacious, and I had hoped that the houses would not be crowded together in terraces, but that the terraces would be small and that semi-detached houses, and so on, would be built for the Army personnel, in the same way as for the rest of the community. Local authorities have to house them at the moment. In the public authority with which I am connected, if we were to house all the Army men who need good housing, we could not deal with the rest of the population at all. We can only give them a proportion of what is available. That problem, which is being tackled in the rest of the country, should be extended to the southern area. It has come as far as Limerick and I hope it will reach Cork without more ado.

The question was raised by Deputy Corry last night—I do not always agree with him, but on this I do—that as regards land at Kilworth and in other such places, a considerable number of fields and acres are growing furze and that we could establish there homesteads or farmsteads in parts of the country that were left as wide open spaces for the training of big armies in the past, something that is now completely out of date. The suggestion was made that these big areas should be transformed into fertile fields to help the economy of this nation and not be left there derelict as they are to-day, with perhaps a red flag flying over them to show that the range is being used. That is all that is wanted, the range and perhaps a small area around these barracks for certain field tactics.

Big spaces are available for division and an Act was passed last year to make these spaces attached to State lands available for housing, even for the local authority. That was a step in the right direction and I hope that the Minister will go a little further and divide some of those lands which are no longer needed in the way they were in the past. That is something that has certainly changed. No longer have we the thousands and thousands of troops needing space for manoeuvres, and so on. The fight of the future, if it comes to us, will be a different one. Let us hope that this nation will be able to preserve itself by being prepared for its own defence.

Mr. O'Hara

I have always considered the Estimate for the Department of Defence a very important one, having regard to the history of our country, and that a common-sense approach to debate on it should always prevail. From time to time, I have formed the opinion that common sense does not always prevail in the debate on an important matter of this kind. At the outset, I should like to say as one Deputy that I have always considered it an honour to be elected to this Dáil during a period of the history of our nation when such men, who distinguished themselves in the fight for Irish freedom, as the Minister and his predecessor, were in this House. In generations to come, Deputies will not be so privileged, but I am one who always appreciated that, on both sides of this House, there were men, particularly the two gentlemen I have mentioned, the Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Traynor, who distinguished themselves in the fight for freedom. That being so, I have always considered that the office of the Minister for Defence was in very capable hands.

The Fianna Fáil Government were in office during the period of the emergency. When Deputy MacCarthy referred to the goodwill of the ordinary citizens and the important part they play in any period of emergency, I was reminded of the way opponents of the Government at that period behaved. I was one myself. I joined the Defence Forces of the country and I had the fullest confidence in the people who were at the top at the time that they were sincere in their desire to maintain the neutrality of this country and to play their part as best they could. I think the same applied to all citizens of the State at the time.

It would be a pity, therefore, if, by any foolish talk or cheap talk in this House, anybody would set about undoing the work that has been done, or destroying the good feeling that exists in this whole matter of defence. During the emergency period, there was a really good spirit in the country. It is such a spirit that will convince outsiders, no matter how powerful they may be, that it is unwise to attempt any attack on this country. We know from our history that, when Irishment were united, they were a force to reckon with. We have a reputation in all foreign lands of being a fighting race, of being a peace-loving race, if left alone, but of being tough, if people should try to invade our shores. That is the tradition, the history of the country.

On this whole question of defence, as I have said, both in the present Minister and his predecessor, I have the greatest confidence. I feel that the present Minister is quite capable, as was his predecessor, of controlling and operating this Department with great success. One of the main reasons is that the present Minister was himself a very distinguished soldier. The ordinary private in the Army must appreciate, and does appreciate, the fact that a man who served in the Defence Forces understands the problem of the ordinary private, as, also, he understands the problem of his superior officers.

Therefore, I feel that the members of the Defence Force, from the bottom to the top, are very happy in that they have such men as Ministers, men of practical experience, men who ran greater risks than many of the men at present serving in the Army have been called upon to run, and I feel that the overall picture in this matter of defence is quite healthy, that the Minister at present in charge knows his work very well.

On the question of whether the Army should be stronger or weaker, whether the personnel of the Army should be increased or reduced, I feel that, having regard to our geographical position, we are very much under observation from all parts of the world. That being so, we must face our responsibilities. At the present time, in practically every country in the world, the cost of the Defence Forces is very high. It is an undesirable position, no doubt, that people must be taxed to pay for that burden. At the same time, in such a period, even if there is peace within our shores and goodwill, we cannot afford to cut down expenditure on this Vote too much. As an individual, I should not like to see such a reduction at the present juncture.

It would be very nice, of course, if we could reduce taxation in one Department or another and ease the burden on the people, but we must consider the pros and cons. We must consider that we might be shirking our responsibilities. In my opinion, we would be shirking our responsibilities if we drastically reduced expenditure of this kind.

Not very long ago, I tabled a question to the present Minister for the purpose of finding what some jet aircraft and other modern equipment had cost. We are entitled to know the cost of these things. The people who have to pay are entitled to know. I did not put down that question for the purpose of getting cheap publicity, but I was anxious that the Irish people would be conversant with what is happening in the Army and as to the equipment the Army has. While I admit that the purchase of two or three jet aircraft may be a very feeble effort in providing a proper air force, at the same time, the fact that we have a few jet aircraft of a modern type means that we will be able to train personnel. If, at a later date, the responsibility falls on us of defending the country with modern weapons, at least there will be some nucleus or some foundation stock to work on. Ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb. There is no use in sitting back and forgetting about the march of progress. We must make up our minds that, in modern warfare, such things as jet aircraft are used and we must give the members of our Defence Force weapons as modern as are used in any other country, within the limits of our resources. Therefore, although the taxpayers may not like it too well and might think it was money foolishly spent, I personally do not think so. We must face our responsibilities, even if it means extra expenditure.

As Deputy MacCarthy said, we have land, sea and air services. I do not propose to deal with them at length. Other Deputies have referred to them.

Finally, I should like to say, as I said at the outset, that our freedom was very hard won. Through persistent effort, loss of life and determination to fight we have, after hundreds of years, succeeded in gaining freedom, at least for the Twenty-Six Counties. Unfortunately we have not gained it for the other portion. With God's help, and perhaps in the lifetime of the present Dáil, we may see a big change there. A great deal depends on our own behaviour and our approaches to the various problems with which we are confronted.

The question of defence of any country is, as I have already said, an important one, and if our fellow Irishmen in the North who may disagree with our politics and religious convictions, could also argue that we were falling down on our job here in the matter of the defence of the country, it would be another argument that we were not capable of governing ourselves. It is a grand thing that these men on both sides of the House—the present Minister and the former Minister—are still with us and are, thank God, in good health. I hope they will be with us for many years to guide and advise us and to build, in this generation, confidence in ourselves and in our Defence Forces generally. As Deputy Carter put it, the civil population played a great and noble part and risked—many of them even lost—their lives in the period of the emergency. That being so, it is important to the public outside to have the greatest confidence in the men at the top regardless of which side of the House they may occupy. I feel, therefore, we should be very happy that such a satisfactory state of affairs exists here at the present time.

Captain Giles

There are many points of view on this Estimate, as there have been for many years, but I am satisfied on the Minister's statement that the Estimate is reasonable. None of us wants the Army to be reduced in strength but, in times like the present, when money is tight, we want to see the Army kept within reasonable bounds, and I think the nucleus of the Army we have at the present time is reasonable enough. A small standing Army is all that is required. While an Army is necessary here, it should be small, and when and if an emergency comes, we can build round it because the foundation is there.

I believe there is one part of the Army which is not getting sufficient attention and that is the F.C.A. I do not know why the F.C.A. is the unwanted child of the Defence Forces, seeing that the members of the F.C.A. are the only people who make a voluntary effort. The National Army is all right where you have men in a whole-time occupation, but the F.C.A. members come forward of their own volition and give of their best to become soldiers of the country. I think the Minister and the Government should give more attention to the F.C.A. because to my mind they are more important than the standing Army itself. The old tradition of the Volunteers is there when we find these men offering their services to the country regardless of payment. I believe that in every parish we should have a group of the F.C.A. and that, in fact, every young man who is worth his salt should be in the F.C.A. and should be glad to have the opportunity to serve his country in freedom while training to be a soldier. There should be a stronger appeal to the youth of Ireland to join the F.C.A.

While I am delighted to see the F.C.A. trained, paraded and engaged in the other activities in which they take part, I do not admire the manner in which they are neglected, especially as regards uniforms. These uniforms are the most scraggy type in the country; you see the men wearing old, baggy trousers and badly-fitting tunics. I think the F.C.A. should have a distinctive and well-fitting uniform of which we and they can be proud. The F.C.A. has a responsible rôle to play in bringing the youth of the country together and training men to become good soldiers and citizens and give proper service to their country.

I should like to see the Minister make every effort to encourage the F.C.A., and to see them given more modern and better equipment. We do not want to have them all the time with the old standard rifles that were used 20 or 30 years ago on their shoulders. I believe if we give them better equipment we will show them that we think something about them and that scores and scores in every parish will join up. That is what we want here—a small standing Army at the top with a voluntary Army, able, ready and willing to step into the ranks when needed, at a fairly small cost. I regard these men as successors of the old Volunteers who, when trouble did start, were ready and willing to give of their best. I want to see them properly equipped, wearing decent uniforms and not asked to wear tunics that would fit their grandfathers instead of the slips of boys who are asked to wear them.

Some years ago there was a Construction Corps which, I think, served a very useful purpose. I think it was allowed to lapse, but it could be revived because we have a large number of men who give no return to the nation in the form of work or anything else. I am referring to the wandering tribes of this country whose numbers, I think, run into thousands. The young men of these tribes never go to church or school. I believe those people should be registered. In many counties they are a menace. Any young, healthy man, whether he be an itinerant or not, should not be allowed to remain idle when there is work to be done. I hope a register will be taken of all those men so as to ensure that they will give at least three or four years of their lives to national service, either in the Construction Corps or in the National Army. I mean that seriously, because if you go round the country you can see up to 60 or 70 caravans parked, in some cases with big, healthy men doing nothing.

I believe that the Minister is a man of whom we can be proud. I am glad that over a long number of years the men in charge of the Army have always been men who served the country when it needed them. I always like to see a man of a militant type in charge of the Defence Department. I also believe that the Fianna Fáil Government—whatever was wrong—never wanted the F.C.A. The F.C.A. existed but it seemed that Fianna Fáil would be glad if it died out. It was the same in the case of the Army Equitation School which is one of the greatest assets we have in this country.

If it was properly equipped as it was in days gone by, it could show to the world of what mettle the Irish were made. Under Fianna Fáil, however, the Army Equitation School went down to its lowest ebb and we always felt ashamed of ourselves at their failure to win a trophy even in their own country. Then, when there was a change of Government, things went well again. I hope the present Minister will put the Army Equitation School on a proper footing and give its members a chance of winning the laurels they are well able to win if properly managed and equipped. I remember the early days when they could go all over the world and beat the best. We want to see that happen again. I do not want to prolong the debate because the Estimate is reasonable enough and is big enough. I would ask the Minister to concentrate on the F.C.A. and on the Army Equitation School. If he does so he will be doing a good service for the country.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not take exception to the Estimate itself so much as to the nature of the economies suggested. Like most Departments, when economies are effected in the Department of Defence, the most deserving classes come under the hammer. If we are really out to effect economies in the Defence Forces the Minister should begin at the top and effect them there. I may have personal ideas about this but I think that, when economies are effected, they always hit the needy sections and that, when improvements are made, they benefit the people at the top. I thought that the recent Army pensions regulations were far too generous to the higher officers and too parsimonious as far as the private soldiers were concerned. I think we err in both directions whether in economies or improved remuneration.

In the course of the debate, many speakers were unable to make up their minds whether we should have a small Army, a big Army or whether we should have an Army at all. While many were of the opinion that we should have a reasonable Army, they deprecated the spending of money on the Army. We cannot have it both ways. This is not a country with large resources and a big population but it is important from the military viewpoint in world affairs, and it behoves us to keep the biggest possible Army the country can afford because of our geographical position. How we are to achieve that is a matter for the Government and the Minister to work out in accordance with the resources at their disposal. I do not think it will be achieved by a reduction in the Estimate of the type we have got here, nor will it be achieved by the increases in the remuneration given on the basis of those that were made available recently. If we are to have the largest possible Army—as large as our geographical position would require—the best way to proceed is to have every possible man of military age in the country trained as a soldier, trained in warlike operations. That can be achieved without the maintenance of a large regular Army.

While there are other means of bringing about that situation I agree with the previous speakers in relation to the F.C.A. I believe this country could afford to spend more money on a voluntary force like the F.C.A. because it is the cheapest possible type of Army we could have. Another thing which would lead to our having more trained men of military age in the country would be if the period of service in the Army were made as short as possible. If release from the Army were easier, if a man who joined the Army could finish his training after, say, two years and go back to his home when family circumstances dictated, I think recruitment would increase. If no obstacle were placed in the way of a man being transferred to the Reserve after two years, I think it would help recruitment considerably. If the need arose afterwards such a man would be trained and easily available.

Many men are discouraged from joining the Army because they feel that once they are in, it is difficult for them to get out whether they like it or not. I had experience recently of young men in the Air Corps who had served six years and were finding great difficulty in getting out, even on compassionate grounds. That is an obstacle which certainly hinders recruitment. I think the term of Army service should be made shorter.

I should like to see more concentration on the voluntary branch—the F.C.A. In fact, I rise mainly to speak in relation to that force. Those of us who have had experience of it during a number of years know what the conditions were and what they are. One of the things I want to emphasise, and it was touched on by the previous speaker, is the question of the uniform of the F.C.A. We have always been told by those at the top in the Army that the F.C.A. uniform was designed to meet the special requirements of that force. I always thought that was a lot of bluff. I believe it was designed for no other reason than to make the F.C.A. appear inferior to the Regular Army. Nothing would ever convince me that there was any other reason behind the design of that battle dress which is really, in my experience, tempting the members of that force to use it when they are working in the bogs or in the fields. The F.C.A., a voluntary force, should be equipped with a uniform as good as, if not superior to, that of the Regular Army.

Mr. James Tully

It is slightly better than the dungarees they had at first.

Mr. J. Brennan

If that is intended to be a political remark it is an ignorant one.

Mr. James Tully

It is not. The present uniform is only slightly better.

Mr. J. Brennan

I apologise if I misinterpreted the Deputy. If the F.C.A. are to have a battle dress let it be the old denim, to be used only for training and manoeuvres, but definitely give them a decent cap and a properly cut tunic that will be presentable and that will encourage people to join the force. The young man of to-day likes to dress up and anybody who thinks that the present F.C.A. uniform is smart has a very poor idea of military dress. I have listened to high officers explain the adaptability and the advantages of battle dress but I think it is everything but dressy or adaptable.

The Army is at a very low figure at the moment, less than 8,000 men. That would scarcely be enough to form a guard of honour if the Minister were to visit a barracks in the country. Indeed, I think the cooks would have to be called out. In that situation the F.C.A. is at the moment forming guards of honour at social functions all over the country. To show our respect for that body, I appeal to the Minister now to override any advice he gets from the civilian end of his administration and, in particular, any advice he gets from the brass hats, from whom adverse advice usually comes in so far as the F.C.A. is concerned. I appeal to the Minister to issue to the F.C.A. a decent, well-cut uniform, as good as the dress uniform issued at present to the Regular Army. If he does that, those who are giving their time and sacrificing their holidays to training this force and attending courses in the different barracks will take a much deeper interest than they are taking at the moment and the Minister will be able to build up a nice, clean, respectable F.C.A. force which will be a credit to the country and a credit on parade at the functions at which they must appear nowadays as guards of honour, and so forth. I have been very strong on that point. I felt the position strongly when I was an old officer in the F.C.A. I am free to speak now and give my candid opinion. I know that opinion is shared by every single man and officer in the F.C.A., although they may not like to voice their opinions openly, lest they should be suspected of conceit.

A good deal of controversy has always ranged around the question of modern equipment. During the emergency we were often trained in a particular type of presumably new equipment, which, in six months' time, was obsolete. I take it that problem faces every army the world over. It is essential, however, that we should keep pace with modern equipment as much as possible because, if an army is trained in obsolete equipment, that can have a very demoralising effect.

If it is not too harsh, I think some of the officers are becoming obsolete, too. More room should be made for younger and more active men of the commando type. Some of the older officers should be thanked for their services and politely told to retire. There are plenty of young men willing and ready to fill their places and these young men are more suited to modern training and more apt to acquire the knowledge that goes with modern training in present-day military techniques. Men become obsolete just as easily as equipment and, instead of improving their remuneration, those in the higher ranks might do the country a greater service if they retired.

We would certainly be doing a greater service if we paid more to those in the lower ranks. There are certain avocations and occupations where one can go on for a considerable time. There are other occupations in which senility does not suit and, if there is one occupation unsuitable for older men, it is the Army. I think we would make a sad mistake if we allowed the deadwood to remain. That is not intended now as a disparaging remark. I think it is agreed that one cannot go on forever in the Army and continue to give of one's best.

There is one matter I raised by way of Parliamentary Question some time ago and to which I would like to refer again now, namely, the question of decentralising the Army. There has been talk regarding the desirability of decentralising Government Departments. Dublin is becoming a Civil Service city. I think that those who pay the piper should have some right to call the tune. I believe Departments of State should be decentralised in so far as that is feasible. The one which would most easily permit of such decentralisation is the Department of Defence. Some time ago I asked the Minister would he consider leaving the very excellent training camp at Finner open during the winter months. The Minister at the time pointed out that this was composed of wooden and corrugated iron huts and he said he would not like to see his worst enemy there during the winter. I do not think the Minister is properly advised in that respect.

These huts are well insulated. We were glad to attend courses there during the emergency. Everybody was comfortable and everybody was happy. There is not a better camp in Ireland and there is no reason why 1,000 troops could not be stationed there throughout the year, if only for the purpose of giving back to those who foot the bill a little of what they are contributing towards the upkeep of the Army. I think that would be one of the simplest means of decentralising at least one particular Department.

I appeal to the Minister to deploy his forces at the earliest opportunity, and give a chance to others, apart from those in the Curragh and around Dublin, of getting back some of the money that is being contributed to the Army. Such decentralisation would have a very beneficial effect from the point of view of recruiting generally and recruiting to the F.C.A. If barracks are spread around the country, then the Army has more contact with the generation growing up. Usually there is a football team which enters the county championships and Army personnel mix with the people. There are more contacts generally, and that is for the better of all concerned. Indeed, the Minister might consider opening the barracks in his own town. I think he mentioned on one occasion that it was one he was reluctantly compelled to leave vacant.

General MacEoin

The Deputy wants to create more trouble for me.

Mr. J. Brennan

These barracks could easily be reopened. In that way some of the money, which is being drawn into the city as if by a magnet, would be distributed throughout the country generally.

I could not quite follow Deputy Desmond's argument with regard to the Army. He advocated improved conditions generally, more houses, and so on, and, at the same time, deprecated the expenditure of any extra money. It is not possible to have it both ways. My view is that we should have the largest possible Army at the lowest possible figure, and the one way to reach that objective is to concentrate as far as possible on transfer to the Reserve and, particularly, to the F.C.A. If we realise that the young man in the F.C.A. is giving his time freely, we should at least be prepared to spend a little money on equipping him, to spend money on his uniform, and to make conditions more enticing in order that the force would be expanded and improved, both in standard of equipment and in training.

The type of young man who joins the F.C.A. is, fortunately, a very excellent type. In fact, I would say he is a better type than the average recruit to the Regular Army. But there is that little jealousy as between the Regular and the Volunteer Forces. They always like to maintain a distinction, which makes for something in the nature of inferiority, and I think the Minister should take steps to remove that and give, first of all, a better uniform to the F.C.A., in order that they may be more presentable and take a greater interest in their work and, when they have to appear, as they often have to nowadays at public functions, that they will at least look as respectable as the Regular Army on such occasions.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don Céad Cath i nGaillimh. Is minic a dhéanann lucht Fine Gael gaisge as an gCath san. Tá leadanna óga ón nGaeltacht ag imeacht leo thar lear in ionad dul isteach sa gCéad Chath mar is cóir. Dúirt an tAire san óráid a thug sé inné go raibh sé ceart go dtiocfadh na leadanna óga i dtosach a saoil faoi thionchar an Airm maidir le treoir agus cúrsaí smachta. Ba mhaith an rud é, i nGaeilge nó i mBéarla, sa nGaeltacht nó sa nGalltacht, is cuma cén saghas duine a bhí i gceist, go gcaithfidh sé tréimhse ghearr éigin san Airm.

Tá locht amháin le fáil agamsa ar cheist seo tréineáil na saighdiúrí óga as an nGaeltacht. Deirtear liom go gcuirtear suas go dtí an Currach iad lena dtréineáil agus, ar ndóigh, cé go mbíonn roinnt bheag Béarla acu ag teacht isteach san Arm as an nGaeltacht, ní dóigh liom gur ceart ná gur cóir ná gur féaráilte é leadanna as an nGaeltacht nach bhfuil líofacht Bhéarla acu a chur go dtí Currach Chill Dára, áit a mbíonn na mílte fear nach dtuigeann an Ghaeilge agus faoi riar nach mbíonna an aird ar an nGaeilge ba choir agus a dhéanas magadh faoi Bhéarla na leadanna seo as an nGaeltacht. Cuireann sé sin náire ar na leadanna óga. Bíonn faitcíos orthu an Béarla a labhairt mar gheall ar an masla a tugtar dóibh i ngeall ar an mBéarla briste a bhíos acu. Cuireann sé scáth ar a gcomrádaithe sa mbaile agus coinníonn sé as an Airm iad.

Nílim ag rá gurb é sin an fáth ar fad nach dtéann i bhfad níos mó de leadanna óga na Gaeltachta isteach san gCéad Chath. Tá bonús agus substaint le cuid den chaint a rinneadh anseo i dtaobh an Airm, nach mbíonn an saol san Arm chomh compórdach leis an saol taobh amuigh agus gur ceart é sin a leigheas. Ba mhaith liomsa dá leigheastaí ar aon bhealach tábhachtach amháin é agus seo é é: tá caighdéan áirithe le go bhfaigheadh duine isteach san Arm—caighdeán coirp, coinníoll faoi aois, agus caighdeán oideachais—agus séard a mholaim don Aire i dtaobh lucht na Gaeltachta ar aon chaoi nach ndiúltofaí na leadanna óga seo ar a gcaighdeán oideachais agus má castar orthu leadanna óga as an nGaeltacht go bhfuil fonn ortha teacht isteach san Airm, agus go mór mor sa gCéad Chath, go leigfí isteach iad gan aird dá laghad ar an méid oideachais atá acu. Dá mbeifí sásta go bhfuil an aois cheart acu agus go bhfuil na cáiluíochta acu ar gach sli eile, ba cheart iad a leigint isteach sa gCéad Chath agus oideachais thabhairt dóibh mar chuid den treineaíl.

Ar an tslí sin, déanfaí leas do leadeanna óga na Gaeltachta agus déanfaí saighdiúirí maithe díobh féin agus nuair a bheadh a dtréimhse caite acu san Arm, bheadh sé le rá, mar mhol an tAire inné, gurbh fearrde i bhfad na leadanna óga a gcuid tréineála agus a dtréimhse san Arm. Bheadh an aAire agus an tArm ag déanamh maitheasa ar an mbealach sin d'aos og na Gaeltachta.

It is not about the Gaeltacht that I wished particularly to speak, but I do think that the First Battalion has something to offer to young lads in the Gaeltacht, just as the Gaeltacht has something to offer to the First Battalion, if the Army recruiting authorities go the right way about getting them in. Perhaps the Minister's advisers on the matter of recruiting would pay attention to the complaints made to me about the method of training these young people from the Gaeltacht.

They know English. Because of our educational policy, there is not a boy or girl who leaves the national schools who does not know English—that is, the average student. But that is not to say that those young lads who have spent the first 18 years of their lives in the Gaeltacht are any better equipped to take what they regard as a comfortable place among their fellow Irishmen of the English language than would be their counterparts from an English-speaking school who go down to the Gaeltacht, having acquired all the Irish the national school can give them in the Galltacht. The Minister should try to realise the difficulties of such a young fellow going down to the Gaeltacht with his national school Irish and apply it to the case of a young lad from the Gaeltacht who joins the Army and is then sent up to the Curragh for the greater part of his training. If he does that, he will see straight away the psychological blunder made by the training authorities of the Army in regard to these young Gaeltacht men. They know English, but they do not know enough, and, in particular, they do not know the type of slang English acquired particularly in the towns and cities which is not taught in the national schools. I suppose it is just as well it is not. I will say nothing further about that, but I ask the Minister to take note of it.

I was particularly impressed by and I want to endorse what was said about the value of a period in some one of the forces for our young people starting out in life. I want, if possible, to apply and to get the Minister to apply that advice in the training and in the type of service which the young men who join the naval forces are asked to give. A great many complaints have been made here about the drabness and the lack of interest of Army service in peace time. Some well-intentioned or well-meaning Deputies seem to think that, by removing some of the duties from the members of the Army, they would reduce that dullness and drabness, and lessen the ennui which these soldiers experience. I do not know if there is any logic in that type of reasoning. The only Army I served in had to do that type of thing. They did not get paid for doing it but I do not think the doing of it caused them any great boredom. Be that as it may, I think that activities which are not purely military or naval might be devised with very good results for the naval force.

There is a number of objectives to be served in extending the training of the naval force in duties other than those on which they are now engaged. I refer particularly to the duties devolving on the Navy to protect our fisheries. The Minister admitted to the Dáil quite truthfully that these ships are not the most suitable for the job of fishery protection. It was pointed out here that the modern fishing boat is well equipped with radio telephones and other modern devices and that a large vessel like one of our corvettes is spotted and its presence duly communicated to whatever poaching boats are around the coast. That would seem to suggest that the sooner a different type of boat is designed for this purpose, the better.

It seems to me that very possibly the Naval force, now that it is established and has a number of years' experience, might itself be able to give considerable help in the designing of a boat which would serve the dual purpose of training the men under its care in ordinary naval duties and also preparing them for life as civilian seamen, either in the mercantile marine or in the fishing industry.

On many occasions here, even under the Fianna Fáil Government long ago, I recommended that a dual purpose boat capable of fishing and capable of offering protection around the coast ought to be devised. It seems to me that a boat of that kind, suitably equipped, could provide training as fishermen, training as seamen and would, above all, help to train them in getting the necessary navigational experience to qualify them for their tickets as skippers and mates.

In this country, we have very few men who are qualified under the shipping regulations to take a boat out on to the high seas. That is a very serious position to be in. An attempt was made to train apprentices on some of the State's civilian boats for the purpose of qualifying for these tickets. They are not numerous enough, nor are there sufficient places in each of them to provide this training for a sufficiently large number of apprentices.

The Naval Service could render very valuable assistance in this regard. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to put to his advisers the desirability of really applying themselves to this question. There is the problem which I understand applies in the Naval force just as it applies in the Army and which was spoken of here to-day. That is the problem of finding interesting employment for the young men who join the Naval forces.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.