Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Defence. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Tuesday, 7 May 1957

Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Defence.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £4,114,220 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Defence Forces (including certain Grants-in-Aid) under the Defence Act, 1954 (No. 18 of 1954) and for certain administrative Expenses in connection therewith, for certain Expenses under the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940 (No. 13 of 1939 and No. 2 of 1940) and the Air-Raid Precautions Acts, 1939 and 1946 (No. 21 of 1939 and No. 28 of 1946); for Expenses in connection with the issue of medals, etc.; for Expenses of the Bureau of Military History; and for a Grant-in-Aid of the Irish Red Cross Society (No. 32 of 1938).

The gross Estimate for Defence for 1957/58 is £6,397,416 and after deducting Appropriations-in-Aid the net Estimate is £6,171,220. A broad analysis of the figures shows that, of the gross Estimate, 60 per cent. is for the pay, allowances and maintenance of the personnel of the Permanent Defence Force; 7 per cent. for the Reserve Defence Force; 16 per cent. for civilian staffs and employees and 17 per cent. for stores, equipment, etc.

The substantial reduction of £862,230 on the net Estimate for 1956/57 is the result of a very determined effort to achieve the maximum saving in every service and activity covered by this Estimate. It is necessary in present circumstances to have the utmost economy compatible with the maintenance of the efficiency of the Defence Forces. Substantial cuts were made in the Estimate before I came into office as Minister and I have not yet fully assessed the effects of these cuts but it is the intention to work for the year within the framework of the estimates.

In the main, the reductions affect the sub-heads catering for stores and equipment. There are also appreciable reductions in the provisions for the pay, rations and clothing of the Permanent Defence Force and for the pay of civilians attached to units. As in previous years, the Estimate in respect of the personnel of the Permanent Defence Force is framed on the basis of the full peace establishment, that is, 1,330 officers and 11,835 other ranks. Deductions are made in the relevant sub-heads in respect of the numbers by which the actual strength for the year is likely to be below the establishment; the net provisions cater for an average strength of 1,216 officers and 7,250 other ranks. Provision is made for a total of, approximately, 1,625 civilians including 987 attached to the Corps of Engineers.

A number of sub-heads show increases, all relatively small except in the case of sub-head Y (2)—Reserve Defence Force. The increase of £27,000 here is attributable entirely to the expansion of the F.C.A. I am sure Deputies will be glad to hear that this fine force is devoting a greater amount of time to training and is showing itself increasingly proficient and self-reliant. Great credit is due to these young men for devoting their spare time to training and to the Army for the manner in which it has built up and trained the F.C.A. to a point where it is now a significant part of the Defence Forces.

Although the amount provided under sub-head P (1)—Civil Defence—is some £12,600 less than the corresponding provision for 1956/57, there will, as a result of the recruiting campaign for civil defence initiated by my predecessor last February, be much more activity in this phase of our national defence than has hitherto been possible.

The object of the recruiting campaign is to build up in our cities and towns a body of men and women who are prepared to give voluntary service in local civil defence organisations. This involves the completion of an initial basic course which includes a series of lectures on nuclear weapons and their effects, and later undergoing training appropriate to the particular civil defence functional group in which the individual elects to serve—for example, in the warden, rescue, welfare or casualty sections.

The development of local civil defence organisation is, under the Air Raid Precautions Acts, 1939 to 1946, a statutory function of the local authorities. The preliminary reports about the recruiting campaign received in my Department show that the response has been encouraging, and I take this opportunity of congratulating and thanking the local authorities and their officials including those who, as qualified civil defence instructors, are now imparting to their classes what they themselves have learned at the Civil Defence School. I also thank all who have volunteered for their realisation of the necessity for civil defence in the light of present world conditions and their appreciation of what their efforts may mean to their own cities and towns and to the nation as a whole. I hope that their public spirit may induce many others to follow their example.

The amount provided in the sub-head is related to the limited objectives we have set before us for the present financial year. The item of £23,457 for grants to local authorities includes provision for a contribution in respect of the uniforms which it is proposed to issue to civil defence volunteers when they complete their initial training and have shown that they intend to remain in the organisation. The item of £20,325 for equipment and stores includes provision for the purchase of radiation instruments and for the construction of rescue training sets.

The instruments are necessary for training volunteers in the technique of locating and measuring radioactive fall-out—that new danger that arises so acutely from the use of nuclear weapons. The rescue training sets are designed to enable volunteers to be trained locally in rescue methods. The sets consist of simulated damaged buildings and so on, and a number of them are being erected at convenient centres throughout the country.

I may mention that 33 specially designed rescue vehicles are being issued to local authorities for training purposes; in fact, a number of them have already been issued. They are equipped with the tools and appliances necessary for rescue work and are capable of being used, if necessary, for operational purposes, including relief or assistance in the event of such national disasters as storms and floods.

While, as I say, the civil defence estimate for this year is of limited scope, I wish to assure the House that, in the light of the most up-to-date information available, an extensive study is continuously being made of the problems that could arise for this country in the event of a nuclear war. Developments of the last three years —particularly the production of the megaton hydrogen bomb with its vastly increased destructive power and its resultant radioactive fall-out capable of affecting areas hundreds of miles from where the bomb falls—have been so fast that civil defence plans tend to become obsolete before they are fully developed. Constant revision is, therefore, necessary and such a process is taking place here.

I am sure we all agree that this country must make every effort within its resources to cope with the effects of war in this nuclear age and to keep itself as well informed as possible of the ever-increasing developments in the weapons of war and the mode of their delivery. It will take us a long time to reach a stage of preparedness comparable with that which exists in other countries, including small countries such as our own. Techniques may change, and the work that is now being done in the training of volunteers is only a small instalment of what will ultimately be necessary. Certainly, however, a body of men and women properly trained in the basic techniques will fit into any civil defence plan and will be absolutely essential to the success of any such plan.

I have dwelt at some length on the subject of civil defence because it is a matter which vitally affects every man, woman and child in the country and because I want to emphasise how necessary it is that the present recruiting campaign should lead to the early establishment of an efficient, well trained organisation. We all hope and pray that the dread possibilities we are trying to guard against may never happen here or elsewhere, but it would be wrong to ignore the portents.

As usual, the Estimate provides for the payment of a grant-in-aid of the Irish Red Cross Society. There is little change in the amount this year notwithstanding the fact that the Society has, since November last, been catering for the Hungarian refugees at Knockalisheen Camp. That this could be done without calling on public funds is due to the magnificent response of the public to the Society's appeal for subscriptions. The Society's work on behalf of the refugees and the assistance rendered in that connection by the Army are deserving of the highest praise.

The provision in sub-head Y(4) for the Bureau of Military History has been made on the basis that the bureau will be wound up on 31st December next. It has now been operating for over ten years and it is hoped that the important task entrusted to it will have been completed by the end of the year. I am glad to say that it has met with wonderful co-operation from every quarter and its archives contain a great amount of material which will be invaluable to future historians of the campaign for national independence.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed statements or historical documents to the bureau. At the same time I would appeal most earnestly to those who have not yet fully responded to the bureau's invitations, to do so without delay. They owe it to the future generations to put on record, in a factual manner, the part they and their comrades played in the struggle for freedom. It would be regrettable indeed if through any oversight or avoidable omission there were gaps in the record.

In conclusion, I should like to say that, for the limited opportunities I have had since I took office of making myself acquainted with the Defence Forces, I am impressed by their high standard of discipline and training and by their morale and devotion to duty.

If Deputies should require any additional information about any aspect of this Estimate, I shall be happy to supply it.

General MacEoin

I have very little to say on the Minister's speech. It is practically what I would have said had I been in the Minister's position. The Estimate is more or less as it was prepared by the Department while I was Minister.

I am glad to learn that the recruiting for the Civil Defence Force has been successful and that the people of the country have taken to heart the appeal made to them some time ago and now being made by the present Minister. It is important that provision should be made by the people themselves for their protection which might, God forbid, be necessary in case anything happened. We all hope and pray the necessity will never arise, but it is important that we should be prepared, in so far as our resources permit us.

I agree with the view expressed by the Minister that every day brings new problems and that plans of yesteryear are to-day obsolete. I think everybody will agree that I was wise, during my term of office, in not moving too quickly with these plans. If I had, considerable expense would have been involved for which we would have got no reasonable recompense. As we are now in a position to assess our requirements more accurately, the best possible value will be forthcoming for any money we expend.

I was glad to hear the Minister pay tribute to the discipline, morale and good bearing of the Army—the permanent forces, the reserves and the F.C.A. I am proud of the fact that the F.C.A. have grown to be such an integral part of our Defence Forces. It is something of which we can all be proud that in this country we have men who are prepared to serve voluntarily in the country's defence. It is something of which this House can be proud that so many people are prepared to render voluntary service and to give so much of their time in the Defence Forces and in the F.C.A. We are grateful to them and I want to pay a special tribute to them for their loyalty and devotion to duty during my term of office.

I should like to refer to the Red Cross. They, too, deserve a special word of tribute. They have a difficult job and a difficult role to fulfil. Some of our people expect a lot from them but are prepared to give very little by way of voluntary help. There is no doubt that many people subscribe generously to the Red Cross, but what that body requires more than anything else is active members. I should like to add my voice to that of the Society in asking the community not only to assist the Red Cross financially but also to become active members.

The Red Cross Society have a very important task to fulfil. As Deputies will remember, most of the conventions relating to the Red Cross have been ratified by the House. One or two still remain and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter at an early date. It is important that the Red Cross in his country should be established on a proper basis, that the Society here should have full participation in the International Red Cross, that they should subscribe to all its obligations and benefit by its facilities. There are technical difficulties in the way of ratification of the outstanding conventions, but I hope these will be overcome as soon as possible.

I do not want to lecture the Minister or the Government, but I must say I am a little perturbed over certain matters that have happened in the Army. I would point out to the Minister that the seniority list is not a mere plaything; it is something that is of importance and, while I do not intend to make any comment upon recent decisions—I do not know what the Minister's reasons for them were—I do want to say that if the Minister is to mainain the morale, discipline and high standing of the Army, the regulations relating to the seniority list should be kept in mind, no matter what his personal views may be, because if he does not keep them in mind he may upset something that is of very great importance. The Minister knows very well what I am talking about.

The Army is something of which we can all be proud. I want to repeat what I have said here many times: it is the Army of the people of Ireland and, for people who want to serve Ireland under arms, it is the only organisation in which they can properly, legitimately and patriotically do so. I therefore commend the Army to the Irish people and trust that circumstances will arise in the near future through which better conditions may obtain in the Army. Very substantial reductions have been made on defence since 1954. I do not take great pride in that. It is important to remember that the reductions have been very substantial and I want Deputies to realise that instead of further reductions being looked for, in future there is bound to be a trend in the direction of increased expenditure. I want to say to the Minister that I, and the Party for which I speak, will give him every assistance in making the Army more effective, if that is possible. I feel sure that the House will always give the necessary approval for any measure aimed at that end.

Mr. McQuillan

The first point in the Estimate with which I should like to deal is that which relates to the naval service. In this country the taxpayer and the public generally each year pay substantial sums towards the maintenance of an Irish naval service. The very first day I came into this House I criticised that service, describing it as a toy navy. In case anybody might think that mine was a voice in the wilderness I want to point out that the late Deputy Dr. O'Higgins reiterated my description of the naval service.

Over the years opinion in this country has come to regard the naval service with tolerant approval. The people of Ireland are prone to read wild west novels and live in a kind of dreamland in so far as defence forces are concerned. Naval forces are nowadays a luxury. I suppose that in these days we are entitled to a little luxury, but when a luxury is utilised for the purposes to which this naval force was recently put, I think the time has come when we should examine whether or not we should dispense with that luxury.

The Taoiseach here in the last few days, in reply to a parliamentary question, pointed out to me that the Constitution of Ireland, which was acclaimed in 1937, repudiated any agreement or confirmation of agreements which took place in this country in 1925. The reply of the Taoiseach would indicate that, according to the Constitution, the 1925 Boundary Confirmation Agreement has no longer any bearing, has no longer any standing and was completely and utterly repudiated by the terms of the Constitution.

We all know that one of the matters under discussion in 1925 was the question of fisheries under the Treaty of 1921 which was imposed on Irishmen. One of the safeguards for the fishermen of all Ireland lay in that Treaty. The 1925 Boundary Agreement, in so far as the fishing industry is concerned, cut off the fishermen in the Six-County area from this portion of Ireland. When the statement was made by the Taoiseach, or the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Taoiseach that the Constitution which is now in operation here repudiated that agreement of 1925, I felt there was hope that the fishing people in the Six Counties would be looked upon as Irishmen within the meaning of the term "Irishman".

On the next day, the day after the Parliamentary Secretary pronounced here on the Constitution and how it repudiated the 1925 Boundary Agreement, we find a fisherman from the occupied part of Ireland dragged into an Irish court and fined for fishing within our territorial limits.

The steps are not for me to take.

Mr. McQuillan

——to ensure that this is the first and last time such an action will be taken by the Navy we have under his charge.

In connection with the Estimate as a whole, I have here on the Order Paper a motion in which it is requested that a Committee of this House be set up to go into the entire Defence expenditure. In view of the fact that the Tánaiste has given a promise that Private Members' time will be permitted, if at all possible, before the end of this session, I do not think it would be fair to have a dual discussion on this question. I hope the Minister will see fit to give sympathetic consideration to this motion when it comes up.

Perhaps at this stage I might mention a few matters which he could think over in connection with the problem facing us at the present time. We have at the moment in every country an effort being made, a serious effort, to cut to the bone expenditure on conventional defence. Recently a White Paper was published in Britain on this matter. I do not know whether our Department of Defence or our Minister for Defence keeps abreast of events in other countries. The evidence that is available in the Estimates would not incline me to the belief that the Minister and his advisers are doing so, because the Estimate is far too high in present circumstances and in the light of decisions taken by other countries in connection with defence with conventional weapons and conventional armies.

Every other country—outside the Iron Curtain, of course; I do not know anything about that—America, Britain, France, etc., are all endeavouring to reduce the size of their standing armies. What is the case here? Anybody reading the Estimate for Defence would be of the opinion, at a first glance, that some effort at a saving was being made with regard to the number of personnel recruited into the Army. We have, on the face of it, a decrease in the overall Estimate, but this, to my mind, is a subterfuge. There is really no reduction in the regular personnel of the Army and no reduction in the number of civil servants attached to the Army. There is, I agree, a slight reduction in the number of civilians attached to the Army posts.

The Minister may suggest to me— and his predecessor would probably agree with him—that there is a reduction in clothing and equipment this year. The Estimate says there is a reduction of £178,000. It must be borne in mind, however, that this will have to be made up for next year. It is an attempt to cut down in order to present the smallest possible Estimate to the House. We are expending the very same amount on a recruiting campaign this year to attract the very same number of men into the Army. No decision has been taken this year to reduce the intake into the Forces. Therefore, on that basis, there is no real reduction so far as clothing and equipment are concerned, and the Estimate will have to go up next year.

A decision was taken at the end of the emergency by those people making the future defence plans of the State that we would aim at a regular Army of 12,500 men. Every possible effort was made by various Governments to reach this target, and in spite of energetic recruiting drives the target was never reached. Now we have around 7,000 to 8,000 soldiers and a full strength complement of officers. That position has obtained practically every year since the end of the emergency, that we are down the field in privates and at full strength as far as the officer personnel is concerned.

I need not suggest to Deputies who know Army life how demoralising that situation is upon the officer and N.C.O. elements. No officer can be really trained and efficient unless he has practical experience of handling and controlling troops, and for our officers to-day and over the last ten years there are not enough troops to go around. Not alone that, but there are not enough to give officers and N.C.O.s a chance to get used to handling men. This year, in spite of the fact that we have a limited number of privates, we have decided actually to increase the strength of the officer personnel. That may sound rather contrary to Deputies, but we have now to cater for 57 extra officers on top of the number last year.

That is not a reasonable way to prune expenses. There is no necessity at the present time for increasing the strength of the officer personnel. At the moment the number of officers available is so great that we have a major-general filling a colonel's post. In addition to that, we have 32 captains filling posts normally the preserve of first and second lieutenants. We were not content with that, but we had to create two lieutenant-colonels, eight commandants, 15 captains and 32 lieutenants. The total cost this year for these 57 individuals is another £30,000 to the State and there are no privates for them.

The Minister in his opening statement pointed out that 60 per cent. of the Estimate went to pay personnel of the Army and, I think he said, 15 per cent. went to pay the civilians attached to the Army. I would like to give the House the particulars from another point of view and you will find, on checking up, that they are just as accurate as the Minister's. The Estimate this year for Defence is £6,171,000 odd. Before we pay a soldier, before we clothe or train him, we pay out to civil servants and civilians the sum of £939,458; that is to say, almost one-sixth of the total expenditure on Defence goes to civilians and civil servants. To bring it down to details, there are 1,625 civilians attached to the Army and their pay roll is £650,993; there are 522 civil servants, costing £288,455.

I want to make certain points here for the Minister's benefit and I come now to a matter which should be of interest to him, namely a comparison of the officer and N.C.O. strength with that of the privates, and the pay attaching in each case. We have in the Army 1,330 officers; included in that figure are Army officers proper, veterinary, medical, legal and naval officers. Their total pay is £1,080,000. Between officers and N.C.O.s we have a total of 4,919 individuals. Their total pay is £1,986,000; we have 8,246 soldiers and sailors. Their pay is £1,288,000; so that officers and N.C.O.s have between them £698,000 over and above the pay of privates and soldiers. That, to my mind, is an extraordinary situation.

No matter from what angle one looks at it, it is obvious that the Defence Forces are the preserve of certain elements to-day. Surely, when the pay of commissioned and non-commissioned ranks exceeds the pay of privates and soldiers by over £690,000, there is something that calls for investigation and for a new approach to this whole matter. We have the position to-day, between officers and N.C.O.s, of having an officer to every 1.6 men. Those figures show clearly that there are just not enough privates to go around, not enough even to polish the officers' boots or to take early morning tea and toast up to the married officers. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it will be a serious matter for the officer personnel.

It will save me mentioning it on the next Estimate. I will not deal any further with that aspect of the amount of money we pay in allowances and pensions. I will go back to some of the so-called reductions and the way in which they are achieved. Under sub-head A, there is an alleged reduction. There is a decrease in the pay of officers, cadets, N.C.O.s and privates of £93,000. Where did the reduction take place? Was it in the officer personnel, the cadet personnel or the privates? I have already pointed out that the number of officers was increased and, as a result of that, the pay of the officer personnel has gone up by £15,322 on last year's Estimate. There is, I grant you, a reduction in the amount of money paid out to privates, but that reduction is based on the hope that there will be fewer privates coming into the Army in future. In other words, no provision is being made for privates, if they offer themselves; but, at the same time, a sum of £10,000 will be spent on a recruiting campaign.

Under sub-head S, it is proposed to spend £10,000 on advertising. I hope this advertising campaign will not be for more officers. I mention these points because they are points to which the Minister should give consideration. The Minister should have the point I mentioned about the reduction in clothing further examined. If the Minister looks carefully at the Estimate, he will find that there is a substantial increase in the provision for officers' uniforms. While the amount of money for privates' clothing goes down, the amount provided for officers and cadets goes up. A reduction should be made all round.

Under sub-head 11, telephone communications last year cost £36,000. This year, the cost is £41,500, an increase of £5,500. I wonder whether it is possible to have some saving in this? Could not the personnel find means of saving even on that? I cannot understand why that figure should go up.

With regard to sub-head O, General Stores, there is a reduction of £134,000 and the reduction has relation to the purchase of aircraft. There is no purchase this year. I should like to point out to the Minister that one of the things I want discussed on this motion is the question of expenditure on aeroplanes. I think that there must be an inquiry into the expenditure of over £1,100,000 on jet planes, on a runway for these jet planes and on spare parts for them. We must have an investigation of that. I do not care whose heads will fall, there must be an investigation into it to see how these jet planes were no sooner purchased than they were 50 years behind the times—completely obsolete.

We had the shocking position here of an announcement being made that grants for vocational and secondary education had to be reduced in this country at a time shortly after we were able to spend this fabulous sum to keep three of these outmoded planes flying around Baldonnel and over Dublin for the parade on Easter Sunday. Two of them appeared, I think. The argument was put forward by the former Minister that this expenditure could be stood over, in view of the fact that they would enable us to train commercial pilots. If we have to spend that amount of money in order to train commercial pilots, would it not be a far more practical and economic proposition to send these pilots to Amsterdam, France or America and let them be trained there? Let us cut our cloth according to our measure.

I want the Minister to know that this question of the three jet planes, the expenditure involved on them and the money that had to be spent on making a runway for them will not be allowed to rest. We will have to find out by some means or another who were the brilliant advisers who were able to persuade any Government that this was a sound investment. If these brilliant advisers were shown to be so foolish on this item, is it not a fair deduction that they are equally foolish on other recommendations they have made to the Governments in the past ten years in connection with the size of a standing army, the type of army and so forth? We must have a complete investigation. I will conclude with the hope that the Minister will give serious thought to the type of committee he would like to set up between now and the time this motion comes up for discussion.

Mr. Booth

I should like to start by dealing with defence equipment under sub-head P and to say how entirely I disagree with much of what Deputy McQuillan said on that matter. I do not agree for a moment that the purchase of these jet aircraft was an extravagant luxury. The alternative was to leave the Air Corps equipped with machines which, according to his reckoning, are about 250 years out of date. I do not agree for a moment that these machines are 50 years out of date. They are not first line fighter planes. That is frankly admitted, but no equipment which can be purchased in that line at the moment will remain first line for longer than a year or two.

If we were to accept Deputy McQuillan's suggestion we just would not buy anything. I have had experience of Army training and I know that one of the things which we lacked most was co-operation with the Air Corps. The Air Corps was frequently very restricted in its use and all too seldom were the men given experience of even a mock attack or a low level attack by aircraft. That I certainly regard as an absolutely essential feature of army training.

I would agree, too, with the previous Minister that these aircraft have a very high value for training purposes. I am not in favour of sending our pilots abroad for their training, if we can train them at home. I should like to say in that connection that the training of the Air Corps pilots and those pilots who have subsequently taken up employment in Aer Lingus is of a very high standard indeed and even with some of the even more antiquated machines with which the Air Corps has been equipped from time to time, the performance of those pilots has been beyond all praise.

Under the heading of Defence Equipment, I would suggest that the total amount estimated for the current year is on the small side rather than the reverse. If the Army is to be kept up to date, equipment must be purchased, but I would certainly hope that no economy would be made in the provision for expenditure of live ammunition during training. In fact, I would suggest to the Minister that the use of live ammunition should be on a much more generous scale than has been the case for very many years.

It is quite impossible to train troops without live ammunition and—I give this purely as a personal view—I feel that the value of using weapons on rifle ranges is very limited. The only real way in which a man can learn how to use his weapons is to use them under service conditions. That applies not only to small arms but to artillery as well. That can only be done if there is a more generous allocation of live ammunition to troops on training.

I should like to query any expenditure—I do not know if there is anything—which there may be on anti-aircraft artillery. There certainly has been a tremendous change in policy, owing to the fact that aircraft now are practically all of very high speed indeed, so that, even with radar controlled artillery, it is almost impossible, without a stupendous barrage, to have any effect on raiding aircraft. In some armies, they have virtually dropped anti-aircraft artillery altogether. I believe that a certain amount of research into radar control has been carried out by our men and I would hate to think that this would be regarded as waste. I do not think it is, but I would suggest to the Minister that any further use of anti-aircraft artillery should be very closely looked into before any further action is taken.

I should not like to be taken as in any way agreeing with Deputy McQuillan in his reference to the Naval Service, but, at the same time, I am a little doubtful in my own mind—and this as a landsman—as to whether the present naval vessels, the corvette class, are the most suitable for the work which the Naval Service has to carry out. I would hope that, in view of the fairly heavy maintenance cost of these vessels, possibly some alternative smaller vessels might be procurable, obviously not during the current year, but if we could look at the matter on a long-term basis, some further proposals might come forward.

I want to make one last suggestion under this heading. I suggest that the Minister should look carefully into the question of the provision of helicopters, either for use with the Naval Service or as aircraft with the Army Air Corps. They have proved themselves tremendously valuable for rescue purposes both at sea, and on the land, as well as for mountain rescue. They are also extremely valuable from an Army point of view for taking Army personnel into the air and showing them the good and the bad points of camouflage and concealment from the air. I suggest that that would be a not very costly expenditure which would be very valuable.

The next point to which I should like to refer concerns sub-head G— Sanatorium Treatment. That I regard as most disappointing. A sum of £1,000 is specified under this heading. It might be wondered how sanatorium treatment could be carried out within that figure. In case other Deputies are unaware of the fact, I think I should outline the provision for officers, N.C.O.s and men who contract T.B. during their Army service. If officers contract T.B. at any time after commissioning, they are entitled, on contracting the disease, to a period up to 18 months of sanatorium treatment. That may seem not ungenerous until you realise that the last six months of that 18 months are on half pay.

The situation for N.C.O.s and men is very different. An N.C.O. or man who contracts T.B. during the first 12 years of service is not entitled to any sanatorium treatment whatever and, on contracting T.B., he is discharged as medically unfit. An N.C.O. or man who has served from 12 to 18 years is entitled to 12 months' sanatorium treatment only as compared with 18 months for the officer. I should like to know—I am sure that possibly the Minister himself does not know at this stage—the reason for this rather arbitrary division as regards years of service and I should like some inquiry made into this point. If the soldier has given over 18 years' service, he is worse off than he was when he started: he gets no sanatorium treatment at all. If a soldier with 29, 30 or 31 years' service, for instance, contracts T.B. at that stage, he is not entitled to any sanatorium treatment and he is discharged as medically unfit. I can see, under those circumstances, that possibly the sanatorium estimate of £1,000 is sufficient.

I feel that insufficient publicity has been given to the very niggardly treatment which has been meted out to a number of N.C.O.s and men who have contracted T.B. In view of the fact that T.B. is now so readily treated and can, in so many cases, be completely cured, I feel the Army should not be treated in this way—especially as there can be no claim for a disability pension in a case of T.B., except where the officer, N.C.O., or man can prove that he contracted T.B. during the emergency period only. Apparently it is regarded as illegal to contract T.B. at any other time.

I am concerned about another matter, too, that is, the proportion of men who serve in the Army only for the minimum engagement. The proportion appears to be far too high. There is far too quick a turnover of men. Too many officers are retiring voluntarily before completing their service. This represents, to my mind, a tremendous waste of money on training and equipment and it does very seriously reduce the efficiency of the Army. In my opinion, it is due very largely to boredom and a lack of opportunity for intensive military training as a fighting force.

Far too much time is taken up by barrack duties and, to this extent, I certainly agree with Deputy McQuillan that nothing is more demoralising to officers and N.C.O.s than to find themselves unable to exercise the troops which, on paper, are under their command. You may carry out what are known as tactical exercises, but they are no substitute for actual exercises on the field under service conditions.

I would plead with the Minister to see what can be done to reduce the very high incidence of guard and fatigue duties in barracks. As far as guard duties are concerned, they might be reduced a little. I would suggest there might be some arrangement made whereby most of the fatigue in barracks could be carried out by ex-soldiers who have completed their term of service and who could be re-employed for that duty. The amount of fatigues is enormous. I know to my cost that to most men they appear entirely pointless. There are turf fatigues, all the orderlies, the billet orderlies, the dining-hall orderlies, runners, barrack police, men stuck into all corners, quite legitimately perhaps, but the net result is that when an officer parades his company, he has 20 men and, as Deputy McQuillan says, three or four officers under him to look after that complement of men.

That I regard as the worst part of the Army—the lack of opportunity for training men in the field, the lack of opportunity the men get for re-enlistment for intensive Army training. That, I would say, is the reason why so many men enlist in the first enthusiasm and, as soon as they complete their engagement, retire and try to get a job in civil life. I would hope we would try to build up a permanent force of long-service men. They are the men, and the only men, on whom we can rely if we want to build up another emergency Army at a later date.

Under sub-head Y, Administration, there seems to be something which needs attention in view of the fact that substantial reductions have been made in most of the sub-heads but the total cost of this sub-head, £288,465 shows a reduction of only £400, approximately, on the previous year. I note in one of the footnotes in the Estimates, that one man, and only one man, appears to be on "Organisation and Methods" work and I feel that a higher expenditure at this stage on such work in securing business efficiency in the administration would be a very good short-term investment.

I should like to quote one section in particular, the "Soldiers' Pay" Section, which has a staff, or provides for a staff, of 105, at a total cost of £57,000 to deal with an Army strength of about 7,000 N.C.O.s and men, much of the accounting and of the actual paying being done by Army personnel. That appears to me to be absurd. No business could possibly justify expenditure at that level and a civilian employer has to deal with just as many, or very nearly as many, complications, as the Army Pay Section has to deal with. The civilian employer has the various insurances; he very often has to make tax deductions, deductions in respect of tools and overalls, and adjustments in respect of time and so on, and any normal business concern could manage its payment of staff on a much more economical basis than exists in the Army.

I should also like to mention the Accounts Section and the Stores Audit Section. Here, again, I feel that a greater concentration on organisation and method would pay handsome dividends, because the whole system of Army accountancy—unless it has changed radically since my day, and I do not believe it has—is just laughable. The military side spend all their time trying to "cod" the civilian side and everyone knows what is going on; but so long as the tot comes out right in the end nobody can say anything about it. Army accountancy is so complicated that it is almost impossible to detect an error. It was made complicated in order to make defalcations difficult, but if you really set your mind to it, as any well-behaved officer or N.C.O. would do, you would find it was not necessary to comply strictly with the regulations and yet have all the equipment on charge to you absolutely correct for G.H.Q. inspection.

I often wonder, when the officers are on G.H.Q. inspection, to what extent do they know they are being fooled. I think they know it all the time. I believe this system of Army accountancy, which I think we took over from the British Army, lock, stock and barrel, is now very outdated and that if we could get either our own staff specialising in organisation and method, or else an outside business consultant to advise on this whole system, we could get much greater accuracy at much less cost.

Under sub-head Y (2), I should like to make some reference to the F.C.A., especially in view of the fact that it is the successor of the Volunteer Force which proved my introduction to Army life. I agree that it is magnificent to see so many people volunteering for military training, but I am rather disturbed that there is a provision under this heading for an expenditure of £484,000, with a deduction of £124,000 for non-attendance at training. That surely shows that there is a very large number of men on the strength of the F.C.A. who are not able to attend annual training. That would seem to show, too, that some of those figures give an erroneous impression of the strength of the F.C.A. I do not want anything I may say on this heading to be taken as criticism of the officers, N.C.O.s and men of that force who are giving excellent voluntary service —I cannot speak too highly of them— but I believe there are a number of men who are in the F.C.A. on paper and who have not been seen for years.

Under sub-head Z, Appropriations-in-Aid, there is a considerable sum shown in respect of the sale of surplus stores. I hope the Minister will be able to increase that figure. I know there is a very human failing which afflicts the Army as it afflicts everyone else, in that they become miserly and slow to scrap equipment, even when it becomes obsolete. It is just put away, and I strongly suspect much of that equipment is not worth storing any more.

I remember that some of the weapons with which we were issued especially during the early years of the emergency when the shortage was very acute, were extremely dangerous to the wrong people. They were dangerous at the wrong end. I remember firing a Hotchkiss gun and after one burst, the barrel fell off and the whole thing disintegrated in my hands. I feel there must be a lot of old equipment such as that, and I rather suspect there are men, possibly in Clancy Barracks and other barracks, who are busily engaged in cleaning and oiling it still, while it might much more profitably be sold, so saving the trouble of additional maintenance.

I am speaking in complete ignorance and just asking a question on this point in regard to the Defence forts. Everyone remembers what a sensation it caused when those forts were cast into our hands again. Now they are entirely obsolete. All the equipment that there was in them is now useless. It may all have been withdrawn by now; it may be no longer in existence for all I know but, if it has not been disposed of, I would hope that it would be.

I should like to know from the Minister at some stage—not to-night very likely—that he is taking some steps to see how these old coastal forts can be disposed of that are just abandoned there. Certainly, it would be much better if the forts in Cork harbour, in a beautful situation, were given away as youth hostels or something like that, than allowing them to be maintained at the expense of the Department of Defence or else just allowed to go to rack and ruin.

The sales of surplus stores should be very ruthless. As far as the other barracks are concerned, I am a little concerned as to whether the number of barracks which are occupied in Dublin is really necessary. I am regarding this principally from the infantry angle. That is the one with which I am most in touch. It does seem, possibly, rather unnecessary that we should have three barracks in which infantry battalions are quartered and none of them even half full.

As regards the Curragh, I do not know whether all the barracks there are occupied but possibly there could be some economies in the Curragh as well by closing some one or more of the barracks there if they are not already closed.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to all the officers, N.C.O.s, and men of the Defence Forces with whom I have kept fairly closely in touch since I retired. It is amazing to me to find morale has remained so very high in spite of the very boring conditions under which these men have been serving. I hope that every effort will be made to brighten these conditions. When I say that I do not mean by throwing parties and so on for the men; I mean by giving them really constructive work which they can understand and appreciate. Anyone who has served in the Army knows that a unit which is hard worked is happy and a unit which is getting it too easy is thoroughly disgruntled, dissatisfied and undisciplined. You will get cribbing from soldiers about overwork but that is part of the soldier's vocabulary and cannot be dispensed with but the fact remains, to my mind inescapably, that if Army training were on a more realistic scale, if there were less of fatigues and barrack duties, if as much as possible of those duties were carried out by ex-soldiers who have completed their service and if the fighting men of the Army lived all day and every day as fighting men, the result on morale would be enormous, recruiting would be easier and the men would complete a long-term engagement instead of getting out almost as quickly as they can.

I should like to assure the Minister that in anything I have said I should not like to be regarded as in any way critical of him. I have tried to be constructive in so far as I was able and I hope that some good may result from some of the points I have made.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy Booth has mentioned the problem in relation to sanatorium treatment. I am very pleased that he mentioned that subject because quite recently it has been brought to my attention, particularly in relation to discrepancy in the treatment being meted out to the private as against the officer. In view of the fact that Deputy Booth expressed in such a very clear manner the whole problem confronting the Army, there is no need for me to add anything except to say that I certainly agree with his remarks and hope the Minister will have the matter investigated.

Beyond that point, I am afraid Deputy Booth and I may differ. Deputy Booth's approach has been most interesting and in many ways illuminating but I believe that we will have to approach the problem in a vastly different way, a way in which some of us have tried to approach the matter in the past, irrespective of what Party was in Government. An Army costs money and the problem that some of us believe must be solved is what amount of money we can make available for the Army. An Army lives on the country. What is the position at the present time in regard to production and what proportion of that can be laid aside to provide an Army?

I believe that the remarks of Deputy McQuillan to-night were in many ways justified, as they have been in the past, on the Estimate for Defence and I believe my own remarks over the last number of years on the same Estimate were justified. I believe there has been squandering of money, and that there still is, in the Army and in the Department of Defence each year. Everyone in public life has certain responsibilities and must in every way possible draw the attention of the Minister and the Department to wastages that we consider should be attended to. We have done it in the past and I am sorry to say that whatever Minister was in charge of Defence seemed to take little or no interest in our complaints.

It has always struck me as very noticeable—perhaps it is a good thing in one way—that when the Estimate for Defence was introduced in the House annually there was, as it were, a clap on the back for the Minister from the ex-Minister. I agreed with that in one respect because in most cases the Deputy who held office and the Deputy who had been in office previously were men who had served the country well. That did not, however, in my opinion, justify the clap on the back. I am sorry to say that on all those occasions, no matter what complaints were made to these Ministers, they took very little notice of them. I am afraid that the reason for that was that they did not seem to bother about what was going on. I do hope that the present Minister will not continue that line of approach because, if he does, Defence during the next 12 months and thereafter will be as great a problem financially as it has been in the past.

We hear of certain reductions Deputy McQuillan has referred to them. I believe that the reductions revealed in the Book of Estimates are of little or no importance. There are ways in which money is still being squandered. Practically every week of the year on the roads between Dublin and Kildare, and even further afield, one sees fleets of motor cyclists, fleets of Army lorries, all sorts of Army vehicles travelling the public roads. We were told some months ago that petrol rationing was necessary. We are told year after year that the financial situation of the country is such that unless production is increased we will go from bad to worse. In spite of that, there seems to be an increase in the number of tours carried out by the Army. For what?

I appreciate the views expressed by Deputy Booth but a great many of the exercises that one sees involve driving on the main roads between Dublin and Kildare and further south. Indeed, from Cork City they have a happy knack of even sending out lorries with officers of the Army if they miss a bus. We may be told that that represents little in the way of expense but the taxpayers have asked each and every one of us who have raised this matter in the past to continue to draw attention to what is considered wasteful expenditure.

It is a habit apparently in every country to have huge army parades, whether they are in the squares of Moscow or other cities behind the Iron Curtain, in New York on St. Patrick's Day or in Whitehall in London, and we must have our parades, too. I may be wrong, but I believe that if there were a little more respect and thought given by way of prayer for the unfortunate men who gave their lives for this country, it would mean a lot more to them and show far more respect to them than all the parades we have in Dublin, Limerick and Cork at a huge cost. Let us be frank about this and I wish to be frank about it. What is meant by sending lorries around the country on Saturday night and on Sunday mornings? Very little—a day out for some of the boys. We know that and they know it. It had nothing to do with whether or not they were successful in their training.

To whom are we showing our military strength? Do not forget that in 1939 we had none of these parades and none of this equipment to show our strength to near-by neighbours and some far-away neighbours. We did have sufficient men and women in the country, both of the younger generation as well as those a little more advanced, who showed by their spirit that their country meant sufficient to them to join the different branches of the Defences Forces in that period. It was not army equipment that saved us then.

Some of our military depots have quantities of junk bought for colossal prices and which would not be used in other countries; yet on occasion we say: "We will have a parade", and proceed to show the great things we bought. We are only deceiving ourselves in that respect. Let us have, as Deputy McQuillan has said and as I have said myself, an Army which is small numerically but which is well contented and well established. With such an Army, one can build, in time of emergency, the Army which is needed. It happened in 1939 when we had N.C.O.s in the Irish Army who were able to train other young men who joined the Forces in such a splendid manner that they proved a credit to their country.

In 1948, I told the Minister for Defence, and I still stand by it, that the report of his own officers after the war in relation to recruitment was such that they admitted themselves it was a complete failure. Yet members of the House were told by the Minister for Defence that everything was grand and that men were rushing to the Colours. If we examine the figures submitted in this Book of Estimates, we see, as Deputy McQuillan said, that the Army is full of "brass hats" and officers and a sprinkling of privates. That apparently is to continue. The reduction in the number of officers after the war was negligible; we know that not alone was the reduction in the number of privates large but it was so because men would not stay in the Army owing to certain conditions prevailing there. I think it would be far more fitting if the Minister approached the whole question on the lines of having a small, well-paid Army, well-treated and well-housed, rather than showing to us on paper so many thousands of men who are not really there at all.

I know that Deputy Corry will agree with me on the point of having a small well-paid and contented Army. It has been a heartbreak for Cork County Council—irrespective of who may be in power—to provide houses year after year for military personnel. Would it not be better for the Department of Defence and the Minister to provide money for the building of houses for N.C.O.s in the various centres rather than to be concentrating on jet planes for the training of pilots—the "Dan Dares" of the future?

If we are to have a choice, surely it should be for a group of men not alone well-established and well-paid but well-housed, whether it be around Cork City, Kilworth Camp, the Curragh or anywhere else. The refusal of the Department of Defence to provide homes for these men is one grievance. It is quite true that they provided a few houses in Cork near Collins Barracks at a cost of about £5,000 a house. In this Estimate we cannot find money for the provision of homes for N.C.O.s. I would ask the Minister, as a young man who is completely removed from the line of approach of his predecessors, to have this matter investigated. If it is handled in the right way we may be successful in obtaining houses for these young men.

I should like to draw attention to one important matter. It does not affect the present Minister—I do not want to accuse him or anybody else— but the question of promotion in the Army strikes me as being very strange. Promotion has been given to men who were away down the line on the Army list. I believe a Minister for Defence is responsible for seeing that there is no discontent in the Army. One way in which discontent can be caused is when capable men see promotion given to those further down the line. If the handing out of promotions is a right confined to the Army Command and the Minister for Defence, as apparently it is, then let these promotions be given on merit and not for any other reason. The Minister can look into this matter by examining the Department files. All I want is to see every man getting fair play, whether in the Army or any other Department.

Mention has been made of the Naval Service. Certain savings have been made in relation to this service, and these savings may be effective. It was about time they were made. There is squandermania in the Naval Service. The headquarters are in Dublin. If the fishermen of West Cork were attacked by a foreign trawler, it would be better to have their headquarters around Deputy Corry's place, Haulbowline, than in Dublin. Everything seems to be centred in Dublin. More attention should be given to the Naval Service than has been given in the past.

Deputy Booth mentioned the condition of the Cork harbour forts. Some of us are aware of the condition of these forts. We pointed out on many occasions that, if it was intended to keep these forts under the control of the Department, it was vitally essential that sufficient money be made available for their maintenance. Of course, that could never be found and what was once bad is now becoming derelict. It is a great pity to see fine buildings going as they are.

Deputy Booth drew attention to the equipment in the forts and wondered what happened to it. I can say what happened. When we saw the Tri-colour hoisted over what was then Camden Fort, we knew that excellent equipment was taken over. All that excellent machinery was brought up to the Curragh and probably—I do not know—brought up from there to some second-hand dealer's yard in Dublin. If it had been left in Cork harbour, better use would probably have been made of it.

In public life, we must be prepared to accept certain responsibilities. When we believe it is our duty to criticise, then I say it is right we should do so. I take it that, no matter who may be in power, remarks made from one side of the House or the other, are never meant to be destructive. When both Fianna Fáil and inter-Party Ministers were in charge of this Department, I had very good reason for drawing attention to certain squandering of money. I know what happened. I am saying here quite clearly that there were very close investigations to find out where a Deputy could have got the information he did get. I had the information; I got it legally and rightly. As a representative of the people. I accepted it as my duty to draw the attention, not only of the Minister, but of the House to these conditions.

If we were to consider our own person, sometimes it might be better for us to keep our mouths shut; if we were to consider our own personal advancement, it might be safer to say nothing in this House and not fall foul of certain experts. However, I want to say this to the Minister and I hope to see him about this matter within the next couple of weeks: because my duty compelled me to draw the attention of a Minister for Defence to certain things that should not have happened, for the past 12 months I have been the victim of it. People in the Department can tell the Minister. I am not blaming the present Minister. I can put my finger on some of them. I will finish by saying that, if some people, no matter who they are, experts of any Department or not, believe that they are autocrats who can silence a public representative for carrying out his duties, then they will have to think a second time, so far as I am concerned.

I assure the Minister that these matters are dealt with in a file in his Department. Please God, within the next couple of weeks, I will discuss them with him. I will expect from the present Minister the same justice and fair play as I get for the people I represent.

Mr. K. Boland

What file is it?

Mr. Desmond

On a point of explanation, I have always tried to be fair to officials in Departments. I will give the information privately to the Minister. Let him deal with his officials then.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for the Estimate, not the officials.

General MacEoin

The reference is that a predecessor did something he should not have done. I think the Deputy cannot leave it in that way. I am not conscious of any such thing as Deputy Desmond mentioned.

Mr. Desmond

Did I mention the Minister's predecessor? I never mentioned the Minister's predecessor one way or another in relation to this matter. I realise that officials cannot be named or discussed here. I am abiding by the rules of the House. The file will be with the Minister and then he can deal with the officials. His predecessor's name was never brought into it.

General MacEoin

It is very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Corry

The first matter I wish to deal with is one that has been under consideration by the Department of Defence for nine or ten years now. It is the taking in of civilian apprentices at our naval dockyard in Haulbowline. That was a tradition in the British time. Some of our best men were trained there. The matter was taken up in the House some years ago by the late Deputy Keane and myself. It has gone on ever since and we are still waiting for the decision of the Navy as to whether the proposal is feasible or not. The Minister now has it on his hands. It has taken them nine years to consider whether they will take in half a dozen apprentices at Haulbowline. If it takes them as long to get ready for war, then God help the country. I hope the Minister will do better. Since the matter was raised here, some 50 apprentices could have learned their trade there. They could have come out fully trained to make their way in the world. I do not know whether or not laziness on the part of the Department is to blame.

I had an answer here from Deputy Traynor when he was Minister for Defence. The matter was to get careful consideration. Deputy MacEoin, when he was Minister, assured me on at least four occasions that the matter was receiving earnest attention. But it has not been attended to yet. Surely the Department of Defence are not in competition with the Land Commission? If they are, the Land Commission will beat them; if you send a request to the Land Commission you can expect to have the matter settled in your grandson's time. I do not want to come here again to raise this matter. If I do, I will raise it on the Adjournment and will take further steps that will not be agreeable to anybody.

Mr. M. J. O'Higgins

The Deputy wants to get them cracking.

Mr. Corry

I did not get the Deputy cracking, and I did my damnedest.

General MacEoin

If the Deputy is not more careful he will get the Minister and myself to resign.

Mr. Corry

The next thing with which I wish to deal is housing for Army personnel. I invite the Minister to pay a special visit to Spike Island and to look at the housing conditions under which his Army are supposed to live there. When the housing inspector from the South Cork Board of Health went there, he could not find a habitable house on the island and came back with a bundle of applications to be thrown as a burden on the Urban Council in Youghal or on the Cork County Council.

The very same position exists in Haulbowline. There were decent houses there originally, but they have been allowed to go into disrepair. I suggest to the Minister that it is his duty and that of the Army to provide houses for Army personnel. The whole position is a scandal. It is now four or five years since the barracks in Youghal were closed down and the troops shifted to Cork. Yet there are still five unfortunate men travelling from Youghal to Cork each morning by train at their own expense to serve in the Army. Take that out of their week's pay. They are married men who, through the goodness of Youghal Urban Council, succeeded in getting houses in that town while the barracks were still there. They have no hope of getting even a dog box to live in in Collins Barracks. It is costing them something between 25/– and 30/– a week of their meagre pay to travel to Cork.

The Deputy knows that whoever comes back he will not. Those are the matters with which I wish to deal. I do not want to hold up the House, but I wanted to draw attention to the things that I have seen wrong and that in my opinion should be dealt with and dealt with immediately.

Mr. Dooley

Coming from a constituency such as mine, it is only natural that I should hear many grievances of the Army. Some of these have been mentioned already in the course of this debate. The main grievances of which I have heard concern promotions and the lack of credit given for service during the emergency. This was mentioned to me in particular in connection with the Corps of Engineers. I do not know if it refers to all corps in the Army.

Certain officers who joined in the early 1940's and who served as temporary officers with captain's appointment and who after the emergency were not promoted from lieutenant to captain until 1948, would not be eligible for automatic promotion until 1958, which would be ten years from the date of their promotion to the rank of captain. These officers, who joined the corps of engineers in 1940 or 1941, must wait 17 or 18 years before being entitled to automatic promotion, whereas the officer who joined post-emergency would reach that rank in 15 years.

I have been asked to bring it to the notice of the Minister that the Defence Forces Regulations should be amended so that those officers who served during the emergency and who have given 15 years' satisfactory service would be promoted automatically to the rank of commandant, as that would leave emergency and post-emergency officers on an equal footing.

I should like to mention also to the Minister the case of youths who joined the F.C.A. Many of them are young lads who spend their holiday periods in training camps and, while they do not expect to have hotel conditions in those camps, I am given to understand that at times the conditions are not what they should be for their age. It is no encouragement to those youngsters to remain on in the F.C.A. and return to the camp each year under those conditions.

The regular forces and the F.C.A. have for some time been promised a different type of uniform and there is dissatisfaction amongst them that that promise has not been kept up to this. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter also.

With regard to the housing of the forces, a new scheme of houses is nearing completion on the Curragh. Naturally, the Department is doing something towards giving better housing conditions to the men on the Curragh, but I understand from a reply here recently that the number of new houses built will not satisfy the demand. If it is not possible for the Minister at this stage to say that more houses can be built, perhaps he could do something about the reconditioning of the houses which will become vacant on the Curragh, so as to give better houses to those who need them. There are three types of houses—A, B and C—with which I am sure the Minister himself is familiar. One of those types is not fit for any married soldier to live in. In fact, two of them are very bad for a married soldier. Perhaps some of the houses vacated when the new houses are occupied could be reconstructed so as to give better living conditions to the soldiers who cannot be accommodated in the new houses.

Would I be in order in referring to the civilian employees of the Corps of Engineers under this Vote?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy would be in order.

Mr. Dooley

There is grave disquiet among the civilian employees of the Corps of Engineers. There have been some dismissals of late and there is fear that there will be further dismissals. I realise that the Minister is working on an Estimate prepared by his predecessor. That Estimate does not hold out any hope that there will be a lessening of the unemployment that is likely to be caused among the civilian employees. If the Minister could bring forward works which are already provided for—there are a couple which come to my mind, the sewage disposal works and the new gymnasium —it would help to relieve the situation. It would not be a permanent cure, I know, but there is a possibility that, within the next few months, a housing scheme may be sanctioned for Kildare town. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, to have these works brought forward so that employment will be available for as many men as possible until such time as work on the county council housing scheme is available for them.

I would join with Deputy Corry in asking the Minister about the lands on the Curragh. I realise that a certain portion of the lands is necessary for the Department of Defence, but in relation to those portions which are not necessary, would the Minister give consideration to Deputy Corry's proposal, that these lands be taken and divided in order to provide land for those who need it in that area and to secure production from what is absolutely unproductive at the moment?

Mr. K. Boland

I have already been investigating a number of matters raised in the debate, but I have not had sufficient time to go into all these matters thoroughly since I took office. I am, of course, operating on the Estimate that was prepared by the previous Government. That being so, it is rather surprising to me that we should have had so much criticism from the other side of the House. As I say, I am investigating a number of the matters that were raised, but I shall endeavour to deal with the other points mentioned.

The question of the ratification of the Red Cross Conventions was raised by Deputy MacEoin. As far as I am aware, although the Red Cross does come under the control of the Department of Defence, the ratification of these conventions is a matter for the Department of External Affairs and consequently it should be raised on the Estimate for that Department.

Deputy MacEoin made only one criticism, to which reference was also made in a different context by Deputy Desmond, that is, the question of seniority. It is my view that seniority should be adhered to, generally speaking, but if it is obviously in the interests of the service to depart from it on occasion, because of particular merit or other reasons, then that should be done. I do not think the promotions referred to by Deputy MacEoin had the detrimental effect on the morale of the Army which the Deputy maintained they had. I would imagine that they had a good effect.

Deputy McQuillan referred, in the contemptuous terms in which he has referred to it on previous occasions, to our naval service. It is easy to understand that Deputy McQuillan, coming from an inland constituency, is not concerned with the protection of our fisheries. Our defensive plan provides also for seaward defence, but at the moment our naval service is not geared for that and is merely fulfilling the function of protecting our fisheries. Deputies who, unlike the Deputy from Roscommon, represent constituencies in which fishing is an industry, will hardly agree with Deputy McQuillan that the naval service is too elaborate, if you like, for this work. In fact there are complaints to the effect that the naval service is not even sufficient to protect the fisheries. Certainly there is every justification for a naval service of at least the size that we have at present.

The same Deputy drew attention to a motion which has been put down by himself and Deputy Dr. Browne and which appears to me to call upon the Government to abandon its responsibility in regard to defensive policy and to hand it over to a Committee of the House. The matter of our defensive policy will be decided by the Government and I shall advise the Government, after consultation with the General Staff of the Army. However, it is possible that in the near future we shall be discussing that on this motion and I will defer going into detail on it until that time.

Deputy McQuillan also pointed to the reductions that have taken place in the armies of other countries and apparently assumed that we should be able to do something on the same scale. Our Army has never been organised on the same basis as the armies of the countries he mentioned, and the same scope for reduction does not exist in our case. We have no troops in Western Germany, for instance, that we can recall; we have not got compulsory national service on which we can slow down and eventually abandon; nor have we battleships and other such equipment which we can decide to do away with. Our Army has been organised on a very modest basis. The peace time establishment that was provided for is modest and is intended to be only the framework on which an Army could be built if an emergency arose. It is hardly much more than sufficient for the maintenance of internal security if a position should arise in which the Army would have to be used for that purpose.

The fact that there were so many officers and N.C.O.s as compared with private soldiers was also commented on by Deputy McQuillan. Of course, that is so because the number of privates provided for in the establishment has never actually been recruited and, therefore, the number of officers and N.C.O.s is somewhat out of proportion. It must be remembered, however, that these officers and N.C.O.s, apart from their duties with the Permanent Defence Forces, are also needed for the training of the First Line Reserve and assisting in the training of the F.C.A. We need, then, more officers and N.C.O.s than are actually needed for the training of the Permanent Defence Forces. I am not myself fully satisfied, however, that there is not a possibility of reducing the number of officers. There may be, or there may not. It is a question into which I intend to look in the future. I have been considering it.

I would point out, too, that the Army is the framework on which expansion can take place in the event of an emergency. If at any time we find it necessary or desirable to expand, we must have both the officers and N.C.O.s so that that expansion can take place.

Deputy McQuillan complained that junior officers receive a certain amount of automatic promotion. Apparently Deputy McQuillan thinks that second-lieutenants should not be promoted to full lieutenants and lieutenants should not be promoted to captains until such time as vacancies occur. I do not know if many others would agree with Deputy McQuillan that junior officers should be left to stagnate as lieutenants until such time as vacancies for captains occur. It is only to be expected that there should be a certain amount of automatic promotion; surely it is not too high to have this automatic promotion up to the rank of captain?

He also referred to the provision for a recruiting campaign in this year's Estimate. Half the money put down for advertising there is for the civil defence recruiting campaign. I am sure Deputy McQuillan would not like that to be abandoned.

With regard to the cost of civil servants in the Department of Defence, that is a problem affecting every Department of State. In common with a lot of other people, I was convinced before I took office that there were too many civil servants. I must confess that, up to the present at any rate, I have not discovered how the number in my Department can be reduced. Civil Service personnel does not have to increase at the same rate when an expansion takes place in the Defence Forces. At the same time, when the numbers are cut down in the Army, one needs almost as many civil servants to deal with the reduced number. While there is no doubt that there may be some scope for reduction, I do not think it will be anything like the extent that Deputy McQuillan appears to believe possible.

I do not know what the Deputy was getting at when he spoke about the difference in pay as between officers, N.C.O.s and men. Surely, it is necessary that there should be a difference in the rates of remuneration of the different ranks? One cannot have them all paid at the same rate. There is bound to be a big difference between the pay of senior officers and men. To-day, when the number of privates is lower than that provided for in the establishment, there is nothing significant in the fact that the amount shown for the pay of officers and N.C.O.s together is actually greater than that provided for privates. That is due to the fact that the number of privates is well below peace-time establishment.

Deputy McQuillan referred to expenditure on aircraft. There is no provision in this year's Estimate for new aircraft. He said, too, that the jet planes which were purchased are obsolete. That is not true. They are excellent training craft and quite suitable for that purpose. They are used as training craft in other countries. They are certainly providing our pilots with very useful training to enable them to fulfil their function as pilots and also for the purpose of providing pilots for Aer Lingus. Of course, if these pilots go to Aer Lingus they remain on the reserve of officers here and they are not, therefore, lost to the Defence Forces. I agree with my predecessor that it is a very good policy that we should train pilots in our own Air Corps instead of having to send them abroad to be trained.

Deputy Booth asked that in training activities, manoeuvres and exercises there should be a more generous allocation of live ammunition. That is something that should be considered. I shall look into the matter and see if something can be done in that direction without unnecessarily depleting our stocks. Obviously it is something which would make for more realistic training. I agree it is desirable.

He also referred to helicopters. The Army is not losing sight of the utility of helicopters but so far it has been decided not to purchase any. Possibly we are saving ourselves, in refraining, from being charged by Deputy McQuillan with purchasing something that is obsolete. The question of helicopters is not however being neglected.

Deputy Booth also referred to sanatorium treatment and the difference there is between the treatment in the case of officers and that in the case of men. The fact is that that situation is due to the difference as between the pay of officers and that of men. The men are entitled to the benefit of the schemes administered by the State. They are not treated at the expense of the Army unless there is a good prospect that they will recover fully and continue to serve in the Army. Otherwise, they are let go and then they can avail of the treatment which is provided by the various State schemes. In the case of officers, on the other hand, they are usually not qualified for these schemes because of their incomes.

The high incidence of guard and fatigue duties was also mentioned. I am looking into the question of whether it is possible to reduce the fatigue duties. I do not think it is possible at the moment to do much about the guard duties unless we get more men into the Army or close some of the posts.

General MacEoin

That would not be very popular.

Mr. K. Boland

I am aware that any suggestion to close posts would meet with a great deal of local opposition, but that appears to be the only way in which these duties can be reduced. The same Deputy referred to the fact that the cost of administration is too high. Deputy McQuillan also referred to that. Deputy Booth referred to the sale of old equipment. I am doing everything possible to find out where there is equipment which is more or less obsolete and which is not needed in the Army to-day. I shall try to get rid of that equipment if at all possible.

With regard to the coast defence forts that are not occupied at the moment, there is only the bare minimum expenditure required for the maintenance of these forts. It would obviously be bad economy to let them fall into complete disrepair. Practically all the perishable equipment stationed in these forts has been withdrawn.

Deputy Booth also referred to the fact that there are three barracks in the City of Dublin given over to infantry. He does not believe that is necessary. That is one of the questions I am inquiring into at the moment, but certainly I have been assured that, at the time the third barracks was opened for infantry, it was necessary. Whether it is necessary at the moment or not is a matter that will have to be gone into. It is bound up with the other matter I mentioned —whether it is possible to close other military posts or not. I know that it would not be popular. I am not saying that any decision has been come to about that, but perhaps it would make for better morale in the Army if we had less of these guard and fatigue duties.

Deputy Desmond gave us his ideas about the Army. He seemed to think that money is being squandered in the Army. So far I have not discovered that. Maybe it is, but I certainly do not see any evidence of it. As to fleets of Army vehicles being on the roads, I think if you inquire at any time about Army vehicles being on the roads, there is always a good reason for it. If you have an Army, it must be trained and if it is to be trained, transport must be provided. While there may be and probably are occasions on which an Army vehicle is out when it could be done without, I do not think there is an awful lot of that. If Deputy Desmond can prove to me that Army lorries were used to bring home officers who had missed their buses, I hope he will provide me with that evidence and the matter will be investigated.

Deputies Dooley and Desmond dealt with the necessity for improved housing accommodation for the Army. I certainly agree that there is a necessity in a number of places for more housing accommodation for married soldiers. A start has been made in providing houses for soldiers. As Deputies are probably aware, 88 houses have already been built in Dublin; there are 30 nearing completion in the Curragh; and 20 nearing completion in Athlone. In other places, a start has not yet been made, but I know there are other places in mind in which houses are badly needed. One of those is Cork. It is hoped to build some houses for soldiers in Cork next year, but it must be remembered that the Department of Defence, in building houses, has to provide them out of revenue. Local authorities, on the other hand, build houses by way of loans but any increased building activities by the Department of Defence will show up in the Estimates. In the Estimates this year, money for houses at Cork has not been provided.

In any case, local authorities have got a duty to provide a fair share of houses for soldiers in common with other citizens. I certainly do not think it is the duty of the Department of Defence to provide completely for soldiers in that respect. I assure Deputies I will press as strongly as I can for the continuation and intensification of the provision of housing accommodation for married soldiers. Of course, that will also include, as Deputy Desmond suggested, the reconditioning of the old married quarters which will be vacated by soldiers who are accommodated in the new houses. Certainly, these old married quarters are largely out of date. It is proposed to recondition them and improve them in order to bring them up to modern standards.

Deputy Desmond made some vague charge, which I cannot deal with now, of being victimised in some way by the Department. I do not know anything about that, and if he can bring any evidence to substantiate the charge, I will have it investigated.

As regards Deputy Corry's first point —the apprenticeship scheme for Haul-bowline—I am afraid that at this time, at any rate, I have to give the same reply as he stated he got from my numerous predecessors—that it is still under consideration.

He also referred to the housing problem, with particular reference to the five men who are still living in Youghal, stationed at Cork, who have to travel every day to Cork to go on duty. That is something of which I was not aware, but it appears that the best that could be done for these people at the moment would be for the Cork Corporation to provide them with houses. The Army housing scheme in Cork has not started yet.

He also referred to land between Mitchelstown and Fermoy. The position about that land is that the Land Commission have refused to take it over. There is no provision by which the Department of Defence can distribute it either to relieve local congestion or for any other purpose. The Land Commission, apparently, are not interested in the particular parcel of land to which Deputy Corry referred.

Deputy Dooley referred to officers who were temporary officers during the emergency, with particular reference to officers of the Corps of Engineers, and to the fact that they find that, to get their automatic promotion, they have to wait for a longer period than officers who came in, in the first instance, as regular officers. That is a grievance that does not apply only to the Corps of Engineers. A number of officers in every corps were kept on after the emergency. The position at that time was that those who were reverted to a lower rank because the peace-time establishment did not provide for them in the acting rank they held during the emergency found that their service in the emergency was not taken into regard when assessing seniority. I do not know if anything can be done about that now, but that is what has happened. I am aware that there are a number of officers in the Army who feel they have been badly treated in that respect. It was done some number of years ago and I do not know whether anything can be done about that now.

Deputy Dooley referred to another question that has been worrying me a lot since I came into this Department, namely, civilian employees and mainly civilian employees in the Curragh. I discovered that the Estimates provide for a lesser number of civilian employees during the coming year than was the case last year; in other words, it will not be possible, within the framework of the present Estimates, to keep on as many civilian employees in the Army as last year. I had nothing to do with the framing of the Estimates. There is nothing I can do now to initiate new schemes on which tradesmen and building workers generally could be employed in the Army. These schemes must be prepared a considerable time in advance and I am afraid that, for the time being, at any rate, I shall just have to accept the position as I find it.

The position is that provision has been made for a lesser number of employees this year than last year. I have already looked into the possibility, as a temporary relief, at any rate, of bringing forward any schemes which have been included in the Estimate. I find it is not possible to bring any of them forward at a sufficient speed to absorb the people who are at present being dismissed. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that apparently the previous Government, who were coming near the end of the financial year and who were also coming near a general election, decided to keep on people in employment for whom there was no work available. That will aggravate the position in the future. I have no alternative but to operate the Estimate as I got it. I have looked into the possibility of bringing forward other schemes and I have found that it is not possible. Everything I can do to retain these people in employment, I will do, but I am bound by the fact that the money being provided is not sufficient and that schemes on which these people could be employed are not there.

Deputy McQuillan mentioned the increased estimate for telephone charges. The wages of telephone operators have been increased, as also have telephone charges, so that it is natural that there should be some increase under that heading.

The Department of Defence has no responsibility for the policy with regard to fishery protection. The Naval Service merely provides a fishery protection patrol and the policy is decided by the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Lands. The function of our vessels is merely to arrest trawlers and hand them over to the civil authorities for legal proceedings. The Department of Defence has no other responsibilities in the matter.

If there is, it will be the normal wastage. I can assure the Deputy of that.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 7 May 1957

Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Defence.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 May 1957