Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Defence.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £4,139,040 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, 1959, 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.; and for a Grant-in-Aid of the Irish Red Cross Society (No. 32 of 1938).

The gross Estimate for 1958-59 is £6,418,250 and the net Estimate, after deducting Appropriations-in-Aid, is £6,208,560. There is an increase of £37,340 on the net Estimate for 1957-58. It may be recalled that the latter Estimate showed a reduction of nearly £900,000 on the figure for the preceding year. It will be apparent, therefore, that the Estimate now before the House has been prepared against the prevailing background of financial stringency. Every item has been carefully considered and weighed against the pressing need for economy on the one hand and the maintenance of an efficient defence force on the other, and I believe that this Estimate strikes a fair balance between the two. Admittedly there is is a modest increase, but we have to provide for certain increased costs of a fairly substantial nature which were not in evidence when the previous Estimate was prepared. Also, this Estimate provides for an additional 250 men at a cost of about £55,000. I shall refer in greater detail to this matter later.

The major portion of the Estimate is accounted for by provision for the pay, allowances and maintenance of the permanent Defence Force. This provision is spread over a number of sub-heads and totals, in round figures, £4,000,000 or about 62 per cent. of the entire gross Estimate. As in previous years, the Estimate for the permanent Defence Force is framed on the basis of the full peace establishment, that is 1,334 officers and 11,864 men. Deductions are made in the relevant sub-heads in respect of the numbers by which the actual strength during the year is likely to be below the establishment. This Estimate, in effect, caters for a net average strength of 1,153 officers, 40 cadets and 7,500 men (including all Corps and Services). As compared with the approximate average strength maintained during 1957-58, these figures show a reduction of 21 officers and 13 cadets and an increase of 250 men.

The reduction in officers is due mainly to the retirement of a number of officers with I.R.A. service medals following the enactment of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Scheme, 1957, which was discussed and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas last year. As regards the increased number of men provided for, it was found that the provision for last year only enabled the strength to be kept at a level barely sufficient for the essential day-to-day tasks of the Army. This has imposed a considerable strain on the personnel, which if continued might prove harmful to morals and efficiency. The opening of an internment camp last year and the situation along the Border have also made greater demands on the number of troops available.

It has been decided, therefore, to maintain an average strength of 7,500 men during 1958-59. This is considered to be the minimum number that will afford the necessary relief to hard-pressed personnel. The strength at the end of February stood at 6,950 noncommissioned officers, privates and seamen. A recruiting campaign has already been started with the object of securing the required number of recruits as quickly as possible and I would like to ask Deputies to lend their full support to this campaign.

Taking the sub-heads individually, I will deal first of all with those that show appreciable increases.

As regards sub-head A—Pay of Officers, Cadets, N.C.O.s and Privates —there is an increase of approximately £37,000 for "Pay of Other Ranks" due mainly to provision being made for the extra 250 men I have just mentioned. Against this increase, however, there is a reduction of over £34,000 in respect of the pay of officers and cadets.

For convenience, sub-head C—Pay of Civilians attached to Units—and sub-head S—Barrack Maintenance and New Works—may be taken together. Between them there is an increase of approximately £15,000. Provision is made in sub-head C for the employment of 30 additional employees with the Corps of Engineers. This increase is necessary in order to carry out the programme of maintenance and new works for which the materials are provided in sub-head S. It was necessary to give this programme careful consideration in view of the financial position and only works which are strictly essential have been included. It would obviously be false economy to try to save on maintenance.

As regards the new works which are provided for, the vast majority of these are relatively small and most of them are directly concerned with improving the living conditions for the troops. This is in continuation of a policy that successive Ministers for Defence have pursued. I would like to be able to do much more in this direction, but unfortunately this is not possible for the time being. I am glad to be able to say, however, that in 1958-59 we hope to start work on a housing scheme for married soldiers at Collins Barracks, Cork. Negotiations are nearing completion for the purchase of a site near the barracks and it is intended to build 24 houses. A communal laundry and bathhouse will be provided for the occupants of the married quarters at Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick. Work on the initial stages of a new dining hall and cookhouse for men at Customs Barracks, Athlone, and a gymnasium at the Curragh has been commenced and this Estimate makes provision for the continuation of these projects.

The increase of £7,373 in sub-head E —Pay of Officers of the Medical Corps, etc.—is due to the fact that there will not be so many unfilled vacancies in the corps during 1958-59. There is an increase of £12,047 in sub-head G for subsistence allowances for all ranks. Increased rates of allowances were approved recently following similar increases granted to other public servants.

The largest increase of any sub-head occurs in sub-head K—Provisions and Allowances in lieu—which is up by £62,732. This is due to a number of factors, namely, the larger number of men to be catered for, the higher cost of foodstuffs following the removal of subsidies last year; and an increase of £10,000 in respect of supplies purchased for issue on repayment. In regard to the last mentioned item, there is, of course, a corresponding increase in receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid.

Under sub-head O—General Stores— the increase of £22,159 is due mainly to provision for the purchase of four elementary training aircraft and one general purposes aircraft. These are of the piston-engine type and will cost about £38,000. They are essential for carrying out the training programme for regular and reserve pilots and to continue the short service training scheme by means of which pilots are provided for the Air Corps Reserve and for Aer Lingus.

The amount of £51,567 provided under sub-head P (1)—Civil Defence— shows an increase of £8,485 over the provision for 1957-58. The two main items are Grants to Local Authorities and Equipment and Stores. Grants to Local Authorities account for £25,067, an increase of £1,610 over last year. Those grants include contributions towards the cost of civil defence administration by local authorities, towards the cost of uniform for civil defence volunteers and towards the servicing, maintenance and storage of equipment issued to local authorities. The provision of £27,200 for the purchase and maintenance of equipment and stores represents an increase of £6,875 as compared with last year's provision. This increase is mainly attributable to proposed increased purchases of equipment, especially for welfare, fire-fighting and rescue training.

The recruiting campaign for civil defence during the past year has, an initial effort, been reasonably satisfactory. In some counties the response has been very good. About 3,000 men and women have enrolled in the organisation throughout the State and upwards of 2,000 of them have been undergoing instruction given by local authority civil defence instructors. There is now the nucleus of a civil defence organisation in most counties. This represents definite progress but a much greater effort on the part of the people must be made. I would ask all members of local authorities and particularly those who are members of this House to take a greater interest in civil defence in their local authority areas and encourage people to join it. Civil defence is an inescapable obligation of every country and needs the encouragement of the public representatives belonging to the local authorities which have a statutory duty to promote it.

I need not repeat what I said last year regarding the object of the recruiting campaign, but I do wish to assure the House that nothing has happened since then to lessen the need for a civil defence organisation as part of the national defence of the State. In some respect, the potential hazards are increasing as a result of the continuous development of new types of missiles.

The increase of £24,090 in sub-head P.2—Naval Service—is attributable mainly to an increase in the cost of fuel oil for the corvettes and to the proposed purchase of a quantity of ammunition for the guns of those vessels. Fuel oil is now costing nearly £3 a ton more than when the 1957-58 Estimate was prepared. It is not practicable to offset this increase by reducing consumption as has been done in the case of petrol for mechanical transport. The stock of ammunition is now very low and replenishment cannot be deferred any longer. I may mention that one of the corvettes has undergone a major overhaul, and has been put into a thoroughly seaworthy condition. Work on the second corvette is in hands at present, and this Estimate contains provision for the overhaul of the remaining corvette. The provision for the pay of personnel of the Naval Service remains practically unchanged at £97,000 approximately.

It has been found necessary to increase the provision under sub-head R for fuel, light and water by £18,599. This is due mainly to the higher charges for electricity which became operative some time ago and to increased consumption of electricity. The provision of improved living conditions and amenities for personnel to which I referred earlier has necessarily made increased demands on this sub-head. The consumption of solid fuel, electricity, etc., is being closely watched and no opportunity is lost of impressing on all concerned the necessity for strict economy.

In sub-head X—Incidental Expenses —the provision of £19,000 for advertisements shows an increase of £9,000 over the provision for 1957-58. Ordinary departmental advertising will absorb about £2,000 and £17,000 is required for recruiting advertisements for the Army and Civil Defence. I hope we will be able to achieve our targets without having to expend the full amount, but as the building up of both these forces is an urgent task, it is necessary to make fairly substantial provision.

Provision is made in sub-head X (3) for a payment of £15,450 to the Irish Red Cross Society by way of a Grant-in-Aid. This is an increase of £1,000 over the provision for 1957-58 and includes a sum of £5,000 approximately for the maintenance of a group of White Russian refugees which the society has agreed to receive and look after. Some time ago the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appealed to this and other countries to take some of the 15,000 White Russian refugees in North China. Arrangements have been completed under which the Irish Red Cross Society will take up to 20 at a time on behalf of this country. The arrangements provide for the grant to the society of 20,000 dollars by the High Commissioner for Refugees for the purchase and equipment of a premises to house the refugees, the society to become the owner of the premises on arrival of the first batch of refugees.

The Government has agreed to indemnify the society to the extent of not more than £5,000 a year in respect of the cost of maintaining the refugees in this country. Suitable premises have been purchased and fitted out and the first batch of seven refugees arrived last November. It is not known at the moment when the other 13 will arrive. The society continues to look after the Hungarian refugees at Knockalisheen Camp and to bear the maintenance costs from the special fund created by the generous subscriptions of the Irish people. The society is to be highly commended for its activities and deserves every help and encouragement.

In sub-head Y (2)—the Reserve Defence Force—the provisions for the Reserve of Officers—First Line and the Reserve of Men—First Line are substantially the same as those in the 1957-58 Estimate. In the case of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiuil and An Slua Muiri there is a net increase of £12,805. This is mainly due to an increase of £21,000 in respect of clothing. In 1957-58, we had available certain stocks of clothing and consequently the provision for new purchases was rather low. These stocks are now exhausted. The increase, however, is partly offset by a saving on pay and rations resulting from revised training arrangements. The attendance of the Reserve at training during 1957 was well up to the standard of previous years.

Lastly, there is a regrettable but unavoidable increase of nearly £17,000 in sub-head AA—Expenses in connection with the Offences Against the State Acts. Deputies will be already aware of the reason for this and it is hardly necessary for me to go into any detail.

Turning to the sub-heads that show reductions, I think that only sub-head P—Defensive Equipment—where there is a reduction of £164,134 calls for special mention. While full mobilisation stocks have not yet been built up, fairly substantial quantities of weapons have been procured and the Army is now moderately well equipped with the lighter types of armament which are unlikely to be superseded in the near future. With this in mind and having regard to the present financial situation, I felt that this sub-head could bear a substantial cut and that we should try to do with a provision of just over £60,000 for 1958-59. An appreciable part of this sum is for maintenance.

It will be observed that no provision has been made for the Bureau of Military History. The bureau was wound up on 31st December last, but a small office staff is being kept on for the present to deal with outstanding matters and to prepare the archives for storing away. Provision for this staff is made in sub-head Y—Office of the Minister for Defence—for a period of nine months only, as it is expected that the work will be completed by 31st December next.

I should like to thank all who contributed to the work of the bureau. They will be gratefully remembered in years to come by historians of the struggle for independence. I should also like to appeal to those, who are in a position to make important contributions and who have not yet done so, to lose no further time in preparing or completing their statements, so that as complete a record as possible may be available for the future historians.

The reduction of £16,506 in Appropriations-in-Aid may call for some comment. The main items affected are sale of surplus land and sale of surplus stores and unserviceable clothing which show reductions of £10,700 and £10,000 respectively. In 1957-58, there were two fairly large areas of land for disposal at Baldonnel and Tallaght and it was assumed that both would be disposed of before 31st March, 1958. The Baldonnel lands have been transferred to the Land Commission. The disposal of the Tallaght lands, however, has taken longer than was expected, but is likely to be completed during 1958-59 and the anticipated receipt has been taken account of accordingly. As regards the sale of surplus stores, and so on, the quantities available for disposal are diminishing, but I shall make every effort to obtain the maximum revenue from this source.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the loyal and efficient manner in which the Army has discharged its duties during the past year, which was a particularly difficult one and made great demands on the personnel of all ranks. If there are any matters on which Deputies require additional information, I shall do my best to supply it.

For a great number of years, I have had the desire— and I must say that when the Government Party were in Opposition, they co-operated to some extent with me in this—to take the Army out of the arena of political controversy. I am glad to say that I think we have achieved that to a very great extent. Therefore, as long as the responsibility rests upon me on this side of the House for commenting upon the problems of defence, I shall try to keep the Army out of the political arena.

There is good reason for that. The Army is the Army of the people, and the need may arise for each and every one of us to take our part with that Army and, therefore, it is essential that politics should be kept out of it. I wish to pay tribute to the Army itself in that it has carefully avoided any taint in that direction—if you could attribute such a word to the art of politics—because it is important that it should have no political affiliations in the discharge of its duty.

On a recent Vote I pointed out to the Minister that the seniority list is not a thing to be ignored. He is a young Minister, not long in office and I will not comment any further on the matter, other than to remind him that seniority is of considerable importance. Provided there is efficiency and fitness, seniority should not and must not be discarded when the question of promotion arises.

Coming to the civil end, I should mention and place on record our appreciation of the services rendered to the Army and to the State by the retiring Secretary of the Department. I know it is not customary to refer to a civil servant in this House on his retirement, but the circumstances in this case are unique. He is a Secretary of a Department of State who has held office for a very long time; it might be regarded as the end of a period. We are all getting on in years and it is unfortunate that even in the Army the age of 65 is reached and that time does not stand still. Therefore, I should like to place on record from this side of the House the fact that we appreciate the services rendered to the Army and the nation by Lieutenant-General Peadar MacMahon, who is about to retire. In regard to the appointment of a successor, I am not happy.

It is not usual to discuss these matters on the Estimate.

I have just one point to make. I will not touch on the matter beyond saying that there are misgivings. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not reflecting in any way upon the person appointed. He is an efficient and courteous officer. I had him as an official for a long time, so I have no doubt about what I am saying. At the same time, I am not happy on the matter.

In relation to increases, it is rather significant that the poor Minister for Defence, the Quarter-Master General and the ordinary officers, suffer the same hardship as the people generally in connection with the cost of living. Although the sum provided is very substantial, the Minister very wisely said that the increase there is due to the cost of living and did not beat about the bush. I believe it was the right thing to do. However, although it is difficult to meet all the requirements, there are still hardships in the Army in relation to pay. Keeping in mind what I set out to achieve, I do not want to comment any further on this subject, but the Minister should carefully consider the whole question of the pay and emoluments of the Army, and make sure they are not kept in a lower state than anybody else.

Everybody should do his utmost to see to it that the recruiting campaign is a success. I know the Minister will be only too glad to see even a greater number of recruits than the number he has catered for here. I do not think there will be any difficulty in having a Supplementary Vote passed, if he gets more men, because the strain of a small force in keeping on the alert —and they are on the alert at the present time—is very great. I should like to see a considerable number of our youth in the Defence Forces. The question whether voluntary service is in the long run the best method of maintaining a Defence Force should be considered. That is a matter which the Government and the Minister should consider in present circumstances. However, I am not going to comment on that beyond suggesting that it should be examined.

With regard to recruiting for civil defence, with the Minister I appeal to every section of the community to take part in this very important aspect of our defence. I know that some people sneer at our efforts in relation to civil defence or, indeed, to defence at all but let them sneer. Let me pray that the day will never come when they will regret their sneers. It is imperative, in so far as it lies within our power, that every effort should be made in regard to civil defence. I am glad to learn that the Minister and the Army have been so successful. I hope there will be greater success. I am certain that if civil defence were fully understood and appreciated by the people of this country and if an emergency arose—God forbid it should ever arise—the service that civil defence could render to the people would astound even the doubters. I am glad the Minister made the appeal he did.

On the question of general stores, this is a matter which every Minister will have difficulty in handling. It is important that the general stores should be kept up and maintained. That is equally the case in regard to equipment, ammunition and other defence items. It is important that they should be kept up to full strength. Without giving anything away, I agree with the Minister that our equipment and light armament are very effective. I have no doubt whatever that the armed forces of the State would render a good account of themselves if they were ever called upon to do so.

It is heartbreaking to find such an amount provided for the enforcement of the Offences against the State Act. I only want to make one comment on the matter because I think it is the Minister's responsibility, on the question of administration. The case has been made—and it appears to be well-founded—that a prisoner, who is a Deputy of this House, has been refused permission to have an interview with a solicitor of his choice. I want it to be clearly understood that if a solicitor is not struck off the roll, and is a solicitor of good standing, that he is on the hazard, so to speak, the person who wants to see such a solicitor is the only person who can nominate him. No Government or Minister has the right to say "No, I will not let you see So-and-So; you can name somebody else."

I appeal to the Minister that, if that position still obtains, he should change his attitude in the matter provided the solicitor is of good standing and has not been struck off the rolls. Even in times gone by I claimed that it was my right to select my solicitor and not my jailer's right. There must not be any question about that. The Minister should make sure, no matter what anybody says to the contrary, that a person is told he can see any solicitor who is a member of the Incorporated Law Society.

I am glad the Minister paid a tribute to those who took part in the work of the Bureau of Military History. I would be glad to know what steps the Minister has taken, and the Government proposes taking, for the safe custody of the documents connected with the bureau. An undertaking was given that unless the contributor directed otherwise there would not be any breach of confidence in regard to the publication of these documents and that they would be safe for such time as the contributor thought fit, for 50 years at least. Therefore, there is a serious obligation on the Government to make sure that that bond is fully honoured and that there cannot be any question of doubt about the maintenance, care and custody of these documents.

I wish to compliment the Army upon its efficiency and its loyalty to the nation. We can be very proud of the fact that the Army has always been loyal to the elected Government of the people whoever they were. It is a great tribute to the Army and may it always remain so. In my opinion, that is the highest point of loyalty to democracy in any country and it is something that of which both sides of the House can be very proud. May it always remain so.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I hesitated for a considerable period before drafting that motion because I felt that the onus lay upon the Leader of the Opposition or upon the former Minister for Defence to submit such a motion so that the whole question of defence and expenditure thereon could be discussed properly and the criticism levelled at the Department and the Minister could be seen through the medium of a vote of criticism.

I was, therefore, slow to put down a motion to refer back because I felt that the major Opposition Party, if you could describe them as such, would have taken the necessary steps. Consequently, it was only when I saw that the Fine Gael Party failed to put down this motion that I took it upon myself to submit the motion before the House.

When the Estimates for 1957-58 were forwarded to each Deputy, there was a circular contained in the Book of Estimates as follows:—

"The Minister for Finance has not had time for detailed examination of the Volume of Estimates for Supply Services for 1957-58 which were printed and ready for circulation when the Government assumed office and accordingly he cannot accept responsibility for them as regards either form or amount. They are at present being examined in the various Departments concerned."

That comment was enclosed with the Defence and other Estimates when the present Government came into power. The indication was that they had no responsibility whatever for the Estimates and the amounts to be spent but that they themselves were in the process of a careful screening of the proposed expenditure and that we could hope that, when the next Estimates came before this House, that is, the Estimates for 1958-59, we would see, as a result of the hard work of the Fianna Fáil Ministers, a great reduction in expenditure.

The present Minister for Defence, in the course of his remarks here on a motion very recently dealing with Defence, stated that every possible effort was being made to cut unnecessary expenditure to the bone and that he was fully engaged in ensuring that any anxiety on the part of the public would be allayed in so far as this proposed expenditure was concerned. What do we find in this Estimate that the Minister has now brought before the House? We find that, instead of a decrease in expenditure on Defence, there is an increase. We find that, out of the 40 sub-heads contained in the Defence Estimate, no fewer than 26 of those sub-heads request an increase of expenditure—and that comes from the Minister who assured the public, through this House, that he was fully engaged in paring expenditure in his Department.

I know there are Deputies in the Fine Gael Party, in the Labour Party and in the Fianna Fáil Party who, time and again, have voiced their disapproval and criticism of what they believed to be excessive expenditure by the Department of Defence. However, when it comes to trying to get a reasonable approach to this matter, and when some Deputies decide that they themselves must criticise the expenditure, we find a number of Deputies in the Fine Gael Party and in the Fianna Fáil Party suggesting that we, in our efforts to reduce unnecessary expenditure, are sneering at the Army.

We had a lot of ráméis for the past ten minutes from the former Minister for Defence. Not long ago, the former Minister for Defence sought to suggest in this House that a number of us who wanted a reduction in Defence expenditure were objecting to the Army, as such. The trouble is that we really have no Army at all. It is a disgrace for an ex-Minister to try and bluff in this House that we have an Army in fact.

I do not disagree for a moment that we have a full complement as far as the officer personnel of the Army is concerned. We have. However, when I criticise the fact that the officer personnel is up to full strength, that is not a criticism of the individual officers concerned. It is a criticism of the Minister and of the Government for either failing to reduce the number in the officer personnel or to bring up in the N.C.O. and private rank the strength that would be in proportion to the officer personnel as it is at present.

When we seek to have a proper proportion between both groups, the suggestion here is that we are sneering at the individual members of the Army. I have to put it on record again that when the former Minister for Defence, Deputy MacEoin, and a former Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence, Deputy Traynor, had responsibility for the Department of Defence they showed very little consideration for the Private or the N.C.O. Whenever an increase in allowances or an increase in salaries was mentioned it was always the officer personnel and, moreover, the very senior personnel of the Army that got first preference.

I remember one increase that came. The Minister and the Department thought so little about the whole affair that they allowed the senior element in the Army to decide who should get the necessary increases—and we know how far down the ranks it came. Is it any wonder that, to-day, we have the present Minister for Defence embarking on a further recruiting drive—the same as his predecessor and his predecessor before him again? For the past ten years, they have been trying to bring the Army at least up to a reasonable strength.

We have seen recruiting campaigns year after year and in not one single year since the end of the emergency have we seen the Army up to what we believe should be its strength. The fact is that we want an Army of soldiers on the cheap. We pay the officer group, and rightly so, reasonable emoluments. However, when it comes to the private, no matter what advertisements we put in the cinemas and no matter what grand advertisements are put on the walls and hoardings all over the country showing the figure of a fine-looking soldier with polished boots and a nice new uniform, we find that the pay allowance offered to that soldier is anything but attractive. Certainly it will not bring in the recruit we want to an Army of the type we have to-day. Therefore, when we hear people talk about the desirability of getting a recruiting drive under way we have to test their sincerity by what they are prepared to give these young men if they go into the Army.

In the course of his remarks, Deputy MacEoin casually posed the question of whether an Army of the type we have —a volunteer Army—is the right type to have now or whether the methods we use in our recruiting are the correct methods. Has Deputy MacEoin come to the view now that we will not get sufficient personnel of the right type by this voluntary recruiting campaign and that there should be imposed on every citizen of this State the duty of taking his part in a defensive system? Does Deputy MacEoin believe now, after all the years of talking about volunteers, that the time has come when we must ensure that every able-bodied citizen will play his part in the defensive system? If that is his view, I can see no reason why he did not elaborate on it. This is the place to elaborate on such a view and, if that is his view, we can only condemn the point of view that existed here over the years, as far as the voluntary recruiting campaign is concerned.

Some time ago there was a motion here for discussion in which it was sought to set up a Select Committee of this House to examine into the whole question of expenditure on defence, in the light of modern developments and modern requirements and in the light of the tremendous strides which have been made in the production of new destructive weapons. That motion was dealt with here, in a most casual manner, by the members of the House. Indeed, the Minister's contribution to that debate was better left unsaid. I think even his own comrades in his Party, and certainly members of the Forces outside who read his contribution, were amazed that a man who was Minister for Defence could descend to such a low level in replying to a serious motion of that nature.

On that occasion, I found it absolutely necessary to get all Deputies to express their views. When they were not prepared to speak or tell the House what they thought about various matters, there was only one way to get their views about the defence position and that was to get them to trot into the Division lobby, and trot in they did. We found out their attitude when it came to a question of trying to get a reasonable proposition examined, namely, that in the light of the present situation a Select Committee of the House should sit to examine the whole question of defence, to examine the expenditure and then report back to the Government.

That committee would not be given any responsibility or authority to make changes. All it would have power to do would be send for persons, to examine records and to make reports to the Government. Instead of allowing that committee to function, the two major Parties saw fit to combine here to throw out the motion. I think that many of the people who had to vote on that were very dissatisfied at the time and I know now that many of them are highly critical of the Estimate which is now before the House. Many of the people who at that time were perturbed at the expense felt that, as a result of that motion, the Minister would at least make some effort to reduce expenditure.

The increase on the face of the Estimate actually is in the region of £37,000; but that is not the true picture. In addition to that increase, we had to add the sum of at least £47,000 in pensions for the men who were retired very recently. Therefore, on the Defence Estimate and on the pensions which go to pay a number of individuals who retired, the actual increase should total £84,000 rather than £37,000. Unfortunately, one of these increases to which I refer is not accounted for on this Estimate but comes under Vote 58, which follows, concerning Military Service Pensions. It is important to realise that, as a result of certain activities of the Minister, we have not alone an increase in expenditure on serving personnel but also a substantial increase in the pension allowances.

In spite of all this, we have fewer personnel serving in the rank and file. The Minister told us he is embarking on a recruiting campaign and he said that he was perturbed—and rightly so —over the danger to the morale of the troops and to the Army in view of the small number serving. Is it not about time that he woke up to that? I spent two or three years in this House pointing out to the Minister how depressing and how demoralising it was for junior ranks in the Army—namely, the lieutenant and the captain group—to be dealing with mythical troops, and that no true training could be given to the officer personnel if all they had to handle were mythical troops. The Minister has come now to my way of thinking namely, that it is bad for the morale of the Army itself that its strength is so low, and that the figures for recruits are so low. I am glad that, even at this late stage, he has come round to that point of view.

In the Estimate we have made provision for 7,846 privates, while the serving personnel in privates is a little over 4,000—4,194—according to one of the most recent figures. I gather that we have over 1,100 officers serving at the moment in the regular Army and that we have just over 4,000 privates. We have an officer now to fewer than every four men. We have a commissioned officer for fewer than every four men in the Army. It has gone down even from the figures I gave 12 months ago. There is certainly reason for the Minister to be perturbed about the morale of the Army when it has reached that stage.

Bad as that is, let us have a look at the other side. Let us have a look at the columns in connection with civilians who are attached to the Army. The Minister glossed over very nicely the question of the Civil Service and the civil personnel. While we have a reduction in the number of private soldiers, we have an increase in the civilian personnel. Did anybody ever hear anything as daft as that? I cannot extract the exact figure down to the last pound, but I do not think I will be more than a few thousand pounds out with regard to the pay of the soldiers when I say that the pay of all the privates at the present time is less than £650,000, while the pay of the civilians and the Civil Service attached to the Army is £952,260. Therefore, it costs more to pay the civilians attached to the Army than it does to pay the troops.

Now, if anybody here wants me to deal with more than the privates as far as pay is concerned, I shall give a worse example. We all agree that it is desirable to pay the officer personnel well. We find that, in spite of the fact that the officer personnel are reasonably looked after, their total pay is £876,000 odd. In other words, they draw merely £100,000 less than the civilians who are attached to the Army. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is necessary to have an increase in the number of civilians attached to the Army at a time when the ranks of the Army are being depleted.

We have at present the situation in which skilled craftsmen are drawing grade pay in the Army and are employed as batmen or orderlies, while the work they should be doing is being carried out by civilians, being paid some £8 to £10 a week, to do work for which men are trained in the Army. How does the Minister stand over the position that a man who is trained as a fitter or a skilled mechanic is not employed upon such work, although he is drawing grade pay as as a skilled artisan, having passed the necessary qualifying examinations? How is it that, instead of that man doing the work he is qualified for, civilians are employed to do it for him? Is there not a great misuse of public funds there?

I know, of course, that very strong pressure is exercised by a number of civilians on both sides of this House. I should put it another way, that is, that a number of civilians attached to the Army are able to exercise great influence with Deputies on both sides of the House and that, irrespective of whatever Government may be in office, the civilians attached to the Army will get their pound of flesh. Now, I do not want to deprive any man of his livelihood. The Minister may sneer. I think that he has not got a clue, poor fellow, but I do think that where we have men who are members of the Defence Forces trained as fitters, drivers, mechanics and so on, they should be employed on that type of work and that if the civilians are doing it, then other work outside the Army must be found for them. It should not be too hard to absorb these men into various industrial concerns in the country. It should not be too hard, over a period of years, to get them suitable work outside the Defence Forces.

Nobody suggests that overnight all the civilians employed in or attached to the Army should be dismissed. Nobody wants that, but the House and the country want the Minister to make a start, to ensure that men who are qualified or trained for certain positions or for certain work carry out that work rather than that other men should be brought in to do the work, thereby duplicating the amount of money being spent. The Americans have a saying in the Senate when schemes are being put forward by individual Senators that it is in order to get votes and such a scheme is described as a "pork barrel". If ever there was a pork barrel, it is in the Department of Defence, especially in regard to money spent on the civilian and Civil Service end of it.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister has not made some effort to reduce, even in a limited way, the expenditure on the civilian end of it. The demand throughout the country at present is for the establishment of more industries, and wherever an industrial concern is being set up there is a necessity for employing skilled men. Skilled craftsmen are absolutely essential for an industrial concern. Surely something could be worked out between the Minister's Department and the Department of Industry and Commerce, so that first preference would be given, where any new concern is being started, to men who up to this have been employed as civilians attached to the Army. Would that not be one way of helping to solve the position and ease the position for these men, if they became unemployed?

The Minister will sneer in this House and suggest that I am solely concerned with getting rid of the civilians attached to the Army. I am not. I can realise the position of men who, for a number of years, have been employed in or attached to a particular barracks, but there are other people in this country and there are thousands of people every week who have to leave the country, and I do not see any worry on the Minister's face or on the face of any other member of the Government with regard to these people who have to get out.

I am not asking very much, but I suggest that the time is overripe for the Minister to put a plan before the House as to how he proposes drastically to reduce unnecessary expenditure within the Forces themselves and, at the same time, ease as far as possible, the position of individuals likely to lose their employment.

I see under sub-head X that the Minister wants another £9,000 for this recruiting drive. Is it not time that he woke up to the fact that the money is wasted, that all the expenditure we have every year is money wasted, as far as the recruiting drive is concerned? Every year about January or February, we have this farce going on of recruiting officers attending certain barracks up and down the country and a number of cinemas, which are anti-national in their outlook, making damn good money showing advertisements for an Irish recruiting drive and from the £9,000 or £10,000, 20 or 30 fellows may go in to be examined by the recruiting officer. It is a disgrace to see the money wasted in this regard. If there are suitable terms offered, there will be no shortage of applications by the right type of individuals, but you are not going to get them on the present figures. In those circumstances, it is a complete waste of public money to be indulging in a recruiting drive.

There is a section here dealing with offences against the State and the Minister pointed out that his appeal for recruits was necessary to a great extent, in view of the strain of the work falling on the Army so far as offences against the State are concerned. Does the Minister think that he will bring 2,000 or 3,000 men into the Army on so-called patriotic grounds, when his purpose is to use these young men to keep other young men locked up in the Curragh and elsewhere? That is really what the Minister is at and he appeals to Deputies to support the recruiting drive in order to get more young men into the Defence Forces, so that they, in turn, can look after other young Irishmen who are locked up for their national activities. The whole situation is ludicrous.

Deputy MacEoin mentioned the position in connection with a member of this House, namely, Deputy R. Brady. It might be no harm if the House realised the type of Minister who is charged with defence at the moment. Deputy Brady was sentenced in the courts of this country for certain alleged offences against the State. He completed his sentence, but he was not released. He was taken from the prison, pushed into a truck and rushed off down to the Curragh. While he was imprisoned, he made application to see his solicitor in connection with his position as a vocational teacher. He understood from the vocational committee that his position was in jeopardy, due to circumstances which had arisen. He asked for permission to see his solicitor in order that his livelihood afterwards would not be jeopardised. To the amazement of the Deputy himself and others, the Minister for Defence refused him permission to see his solicitor.

The matter was brought before Roscommon County Council on a number of occasions and the Minister had not the decency to send down the reasons why he refused him permission to see his solicitor. Pressure was brought to bear on the Minister by the county council and by—I must say and congratulate them—the members of the Fianna Fáil Party on the county council, who were unanimous in condemning the Minister for his attitude towards Deputy Brady. In the course of time, tragedy struck the Brady family and Deputy Brady was allowed out on parole.

During that time, another letter had been forwarded by the county council to the Minister asking him to change his decision and allow Deputy Brady to see his solicitor. All along, the Minister's answer had been that, for security reasons, he would not—he could not—allow Deputy Brady to see the particular solicitor. The Minister's letter, when Deputy Brady was out on parole, stated that he was out on parole and stopped at that. In other words, it was up to Deputy Brady to see his solicitor when he was out on parole, but he could not see him when he was locked up.

The Roscommon County Council took the matter up again and pointed out that the Minister was quibbling over the whole problem, and I am glad to say the Minister changed his mind and has given permission to Deputy Brady to see his solicitor. It was not Roscommon County Council, or Deputy MacEoin, or Deputy McQuillan who changed the Minister's mind. It was the Convention on Human Rights that changed the Minister's mind, and the Minister knows very well that the commission dealing with another internee's case are going to have a look into the case of Deputy Brady. Consequently, the Minister got cold feet. He realised that he had made a mistake from the very beginning and he realised that, no matter how he might bulldoze things in this House, no matter how he might override the Roscommon County Council, no matter how he might violate the rights of the human individual, he was up against the Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg, and he backed down.

Deputy MacEoin must think it was a disgraceful thing for a Minister to take it upon himself to make a decision like that. The right should be there for an internee, or prisoner of any kind, to seek legal advice, and it would be very bad that any Minister of State should decide what legal adviser a prisoner should consult. If I, or Deputy MacEoin, or any other Deputy, were in that position and a preference was requested with regard to a particular leval adviser, surely that right would have to be respectful? Surely a Minister could not say it was against the security of the State, and that a prisoner was not to be allowed to communicate with a particular solicitor?

The reason I mention this is that this Minister, in spite of the fact that he is new to the House, shows something of the same mulishness and stubbornness as men twice his age have shown, and I think it is a very bad start. I can well picture any man when he goes into the autumn of life becoming very conservative. Perhaps he may get cranky; perhaps he may become very cautious. At any rate, that seems to go with the advance in years, that a man gets more and more cautious in his approach to problems, more and more conservative and more and more annoyed if new views are expressed and new ways of dealing with problems are brought forward. That is understandable and is to be expected. It is something which will apply to all of us, if we live so long, but it is too bad when we find that mentality showing itself in a young man who has been only 12 months in this House, who never spent a day in the hard fighting as a back bencher, who never went through the hardships of a real campaign on his own, who was foisted into this position and who now, when he is in it, cannot show the slightest signs of making a success of it. God knows I have asked on a number of occasions that the older members on both sides of the House call it a day, pack in, and let the younger men take over, but I should begin to hesitate, if I were to think there were more men of this type to replace the present Minister for Defence.

The Deputy is beginning to get cautious.

I want to comment very briefly on the Minister's speech on this Estimate. The most remarkable feature of his speech was that it was very subdued and no policy was stated in relation to the Army. It seemed to be a routine introduction of an Estimate in this House. We were not given any statement of policy by the Minister, either internal or external, as far as the Army is concerned. We were given nothing in that respect which could be debated here to-night.

However, I should like to put before him the attitude of his Party in previous years in relation to the Army as compared with the kind of speech we heard from the Minister to-night. In his statement, the Minister mentioned that he had approximately 7,500 serving men. It seems, when the Fianna Fáil Party are in Government, that all is well so far as the Army is concerned, but, when they are in opposition, they try to profit by crying "Wolf, wolf" to the nation and they use the strength of the personnel in the Army as a danger signal.

I should like to remind the Minister now of the campaign carried on here, a very vigorous campaign, by the Fianna Fáil Party in the year 1950 and subsequent years, when the inter-Party Government were in office. At that time, they would hear of nothing less than 12,500 men. The Minister told us to-night that he has 7,500 men and he will spend £9,000 on a recruiting campaign. He did not take the trouble to tell us the amount which was spent annually prior to this for the same purpose.

I should like to quote now from some of the speeches made in relation to Army strength some years ago. Deputy Traynor, a former Minister for Defence, speaking at column 609 of Volume 120 of the Official Report, said:—

"Let me again develop this point in regard to the 12,500 Army....

With an Army of 12,500 men, we could have, at the end of two years, about 5,000 men going into the Reserve ranks every year. In five or six years there would be at the back of the Army a Reserve of from 20,000 to 30,000 men. Can anyone realise the peace of mind it would be to a general officer commanding, who knew that within 72 hours of the start of an emergency, such as that with which the late general headquarters staff had been confronted, he would have behind him an Army of 30,000 men, according to the strength of the Reserve? In addition to that, he would also have the knowledge that he had the Volunteer force the Minister has been emphasising as so necessary to the nation."

There, one sees Deputy Traynor in opposition bringing in the word "emergency". When the Fianna Fáil Party are on this side of the House, they use these figures as a political puppet to create anxiety in the minds of the public in relation to the Army.

I am glad to see Deputy Vivion de Valera in the House so that I can quote for him some of his own statements in relation to the Army. In 1950, the Korean war was in progress and apparently Fianna Fáil considered the time appropriate to create anxiety in the minds of the general public. At column 634 of Volume 120 of the Official Report, Deputy Vivion de Valera said:—

"There have been many things said about the 12,500 Army. It was simply this, that on any showing, no matter how you were to raise and prepare a defence force, a minimum regular Army of that number was necessary. As a matter of fact, the staff considered you needed a few hundred more which you might add to the 12,500 as a minimum. If you had that minimum you could make a serious attempt at building the defence force that this country could afford; that would be a practical and realistic approach to the defence problem in so far as a country like ours could approach it. That figure has been so bandied about that I think that explanation in regard to its genesis is necessary."

Major de Valera

What is wrong with that? To what does the Deputy object? Why is the Deputy quoting it?

I am pointing out that the Minister did not express any anxiety to-night because of the low numbers in the Army.

Major de Valera

He did not tell the Deputy there was to be a recruiting drive?

Is there not provision for increased numbers?

But the Minister did not say he was going to recruit 5,000 to bring the strength up to 12,500.

We will do it gradually.

That was the basis of all the debates in the years prior to 1952 when Fianna Fáil returned to office again and brought the Army up to strength.

Major de Valera

1951.

They brought it up to 12,000 just to pretend they were serious, but, in the years which followed 1951, they allowed the numbers to dwindle again.

For what numbers has the Minister estimated?

7,500—250 more than were estimated for last year.

And 5,000 less that Fianna Fáil wanted in 1950.

We would not get them all in one year, even if we tried.

If you estimate for only 7,500, what is the point of all the talk about a recruiting drive?

(Interruptions.)

May I get a hearing for Deputy Roohey? I am trying to keep both sides in order and I am failing. Deputy Rooney is in possession.

We have not been told by the Minister to-night that he will inaugurate a vigorous recruiting drive to bring the figure up to the 12,500 which Fianna Fáil regarded as a minimum some years ago, at a time when they thought they could derive some political advantage from that attitude here.

The Minister spoke of the disposal of land owned by the Army at Tallaght. Is this land being acquired by the Irish Land Commission? The Minister mentioned that he had credited the Estimates with the amount of money expected for this land. I am interested to know whether this land will be put up for public auction or is it being handed over to the Irish Land Commission?

Public auction.

Perhaps the Minister will state whether there has been a change. I understood arrangements were being made between the Department of Defence and the Department of Lands for the Irish Land Commission to acquire that land from the Department of Defence in order to subdivide it amongst suitable applicants for holdings in the area. From what the Minister has said, it now appears that this land will not be handed over to the Land Commission for that purpose, but that it will be put under the hammer at public auction.

These are the only comments I want to make on the speech of the Minister. I had hoped he would have given us a general view of the defence policy being pursued, but instead we had from him a general account of the ordinary administration of the Army and of the arrangements being made for the coming year to continue that administration.

We must all agree that the Estimate which the Minister has produced is a modest one and could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as extravagant in any way. We can all realise the pressure under which the Minister must have been to increase expenditure under practically every head of the Vote. He has to be congratulated on the fact that, in the face of such pressure—and in practically every case, I am sure he could sympathise with the pressure—he has succeeded in producing an Estimate in which the total outlay is only very insignificantly increased on the previous year, while, at the same time, he has produced for us a balanced and sensible programme for defence expenditure.

In Fianna Fáil, we believe—and I think most responsible members of the House believe—that to provide and maintain a necessary minimum of Defence Forces is, in the first instance, a national duty and, secondly, is nothing more or less than common sense.

The Minister is faced with the problem of meeting that minimum national requirement and, at the same time, keeping expenditure to a level which the national economy, in its present circumstances, can afford. It is against that background that we must consider the Estimate. If we do so, we must agree that it is a sound and sensible distribution of our resources.

I am personally disappointed, and have been for a number of years, at one particular aspect of our defence policy, and that is in the manner in which successive Ministers have treated the branch of our Defence Forces about which I know most, the F.C.A. Under this heading, the Minister is provided with the opportunity of reconciling his two conflicting aims of meeting the minimum national defence requirements and at the same time keeping the cost within reasonable bounds. The F.C.A. has always seemed to me to be an instrument whereby a pool of trained men would be available at any given moment for reinforcing the permanent forces at comparatively little cost.

Sufficient attention has not been given in our defence policy to the F.C.A. I am reinforced in that opinion again this year when I find that the Minister proposes to spend, between the F.C.A. and An Sluagh Muiri, a total of £391,000 approximately. The pay of civilians attached to units of the Defence Forces alone amounts to a much greater sum, £664,000. If we take those two figures in relation to each other, they indicate that in our policy sufficient emphasis is not placed on the advantage the F.C.A. could be to our Defence Forces.

For a very small expenditure, we could procure a substantial pool of trained part-time soldiers. In addition, the F.C.A. could offer several other advantages to the country. It has always seemed to me that it would be a very good thing that our young men from the ages of 17 to 20 should go into the F.C.A. and have an opportunity of being inculcated with patriotism, proper national ideals, a sense of discipline and all the other advantages that go with military training at that early age. A great number of our modern teenage social problems would be got over, if more of our young people were recruited into the F.C.A. and taught there to cultivate a sense of responsibility and discipline.

I also feel that the F.C.A. provides at the moment, and could provide to a far greater degree, an outlet for that military patriotism which is natural to young men everywhere, but particularly so in this country. A lot of young men, who find themselves caught up in movements without realising fully what is involved in the ultimate, would never get into these difficulties if the career of a member of the F.C.A. were made more attractive and interesting.

The authorities have been lacking in bringing a certain amount of imagination and vision to their planning and approach to the F.C.A. I would suggest to the Minister that a number of things could be done to make the F.C.A. a much more interesting and attractive proposition for young men and that they need not necessarily cost the Exchequer any great amount. Some time ago, there was talk of a new and more attractive uniform for the F.C.A. I would not be terribly worried about that aspect. The uniform they have at the moment is a very serviceable and sensible military uniform.

I think that when young men are prepared to give their time and energy free and voluntarily to the country, they might be provided with proper uniforms, properly fitted. The type of uniform is all right. It is just that it is not supplied to the units of the F.C.A. in proper sizes and in proper quantity. I believe that it is true that a great number of units have difficulty in getting adequate supplies of clothing. There may be some excuse for not supplying them with the most up-to-date and modern weapons, but it is a very poor affair altogether if they cannot be provided with properly fitting uniforms in the quantities required.

I also think that more military transport should be placed at the disposal of the F.C.A. units and that far greater attention should be given to accommodation throughout the country. I know of units in Dublin which are excellent parading units but which cannot find suitable accommodation. In all these matters I suggest to the Minister that if he gives some thought and imagination to the requirements of this force, he will find that, without any great expenditure, he will be able to meet a great number of the grievances and complaints which tend to stop recruiting and which keep the F.C.A. from being the force that I think it should be.

A little more attention should be paid to making the force, as such, more important and attractive than it is. Young people are interested in glamour and in a sense of importance and this aspect should be catered for to a greater extent. I hope the Minister will devote, possibly more expenditure, but certainly a great deal more thought and imagination to the requirements of the F.C.A., and if he does that I feel that he will find that a lot of his man-power problems in the building up of the Defence Forces will be overcome. I think the young men of the country would be prepared to come forward in great numbers and join the properly organised Defence Forces of the country rather than partake in any other form of activity, if a greater incentive were given to them to do so and if the F.C.A. were made the attractive force it can be made.

Apart from that aspect of the Estimates, I feel that the Minister has done a good job in reconciling the conflicting pressures to which he must have been subjected and in giving us a reasonable Defence Force while keeping defence expenditure in line with our resources.

At the outset, I should like to join with Deputy MacEoin in paying a tribute here in the House to the former Secretary of the Department of Defence. He is an officer who rendered considerable service in difficult times in the building up of our Defence Forces and in ensuring that they were regarded by all our people as the Army of the country. I am certain that, in his retirement, he carries with him the knowledge of good work well done.

References have been made here this evening by Deputy McQuillan, and on other occasions by the same Deputy and other Deputies, in relation to the position of the Army in the country. Deputy McQuillan recalled a motion in his name asking Dáil Éireann to establish a select committee to inquire into the whole position of the Army, its future and so on. He seemed critical of the fact that the Fine Gael Party was at one with the Government in rejecting and voting against that motion. If he passed to consider for a moment, he would realise that there is such a committee established by this Dáil, that is, the Government of this country. It is their function and responsibility to have regard to the position of the Army in the country, to have regard to the manner in which the Army should be organised, and it is their responsibility to work out the defence plan of this country.

Having regard to the fact that this responsibility is placed upon the Government, one must feel that the Minister's statement here this evening is not a very enlightening one. It consisted largely of a recital of facts so often repeated in this House that many of us know them practically by heart. There was nothing running through his speech of any realisation of the fact that there are new considerations in relation to defence not only here but elsewhere. Since the Minister assumed office 12 months ago, startling and dramatic changes have taken place in Britain and elsewhere in relation to the organisation of defence forces. One would have expected that, in the Minister's statement here to-night, some evidence would have been given that these developments were also being considered here. Instead of that, nothing new has been added in what surely should be a new situation. Obviously, from what the Minister has said here in reply to an interjection, we are still to have the same old argument from the Minister's side of the House with regard to the optimum strength of the Army.

Some years ago, as has been pointed out, it was commonplace for members of the Minister's Party while in Opposition to regard it as doctrinaire that we must have an army of 12,500. One fewer would not do and, apparently, one more was unnecessary. Just 12,500 troops represented the ideal Defence Force for this country. Of course, it is many years since we had such an Army and, indeed, many people feel that it will be many years before we will get such an Army. We certainly have not it now nor is it intended to obtain an Army of that size this year. These Estimates are based on an estimated strength of 7,500. Therefore, one can at least assume that the talk of an army of 12,500 is now something that can be remembered but certainly does not represent a live policy to-day.

I do not know what is the ideal strength of our Defence Forces. I would imagine that the wise and sensible thing is to plan in relation to the strength that it is felt can be mustered. If, with ordinary recruitment, based on the conditions of service that we can afford to offer, we cannot have an Army of a strength greater than 7,500 or 8,000 in the permanent forces, the sensible thing is to plan our defence policy on that strength rather than to plan it with a whole lot of "ifs and ands" which, in fact, represent nothing practical.

The certain thing is that over recent years the strength of the permanent force has not exceeded 8,000. A recruiting drive has taken place in the spring of every year for many years. I have not the information before me, but I guess the position to have been that such recruiting drive each year produced a limited number of recruits, but certainly never in any way made an impact on the strength of the forces. Therefore, it seems to me that, unless we decide drastically to alter the manner in which we are to raise our Defence Forces or unless we can afford to offer considerably more attractive conditions of service, we should plan our defence policy on an effective strength in the permanent forces of something around 8,000. I feel that there is the criticism of the Minister's statement here to-night that there is no evidence in it of any practical consideration of that kind.

I should like to know from the Minister when he is replying whether and, if so, what progress has been made in relation to the preparation of a casualty service. The Minister has referred to the provisions in relation to civil defence and he has asked for the co-operation of local authorities and the public generally in the building up of a civil defence army. With Deputy MacEoin, I should like to concur in everything he has said and to ask for every possible co-operation throughout the country in the building up of this service. But, the civil defence service is only one aspect of the services which should be available to the public in the event of the outbreak of war or the effects of war being felt here. There is also the perhaps more important service in relation to the victims of attack and that is the casualty service. I know—certainly it occurred when we were in Government and I dare say the same position still obtains —there was some difference in view between successive Ministers for Defence and successive Ministers for Health in relation to the responsibility with regard to that service. I only trust that those differences have now been composed and that progress is being made in organising a casualty service.

In that regard I should like to remind Deputies who may not be familiar with the problem that, in relation to a service for casualties, particularly around this city, we must have regard to the fact that in Dublin City all our major hospitals are centred within a radius of two or three miles. Were the worst to happen and an atomic bomb dropped on or near this island which might have its effect on Dublin City, our problem is that the means by which casualties could be treated would be obliterated, so that in relation to the building up of a casualty service consideration has to be given to the provision of alternative hospital services outside the city. I hope that the Minister may be able to report some progress in that regard when he is replying.

On Wednesday last I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister to ask him what was the present strength of the Defence Forces. I did so as a Deputy seeking information. I received in tabular form a reply which was printed in the Official Report and which was available to the public for their information. That reply gives the strength of the Army on 28th February, with the following particulars: (a) Na Buan-Óglaigh—the particulars were given; (b) (i) An Cúltacha Oifigeach agus an Cúltaca Fear—the particulars were given. Further particulars were given under such headings. I never heard the permanent forces so called and I was never aware that our reserve forces were so styled. It is the first time I was aware of such information being given with particulars which would not be known or recognised by the general public.

I have taken the trouble to ascertain that, under the Defence Act, 1954, the proper style of our Reserve Force is the Reserve Defence Force, officers and men, First Line, and so on, and I suggest to the Minister, when such parliamentary questions are asked, that he give the information in accordance with the statute in that regard passed by the House. It is important that these matters should not be disguised; it is important that, when a question is asked to elicit information with regard to our Defence Forces, the reply should be given in a manner capable of being recognised by the general public.

I dare say there was scarcely a Deputy in the Dáil, irrespective of how proficient he might be in the speaking of Irish, who would have been aware of what the Minister had in mind when he referred to An Cúltaca Oifigeach agus An Cúltaca Fear. The fact is the official style is the Reserve Defence Force, the Reserve of Officers, First Line, and so on, and certainly they should be so referred to by the Minister.

Would the Constitution not empower him to use the Irish form?

It is the first official language.

The Defence Act of 1954 was passed through this House in English. It is not one of the Acts passed through the Irish language; it is translated into Irish, but the force which it establishes, with the exception of An Slua Muiri, is known by its English title. If the Minister desires it otherwise and wants to get the approval of this House, there is a way of doing it, but until it is done, the Minister should refer to the parts of these Defence Forces according to their proper style and manner.

I should like to subscribe to the views expressed by certain Deputies— particularly by Deputy Haughey—in regard to the importance in present circumstances of getting our people, particularly the younger people, to have not only respect but a deep affection for the Army and our Defence Forces. I feel that in the past 18 months or two years, we should have made more use of our Army in public ceremonial than in fact was made. It is important that young people should realise that the Irish Republican Army is the Army we are discussing here to-night and no other, and that any other force that no styles or parades itself is a force treasonable to the the State. That can be got over properly only by getting young people, particularly, to realise that when an Army band plays a group of marching soldiers along the streets those wearing the green uniforms are our men and represent our Army.

In that regard, it is perhaps a pity and I hope it is a matter that the Minister and his colleagues will consider in relation to next year—that there has not been a revival in present circumstances of the Army parades of St. Patrick's Day. Certainly, I would like to feel that on other notable dates in the year, perhaps at Easter, or on some other occasion, an effort should be made to have a ceremonial parade or parades in different parts of the country by the Defence Forces. I know that at times in the past such parades were so frequent that in fact their novelty began to wear off, but I feel the time is now opportune for a revival of some public ceremonial in relation to the Army——

There is always one at Easter.

I forgot that for the moment. In any event, I would suggest that a little more ceremonial involving the Defence Forces might be considered in present circumstances.

The views I am about to express are purely my own and being as I am, a pacifist, they will not necessarily represent the views, perhaps, of the vast majority of people in the House, or in fact, of the vast majority of the people in the Party to which I belong. But I think it is just as well that everyone elected to the House who has views to express should have the courage to express them, even if they do not receive acclaim or applause from the people listening or from a good many of the people reading them.

To my mind, a good deal of humbug has been spoken here on this Estimate. Obviously, this country is too small, too impoverished, to be able to afford a Defence Force of a type that would be able to offer any effective resistance in terms of the repulse of any invading force.

Deputy MacEoin said he was quite sure the present Army would give a good account of itself. I am quite sure it would, if that account were to be measured by the number of Irishmen who would risk their lives and suffer death rather than allow an enemy to come into the country. A good account of themselves given in that way, to my mind, as one who has no use for that type of bloodshed, is ridiculous. I would prefer, if we could not successfully repulse an attack, that at least we would conserve our man-power and woman-power rather than waste it in a useless outflow of blood. Obviously, with the nuclear weapons they have, the big competing powers hold the key to the strategy of this country. If we are vital to one or other, they will see to it that we are defended or attacked as they decree. In these circumstances, to talk about the man-power or firing power is just rubbish.

It is obvious that the State has a duty to maintain an armed force, whether we call it an army or police or defence force. The State has the duty to itself to uphold its own authority, to ensure that anarchy will not prevail or that armed resistance by any group will not be able to upset it. With that I think we all agree. I suggest that these 1,500 officers, our line of reserve officers, the 11,000 peace-time troops aimed at are completely unnecessary, and that there is an absolute waste of money which is badly needed for economic development.

Military manoeuvres, jet planes screaming overhead—for what use? Even if they were helicopters, which could be adapted for some actual humanitarian purpose, even the rescue of life at sea, even to fly in an emergency case from one of our islands, I could subscribe to that. But in the waste of pounds per second in aviation fuel, for certain young Air Force officers flying all over the country, I see no advantage, other than the possible training of those young men as commercial pilots. Even in that, I am told—I am not quite sure of it—that a man with a rank in the British Air Force is rated more higly, even in Aer Lingus, and certainly in some of the other airways, than our own Irish-trained boys. Even if it were the aim to train for Aer Lingus, why should it be necessary to spend badly needed money for such a purpose?

I would suggest that an emergency group of armed people, whether we call them a police force or a defence force, is needed, but I would suggest they should so combine it with the other needs and services of this country, such as fishery protection, ambulance services, fire-fighting services, civil defence services of all sorts, as to make them in some way remunerative for the money that they cost.

It was regrettable to hear this evening of the amount of money which had to be spent on the activities of our troops guarding the internees at the Curragh. While I hold no brief for anyone in this country who attempts to defy its lawful Constitution by armed force, I equally have no use for any group or Government that interns men without trial or without evidence that can be brought before a judge on which a conviction could be secured, and which uses our Irish troops to keep them under barbed wire in the Curragh. As long as I am here, irrespective of which Government is in power—whether it is one of Parties, or one of which I would be a member, in the form of an inter-Party section, or not—I will express that view. The danger I see is that what is done to-day to a group of people under one name could be done to-morrow to a separate group of people called by a different name altogether. That is all I want to say on defence.

I appeal to all Deputies not to be led away by the hambug as to what our young men could do. I give them all the credit, that they will lay down their lives and do so willingly but what would be the use? In laying down their lives, the object for which they would be laying them down would be to save life, to save the people of the country and, in their attempt to save the people, they would destroy more than they would save.

I should like to express my views, which are a little different, perhaps, from those of other Deputies. I am not claiming any authority on this question of defence, but I suppose I have as much knowledge as anyone else. I served in the various Defence Forces and while I do not claim to have any advanced military knowledge, one can be a good soldier without having a knowledge of general military policy or its requirements. I have always taken a keen interest in military history, military biography and warfare. If I express views at all, they are based on that, and I would like to put them objectively.

Everything has a purpose. Even you yourself, Sir, are here to keep order in this House; you are not there just to be looked at. Likewise, our Defence Forces are there for a specific purpose, that is, to defend this country, if need be. We are spending over £6,000,000 this year for that purpose and we spent hundreds of millions during the past 30 or 40 years on the same purpose. What would we get for this £6,000,000, or these hundreds of millions, if there were an emergency? Does our Defence Force exist just as a kind of Swiss Guard for ceremonial purposes? I am not much interested in that, but I am interested in the purpose of defence. I am trying to visualise an actual attack here. That is the purpose of defence.

Every nation has a military policy, depending on how it is situated, who its neighbours are, the strength of those neighbours, the policy of those neighbours and their experience. We know that Britain has always looked on the sea as her defence, and, therefore, she never developed any large land force. She always gambled on having a navy big enough to keep people at a distance and give her time. She could not afford a big navy and a big land force at the same time. That is why she makes an alliance with France, seeing in France a big land power which would give her certain advantages and an opportunity to mobilise her own forces.

America has her war policy. She had it for years, with the Monroe Doctrine, under which no one would be allowed to intervene in any little differences between the various South American nations. They could shoot away, but no outsider would be allowed to intervene. Every country has a policy in military matters. It is laid down on a certain basis. Now, what is our policy? Are we just to have a sort of Swiss Guard, to parade at certain times of the year? Is our Army there to withstand an attack and, if so, by whom and in what way?

We know that from time to time there are certain internal disturbances here, but we do not need a conventional army to guard ourselves against them. I refer to the form of disturbances we have had, which have been handled by small police forces. We do not need a heavily armoured force to meet a situation like that. Even the little troubles we have up in the North at the moment are being handled by light, land police forces. Our main function is to defend this country against external attack. I am trying to visualise an external attack, and I say to myself, just as the British say: "The British have to be watched, the Russians have to be watched; we as a nation must see that England has to be watched, and England's enemies." They are the only possible opponents we could have; there are no others. England will allow no one to come in here, in her own interest—and, therefore, England herself is the only possible one; or, if England were defeated, her opponents might come in.

Outside some disturbances within the State, our potential enemies would be England herself or England's enemies. In each case it would be a mighty force. That is the point I am endeavouring to make. We have a conventional force organised in a manner that would put up, as I call it, a frontal or open resistance. Because of the size of our population and our finances, and because we can get no support from anyone, I hold we are actually at the mercy of those two gigantic forces who might possibly be aggressors.

It is ridiculous to think in terms of a conventional defence. I hold that our proper defence should be a kind of local defence force, well armed and trained with a small conventional force solely for th purpose of training that local defence force to put up some kind of delaying action, in the event of an invasion. It is not possible for this country to put up any form of conventional defence and it would be suicide to try it.

My point is that we are wasting a lot of money on conventional defence. The whole system should be reorganised in the light of what we might expect. In that way, we could economise and save several million pounds. I believe that half the barracks we possess could be sold. The Curragh could be given over to the local council for use in connection with a housing scheme. What use is the Curragh? If ever there was a sitting duck for one bomb, the Curragh is. I put it to the House that we are thinking too much in terms of a form of defence which it is not possible for us to sustain.

According to the Estimates, there is an increase in regard to naval matters. Why the increase? I could understand getting lightboats for the purpose of defending our fisheries, but what sense is there in any form of a naval force, from a defence point of view? We have all seen what happened in regard to the Egyptians whose fleet disappeared overnight. Money spent on naval defence here is a waste of money, time and lives. We are not in a position to put up any form of conventional defence. Therefore, we should give it up and reorganise our defences. I am not talking about empty gestures; I do not believe in empty gestures. The only form of defence is attack and we are not in a position to attack in a conventional sense. Our salvation lies in guerilla defence. We ought to come down to earth and make up our minds to organise ourselves so that, if there was an invasion, we could at least attack. A conventional defence would lead to our annihilation and actually immobilise all our forces.

We have a few examples of that. The form of defence put up in 1916 was conventional. The men who went out in 1916 were undoubtedly brave men. From a military point of view, nothing was achieved. Houses and buildings were occupied, but they were surrounded by the enemy and all were captured. Leaving aside political issues—we are dealing only with the military factor—during the Civil War, troops occupied buildings and were surrounded and captured. Going further back in history, the same thing happened at Vinegar Hill. The only time we won a battle at all in a conventional sense was at Clontarf and the only other victory we can claim in that sense was in 1921. The hope of an enemy is that we would put up a conventional defence so that he could annihilate us.

We should be Machiavellian in our approach to defence. Our whole defence force is little more than a ceremonial affair and is a waste of money. We should save the money and give it to the people in need. As I said we do not need half the barracks we possess. We should sell them. We need only light armaments. What we really require in this country are small arms. We do not manufacture them. We have no ammunition supplies and we depend on Britain, who might not be able to do so, to help us. We should have a small arms factory in Ireland.

I want something more than an empty gesture. I would like a proper defence, such a defence as would enable us to attack. I may be getting into deep water, but I want to show that there is a good deal of money being wasted. The Army serves no purpose; it is only a kind of ceremonial Army. I ask that we pursue a down-to-earth policy. We can save £2,000,000 without any trouble and yet have a most effective local defence force which will give us adequate support, in the event of invasion.

I should also like to point out that the guerillas in Spain tied up 200,000 of Napoleon's troops. Napoleon could win whenever a conventional defence was put up, but, in the absence of a conventional defence, he was as much at the mercy of the guerillas as the British in Ireland were in 1921. We should think along the lines I have indicated in regard to the organisation of our Defence Forces. As it is, we are throwing away several million pounds per annum.

Dealing with the point which has just been raised, I think it would be most unjust to assume that the Defence Forces were organised on a basis of putting up purely what the Deputy has called a conventional defence. In actual fact, the Forces are organised very much on the lines which the Deputy himself has advocated. The regular Army is a training cadre essentially and not in itself a fighting force. It is a training cadre on the basis of which a local defence force can be raised and trained at comparatively short notice.

I do not think the Deputy need worry for a moment there is any danger that the regular Army, as such, will be immobilised and put up a thin green line across the country to defend it against an invader. Any such conception was out of date well before the last war. The whole conception of defence now is extreme mobility and the ability to strike, retire, slip round the flanks, get round the rear of the enemy, strike again and run. That is the only defence which a force such as ours can put up and it is all that it could be expected to put up. I do not think anybody could accuse our Army of being a ceremonial Army—quite the reverse. It is a very work-a-day outfit which indulges in the very minimum of ceremonial.

In his speech, the Minister referred to the strength of the forces and to the necessity for maintaining a minimum number, at least, in the interests of the morale of the forces. That is an extremely important consideration. There is nothing more damaging to morale than forces which are grossly under strength and that actually is always the case with a peace-time Regular Army.

I would agree on one point which the last Deputy made, that is, about the number of barracks. I mentioned the matter on the Estimate last year and I should like to mention it again. The number of barracks actually occupied in Dublin appears to me excessive. I am speaking as an outsider, a layman. However, knowing the number of troops accommodated in the same barracks during the 1939-1945 period and knowing approximately the number which are now accommodated in the same quarters, I cannot help feeling that those barracks are not half-manned.

Once barracks are open, they have to be maintained. That means extra guard duties, extra fatigues and so on. It means that the great propotion of the men are engaged on maintenance of barrack duties and the minimum number of men on actual military training. That can have a very adverse effect on morale generally. I would again ask the Minister, as I did last year, to look into the matter very carefully to see whether there cannot be some economy in that line.

With regard to sub-head A of the Estimate, I should like to refer in particular to the officers of the legal branch. I am disappointed to see that there is little difference in the pay for these officers, as compared with last year. These officers were the only professional officers who did not receive additional professional pay during the last few years. As one who has served in the legal branch of the forces, I should like to state that it is not purely a question of personal prejudice. I know the very wide scope of the duties of the legal officers attached to the Army. I do not think anyone could feel that officers who have become qualified in the law are only less entitled to professional pay than other professional officers.

At the same time, all the other professions have received an increase on the professional pay and the legal officers have not. I think that was primarily the fault of the legal profession itself in that it did not draw the attention of the Minister earlier to that injustice. The Minister's attention has already been drawn to that matter and I would earnestly ask him to try to prevail upon the Minister for Finance to see if the comparatively small amount necessary in this very large Estimate could be included in order to grant the legal officers the same conditions as apply to other officers with professional qualifications.

I found out to-day, rather to my surprise, that there is no copy of the Army establishment available in the Library. That, I presume, is a confidential document. At the same time, it makes it rather difficult to discuss this Estimate without having more precise information as to the present establishment of the Army. I noticed some time ago a reference to some function in relation to coast defence artillery. I had believed, and, I may say, hoped, we had given up coast defence artillery. Perhaps it was some function dealing with those who had been in that branch of the Artillery Corps but if there is still coast defence artillery on the establishment I find it difficult to understand its significance.

Similarly, anti-aircraft artillery has, I think, now become completely outdated. I grant that infantry in the field will require some light anti-aircraft protection to give them some defence against spotter aircraft. They will not be able to give themselves any defence against jet aircraft but they would require some defence in the field against reconnaissance planes. However, when we come to light and medium anti-aircraft artillery, it is significant that this has largely been abandoned by most of the present-day armies. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter, too. A number of our men have been very well trained in modern anti-aircraft artillery work, especially radar-controlled artillery, but even radar-controlled artillery is of very little use in these days.

With regard to the naval service, I am a little concerned as to whether the corvettes are the most suitable vessels for this service. They are apparently fairly expensive to maintain and to run. Their running expenses on fuel oil are high, yet they do not seem to be able to give adequate fishery protection, which is their main duty. Most of them appear to be engaged on fishery patrol most of the time and they have not the speed to catch the offender in the act. I am not quite clear in my mind as to the alternative but it seems that a lot of money is locked up in the small force of three corvettes and, with the heavy maintenance and running costs, I have some doubts as to whether they are an economic proposition.

On the civil side, I am disappointed that there appears to be no reduction. I hope I have not got a prejudice against the civil side though I am open to conviction on that point and maybe I am prejudiced in favour of the military rather than the civil side. At the same time, there is a tremendous expenditure under the heading of the Minister's Office in respect of civilian employees. The Minister and Secretariat account for a total expenditure of £287,500. Some of these sections are rather a mystery to me. There is the Minister's own Office and his immediate executives. Then there is the Lands Section.

I can quite see that you need some civil servants to look after the Army land but there seems to be an enormous number of people in the Establishment Section, on a very large sum of money annually. I come back to the point I raised last year—to the Soldiers' Pay Section, where we have 105 officials engaged in the distribution of pay of approximately 11,000 men. Seeing that every man is paid not by a civilian but by his own officer, I still cannot understand why you need 105 officials in the Department of Defence to see that the right amount of pay has been given out, considering that that costs the Department £55,700. Therefore, the expenditure on soldiers' pay is £55,700 on the civilian side and all the money is actually paid out by the officers in charge of the various units. I am convinced there is overlapping of function there which is quite unnecessary.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th March, 1958.
Top
Share