Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1960

Vol. 181 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 51—Defence (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration).—(Deputy MacEoin).

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

I do not think I have very much more to say in concluding the debate on this Estimate. This year, as in previous years, we had a Deputy expressing doubts as to the necessity of this country maintaining an Army at all. All I can do is once again make it clear that so far as this Government are concerned, we intend to continue to accept the responsibilities and the necessary commitments of our independence. We think our independence is important and that there can be no independence if we are to leave the defence of the country to an outside power. I dealt with that last year and I do not think there is any necessity to go into it further this year. As far as the Government are concerned, that is the position.

One Deputy insisted throughout his speech on alleging, and basing the biggest part of his contribution on it, that this year we were providing for an increase in the officer strength and a decrease of strength in privates. That, of course, is completely at variance with the facts and I do not know whether there is any point even in referring to such a statement. I made it quite clear that in fact we are providing for an increase of 250 non-commissioned ranks this year.

Mr. McQuillan

On what figures?

Mr. K. Boland

An increase, I said, of 250 on last year and the Deputy was listening to me stating that.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Minister did not interrupt the Deputy and he should not be interrupted now.

Mr. K. Boland

The Deputy was listening to me saying that but, as is his practice, he invents facts and arguments to suit himself. He was quite well aware that we were providing for an increase of 250 on this occasion but in order that he could make the attack he wanted to make, he decided to alter those facts for his own convenience and based his contribution on the false premise that we were providing for a decrease in privates.

I am satisfied also that I gave adequate reasons for the purchase of three new jet planes. The fact is, as I explained, that advanced training aircraft of the piston type are no longer available and therefore if the Air Corps is to continue training pilots, it is necessary to purchase these planes.

Helicopters are of very little military interest, neither would they be of any advantage to the Air Corps in its other function of training pilots for Aer Lingus. With regard to the question of training pilots for Aer Lingus, I think I should point out that these pilots, when they go into Aer Lingus, are not lost to the Air Corps. They remain on the Reserve and do their annual training each year.

I am glad that in general Deputies were helpful on the subject of Civil Defence. It is encouraging to know that public representatives realise the importance of that aspect of national defence. I pointed out that the reduction in the Vote for Civil Defence was due to the fact that my Department holds quite considerable stocks of uniforms in anticipation of further recruitment and that therefore it was not necessary to provide further uniforms this year. In fact increased provision was made for other items for Civil Defence. The reduction, therefore, does not indicate any lessening of interest on my part or on the part of the Department in regard to Civil Defence.

One Deputy made the point that the Head of the Civil Defence section should not be a civil servant no matter how efficient that civil servant may be. I want to point out that Civil Defence has not yet reached the stage where it is necessary to appoint an operational head. It is still only in the planning and administrative stages and the question of appointing an operational head has not yet arisen.

Deputy MacEoin enquired about the policy on sending personnel for courses abroad. The provision, he said, was smaller this year than last year but that is not due to any change of policy. We still provide for sending personnel abroad on any courses suitable from our point of view in which vacancies are available to us. It so happens that this year the number of courses taken in conjunction with their cost happens to be fewer than in last year but the policy is the same.

The apprentice schemes referred to are progressing very satisfactory. Last year I believe I mentioned that the first group of over 50, recruited in 1956, have completed their training and have been allocated to different corps within the Army and their advent to their units has been of considerable benefit. They got very good training and the scheme appears to be very popular amongst the schools. The authorities of the school at Naas are very well satisfied with the type of boy enlisting.

The question of soldiers' complaints was raised and of course there is adequate provision for attending to such complaints. That is provided in the Defence Acts. A soldier can in fact complain to the Minister and, reasonably often that happens. I do not know anything about Deputy MacEoin's suggestion that this was the job of the Parliamentary Secretary. So far as I know it is only to the Minister that a soldier may appeal and the Parliamentary Secretary does not come into it.

Mr. McQuillan

It looks as if he had a grievance himself there.

Mr. K. Boland

I should refer to what I consider the very unfair criticism of the civil side of the Department of Defence. I can understand anybody being under the impression that the Civil Service is overstaffed but I do not see what anybody can hope to achieve by making a statement such as we have heard about 504 civil servants looking after something like 1,000 officers and 8,000 men. The Deputy who made that statement should realise that civil servants also deal with the Reserve, the F.C.A., An Slua Mhuiri and pensions, including Defence Forces pensions, disability pensions, dependants' allowances, military service pensions and special allowances. I am just as anxious as anybody to reduce administrative costs but I cannot see that any good purpose is served by such extreme misrepresentation as we heard on that subject.

General MacEoin

The Minister did not reply to the question about Clonmel.

Mr. K. Boland

In regard to Clonmel, when the proposed reorganisation was being talked about and before it came into effect, I was approached on a number of occasions and I was able to give an assurance that the reorganisation would not entail any significant reduction in the number of personnel stationed in Clonmel. That is the fact. As Deputy MacEoin knows there is always some fluctuation in numbers in different units but the reorganisation did not, and will not, entail any permanent reduction and, in fact, over the last five years the average numbers have not fluctuated very much. I was asked a question recently which, whether deliberately or not, seemed to be fairly skilfully framed so as to exaggerate the position as much as possible but the actual position in regard to average number from 1956 on is as follows. In 1956 the total average in the barracks in Clonmel was 269; in 1957 it was 260; in 1958 it was 230; in 1959 it was 287 and in 1960, for the first four months, it was 224.

As I say, there is always some fluctuation due to recruits coming in at particular times of the year and so on and while the average for the first four months was 224 the number there at present is 253 and it is likely that the average for the full year will not differ significantly from the average for the previous five years. In 1959 when the figure went as high as 287 there was a bigger number of recruits in training there than usual. I can assure the Deputy that there will not be any significant reduction in Clonmel.

Mr. Davern

Deputy MacEoin can be certain that the Fianna Fáil Deputies from Tipperary will look after Clonmel.

General MacEoin

I do not doubt it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.