Vol. 208 No. 4
Tairgim:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £6,343,700 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1965, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Cosanta, lena n-áirítear Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin; le haghaidh Pá agus Costais Óglaigh na hÉireann; agus chun Deontas-i-gCabhair a íoc.
Are the two Estimates, Defence and Army Pensions, being taken together?
Yes, in one debate.
Do thír chomh beag le hÉirinn ní beag an soláthar airgid é an méid atá dá iarraidh san Meastachán seo i gcomhair na bliana 1964/65.
Is minic luaite ó dheireadh chogaidh domhanda a dó go mba fánach a bheith ag iarraidh cosaint a chur suas in aghaidh na n-olloirnéisí chogaíochta atá anois ann; agus gurb í sabháltacht thíre anois í a bheith maol, lom, glan ar chóras agus deiseanna chosantais ar fad, mar dhóigh dhe nach dtarraingófaí ionsaí orrainn nuair nach mbeadh cumas ionsaíthe ionainn féin. Séard is bun leis an dóigh seo: nach mbeidh aon sórt cogaíochta ann arís ach cogadh adamach. Síleadh coitianta sa gcéad cogadh domhanda gurbh é an gas an oll-oirnéis críochnaithe gan sarú. Friothadh amach sul da rabh an cogadh sin thart nach rabh sé comh cruthanta sin mar dheis ionsaithe, agus gur mó dochair é, scaítí, don charaid ná don námhaid.
A shliocht air níor h-usaideadh é san darna chogadh domhanda. Ní h-é sin le rá gur chuir sé deireadh le cogaíocha beaga agus móra. Nuair nár chuir, níl an t-am tagaithe fós le deireadh a chur le fórsaí náisiúnta Cosanta. Tá siad ag gach tír, sean agus úr, mór agus beag. Anois is arís, is tráthúil fórsaí le sparáil ag na tíortha beaga chun críche na síochána faoi choimirce Na Náisiún Aontaithe. Ins na cásanna seo, ní féidir feidhm a bhaint as fórsaí na gcumhachtaí móra, mar is iondual a n-imeacht siúd as a gcuid choilíneachtaí faoi ndear don aighneas is don easaontas í measc na stáit nua a thaganns ann de bharr leághadh an impíreánachais.
Na stáit a shaothraigh a saoirse go dian ón smacht sin, aithníonn siad a chéile. Nuair a roghnaítear ceann aca le dul i gcabhair ar cheann eile ní bhíonn doicheall roimhe, mar bítear feasach nach `cis ar an lathaigh do fhéin' an chabhair sin. Is beag tír in Euróip a mbeadh failte roimh chunamh uaithí ag ceann ar bith de na nua-náisiúin. Tá Eire in a measc siud nach bhfuil an bac sin orra. An fhad is a bhéas Na Náisiúin Aontaithe ina cheannródaí ar an sort seo chomhoibrithe idirnáisiúnta, is docha go mbeidh tóir ar chúnamh na hÉireann. Ba cheist ar fad eile í da n-iarrtaí orrainn a bheith páirteach in aon iarracht eile seachas faoi scáth na Náisiún Aontaithe.
Béidir go ndéarfar nach aon chuid de dhualgas na tíre seo a bheith ag cothú forsaí ar mhaithe le réiteach idir chineacha eile. Ina aghaid sin deirtear go bhfuil an domhan níos cúnga anois de bharr thoradh na h-eolaíochta agus má chuirtear an tsíochán i sáinn in aon áit faoi luighe na gréine go mbíonn contúirt ann don chine daonna fré chéile. Ní áibhéal é sin a rá má bhíonn lámh ag cumhacht mhór i scliúchas idirnáisiúnta ar bith.
I gcúrsaí idirnáisiúnta, ní beag le rá iad na náisiúin beaga í buil a chéile agus iad eagraithe foirbarthe aontaithe ar thaobh na síochána. Ach is tríd na Náisiúin Aontaithe, agus tríd amháin gur féidir leo éifeacht chomhdhluithe a aimsiú agus tionchar a oibriú ar mhaithe le réiteach síochánta i ngach cúis mhí-thuiscinte agus aighnis idir na náisiúin.
Sé mo thuairim gur cuid den fhreagra é seo thuas orra siud a cuireanns cosaint náisiúnta idir lu iacutene; na laethannta seo.
Ní furasta dothan fear feiliúnacha a fháil do na forsaí i dtír ar bith nach bhfuil an tseirbhis éigeantach inti—sé sin nuair a bhíonn rogha fostaíochta ar fáil.
Is mar sin atá i leith an airm agus an chabhlaigh in Éirinn faoi lathair, cé go gcaitear níos féile lena fir anois ná ariamh cheana. Nílim a rá gur chóir an tseirbhís mhileata a bheith in iomaíocht le fostaíocht shibhialta—ach tá se amhlaidh na laethannta seo, agus tá thiar ar an seirbhís. Thagair mé anuraidh don imirce thar sáile ón iarthar agus don ganntan fear ar an gcéad cathlán coisithe i Rinn Mhóir.
De réir na tuairisce atá agam is beag idir fáltas glan an tsaidiúir abhus agus an fuíollach a bhionns fágtha ag an imirceóir thall taréis costais reatha a íoc. Ligtear (le toil na dtuismitheoirí) lads seacht mbliana déag d'aois isteach san arm agus ar a mbeith traenáilte dóibh bíonn cúig phunt ocht scilleacha deag glan gach seachtain ina bpóca aca. Da mbíodh na h-aonaid suas cuig a neart bunaidh ba mhóide cumas na Roinne tuille cúrsaí oideachais a chur ar fáil. Fiu da mbíodh faoi scorach imeacht leis as an tír, nach mba mhaith an réamh-réidhchan aige ina chomhair sin trí bliana idir seacht déag agus fiche a chaitheach san arm ag cur pighneacha le céile agus ag fáil eolais ar an saol seachas saol a bhaile dhuchais?
Bead ag cur síos i mBéarla ar chuideanna shonracha an Mheastacháin i leith solathair agus iarrachtaí chun saol an tsaídiúir a fheabhsú. Muna dtagraím anois do mhireanna ar leith is amlaidh atáim ag seachnú an athrá.
The Estimate for Defence is for a net sum of £9,515,500, which is an increase of £6,800 over the amount voted for the financial year 1963/64. I should emphasise, however, that the Estimate contains no provision for the 12 per cent pay increase for the Civil Service staff of the Department of Defence, for the Defence Forces and for civilians attached to units. Before addressing myself to the details of the Estimate, I should like, as in previous years, to say something about the work of the Department, the Defence Forces and the Civil Defence organisation during the financial year now coming to an end.
Deputies are aware that, for a number of reasons, it has not been possible to maintain the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at as high a figure as we would like, but we have been able to continue to supply troops to serve with the United Nations Force in the Congo.
The strength of the United Nations Force has been gradually reduced in accordance with the United Nations policy of withdrawal of troops from the Congo, and there has been a consequential reduction in the numbers this country has been asked to supply. Thus, the 39th Battalion which commenced its service in Kolwezi in April, 1963 was of a reduced strength of 460 officers and men, and it was replaced in November last by the 2nd Infantry Group of a strength of about 335. The 3rd Armoured Car Squadron, consisting of some 89 officers and other ranks, took up duty in Leopoldville in April, 1963 but was not replaced when it completed its tour of duty in October, 1963. Similarly the number of Irish commissioned and non-commissioned officers serving at ONUC Headquarters at Leopoldville has fallen to 21. It had indeed been hoped that all troops could be withdrawn from the Congo by 31st December last, but in response to a request from the Congolese Prime Minister the United Nations agreed to extend operations there for a further six months.
The main body of Irish troops in the Congo has been stationed during the past year in the important mining town of Kolwezi. Their function has been to maintain peaceful conditions in the town and the surrounding area and, as they have succeeded admirably in doing so, their service has tended to be uneventful. There have been no casualties, I am glad to say, but I regret that one legal officer died while serving as Judge Advocate-General at ONUC Headquarters.
During the year, we supplied a further seven officers for service as Military Observers with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine, bringing our total there to eight. Deputies will recall that the purpose of this Organisation is to assist the observance and maintenance of the armistice agreements negotiated in 1949 between Israel on the one hand and Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon on the other. Our officers' duties include investigation of alleged breaches of the armistice and other incidents, the manning of observer posts and patrol duties.
Once again I have pleasure in thanking the firms and individuals who so kindly presented comforts for our troops in the Congo.
Valuable experience has been gained by our officers and men as a result of their service with the United Nations and this experience will be a continuing source of benefit to us for a long time to come. Our troops have gained considerable status in recent years—a status indicative of the general standard of training and the high qualities of command at all levels.
Here at home, the ceremonies associated with the visit of the late President John F. Kennedy brought the Defence Forces very much before the eyes of the public, and there have been many expressions of appreciation and pride at the bearing of our soldiers during the visit—especially at the ceremonies at Arbour Hill which impressed the late President so deeply. Mrs. Kennedy's request that the Defence Forces should be represented at her husband's obsequies was a very moving tribute, and again there was great pride at the manner in which our cadets bore themselves at the graveside.
During April and May last, and because of a strike of personnel of the bus transport section of Córas Iompair Éireann, an emergency transport service was provided by military personnel driving and manning Army lorries in Dublin, Cork and Galway. About 32 officers and 450 men were engaged on this duty for over four weeks. A minimum of 130 trucks were used. The services rendered in this period were much appreciated by the general public and the use of military personnel and equipment helped to a considerable extent to alleviate the hardship caused by the dispute.
I have recently approved of new scales of pay for all personnel of Na Fórsaí Cosanta related to the increases granted to State servants generally. The new scales of pay are effective as from the 1st February, 1964, and apply to members of the Permanent Defence Force (including the Army Nursing Service) and the Chaplaincy Service. In addition, of course, they apply to An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and other members of the Reserve Defence Force during annual or other forms of full-time training. The annual cost will be approximately £615,000.
I think I may say that the setting-up of a helicopter service during the year gave general satisfaction. Two helicopters are in operation and delivery of a third is expected early in April. Already, the helicopters have carried out two mercy missions off the west coast and they have been alerted on three other occasions. They have also carried out joint air-sea rescue exercises in conjunction with the lifeboats at Howth, Rosslare and Arklow.
Military equitation teams competed at shows in Rome and Nice, and a joint military-civilian equitation team represented Ireland for the first time and won the Aga Khan Trophy at the Dublin Horse Show in August. Later in the year, another joint team competed at shows in Harrisburg, New York and Toronto. At these six international shows, six firsts, ten seconds and nine third prizes were won. Teams from An Scoil Eachaíochta also competed at 24 Irish provincial shows. The results achieved compared more than favourably with those of the previous year. It is contemplated that mixed military-civilian teams will represent Ireland at this year's shows at White City, London and Dublin. Decisions in regard to attendance at other international shows have not yet been reached.
During 1963, work towards the improvement of conditions of service for soldiers continued under the headings of uniform, accommodation, messing and recreational facilities. As was announced a short time ago, a new style service uniform has been approved for non-commissioned officers and men of the Permanent Defence Force. This will give a much smarter appearance and afford greater comfort in wear to the soldiers than the uniform in use up to now. The contractors are at present working on the production of the new uniform and I hope that it will have made its appearance in actual wear by next autumn.
As to soldiers' married quarters, eight new houses will be completed in a few months in Naas and these, with the twenty being built in Athlone, will bring the total number erected in recent years to 190. It is intended to continue this policy of supplementing local authorities' efforts in the provision of housing by providing, from the Vote for Defence, houses for married soldiers throughout the country where the need is greatest from time to time.
The programme commenced some years ago of modernising dining halls and cookhouses, billet rooms, toilet and ablution facilities, etc., continues and the accommodation for soldiers living in barracks is gradually being brought up to modern standards.
Deputies are aware that recruitment continues to be a difficult problem, despite pay increases and improved conditions of service. This is a problem which seems to be incapable of any easy solution where military service is voluntary, and pay increases and improvements of conditions generally do not appear to be bringing about the desired results. The problem is particularly serious in relation to An tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh, and the few recruits being obtained for this Service show how difficult it is to attract young men in competition with outside maritime agencies. Even the excellent apprentice and training schemes such as that at Naas and that in operation in An tAer Chór present ultimate problems, because the very high standards of training provided make it possible for men to get very attractive outside employment. It is a pity that the Defence Forces do not sufficiently appeal to young men as a way of life because conditions are much better than they used to be and it is gratifying to realise, for instance, that youth delinquency, which is such a matter for concern in civilian life, is not a serious problem in the Defence Forces.
The scheme for the training by An tAer Chór of pilots for Aer Lingus is continuing at Gormanston Camp. The first class completed training with the Cór last October, and the second class commenced training in December. Another such scheme is that being operated at the request of the Fisheries Division of the Department of Lands by which facilities are being made available at Haulbowline for the training of young fishermen. Accommodation, rations and educational facilities are being provided and the training will be carried out, in part, in conjunction with An tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh which will provide instructors in subjects such as seamanship and navigation. The other part of the course, which is designed to provide trained deckhands for the fishery fleet, will be conducted under the auspices of the County Cork Vocational Committee through the technical school at Cobh.
A survey of an extensive area of the North Atlantic to the north-west of Ireland, including Irish harbours and coastal waters, is being carried out by the British hydrographic authorities with the agreement of the Government. This survey will last about four years. Officers of An tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh are participating in it, and the results of the survey will be made available to this country.
I should also like to say a word about An Forsa Cosanta Áitiúil and An Slua Muiri. These bodies supply over 60 per cent of our total force and I wish to acknowledge my admiration for them. I hope that this year they will attend annual training in great numbers, because the training is invaluable and affords the members the best opportunity of improving their general standard.
Civil Defence organisation, planing and training have continued to develop during the past year. According to the latest returns submitted by the local authorities, the number of volunteers at the beginning of 1964 was about 12,300, an increase of 1,600 as compared with a year previously. What is, however, much more impressive is that I have seen during my visits to Civil Defence exercises and functions that the membership has become more representative of all classes in the community than at any time since recruiting started in 1956. The Warden Service continues to develop and to attract volunteers who are particularly suitable for local leadership. Almost 70 per cent of the number of district wardens required have now been trained. Training in rescue, welfare, casualty and auxiliary fire services has continued and it is worth mentioning that members of some of these Civil Defence Services have been availed of by some local authorities to help in dealing with such matters as fires, floods, and so on.
Here let me again, as I did last year, express my gratification to the members of the Oireachtas who have shown their interest in the development of Civil Defence. I confidently look forward to even increased support from the elected representatives of the people so that those actively engaged in local civil defence work, whether as volunteers or officials, will feel that their efforts receive the appreciation which they deserve.
Last year, I referred to the difficulties inherent in the selection and development of control centres at county, sub-county and regional levels. Experience of these difficulties over the past 12 months has shown that progress on the work of providing, protecting and equipping controls will have to be spread over a longer period of years than was at first envisaged and that expenditure will have to be phased accordingly. There is, therefore, a reduction in the provisions for controls based on what it is hoped can actually be achieved during the financial year 1964/65.
I also mentioned last year that I had discussions with the heads of Cumann Croise Deirge na hÉireann, the St. John Ambulance Brigade of Ireland and the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, at which substantial agreement was reached as to the role which members of these societies would play in Civil Defence. New arrangements have now been settled which provide, inter alia, that units of these three voluntary aid societies recruited and trained independently by their own officers will constitute an element of the Civil Defence Casualty Service. Members of the societies will continue to wear the regular uniforms of their respective organisations while engaged of Civil Defence activities. As compensation for such wear, a State grant, equivalent to 70 per cent of the cost of a Civil Defence uniform, will be paid on certain conditions. This development should result in a significant increase in first aid training throughout the country which would, of course, also be a great asset in peacetime.
On the training side there are now about 170 training centres throughout the country. During the year local authorities carried out exercises, demonstrations, competitions and week-end camps. I welcome the development of week-end camps for civil defence personnel. It gives experience in mobilising and movement as an organising body which I feel sure creates an awareness of belonging to an effective organisation for the work that Civil Defence volunteers would be called upon to undertake if the need arose.
The training of instructors for local authorities, Defence Forces and Garda Síochána continued during the year at An Scoil Cosanta Sibhialta. A new lecture hall and associated improved amenities will be available in the near future which will enhance the teaching facilities there.
Coming to the individual subheads, Subhead B—Permanent Defence Force Pay—makes provision for a net average strength of 1,151 officers, 102 cadets and 7,250 other ranks. As I mentioned already, this subhead—and the same applies to Subhead A—makes no provision for the recent 12 per cent pay increase. Subhead C—Permanent Defence Force Allowances—shows a substantial increase resulting principally from higher rates of ration allowance as compared with last year and somewhat larger numbers in receipt of it. Subhead D—Reserve Defence Force Pay, etc.—shows a decrease. The practice is to base this subhead on the attendances at training during the preceding year. Here again, the 12 per cent pay increase is not provided for.
I shall mention Subhead F—Pay of Civilians attached to Units—in conjunction with Subhead S—Buildings, and I now go on to Subhead G—Civil Defence, which shows a net reduction of £19,016. This, I should emphasise, in no way implies a slowing-down in Civil Defence. While there are fluctuations within the subhead itself, there has, for example, been a saving of about £17,000 in the provision for radiac instruments as a result of securing new types of instruments at cheaper prices. The principal items provided for are—radiac instruments, £44,000 odd; five mobile fire appliances, £22,000 odd; resuscitators and other equipment for the Casualty Service, £20,000 odd; 3,000 additional uniforms for volunteers, £21,000; grants to local authorities, £80,000 odd; grant payments to voluntary aid societies as compensation for the use of the uniforms of members who are also members of Civil Defence, £5,000 odd, and the printing of a home protection handbook, £20,000.
The provision of £450,000 under Subhead H—Defensive Equipment—is the same as that for 1963/64, and the proposed purchases for 1964/65 represent a further instalment towards building up mobilisation stocks of defensive equipment. As I have previously informed the House, what we spend on equipment of this nature, though not large, is spent to the best advantage on modern and up-to-date conventional arms.
There is an increase of £31,870 in Subhead J — Mechanical Transport. This increase is largely for the purchase of new jeep-type trucks in replacement of vehicles written-off in the Congo. Appropriate payment has been made by the United Nations in respect of the written-off vehicles. Stocks of uniform clothing on hands are expected to be greater at the end of March than they were last year and purchases will not be necessary to the same extent as previously — hence the reduction of £75,800 in Subhead M—Clothing and Equipment. Somewhat more than one-half of the increase of £71,399 in Subhead 0.1. —General Stores—is due to the proposed purchase of aircraft and spares and the remainder to the proposed provision of Civil Defence Operational Equipment for the Defence Forces. There is a substantial reduction in Subhead O.2.—Helicopters. The provision for 1964/65 includes £127,000 in respect of the balance of the cost of three helicopters and spares ordered in 1963/64 with further sums in respect of the purchase of a support vehicle and three refuelling trailers for use on operations throughout the country and fuels, oils and maintenance.
The increase of £28,033 under Subhead S — Buildings — is principally attributable to proposed new works, and this is also reflected in Subhead F where there is an increase of £23,521. As indicated earlier, provision is not made for the 12 per cent increase in pay, the annual cost of which is estimated at £105,000. The new works include the modernisation of men's billet blocks, a new radiac workshop for the repair of radiac instruments, a new men's canteen in Baldonnel, the heating of an officers' mess and men's dining halls, new accommodation for An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil in rural areas, the modernisation of soldiers' married quarters of the old type and work on new houses for soldiers in Athlone.
Subhead X—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—requires a little explanation. The actual amount voted under this subhead for 1963/64 was £81,761, of which £53,950 was in respect of telegrams, telephones, postage, etc. The last-mentioned amount will now be seen under 1963/ 64 in the new Subhead Y—Post Office Services. As against the balance— £27,811, the amount provided for this year in Subhead X is £42,407, an increase of £14,596. This arises partly from the increased provision for advertisements and there are also small increases in a number of other respects. The new Subhead Y is for a sum of £100,300, including amounts in respect of postal services, handling of stores and miscellaneous matters which were previously what are known as "Allied Services" not provided for specifically in the Vote.
Provision for a grant-in-aid of £23,600 for Cumann Croise Deirge na hÉireann is made in Subhead BB. This includes a sum of £5,000 for the Emergency Relief Fund. I might mention that in the past year assistance to the amount of about £3,000 has been given from this Fund to distressed areas in the Yemen, Indonesia and Yugoslavia. Cumann Croise Deirge na hÉireann is continuing its excellent work in many spheres and I take this opportunity to express once more my appreciation of its manifold activities in the various fields of humanitarian relief.
As the Estimate for Pensions is being discussed together with that for Defence, it is no doubt appropriate that at this point I should say something about pensions. The Estimate for Pensions is for a net sum of £2,270,650, being an increase of £45,295 over this year's figure. The provision at Subhead A does not include anything in respect of the pay increase. Subhead B—Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities— shows a decrease of £9,500, offset to some extent by an increase of £4,500 in Subhead C—Allowances and Gratuities to Dependants. The largest increase is that of £48,700 in Subhead E in respect of retired pay and pensions under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes. There is a slight decrease of £3,000 in the provision in Subhead H for Special Allowances. Here it is not a case of a decrease in the numbers in receipt of special allowances, but of more recipients reaching the age of 70 years, when lower "appropriate annual sums" apply. There is a new Subhead K—Post Office Services— with a provision of £4,000.
As Deputies are aware, Budgetary increases in pensions and allowances generally were granted with effect from the 1st November last. Pensions related to rank were brought up to December, 1959, levels, and all other pensions and allowances, except special allowances, were increased by 5 per cent. For special allowances purposes, all the "appropriate annual sums" were increased by £4, being 5 per cent of the average special allowance. I hope soon to introduce the legislation covering those increases which are, however, being paid on foot of a Supplementary Estimate voted by the House.
In concluding the debate, I shall be glad to answer, to the best of my ability, any questions which Deputies may wish to ask and to supply any additional information required.
The Minister has side-stepped a few very important points. One of them is the 12 per cent increase. He does not give a calculation as to what that will amount to. It is something that has to be provided for and for which we shall probably have a Supplementary Estimate.
I mentioned it in the statement—£615,000.
For the whole lot?
For the Army.
The Minister has not calculated the amount for the civilians.
Has the Deputy got a copy of the statement?
I have.
The Deputy will find it at the bottom of page 3 of the English statement.
Yes. The civil servants are not included?
That is so.
That is the point I am making, that the Minister has not included the 12 per cent in the total calculation for everybody in the Department of Defence in respect of which the Minister requests the House to pass this Vote. However, that is a matter that we shall have to meet when the time comes.
I should like to join with the Minister in congratulating our troops on their conduct in the Congo and elsewhere and on the manner in which they have carried out their duties in Israel, in keeping the peace as far as is humanly possible, in that territory. They have done a good job of work and their services are appreciated by everybody concerned. It is nice to hear that. I suppose if there were complaints we would hear them just as quickly. When work is well done and when it is not spectacular, there is very little tribute paid to it.
In regard to work for the United Nations, the Minister has told us that the United Nations will recoup even transport costs. Have we got any payment so far, or is it still to come, or where do we get credit for it? I cannot find in the Book of Estimates where it is shown that credit is taken for it.
I should like to know if the Minister was satisfied with the manner in which the selections were made. I suppose there are always complaints where there are advantages to be gained by getting appointments to this force. There was an increase in pay and allowances and, of course, there was promotion for the officers, which was a very important consideration. I shall be dealing with that matter at a later stage but there were complaints that officers and men got second and third tours of duty while others felt that they were as well entitled or that there should have been rotation.
I am, of course, aware that the responsibility rests with the Army Council and Headquarters Staff to see that the best people are selected and that they would not send out people who might consider themselves good but who are not up to the standard. These complaints have arisen from time to time.
I should also like to join with the Minister in thanking the firms and other people who sent out comforts and presents to the troops. It would be very unworthy of us not to pay tribute to them. I should like to thank them for their kindness in that respect.
Have the new scales of pay been paid since 1st February or are they held back until this Estimate has been passed? Have we paid them up to date?
I am glad some effort is being made to make the conditions of service more attractive to our young men. In present circumstances, particularly in Britain, it is not easy to get young men to serve in the Army while they can get much greater remuneration elsewhere, once they leave the land or the factory. In order to keep our forces up to strength, the Minister must face the fact that a higher rate of pay will have to be paid to NCOs and men. That applies equally to the Naval Service. The Minister says the attractions in other marine services militate against getting sufficient personnel into our Naval Service. Surely that implies that there is a responsibility on him to make conditions here as attractive as elsewhere. We should have the Naval Service at full strength.
There is also something to be said for the purchase and acquisition of new ships. That may be costly but we must face it. The conditions aboard our naval vessels are not as good as those elsewhere and it is not easy to expect men to put in long terms at sea in them when they could, with very little effort, get better conditions elsewhere. In all our circumstances, in regard to fishing rights and the responsibility of guarding territorial rights as far as possible, our Naval Service should be at full strength, no matter what the cost is, and I think the Minister should face the prospect of undertaking that task. I have been told that it is the pay rates and conditions of service in our naval vessels that prevent us having a full strength force. I should be glad if the Minister would look into that and let us have, as soon as possible, if not now, some statement of policy on the matter.
In a way it is something to be proud of that public opinion forced the Minister to provide a helicopter service. I am glad he has done that and I hope the service will be as successful as expected. It appears to have rendered service already. We hope it will not be called on to render very much service but it is a good thing to have it available, if circumstances should require that it be called on.
I want to say how glad I am that the Equitation School and the jumping team have been doing well. We would be ungrateful if we did not pay special tribute to the joint team that took part in the Aga Khan competition last year and, in particular, to Tommy Wade who deserves a special word of praise because much depended on him and at the last moment he stood the test. Everybody was thrilled. That does not mean that I am lessening the effort of the other members, military or civilian, but this was a very great strain and he and his horse certainly stood up to it. We should compliment him, with the others, for doing so well.
I am glad the Minister is satisfied with the discipline in the Army and that there is no great trouble about delinquency but I am not happy about some things that happen. I have been told that a minor incident occurred in Athlone recently where an assault took place involving two members of the Defence Forces who were tried by courtmartial and convicted. I submit a normal punishment would have been either a fine or deduction but instead these married men with families were transferred, from the married quarters in Athlone to Renmore Barracks in Galway, to the Irish-speaking Battalion. I had always believed that when you were sent to the Irish-speaking Battalion, it was an honour you were proud of and a reward for service. I never regarded it as a punishment. In this case the transfer breaks up two homes. I do not know if these men have gone or not because I purposely refrained from seeking information about it, but I think the Minister should look into the matter and ensure that whatever happens, exile or breaking up of homes will not be regarded as a suitable punishment for a minor assault after a dance or something like that.
The other point I do not like about it is that they should be transferred from Athlone to Galway as a punishment when a transfer to the Irish-speaking Battalion should be regarded as an honour carrying an improvement in pay and allowances.
I am very glad the Civil Defence force is developing. The Minister reports that 70 per cent of the wardens are now trained. That is satisfactory and I am sure all members of the House will be glad to know it. The authorities are to be complimented on their efforts. We are also glad that the Red Cross has again played its part during the year and continues to do so in a very efficient way.
Now I come to some of the matters about which I am really perturbed. The time has come when we should have automatic promotion in the Army after a certain period of service. We are peculiar in that ours is the only army in the world where a captain can remain a captain for the rest of his life, or until he is almost 48 or 50 years of age, when he is about to go out. I submit there should be automatic promotion for all officers, particularly from the rank of captain up, after ten years' service.
Complaints are numerous of dissatisfaction in the Army because it is the only organised body of people in the country the members of which have been denied arbitration and conciliation facilities. This is not good enough at a time when civil servants, teachers and professional people have machinery through which their grievances can be ventilated and brought to the attention of the Government. That is not so in the case of the Army, and I submit there should be some machinery whereby their views can be brought to the attention of the Government. I believe it was the intention when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence was appointed, that part of his functions would be that of link, or courier, or messenger to carry complaints of officers, NCOs and men, as expressed through headquarters staff, to the Government and the Minister. If that has not been found acceptable, something should be done otherwise.
Another matter I should like to bring to the Minister's attention is the pecularity in our Army of the situation where it is the line officer who does not get automatic promotion. All the professional officers—doctors, chemists and legal officers—get automatic promotion after ten years. The line officer does not. The Congo officers get promotion automatically when sent on that type of work. I suggest it should be extended to all grades of officer.
There are also complaints that Emergency captains have not got promotion to the rank of commandant, that they are now coming up to the age of 50, having had at least 15 years' service, without a stir. I would urge the Minister to do something about that. Such general reforms would make for a contented Army. Already we have an efficient Army but there are complaints of dissatisfaction, tales of officers leaving the Army, all of which might be remedied by a new approach in these matters. The Army at the moment is efficient. It would be to the good if it were contented as well.
Another point I should like to raise is the question of the recruiting of labour for the Army Corps of Engineers to do work in barracks and so forth. I know the labour exchanges nominate the workers, but there is a suggestion that the exchanges get a wink as to whom they should nominate and that the circumstances of the applicants are not considered. Some people go so far as to say that political influence is brought to bear. I am not able to say that such allegations have been substantiated by the fact but the allegations are there and I should like the Minister to give the House an assurance that the circumstances of applicants will always be taken into consideration in giving such employment. The Taoiseach has given voice to the principle that everybody should be equal, that all should get a fair chance, notwithstanding the suggestion of a former Chief Justice that it was right that political supporters should enjoy certain favouritism. I suggest that man was not being fair to the Government he was supporting. These complaints and allegations have been so numerous that I thought it my duty to bring them to the Minister's attention.
We are satisfied generally with the conduct of the Army. I felt especially proud of the cadets who represented the Army at President Kennedy's funeral. It was a very great tribute to the Irish Army. They were a credit to themselves and to the country they represented.
Turning to military service pensions, I do not feel obliged to go over old ground again. I do, however, want to repeat the assertion that a person entitled to a military service pension should be in a position to apply at any time for it. I submit there should be some means, whether by way of application to a district justice or to the circuit court, whereby a person can appeal if the Government continue to refuse to establish a board to hear such claims. The present situation has had disastrous effects on persons who have had service but who have not had a medal with bar. There are complaints that they have suffered severe losses because they have been debarred from applying. When they gave me a summary of their service, and on the face of it, they appeared to qualify under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, I asked them "Why did you not apply?" The answer I got in nearly every case was "I had a good job then and I was satisfied. I did not think I should look for anything else. I have now reached retirement age and things have not turned out as I expected, but I cannot get it."
I know this rather peculiar situation obtained. Even if you never made application, there is a section in the Department of Defence that could examine your case and say that if you had applied, you would have qualified and that, therefore, you could be awarded the medal with bar. That is a very unsatisfactory way. That investigation is quite unlike the strict investigation by the referee and the board of assessors.
The matter of medals and special allowances is a very difficult problem. I know there was cause for grave complaint about the manner in which medals were issued at various times. Now we have reached the stage at which no person can get a special allowance, no matter what medal he has, unless he has a military service certificate. The case of every other person with a medal has to be reexamined to see whether that medal was duly awarded. Today it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get officers to verify or certify service. If your name is not included on the list supplied under the 1934 Act, you have practically no hope. It takes, not two or three verifying officers, but half a dozen to establish that you are entitled to the medal. However, it does not work both ways. If you are on the list but some fellow says you were not there, you will not get it either. Therefore, the fact that you are on the list does not mean you will automatically get the medal.
There should be some method by which an applicant denied a medal, and therefore a special allowance, would have the right to apply to a district justice or a circuit court judge to bring forward evidence to show he was a member. The method of verifying membership is unsatisfactory. I was in prison from early in 1921 until after the Truce. I cannot swear that John Browne or Mickey White was a member of the Volunteers from 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921, because I was not there. However, I believe he was, because he was there when I left and was still there when I came back. But that will not be accepted. But in another brigade area I know for a fact that the certificate of a person in prison in the same circumstances was accepted without question. I wrote to the Secretary of the Department asking was such a person being accepted for verification and I was told he was. I do not want to name anybody, but I consider that system is unsatisfactory.
If there are no officers available—if they are dead or have gone away—the sworn affidavit of persons who hold military service certificates should be accepted as verification. In that way you could get over the problem. Because of certain circumstances obtaining in this country, I believe that where a number of people with military service certificates, even if not holding officer rank, are prepared to testify that so-and-so was a member of the Volunteers, that should automatically entitle him to his service medal, notwithstanding the fact that his officers did not certify him.
There have been increases in the special allowances. A larger number than was foreseen are reaching the age of 70. That will not last for long. The parade is becoming smaller every day. The time has come when the Minister and the Government should review the whole question and make sure that equity and justice prevail in every case. I know it is not easy and I fully appreciate the difficulties they will have to meet. However, there is a responsibility on the Minister and on all of us to devise a method by which these complaints can be remedied. I believe they could be remedied to a great extent by the simple expedient of giving the applicants the authority to apply to the courts and by letting the courts decide. In fact, I believe they have that right already, but nobody has tested it. The matter should be put beyond doubt by giving them the right to apply to a judge, the same as in any civil proceeding, for a declaration that they are entitled to a military service certificate or a military service medal. In that way, an applicant who felt he was entitled to a medal would get an opportunity of proving his case. There would be some financial risk involved for the applicant, but that would be a safeguard because no person would undertake it unless he had a fair and just claim to the medal.
I have been campaigning for quite some time for an improvement in military uniforms. While the change in the uniforms is welcome, like other people, I was disappointed that when the change was being made the Minister did not ensure that we would get away from the old type uniform which has been in use since the institution of the Army. It is an improvement on the old uniform, but it is not a new-style uniform. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to get young men to join the Army is that they dislike the walking-out dress which we have had for the past 40 years. The Minister had the opportunity to make a complete change and get a smart walking-out dress, such as we see on members of the Defence Forces of other countries. Why should we continue to have the old battledress uniform? The original intention was that it should be a dual purpose uniform, but we should get away from that now. I notice in the Estimate for this year that the provision for clothing and equipment is down by £75,800.
On the question of pay and conditions, I know that soldiers, NCOs and men will get the 12 per cent increase from 1st February. Does anyone think we can continue to have an Army while the numbers are diminishing? Does everyone not realise that the only way to get people to take up a certain way of life is by making it acceptable to them, and by encouraging them to take it up because it offers them something? I suggest that the rate of pay offered to officers, NCOs and men in the Irish Army is disgraceful, and will continue to be disgraceful even after the 12 per cent has been added. Why can we not give young men who join the Army a rate of pay which would be comparable with what they could earn in civilian life?
We cannot be surprised if after a short while in the Army, they leave and take up civilian occupations because of the fact that they cannot do anything for themselves or their families as members of the Defence Forces. The Minister must have received hundreds of letters in that connection. In my area there are quite a number of people who say that they want to leave the Army, or have left it, or occasionally have deserted, because they want to go into civilian life to earn money and help their families. The Minister must seriously consider this whole question if he wants to try to build up the Army.
I agree that there has been a big improvement in the billets, the food and other conditions, but I think something more could be done in regard to the billets. So long as wooden huts are used, we are not doing what we should do to house our soldiers properly. I am sure the Minister is aware of the trouble which arises when a house becomes vacant in the vicinity of a military camp. Very often the person most entitled to the house is a soldier. He may not be a native of the district, and he may have moved in six or 12 months earlier. I am glad to say that so far as Meath County Council are concerned, under those conditions the soldier will get the house, but very many other local authorities say it is a matter for the Department of Defence to provide housing for their men, and the soldier has to stay in whatever hovel he has been living in. The Minister should try to build houses around the areas where the soldiers are living, and he could charge quite reasonable rents, even if at a later stage the soldier went back into civilian life.
I want to add to what Deputy MacEoin said about our soldiers who have served abroad. They have done a very good job. It is extraordinary that when people talk about our soldiers abroad they say they are wonderful, but at home they are not given the same respect as when they are abroad. I believe it is the duty of the Minister and the officers of the Department to see that there is more respect for Irish soldiers at home. They get respect abroad because they command it, but they do not get it at home, and I am sure everyone here is as aware of that as I am. In the early years of the Emergency, it was considered that soldiers were entitled to plenty of respect, but for some extraordinary reason, peacetime soldiers are considered to be second- or third-class citizens. The people in the Army are a very good type. They are decent people and they are doing a good job. They are entitled to a lot more respect than they get.
The question of sending our soldiers to Cyprus has been mentioned. I am very glad that it will be debated in the House before a decision is taken, and I shall not say anything more on it.
Deputy MacEoin referred to the fact that all company captains who went to the Congo got automatic promotion to the rank of commandant, while the company commanders at home are very junior captains. Is there some reason why that should be so? Is there some reason why we should rush to promote them as soon as they go abroad? Was it to keep up prestige, or was it that they must be the same rank as officers of other countries?
Like the previous speaker, I think it disgraceful that people who joined the Army during the Emergency should be still captains 16 years later. There should be some system of automatic promotion in the Army. I am referring to officers, but it would be no harm if that idea could be extended right down the line. One thing that will make a man good at his job is if he has an opportunity for promotion. If he has no opportunity for promotion, he just sits tight and does as little as possible.
Reference was made to the fact that there is no appeal board in the Army, and no way of redressing complaints. I do not want to be told the old corny story that a serving soldier, an NCO, or a junior officer, has a right of appeal if he is not satisfied with his conditions. Anyone who has served in the Army is well aware that that is not available, and cannot be available for very obvious reasons. A person who complains about someone senior to him to someone more senior again is likely to finish up at the wrong end of a charge sheet. He will eventually find himself in trouble. The Minister should try to evolve some method by which people serving in the Army in peace time will be entitled to put their complaints through the proper channels and have them investigated.
The Minister for External Affairs seemed to get annoyed today because it was suggested that he should give the strength of the battalion we are being asked to send to Cyprus. The strength of the battalion actually serving in this country, according to the Minister's speech, ranged from one figure to another. Take the size of the battalion that went to the Congo. There was a reduced strength of 460 officers and men. Then it went down to 335, and so on. Is it any wonder the Minister got a little angry, when he was asked the strength of a battalion, and that he simply said a battalion was asked for? To my knowledge, there has been quite a difference between the numbers in battalions and at least we should know where we stand on that.
One of the things which confused many people is the reluctance on the part of the Department to discuss with outside bodies matters which affect general Army conditions but do not affect discipline. I happen to be vice-President of the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen. A number of Deputies are in the same position. They are rather numerous. They approached the Minister last year with the object of putting certain points to him. He replied stating they were not prepared to discuss certain matters as they were matters for the Army and not for an outside organisation.
The people in the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen have served with honour. It is rather extraordinary that the Minister has again and again avoided—not refused—meeting representatives of the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen to discuss anything. In fairness to himself, the Minister should arrange to meet representatives of that organisation to discuss these matters which they want to discuss. What action he takes eventually is a matter for himself but he should not give the impression to the organisation that the Department of Defence want to have nothing to do with them. There are members of his Party on the National Executive of that Organisation, perhaps more of them than there are of mine. Therefore, I do not think the Minister has anything to be afraid of.
One thing I found a little irritating is that soldiers leaving the service say that they get their pay for a period after leaving the Army but the Department of Defence are not prepared to give them their cards or if they give them their insurance cards, they do not get the pay. The object, I think, is that if they get a job immediately after they go out, they are not entitled to their severance pay or whatever it is called. I think that that is playing around with very small matters and it should not be done. If a man spends 20 or 30 years in the Army and leaves it, then I think he is entitled to get his insurance cards when he goes and whatever pay is due to a retiring soldier should be given to him. There should not be any reluctance on anybody's part to give out the cards.
We all know that the FCA at present are doing a very good job. In fact, there is now a better type of person in the FCA than there was many years ago. The young men, and some of them are not so young, who are learning the art of war, which is what it is, in the FCA are usually bright, intelligent young men. I suggest that one method of recruiting to the regular Army might be through the FCA. Would the Minister consider people who have been trained in the FCA for promotion to senior NCO or officer rank? There is no inducement to them to go in at private level because the rate of pay is too low. If the Minister would consider it at that level, he might be able to get very good recruits.
A little more effort should be made to have the regular Army personnel seen around the country. It was stated here last year and it is true to say it again that many children growing into young men in the country have never seen an Irish soldier in uniform. It is an extraordinary thing to say but that is so. In the country districts, they are never seen.
Many years ago, it was the practice to send military bands to various sporting activities and they became pretty well known. That apparently is not being done now because they do not seem to go there. It might be a good idea to revive the practice or would it be possible to encourage more sport in the Army and to have them compete with civilian teams? I should prefer to see them play Gaelic football and hurling but let them play whatever game they want to play and have them mix with different teams and let the public see the Army. Furthermore, they should be togged out properly as soldiers and not with old ragged jerseys and ragged togs as some of them turned out on the few occasions when they appeared in public.
I want to go from that to the question of the helicopter service. Like Deputy MacEoin, I am glad the helicopter service has been put into operation, no matter what the reason. I am glad the service has done so well and proved itself. I believe that eventually a much bigger fleet of helicopters will have to be got and, when it is, the fishery protection question can adequately be handled by them and not by undermanned out-of-date corvettes.
Again, the question of the Naval Service arises. At the present time, the Minister might nearly write it off. It does not seem to be able to get recruits. Some people have suggested that if new boats were bought, it might solve the problem but I do not think it will. I live quite near to a fishing village where a lot of young people go to sea. I discussed the matter with numbers of them. None of them seem anxious to go into the Irish naval service, I do not know why. Possibly if the Minister discovered whether or not the conditions are such as would encourage young men to go into the service, it would be a help. There must be something wrong. Otherwise, we should not be put into the position where we have not enough personnel to man more than one corvette when, in fact, we have three. I assume the rate of pay must be pretty low.
Reference was made to the jumping team. I notice that there has been a reduction in the amount of money which has been given for this purpose. Possibly I have mistaken the reference to it but in the Book of Estimates it is shown as a reduction. The expenses of equitation teams at horse shows are shown at £5,000. Does that mean that we are cutting down on expenditure inside the country—which appears to be so—or abroad? In any case, that is a mistake.
When the Irish jumping team wins an award abroad, then Ireland is known. Everybody in the country is glad even if one does not know one end of a horse from the other. Every effort should be made to try to keep up the standard of the team. Last year, a mixture of civilian and military riders did very well. While I should rather see a first-class Army team winning the honours, if they cannot do it, then the proper thing to do is to get the team that can win.
I want to refer briefly to the subject of the special allowances and pensions given to people in really hard conditions. I have had reason to bring to the notice of the Minister's Department a couple of cases of real hardship. I refer to people who had been granted special allowances but who, because of an over-zealous official, were cut off. In one case, the amount was reduced considerably. When investigated, it was found that an old woman, a sister of the old man, made a statement in which she rambled and did not know what she was talking about. Advantage was taken of that point by the person who took the statement with the result that the allowance was greatly reduced. Subsequently, on re-investigation, it was found that the amount should not have been reduced and it was restored with effect from the date of the re-investigation, but there was a period of three months during which the reduced amount was paid and apparently it would involve the greatest trouble to get the balance of the allowance restored.
In the second case an old man who has been crippled for years was apparently got to say that he was earning £130 a year patching clothes for people in nearly as bad a condition as himself. The most he could get was a meal, or a cup of tea, or maybe luncheon from somebody if he did a little bit of stitching but he had been crippled for so long—he is now almost 70—that it is incredible that anybody should suggest he was in a position to earn £130. Yet it was sufficient to result in his special allowance being stopped. In the meantime, he must go hungry. I am quite aware that when the officials of the Department get a report like that, they must accept it, but can we not find some way of having such statements which appear on the surface to be foolish, done away with completely?
A final point is that the Old IRA Federation were in touch with the Minister in July last about certification. They said that a number of people who had applied for the special allowance and the pension were not able to get the proper certification because the Department wrote to former unit officers, many of whom were dead, or were so old that they were not in a fit condition to handle correspondence, or had left the districts in which they lived originally. According to the reports I have received, if a number of letters are written and are not replied to, it is assumed that the person for whom the application is being made is not entitled to certification and that those people have not certified him because they did not wish to.
The Old IRA Federation suggested that there should be a liaison officer who could act as go-between and produce the necessary evidence for certification, if necessary, or that an up-to-date list should be compiled of certifying officers. I challenge the Minister to write to each one of his certifying officers and ask them to give a simple yes or no reply to whether they intend to continue as certifying officers. From the evidence I have got, I would assume that less than half of them would reply because they no longer exist. If that is the situation, it is a serious hardship on people who would normally be entitled to proper treatment.
I am not suggesting that the Minister is doing something deliberately to prevent those people from getting a pension or an allowance to which they are entitled but it is because of the out-dated system that those people who, as Deputy MacEoin said are becoming fewer every year, are being deprived of something they need very badly. I shall not detain the House any longer, except to say that while we all appreciate that the Minister and his Department have been trying to improve conditions in the Army, we do feel that a much greater effort will have to be made if the Army is not to fall in numbers to the point at which it will be a misnomer to call it an Army.
Like the Minister and the other two speakers, I am greatly concerned with the question of the total strength of the Army at present as revealed in Subhead A of the Estimate. Comment has already been made in the public Press by various people about the relationship of the number of officers to the number of other ranks. According to the Estimate, provision is being made for a strength of 1,300 officers as opposed to a total of 11,000 other ranks. It would appear from the notes on the Estimate showing the proposed deductions from the total figures in respect of numbers being below strength, that in fact the officer strength is not too far short of the establishment but as far as the other ranks are concerned, the deduction is practically one-third.
I do not feel that the number of officers is disproportionate to the number of other ranks because it is a comparatively easy job, although not an easy job, to train NCOs and men. The training, however, of an officer takes much longer and in time of emergency, the country would obviously need all the officers it could get in order to train new recruits. I would not offer any criticism therefore in regard to the number of officers but I am greatly concerned, as we probably all are, that the other ranks should be so far below establishment.
In Subhead D, we come to the same problem. The reserve of officers appears to be more or less as expected but the reserve of men is really ridiculous. There is a total number shown for the current year of 2,425 NCOs and men in the reserve, First Line, but it is provided that over 50 per cent of those will not attend an annual training, so that in fact the effective strength of the reserve men of the First Line is not 2,400 odd but something in the region of 1,000 NCOs and men. To have a First Line reserve of that size is simply ridiculous and some very serious note of that should be taken because at that strength, it simply does not exist as an effective force.
Something the same, although not quite the same, applies to the FCA. The Minister states that the FCA provides approximately 60 per cent of our total force and provision is made for a total strength of 22,000. If that figure were an effective 22,000, it would represent some 60 per cent of the total Defence Forces, but we find here again that it is estimated that 40 per cent of that number of 22,000 will not report for annual training. I do not believe that weekend or week night training periods are anything like sufficient to keep a Reserve Force in any sort of training at all. We have got to face the fact that there are a number of very keen officers, NCOs and men in this Force but they are not getting a chance to do the job properly. I agree with Deputy Tully when he suggests that there should be closer connection between the FCA and the Regular Army. There was supposed to be a policy of integration but I could never see how it was supposed to work out and I do not see any sign of its working out.
I suggested last year, and I suggest it again, that the Minister should curtail a lot of the unnecessary expenditure incurred by sending regular officers, NCOs and men trundling around the country in Army transport, opening up small training halls, spending a few hours with a few enthusiastic members of the FCA and then driving a long distance back to their barracks again. It would be far better if units of the FCA were made an integral part of the Regular Army so that, say, a Regular Army battalion would have one, or even two, FCA companies and those FCA officers and men would not do weekend or week night training but would come up for annual training and do a fortnight or three weeks with their own unit, training and exercising as part of the Regular Army unit, whether it is an infantry battalion or field company of one of the corps. A tremendous amount of money would be saved on these training halls. A tremendous amount of manpower would be saved because the training would be carried out by Regular Army personnel within their own Regular Army unit. A very large number of Army personnel is at present floating around the country doing FCA work. I know it is work which does attract additional allowances and I would be sorry to stand in the way of anyone in the Army who had a chance of getting more money but I believe it is wasteful at the present time. I believe a complete integration of the FCA with the Regular Army is the only solution.
There are two points I should like to bring to the Minister's attention as regards the Reserve of Officers. There is a grievance that the retirement age for officers of the Reserve of Officers has not been extended as has been the retirement age of Regular Army officers. Further, there is a continuing complaint as regards promotion in the Reserve of Officers. There is a very definite feeling amongst these officers that they are forgotten men. While they might be very useful in a time of emergency, in a time of peace no one pays any attention to them. If they join the Reserve of Officers, first line, as lieutenants they will remain in that rank until they die or retire. The same applies to captains and commandants. I think it would increase the morale of Reserve Officers tremendously if their retiral age and automatic promotion received very active consideration.
There is set out, in Appendix B of the Estimate, a very interesting schedule of the various Army rates of pay. I think that is very helpful and a very constructive improvement in the form of the Estimate. As far as the professional officers are concerned, I note, however, that medical and dental officers draw additional professional pay at the highest rate. Legal officers, engineer officers, ordnance and signal officers are at a very reduced rate. Veterinary officers are about half way between the two. Pharmaceutical chemists are a class to themselves. I cannot see why professional officers should not be treated equally.
I know that, so far as the medical profession is concerned, very strong representations were made to the Minister, and to his predecessors in the past, but I feel that the legal officers, engineers, ordnance and signal officers have not got the benefit of a very strong professional organisation, outside the Army, to plead their case for them. It is as a direct result of that that these professional officers are paid so much less generously, even than veterinary officers. I feel, by reason of my own service, a particular interest in the officers of the legal service, as I served in that branch for a period. The office of legal officer is a very important one. A legal officer may well exercise an influence on the whole career of an officer, NCO or man, when he is before a courtmartial. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that legal officers should be men of the highest professional qualification and ability. While a doctor may have a man's life in his hands, a legal officer may very often have it almost equally so. I feel rather disgruntled to find legal officers treated as being worthy of less pay than veterinary officers.
I should like to make some comments on the civil side, too, because there is a tremendous danger in Government Departments, as there is also in any form of business or any form of human organisation, for Parkinson's Law to operate relentlessly. The bigger an organisation gets, the bigger it will continue to grow. The number of civilian staff in the contract section, for instance, at 41, appears to be very high indeed. Civil Defence, likewise, at 43, seems very high and in finance, a total of 231 seems to me to be quite ridiculous. As far as finance is concerned, I think it is high time that the whole matter should be completely recast on modern lines.
There is a tremendous amount of checking done by the finance branch but the whole system of Army accountancy has been developed over the years in a most laudable endeavour to make fraud impossible. It has become so frightfully complicated that practically no one can understand it. I know from practical experience, when I was in the Army, that it had become so complicated that it was quite easy to fiddle the accounts. The more complicated it becomes, the easier it is to confuse an auditor. It is high time the whole question of Army finance was drastically revised.
So far as the pay section is concerned, the matter of the calculation of Army pay, which is a difficult enough problem at any time, should be placed on a mechanised basis. There is far too much penpushing, far too much mental calculation, or even calculation with pen and ink, in connection with the distribution of Army pay. A substantial economy should be made in this particular branch. The fact that there are so many employees in this branch gives rise to quite unnecessary, and at times, stupid inquiries. There was one case reported to me recently where a civilian medical specialist was called down to the Curragh to attend a mother, after the very premature birth of her child. The specialist was urgently required to save the mother and the child. He attended willingly, driving down from Dublin to the Curragh, and giving his services there.
These were entirely successful; the mother and baby were saved.
In due course, he sent in an account for a fee of ten guineas. A fee of ten guineas for a service of that nature, which included driving from Dublin to the Curragh and back, is a fee no specialist in similar circumstances would ever charge in civil life; he would expect to be, and would be, paid a vastly increased fee, and he would have thoroughly earned every penny of it. Quite obviously, the specialist in this instance cut down his fee because he was treating a soldier's wife and probably thought the soldier would have to pay or make some contribution.
An inquiry was set up in the Finance Branch to discover why such an enormous fee should be charged and whether it could possibly be justified. That sort of thing can keep a number of civil servants very busy, passing files backwards and forwards for days and weeks and months. Eventually it was discovered that the fee was entirely reasonable. In the meantime, a number of men had been very busy and a tremendous amount of public time and money was spent in making quite unnecessary inquiries. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to take a very critical look at the organisation of the civil side of the staff to see if he can, in fact, satisfy himself that all these people and all these activities are strictly necessary.
In Subhead X there is one item which strikes me as rather curious. It is one on which the Minister might, perhaps, give some further information. Under (9), there is a sum of £5,375 in respect of the provision of medals and certificates, etc., in relation to Easter Week, pre-Truce service, Emergency service, and Army service, etc. I just cannot see how one could spend £5,000 on the provision of medals and certificates unless the amount is also intended to cover the investigation of claims. As far as the actual provision of medals and certificates is concerned, that amount, as it stands, requires some further explanation.
On the Pensions Estimate, I should like to refer particularly to Subhead E, under which there is provision for a probable abatement under Articles 15 (1) and 38 of the scheme of 1937. The total figure there is given as £11,000. In certain cases where a man is entitled to two different pensions, there is an abatement to prevent him getting a double benefit, and possibly there is some good reason for that. Personally, I think it is more than ungracious to cut down pensions in this way. The cases in which I am particularly interested are those in which officers who have retired from the Army with pensions are subsequently engaged in some other form of State employment. This concerns officers only; NCOs and men are not affected.
An officer may complete his service and be entitled to an Army pension. He may join the Irish Sugar Company, the ESB, or Aer Lingus, getting a good job for which he is pre-eminently suitable by reason of his ability and his training. I think it only right he should get such an opportunity. He draws his full salary from that semi-State body and he continues, very properly, to draw his Army pension, which he earned the hard way. If he accepts a post, however, which is a strictly Civil Service post, the salary for which is payable out of voted moneys, his Army pension is abated so that he will not get too much money. That is grossly unfair. It is discrimination on a most unreal basis between two ex-officers who are both entitled to Army pensions.
A number of us have raised this matter persistently with the Minister for Finance. All I ask the Minister for Defence to do, if he has not already done so, and I hope he has during the past few days, is to use all his influence with the Minister for Finance so that the regulations will be amended in such manner as to put a stop to this abatement altogether. It is absolutely unjust; it is wholly unjustifiable. What is more, it represents a saving to the Exchequer of a negligible amount. The only thing it does is to create a sense of very legitimate grievance amongst the ex-officers concerned.
Generally, I am very disappointed, as I have been on every occasion on this Estimate since I came into this House, that there has been no statement by the Minister on defence policy. In other countries, Ministers of Defence or Ministers of War set before their democratic parliaments some statement on defence policy. Ministers for Defence here have consistently accounted only for the expenditure on their Department and given no idea at all as to what overall defence policy is.
How could he when there is none?
That is the point I am making. I regard this as a criticism not only of the Minister but also of the Army Staff. I am not at all clear that the Army Staff has ever had a policy either. There is a tendency on the part of the Army Staff to be quite unduly coy about this matter. There is a tendency to say that these are secret matters which may not be discussed in public.
Hear, hear.
I do not think our defence policy is really a secret worth keeping. Even if it were very exciting, any power interested in finding out what it was would be able to do so inside a very short time. I think we should be brought more fully into the picture than we have been so far. Personally, I believe that the policy is merely to carry on as before, with a limited number of infantry battalions, field companies, and so on. Each one of those units is horribly under strength. Forming them into commands or brigades in a kind of make-believe of a real army is simply ignoring the facts.
There is nothing which discourages soldiers so much as this business of making-believe. Anyone who has had experience knows there was a constant tendency to simulate this and simulate that. You were asked to pretend that that was a tank when it manifestly was not; you were asked to pretend you had an anti-tank gun when all you had was a rifle. We are asked to pretend at the moment that we have an Army of five or six battalions of infantrymen, so many field companies, and so forth, whereas we have nothing of the sort.
The time is long overdue for a complete reorganisation of the Army to meet the real needs of the situation. The real needs of the situation are small but well-armed and complete units ready for active service at any moment in any country of the world. There does not seem to be any danger at all within the foreseeable future of the Army having to come in to aid the civil power in the maintenance of law and order within our own boundaries. However, in spite of all the experience we have had in sending out troops for United Nations service overseas, we are still not geared for this operation.
The Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries are already working on the task of organising specific United Nations troops, that is, units of their forces which are kept constantly in readiness and on call for duty overseas. The way in which our troops have conducted themselves on their service makes it inevitable that we shall be constantly asked to provide troops for United Nations service.
We do a very great disservice to ourselves when we pick a few here and a few there, an officer from this command, and an officer from that command, lump them together and, after a very short period of a week or a month of training, say: "You are now the 39th Infantry Battalion and you will be sent to Equatorial Africa to deal with a situation there." How our troops have survived that operation I do not know but it reflects the greatest credit on them that they have improvised so magnificently in spite of the almost insuperable obstacles which were placed in their way. I feel passionately that no troops should ever be sent on overseas service with those disadvantages. The corps that is being sent out should be a coherent unit, where the officers, the NCOs and the men know one another, have worked and trained with one another and trust one another. Emergencies will arise and one thing which will turn an emergency into a catastrophe is the fact that the officer does not know his men or the men are not sure of their officer. There must be implicit trust and confidence between all ranks and that cannot be built up in a matter of weeks.
That is why I say we should abandon altogether the present Army organisation of battalions, field companies, and so forth, and concentrate on the organisation of small active service units, something more on the lines of the infantry groups that were sent out to the Congo. To call them battalions is ludicrous. It only confuses the issue. There should be composite forces: infantry with support weapons, cavalry, if necessary, such as armoured cars, signals, engineers, and so forth, composite forces where two or three groups could be combined when large forces are required. Our whole thinking on this question needs reorganisation.
I was delighted the Chief of Staff was invited to speak in Stockholm recently on this question of providing troops for United Nations Service. The Chief of Staff is an extremely able officer. He has had the very widest experience by reason of holding the United Nations Command in the Congo. He is obviously very well thought of in New York and his service is also appreciated by the armies with which he has served, especially those of the Scandinavian countries.
In concert with the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries, we should organise our forces in such a way that if a battalion is to be sent to Cyprus, we shall be able to provide a force which will hold together under the tremendous stress which any such troops would have to undergo. In many ways going into Cyprus would be far more dangerous than going into the Congo was even in the most unsettled period of that young country's history. Cyprus could be a damnable situation in which to find ourselves and one where morale would have to be at its very highest. It must be bad enough—I never had experience of active service—to be fighting an enemy in actual hostility but it is far worse to be operating in a foreign country and not to know who your enemy is, to be frightened of shooting your friend by mistake or to be frightened of holding your fire too long and suffering casualties as a result.
That is a situation through which only the very highest standard of training and morale can bring a unit. I would appeal to the Minister and, through him, to the General Staff to make sure that units going out of the country are properly recruited, assembled and trained as units. One of the battalion commanders who served in the Congo informed me with great regret that, while he was very proud of his battalion, he had seen it only for about two days at the Curragh; he never saw it as a whole in the Congo because it was split up into companies and by the time he had returned home, the battalion had been disbanded and the men had reverted to their original units. That is hopeless.
All this has some bearing on the question of recruiting. I will agree with Deputy Tully that money is at the root of a lot of the trouble. The profit motive does influence even Deputy Tully in this regard and it would affect a soldier. Better pay would make Army life more attractive. I am all in favour of it but I do not believe that is the solution. The solution is to provide the Army with a real job to do, a job that will fire the imagination of our young men. At the moment if you ask a young man why he would not like to be a soldier, he will probably say: "Because I do not know what the Army is there for." We should make it perfectly clear what the Army is there for. At the moment the Army is in existence mainly as a peacekeeping force under the United Nations wherever it is required and when not on active service, it is in active training for the next emergency which will undoubtedly arise. If men felt there was this man-sized job waiting to be done and if conditions were slightly more attractive on the financial side, I am perfectly sure we would overcome one of the obstacles to recruiting.
I am delighted to see that the provision for advertising under subhead X of the Estimate is more than double that of previous years. Even at £12,000 the amount is still none too large. I would hope that every penny of that amount would be spent on really imaginative advertising. Advertising needs to be very well done. It should be spent on imaginative advertising, not some of these badly printed newspaper advertisements such as we have seen in the past, in which one finds it very difficult to identify what is going on at all, what weapons are being carried, and so forth. It should be really imaginative. There are first-rate advertising agents in Ireland who could give the Minister the very best advice and assistance in drafting proper recruiting propaganda.
For some reason which I have never been able to discover, no mention is ever made in recruiting propaganda of the possibility or even the probability of overseas service under United Nations. That is kept very much in the background. I can see no reason for it being kept in the background. Any young lad with a spirit of adventure would be only too delighted at a chance of getting a trip to the Congo or to Cyprus and at the chance of active service operations in a good cause. Nobody ever mentions that in recruiting. It is just a case of "Join the Army".
They can volunteer for the Congo.
Yes.
But they cannot be sent.
The present system of enlistment provides that they can be sent. It is different now, I think. Previously a man had to volunteer. Now, you have to submit yourself to going if you are sent. I think it should be stressed very much that when you join, you are consenting in advance to go anywhere in the world to which you are sent.
That is a man-sized job if ever there was one. I agree that it should receive a man-size reward in the way of pay. I think we can still rely on Irishmen to provide the necessary manpower to make our Army really effective.
The Minister and the Army Staff generally are rather coy also about this question of defensive equipment. We are told that the money is being very well spent but I get the feeling that it would be rather naughty to ask what has been purchased. There, again, there is nothing frightfully secret about it. It is of general interest and we should know. All we do know is that the guards of honour we see parading the city now are all armed with the Belgian FN automatic rifle. Some of us might like to know a bit more about it. We do know that it is the general personal weapon of the NATO Forces, that it is in ample supply and it obviously is a very good weapon for our infantry to carry.
I should like to know what other developments there are in the provision of automatic weapons and, for instance, what is the new pistol which is now being used. It cannot be so frightfully secret because it is featured as a weapon which will be used in competitions in the Army Week in the Curragh. So it is not a secret weapon. There are people who would like to know, first, what sort of weapon this new pistol is and, secondly, will it replace the old .45 Webleys or even the .38s. What is the general policy about it as a personal weapon for officers and machine-gunners, probably, as well?
This is the sort of information which should be given gratuitously to try to interest people in the Defence Forces and encourage them to take a greater interest and to spread propaganda which will again help recruiting. There is far too much secrecy about Army matters and that has the inevitable adverse result.
On the question of helicopters, I join with everyone else in welcoming them and also in the hope that they may be of further assistance in connection with the protection of our fisheries as they are now being extended. I know the argument is put forward that a helicopter cannot carry out fishery protection because it cannot arrest a ship. Normally, a poaching trawler is arrested by the landing of a boarding party but, quite obviously, it is a little difficult to land more than one person from a helicopter, although it would be possible.
I would join with Deputy Tully and Deputy MacEoin in their plea to the Minister for reconsideration of the equipment for the Naval Service. A number of us have been at this for a long time because we have never felt that the corvette was a proper ship for fishery protection and it certainly was never a proper ship to have in a navy as such except for the one purpose for which it was designed, namely, convoy duty.
Slow convoy.
Slow convoy at that. We do not propose ever to run even slow boats to China and for any other purpose, the corvette is frightfully expensive and quite ineffective by reason of its slow speed. It also takes far too big a crew and far too much maintenance. It takes up space. It is very uncomfortable so far as the crew are concerned. To be perfectly frank, I would not blame anyone for not wanting to go to sea in one of them.
I do not know what the position is as regards dues payable for taking one of these corvettes into harbour. My heart bled for the crew of one corvette I saw lying outside Scotman's Bay in Dún Laoghaire some time ago in a force 8 gale which blew consistently for 36 hours. That corvette was tossing madly in the bay immediately outside the harbour. There was no reason why it was not within the shelter of the harbour, so far as I know, except that somebody might have had to pay somebody for its coming in. Consider the maddening situation it was for that crew in being within a mile of shore and some sort of comfort, and being kept on that little vessel dancing around in the gale, knowing that the reason they were staying out there was mainly that somebody would have to pay a few bob in order to get into Dún Laoghaire harbour.
Maybe I was completely wrong in that but I can think of no other reason why that corvette stayed out at anchor for so long. If it was a question of going off to rescue somebody it could have gone out just as quickly from the harbour and the men would have been in much better condition than they could have been after 36 hours at anchor.
Surely, the alternative is to scrap the corvettes, sell them, get rid of them and buy small open-sea launches of the motor torpedo boat class, vessels with a speed of 25 to 30 knots, which could be used, not only for fishery protection, but for air sea rescue operations? The situation then would be that helicopters could identify poaching trawlers, could be in a position to verify from the air with the most complete accuracy as to whether they were inside or outside the fishery limits, could radio to the nearest launch, which in turn could pursue the poaching trawler out to sea, catch it and bring it back without any difficulty whatsoever.
The maintenance of those launches would be much less expensive. They could remain in small harbours all around the coast, at very slight expense. They would be remarkably comfortable for crew. They would not have to remain at sea for any length of time. That sort of co-operation between helicopters and small vessels of the motor torpedo boat class would be far more effective from a fishery protection point of view, far less expensive and, again, would give some point to the Naval Service. To ask a man to join the navy knowing that we have only three corvettes and only the crew for one is dispiriting from the start. A man would much prefer to join the "Irish Spruce", which is a bigger ship, having very much better living conditions. I do not blame him. But if he knew he was a specialist not only at the job of fishery protection but also in the art of co-operation with helicopters in air sea rescue operations, he would know he was doing a man-sized job and that would have a beneficial effect on recruiting.
I have never been happy about the title "Civil Defence". I think the name has had an adverse effect on recruiting for that part of the services also. Ninety-nine per cent of our population are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that we shall never suffer aerial bombardment and especially that we shall never suffer nuclear attack. They are further convinced, or have convinced themselves, that if, say, Liverpool suffered a nuclear attack, the wind would undoubtedly be from the west and we would still be safe. It is extremely hard to get people to join Civil Defence. The service, I feel, should be regarded and even named, as the emergency rescue service. They are a first-rate bunch of men and women. I was extremely grateful to them during that sudden flooding in the middle of last June when Dún Laoghaire was completely cut off from the city. I was trying to ferry a number of constituents back to Dún Laoghaire and I had got right through a very bad flood on the Bray road when the engine petered out before I was completely clear. I was never so thankful to see the Civil Defence as then. They were right on the job and in next to no time they pushed me out; I managed to get the engine started and off I went.
Strictly speaking, that is no part of Civil Defence but it was a first-rate job. They were working all around that area. Not so long ago, an unfortunate priest walking across country fell down at Powerscourt Waterfall and was marooned on a dangerous ledge. Nobody could think exactly what to do. They got in touch with Bray and found the Civil Defence unit actually in training in the hall. In a matter of minutes, there was a van on the road, fully equipped with ladders and ropes and everything required. The priest was successfully rescued from his narrow ledge and brought to safety. Those are the sort of jobs Civil Defence can do supremely well but they have nothing to do with civil defence. I hope this service which is doing extremely useful work will be renamed as the emergency rescue service and will be linked with all other rescue services, the Air Corps, with some form of coastguard, with the naval boats and so on, so that in all cases of flood, disaster, air crashes, shipwrecks, or mountain climbing accidents, this corps of men and women can move in to rescue the injured or the lost, or give first aid or food and in cases of serious flooding, help in evacuating those affected.
I think the Minister might consider whether the title Civil Defence might be dropped, not because we believe defence against aerial attack is something that we should forget about but because it is not what is most in the public mind. I think an emergency rescue service could and should study the whole question of protection against radiation as part of its job but only as one part, and should spend at least as much, or more, of its time on exciting jobs such as cliff climbing, sea rescue, river crossings and so on which might be of more real value in ordinary everyday life.
I have mentioned the Army Legal Service and the officers serving in it but I think the question of legal procedure in the Army is long overdue for revision. At present there is no real procedure for appeal against conviction by courtmartial. This right should be given as an elementary right of any convicted man. We still maintain the office of Judge Advocate General. I think that is a waste of time and money. I have no wish to denigrate any of the distinguished barristers who have held this position but they do not know anything about Army life. Their comments, as I have seen them, on courtmartial procedure are not really very helpful and, to be perfectly frank, nobody pays any attention to them.
If it is a question of getting top legal opinion, nobody would go to the Judge Advocate General for it, but either to the Deputy Judge Advocate General, who is the senior officer in the service, or possibly the Attorney General. I cannot see that the Judge Advocate General serves any useful purpose and I think any duties he has in relation to reviewing legal proceedings would be much better done by the provision of a proper appeal procedure from courtmartial conviction.
Deputy MacEoin, I think, referred to some form of arbitration machinery and I agree this is also long overdue. We have inherited the old feeling that the Defence Forces are peopled by the "brutal and licentious soldiery" who must be kept down at all costs. But those days, mercifully, are gone and I see no reason why officers, NCOs and men should be treated in any way different from those serving in the Garda who have arbitration machinery and a representative body. It would be a tremendous help to Army morale if there were a representative body which, without any touch of mutiny, could represent to the authorities the views of serving personnel on matters affecting their daily lives. It is difficult to arrange for such a representative body but I hope those difficulties will not overwhelm the Minister and that he will find some way around them.
Reference has been made to the new uniform. I think Deputy Tully was mistaken in thinking that it would be a walking out uniform. I understand the present walking-out uniform is being retained. It is quite smart. What is being redesigned is more likely the ordinary service uniform. I share most people's disappointment that the alteration does not appear to be very great. I must reserve comment until I see it but I am worried because in spite of all the fanfares that have been blown about its arrival, it is not expected to be on view before the autumn. God knows we have been on this question of uniform long enough. We have been told it is under consideration, under active consideration, that a decision has almost been reached, that it is practically here and now we are told a decision has been reached and that the contractors are actually working on it. If they are, surely they could turn out a few uniforms before the autumn, or a few hundred.
In view of the fact that some of these contractors are turning out uniforms by the thousand and tens of thousand for the British Army, they might spare a few hours for us and make sure we get a decent uniform for our troops now, not months ahead. I have the horrible suspicion that if we say August will do, when we come to next year's Estimates, we shall be told that the uniforms are practically ready except for the buttons.
I have already mentioned the question of the cost of providing medals, and that brings me to my last point, which refers to medals for gallantry. I have put questions to the Minister on this matter and I am sorry to say the replies have been most unsatisfactory to my way of thinking. The position is that throughout the entire Congo operation, only one case of outstanding gallantry has been recognised by a medal, and that was posthumously too.
I refuse to believe this was the only case of gallantry in that operation outside the ordinary course of duty. I know as a fact there were very many more. What disturbs me is that the Minister is being advised in this matter by a group of officers appointed by him to present recommendations. I asked the Minister by way of Parliamentary Question whether any of the officers advising him had had active service in the Congo or elsewhere and the reply I got was unnecessarily evasive. He did not say yes or not. I can only assume that none of those officers had active service, and I think that is wrong. I think it is an insult to all the troops who have soldiered in the Congo to say they have deserved only one medal for gallantry. The medal which was won, and awarded posthumously, was very deserved but it should never be considered for a moment that it was the only incident of its kind. There were very many more.
If the Minister is being advised to the contrary, I can only say he should fire the officers who are advising him and get in their places some officers who know what active service is like in the Congo because I have every confidence that if the facts were put before the Minister with recommendations, more medals would be granted, and rightly so. I am very much against the gratuitous dishing out of gongs, as they are sometimes called. In the British Army, it often happens after some action that an allocation is made of medals and the commanding officer is told he will have so many Military Crosses, so many Military Medals, and they are just dished out like the rations.
I do not want that here, but I do want recognition of the service these men have rendered in very dangerous and difficult circumstances. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to have another look at the whole question of awards for gallantry, and if he is advised that no other acts of gallantry have in fact been performed, to take a very good look at the officers advising him. I feel sure he will find they are completely misinformed, that they are making their recommendations on a completely wrong basis. I would ask the Minister to grant recognition to men who were fighting beside, standing beside soldiers of other nations who are doing the same service but whose service is being fairly recognised. Medals do not mean a lot but they are a recognition of service done.
I have tried to be constructive this evening. I do not want to give the impression of being unduly critical of the Army. In fact I am quite unbearably proud of it: I wish it all the best of good luck. I want it to have much more support than it has had ever before either from the Government or the public. I am confident that with or without that support the Army will always give service of which they and we can be proud. We have far too long treated it on a cut-price basis: we were glad to have it when things were tough and barely tolerated it or ignored it when things were easy. Do not let us do it again. Let us give the men in the Army all the help and assistance possible so that they can do their job as they themselves would like to do it.
I make it a practice of speaking on this Estimate. Being an Old IRA man, I have somebody to speak for. Before I touch that side of the Estimate, however, I should like to make a little contribution on the present Army which I see as sort of auxiliary to the Garda. It is quite obvious we could not put up any worth while front in the event of an invasion —that our fight would be of a guerilla nature as before. However, we must have an Army and I think it is a good thing that our soldiers should see service abroad, in the Congo and now possibly in Cyprus.
I have had quite a number of soldiers looking for my backing, such as it is, to get them to the Congo. One of the reasons the British Army has been so popular with Irishmen is that in it they could see the world. An Army which does no fighting and no travel tends to brown them off. Soldiers join the Army to fight and even if some get killed now and again, that is what they must expect. Fighting is the only chance they have of getting to the front, of coming to the top. Therefore, it is good to have the Congo and Cyprus as the scene of operations for our men. There they can get experience and, of course, more money. One soldier I knew was most anxious to return to the Congo because staying here meant he would lose half of the money he was getting. These overseas allowances are most attractive.
Much has been said about Cyprus and an attempt is being made to tie the Minister's hands on the question of whether or not our troops should be sent to an area where there is the danger of partition. We should not try to tie up the Government in that fashion. While Partition may be a bad thing here, it may be all right, may be necessary, in other circumstances. Cyprus was never an independent State. It is too small an island——
I do not think that would arise on the Estimate.
Perhaps not, but it was raised during questions today.
Yes, but it does not arise on the Estimate.
It is a question of Army policy.
Government policy, not Army policy.
We should leave it to the Government because the Government are right——
Whatever they do.
The handful of Turks there could be massacred. It does not follow that partition is a bad thing in all cases.
However, in regard to housing, many soldiers' wives are looking for proper accommodation because there is not sufficient accommodation in the barracks. The Minister should help out Dublin Corporation in this regard. Some sort of reconstruction work should be done in order to provide more accommodation for married soldiers. The Corporation have enough on their hands. We have at least 3,000 or 4,000 "certainties" who need houses. The Army should try to cater for their own. Soldiers who cease to serve are known as "overholders". I have had letters from officers asking if I could get accommodation for soldiers. I could not do so. There is a priority list and we have to treat everyone the same.
I turn now to pensions. As far as the old IRA are concerned, they are becoming fewer every year. Although the Minister said there were 3,000 fewer special allowances, it does not follow that all those people have gone to the next world. Many of them have reached the age of 70. However, the numbers are considerably fewer. I notice that the wounds and disability account is considerably lower, too. Perhaps that is for the same reason— that the persons concerned are becoming fewer. The Minister, therefore, can afford to treat those men a little better. Since we are becoming fewer, the money will accumulate and some of it should be put back into better pensions and special allowances.
Certain old IRA men say that because they took a certain side in the Civil War, they lost ten or 12 years' pension rights. Because they were on the losing side, so to speak, their pensions dated from the 1932 Act, whereas in other cases it dated from 1924.
There is another matter which affects a number of people, the question of disability. There are two pensions Acts dealing with disability. One is the 1932 Act, which grants allowances to persons who had wounds attributable to service. This was intended largely to cover gunshot wounds. However, when all those cases came before the Board, it was found some of those people were not suffering from gunshot wounds, but were suffering from other forms of wounds—wounds of the nervous system. It was only then they realised they would have to have another Act.
They brought in another Act in 1937 which allows for aggravation. This was to deal with the case where you had something wrong with you but it was aggravated or worsened by service. The question is: Who decides? We are told it is the Army Pensions Board. However, apart from gunshot wounds, there are different forms of disease. A man may be suffering from advanced TB. It may be found he was prone to something like that before his service, but his service brought it to a head and, therefore, he qualifies. The argument was that it was not entirely attributable to service, because the man was prone to it. Such a man could only come in under the 1937 Act.
There are cases where people suffered from some form of physical disability—paralysis of the nervous system. In practically all those cases, they failed under the 1932 Act, but many of them qualified under the 1937 Act. The argument was that they were prone to this disease, but that their service aggravated it. However, there was no evidence that they were prone to anything. Say somebody during the Tan War got a belt of the butt of a rifle on the head and was paralysed. Surely you could not say he was prone to that before he got the belt on the head? Nevertheless, in later years he makes a claim because his body is partly paralysed. It has happened that such cases were turned down under the 1932 Act but allowed under the 1937 Act. Why? There is a big difference between a disease a person could be prone to—a developing form of disease—and somebody getting a belt of a rifle on the head and being paralysed.
I investigated this matter thoroughly. I have evidence from the medical profession that the matter of injuries to the nervous system is a new field which was not understood in the past. Medical doctors or orthopaedic doctors are not specialists in that field. I have it from an authority that they are not. They have a brief outline of the body and the nervous system, but they are not specialists. In recent years the field of physical medicine has been developed and medical doctors and surgeons take a special course in it. I can refer to one doctor, Dr. Crigg in Dún Laoghaire, who deals with rehabilitation and is not only a medical doctor but a specialist in physical medicine.
Unless doctors have specialised knowledge of the nervous system they are not competent to say that so-and-so has wounds of the nervous system and that, therefore, it is only aggravation. What proof have they that those people were affected before the injury was inflicted on them? They have no evidence at all. It is assumed by doctors with no special training in that field that they must have been affected. Unless there are people with special training in that field on the Board, I hold an injustice is done in many cases.
I am making the point because it has happened that men suffering from wounds to the nervous system were turned down under the 1932 Act, and accepted under the 1937 Act. Again, based on what? Not on any knowledge that the person had previously suffered from it, but on the assumption that he might have. If the Minister wants to see justice done in all these specific cases, he should see that a specialist in that field is on the Board. Last week a medical doctor admitted to me that it is a specialist field.
As the numbers of the old IRA are diminishing, I ask the Minister to be a little more generous. I know there is a shortage of money. There always is. It is needed by other Departments as well as this Department. I am a realist. I understand that money does not come out of a hole in the ground. I realise that 101 classes of people besides the old IRA are looking for money, but the numbers of the old IRA are diminishing, and it can be said that a great many of them got a raw deal. I hate referring to the Civil War, but a great many of them got a raw deal because they were on the defeated side. They did not get any jobs—naturally they were all filled — and they lost ten years' pension. While the Government were generous, they were not half as generous as the Government who won the Civil War. I think neither side would object now to more generosity being shown to those cases.
In the debate on this Estimate last year, quite a few Deputies referred to the Army uniform. At that time the Minister informed us he was quite satisfied that the uniform was satisfactory, and was not in any way detrimental to recruiting. I am glad to see that he is now considering the matter, and that he appears to have accepted the fact that soldiers require a change of uniform. If the uniform has been ordered, I cannot see why it cannot be issued to the troops. In my opinion, the present uniform is one of the reasons why the Minister is unable to get recruits and keep the personnel up to adequate strength. I hope the Minister will approach whoever is supposed to be making the uniforms and see to it that he gets on with the job and produces some now instead of waiting until the autumn. The material used at present is bad, thick and untidy looking. Last year I described it as the most unglamorous outfit any soldier serving today is asked to wear. I hope the Minister will see that our soldiers are properly clothed in the future. It is very difficult to get recruits nowadays for a fighting force unless you have a great variety to offer them, or unless you can compete, moderately at any rate, with the pay in civilian life.
Deputy Booth made a good point when he said that when recruiting for the Army, we should stress the fact that there is a possibility of service overseas. I saw in the papers today a picture of an Irish colonel who is in command of a British regiment in Cyprus. Half of his battalion is made up of Irish personnel recruited from this part of the country. Irishmen have always had an inherent desire to spread their wings and go abroad. If it were brought home to those who might be thinking of choosing the Army as a career that they would have an opportunity of serving overseas—provided he bears in mind what has been said about the uniforms—the Minister's recruiting difficulties would be overcome. That does not mean there is not a case for an increase in pay. Standards everywhere are being pushed up, and costs and charges are going up. Soldiers have to buy for themselves and their dependants the same as everyone else, and they are entitled to extra remuneration.
We did not get a frightful lot of information in the Minister's short address introducing the Estimate. In fact, Deputy Booth told us a great deal more about the Army and the serving personnel in the Defence Forces generally than the Minister. We got very little information from the Minister about our helicopter service. After pressure from this side of the House, it was decided at last that we should no longer be dependent on others for rescue work, and that we should have a helicopter service ourselves. I should like the Minister to tell us something about that service.
The Minister told us the helicopters had taken part in trials and had carried out one or two errands of mercy. Is the helicopter service provided with emergency units? Is it geared, if necessary, to carry emergency medical units and take them to remote parts of the country, equipped with a maternity unit in a case of emergency, where a life might be saved if the patient cannot be taken to hospital? How many people can these helicopters take from a wreck, bearing in mind that the persons being rescued might be wet through, and thus be a greater load on the machine than they would be in ordinary conditions? Have they to be kept and serviced in one place? I should like if one helicopter could be based somewhere in the west of Ireland, but I am reliably informed by those who have knowledge of the subject that, for the purpose of servicing, it is necessary to have them in one centre where there is expert personnel to deal with them.
Be that as it may, my recollection is that I read in the public Press that on the first occasion on which our helicopters were called upon to carry out an errand of mercy off the west coast—100 miles or so out—they had some difficulty in getting the requisite fuel. If my memory serves me, they had to take off with ordinary petrol. They could not get aviation spirit for their tanks. It would be no harm if the Minister told the House where those fuel depots are available. I presume there is one in Cork because there is an airport there. Is that fuel available in Galway, Donegal, Sligo and further north, or must we depend as we did before on the British helicopter service to carry out rescue work for us? If we are to have our own service, we should be able to look after any emergency that might arise off our coast.
I want to refer now to our Naval Service. No doubt the Minister has been informed by the Department of External Affiairs—and he must know as a member of the Government and a member of the Dáil—that a fisheries agreement is in process of being signed at the moment under which the protection that we have to give is up to 12 miles in some cases from the end of 1966 on, and six miles in other cases. We have also a reciprocal agreement with other countries who habitually fish our coasts between six and 12 miles. For that purpose, we have the same conditions with them. We may fish within the confines of their territory and we expect them to protect that territory for us just the same as we are expected to protect our territory.
With regard to fishery protection, quite a few Deputies raised the question of the efficiency of the three corvettes that we have in our service. I have said many times that a corvette that can be seen 30 miles away on a clear day is useless for fishery protection. It cannot even overtake a modern trawler which is trying to escape. Such obsolete craft is not an inducement to the recruitment of naval personnel. The results are there even though we have three corvettes. The idea was that one corvette would be under refitting more or less in constant rotation with the others on active service, one protecting the south and east coasts and the other the west coast.
We have the sorry situation that we have only one corvette at sea because we have personnel for only one corvette. These corvettes are suitable for nothing but for training personnel. They are no good for defence, for harbour defence or for anything else. They would be suitable for slow convoy work which they are not likely to be called upon to do. In such circumstances, we are not likely to get recruits and we are likely to remain in our present position.
Deputy T. Lynch raised this matter on many occasions and the Minister indicated that he was not wedded to corvettes for life. That is the first ray of hope which the House has had from a series of Parliamentary Questions over quite a period of years. The Minister indicated that he would be glad to receive any advice that might be available on the subject as to the type of craft which might be considered suitable.
I am happy to give the Minister information about what is happening in other countries in respect of the type of craft which is available and which he can procure if he places an order for it. I see no evidence in the Estimates of capital expenditure for replacement of naval craft and no suggestion that in the ensuing financial year any move will be made by this Government in that respect.
The Royal Malayan Navy ordered six Vosper patrol boat craft, 103 ft in length and 96 tons. They carry a full personnel of two commissioned officers, three warrant officers and 17 ratings. With the limited number of men at our disposal, we could man those ships. They are capable of doing 27 knots and can go to sea in any weather which any trawler can, even of the larger size, which is likely to poach for fish around our coast. If we are to carry out our part of the agreement to defend our territory over 12 miles, we would require at least six of those craft. They are fitted with stabilisers which enable them to face the seas off the west coast of Ireland. The craft have all modern equipment—detecting devices, guns, stabilisers, and so on and the price is about £106,000. Thinking on those lines is necessary.
The Minister should be on the lookout to dispose of his corvettes. New nations are emerging and ships are needed by them to train personnel. Our corvettes will do that. The Minister should lose no opportunity in trying to dispose of these corvettes and to have, as appropriations-in-aid, some money towards getting modern craft. If the Minister does not do that, there is no chance of our naval services, such as they are, protecting our fishing grounds which national pride makes so essential and which it is our duty to do if we are to embark on an expansion of our fishing industry which will have beneficial economic repercussions.
If the Minister is not prepared to modernise our naval service he will have to fall back eventually—which is entirely wrong—on some other navy to do the work for us. In that event, we shall not be able to fulfil our part of the fishing limits agreement. For centuries before this country got its freedom it has been the long and proud record of Ireland that whenever we signed an agreement we lived up to it. I hope that, in a small way, I have shown the Minister for Defence how, as Minister for Defence, he may be able to live up to our agreement to protect our fishing rights.
The remarks I have to make on this Estimate are ones which I have made on a number of occasions over the years. This time, I shall be a little wiser than in the past by prefacing my remarks with the statement that what I have to say involves no reflection on Army personnel in service at the moment or who have served in the past.
The present position is somewhat as outlined by Deputy Booth. There is no defence policy as such in this country. There is some ill-thought-out plan to have a standing Army of 12,000 men. That plan, which I deliberately describe as archaic, has been there since 1945-46 and, to date, it has cost this country over £90 million. In no year since that plan was formulated have we had or were we ever within reach of having the number of men envisaged in the plan as a standing Army.
We have had nothing but plans and an Army on paper. In spite of that, the cost has been over £90 million since 1946-47. Naturally, the people in the background who advise the Government—if this Government take advice from anybody—will object to my criticism and the type of criticism I make of their plans. But it cannot be denied that whatever these people and the Government have in mind, it must be based on the lessons of the last war. Since 1945, 1946 and 1947, we have never heard anything in this House from the Minister for Defence, or outside this House from the Army experts, of any proposed changes or of any new thinking arising from the tremendous advances—if advances is the right word—in the means and types of warfare since 1946.
This is the age of the hydrogen bomb and of space travel and I presume that within the next two or three years, we will have people on the moon, but as far as the Department of Defence are concerned they have been on the moon for the past 20 years, in so far as they are out of the world in their ideas on what type of Army the country should have today. We have had—I will not delay on this—numerous examples of wasteful expenditure as far as this Defence Estimate is concerned over the years. Perhaps the most scandalous waste or misuse of public money was the expenditure on the purchase of three Vampire jet aeroplanes, on their spare parts, on servicing them and on the enlargement of a runway at Baldonnel to cater for them. I suppose I shall be told now that Monsieur Potez and his company, which is now going to make planes for Nato, will solve the problem of the cost of the Baldonnel runway, but when the expenditure on the Vampire jets and on the runway was undertaken, there was no Mr. Potez in the background, so that we will have to forget him in our discussions on the expenditure of £1 million.
An expenditure for what? Where are the jets today? Deputy Booth spoke tonight and since 1957-58 he and other Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party have publicly abused me and suggested that I was unpatriotic for criticising the expenditure of £1 million on these Vampire jets and accessories and on the runway, etc. I was told that one of the main reasons for the purchase of these jets—incidentally, the intention was to buy nine of them—was to train pilots for our civilian aircraft; in other words, train them for Aer Lingus. That has gone by the board. The alternative means of training these pilots which I suggested at the time is, I am glad to say, now in operation but it was a dear lesson and a great deal of money was spent learning how to train these pilots.
I am not posing as a defence expert but I do believe that it is time to pause and examine the situation. The Government, in the light of modern developments, in the light of the changes in ideas and the developments which have taken place in other countries as far as armies are concerned, should examine the usefulness of present expenditure on Defence. I believe that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed with the necessary power to inquire into, consider and report upon the whole question of national defence expenditure. That is something I proposed here before in the form of a motion. I thought that it was a reasonable motion— naturally anybody who proposes something here believes in it — and quite a number of Deputies supported me on that motion, but for their own reasons the two major Parties decided that it was nothing short of criminal to suggest that a Select Committee should be entitled to send for people and papers and examine experts and report back to the Government on what they believed should be the method of spending money on an Army and on our defence policy.
The Minister at the time, Deputy Boland, told me that the question of defence was purely a matter for the Government and this statement was echoed by Deputy MacEoin for the Fine Gael Party. It was said that the Government would be shelving their responsibility if they did not make decisions. I did not ask for this Select Committee to make decisions; all I asked was that it be set up to enlighten all of us who are not as well aware of military matters as the people who criticised the motion, so that the rest of us would know what the best policy would be, whether money was being wasted and whether money could be better spent. Deputies in the major Parties disagreed with that idea. One Deputy suggested that obviously another country would provide defence for us if we did not do it ourselves. I quote that statement because to me it did not seem to arise logically at all as an argument against setting up a Committee of this House but it was used as any weapon is going to be used if a Government do not like a certain proposition. In that event, you must kill it or misrepresent the motives of those who bring it forward.
Public opinion is coming around to the stage where people believe that if they are to be taxed for an Army for defence purposes, they will want to know how the money is to be spent. They will not be satisfied with a hush-hush answer that this is a military secret. That day has gone with the two-bit generals. If ever the Government want an indication of what the people, and particularly the young men, think of the Army, let them look at the results of the recruiting drive. All the talk in this House about what is thought of the Army, an Army career and the attractiveness of the Army means nothing when we go outside this House and ask any young man what he thinks of it. That is the man you have to persuade as to whether it is wise for him, or patriotic for him, to join the Army. We have the extraordinary position, as Deputy Esmonde outlined a few minutes ago, of a British Army battalion of 500 men in Cyprus, and 250 of these men are from the Irish Republic. To me, the whole situation is crazy with regard to the Irish Army when I see that we are able to send more recruits outside this country than we are able to get into our own Army.
I do not know what the Minister thinks now about the suggestion made to him regarding a Special Committee of the House to examine the question of expense. I do not know what he thinks at the moment, but I would appeal to him again to have the matter re-examined. Whatever the Minister may think of my personal suggestions with regard to the Army, I think he should at least consider that such a committee, as I have suggested, would be of great help to him and the Government in making their decisions for the future. Practically every other Department of State is subject to examination by a committee or a commission. When the Minister of any particular Department wants to find out the position regarding a certain issue, he sets up a committee to advise him. There is nothing wrong with it, and I do not see why such a commission, or committee, whichever you wish to call it, should not be set up by the Minister for Defence to advise him in regard to the expenditure on this Estimate.
This is a democracy, or alleged to be one, and the question of defence is one for all the citizens of the State. It is not just a question for the Government. The whole House has a responsibility in this. They are voting money, and it is not just a question of being asked to come in here and be allowed the privilege of criticising the Minister on the type of new uniform the troops will wear, or that there are too many officers in proportion to the number of men. That is not what I am after here at the moment at all. I am concerned with the expenditure each year on what is described as defence.
The Minister would be well advised at this stage to face the facts. He will not get the men into the Army with his recruiting drive, by spending £12,000 or £15,000 extra on advertising—as Deputy Booth says, slick advertising— to sell a poor product. It is dishonest, and it shows nothing but contempt for the young people, to say that a slick advertisement in the newspapers, cinema or television, attractively worded and attractively printed, will entice young intelligent men into the Army. That day is gone. It was quite possible—up to recently anyway—for the Army to send round a military band to play music in rural places in the hope that they would ensnare a few unfortunates.
What kind of nonsense are they indulging in at all? Have they any regard for the intelligence of the people of Ireland in trying out that caper? It reminds me of the old days when a shilling was put into a man's hand and he was rushed into the British naval service—bought by a shilling and dumped into the British Army. Here they attract him by sending a band around to the rural places. He is supposed to be attracted by the band, to follow it and say: "This is the life for me."
I think some of the Minister's advisers would do well to go down the country and stand amongst the people who are listening to these bands and hear their views. They like the music all right but if anybody thinks it is an incentive to join the Army they have another thought coming. If we are to have an Army and if it is considered that the money should be made available for it, I think the Army must be up to date. We must make it attractive for young men and, in my opinion, there should be a revolutionary approach to it. I am only offering my own view on that, but I am speaking on behalf of the Labour Party when I say that a special committee should be set up to examine the whole problem of expenditure and I am putting forward my idea as to what should be done with the money.
We have at the moment an officer of some sort, whether he is commissioned or non-commissioned, for every four or five privates. I have hammered this out before and I suppose it is a waste of time mentioning it now. In addition to that, we now have a recruiting drive on for professional officers. When I say professional officers I mean officers with professional qualifications —doctors, dentists, solicitors, engineers —and all those men are getting special grade pay, if it is not beneath their dignity to describe it as a grade pay, which they are entitled to get as they are qualified. We have all those people coming into the Army now, and what is there for them? There are hardly enough men there to occupy a dentist in looking after their teeth. I do not know what the doctors are doing in the Army. I do not know what solicitors are doing in the Army. I do not know what engineers are doing in the Army.
Are they just coming in for a smug time and drawing professional pay? What experience is there for a good doctor in the Army today, or for a good engineer? What are we creating? We are creating a feeling of resentment amongst the privates who are the backbone of the Army. Here is the State offering special attractions and enticements to the professionally qualified officer to bring him into the Army but, as far as the rank and file are concerned, who are the backbone of any Army, it is the same old six and eightpence all the time. The drum and the band get them in; let them bash it out on the barrack square. There is an officer's orderly and I do not know whether he is still changing the baby's nappies for the officer's wife. I do not know whether that has been cut out or not. It is not part of his official duties but I presume it still goes on unofficially.
If the Minister wants professional people in the Army, I would prefer him to bring in teachers. I would prefer him, at this stage, to tie in his Army programme with the new educational plan announced by the Minister for Education, if that plan is a serious one. The Army should be made attractive to the youth in the sense that if they come into it they will be given career guidance. They will be given career training and when they finish, say, a limited period of service in the Army and qualify, with a certificate of a recognised standard, and come out they will be given priority. When I say priority, I mean, all things being equal, that for a post in a State, or semi-State concern, they will get extra marks for Army service.
A number of new technological colleges are being erected throughout the country. There is one going up in Athlone. What is wrong with using Athlone as a modern experiment as far as the Army is concerned, as a place in which young men who join the Army can do their courses in the same way as vocational school pupils do their courses in the different schools during the day? In my opinion, that would relieve the Department of Defence of a considerable expenditure on education, while, at the same time, making educational facilities available to a section of the community which is very deserving of them. A child of the poorest parents in the State would, by joining the Army, have an opportunity of getting first-class education in the knowledge that, when he came out of the Army, he would be further looked after with a job in the State.
I am talking very generally on this. What I should like to get across to the Minister is the fact that the Army should be something in which the people would have confidence, in which they would take pride, something for which they would compete in order to get their children into the Army. The educational facilities should be regarded as top-class. Then there would be no trouble getting recruits.
The Army should not be merely a matter of bashing around the square, hopping off to the Congo, looking for excitement in Cyprus. The Army should be a training for a vocation, a career and a trade. It should also be a place in which proper civic training would be given to our youth. I should prefer to see money expended in that direction for such expenditure would ultimately benefit the State. Young trained men would be turned out of the Army with skills and knowledge which could be used for the benefit of the whole community.
What are we getting at the moment? We are not getting young boys into the Army. I want to make it clear that the officer and NCO personnel are above reproach, but we are not getting sufficient into the rank and file of the Army, because it is not attractive. It is not a practical proposition, and the youth of today are not fools. They will decide the merits for themselves just as former generations did. We must make the Army so attractive that it will bring in the youth and be good for the State at the same time.
It is not just a matter of money. Deputy Tully and others spoke about increasing the pay and allowances. That is necessary, but the first essential is to provide the young person with an opportunity of improving himself. It is on that aspect that the Minister and his Department should have discussions with the Department of Education with a view to working out some type of course that will benefit the young men who join the Army.
On the general question of some change in the old ideas of discipline, it is high time the Minister and the Department realised that this is 1964 and not the Boer War or the British Army Training Manual of 1914-18. The latter should not be applied at this stage of our progress. We have in operation today an outmoded system of courtmartial. It is a degrading system. If the Minister wants to get the modern look on the Army, then he must realise that you will have discipline only where you have respect. You will never get discipline through the medium of a weapon so much disliked as the system of courtmartial is. I describe it as "Army Bull". Grown men are treated as if they were ten or 12 year old children.
What is the system of appeal if there is injustice, real or imaginary? I received an anonymous document—I am sure other Deputies did also—on behalf of a number of officers. It is significant that they were afraid to put their names to the document, afraid of disciplinary action. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that, in 1964, grievances are not dealt with in the same way as they are dealt with in the Civil Service or in any other group. Why Army personnel cannot be allowed to put their case publicly is something I cannot understand.
Where is the discipline there? Where is the morale? Why should a group of intelligent, educated men sit down and write out their criticisms, sending them privately to Deputies with the request: "Please do not let my name be mentioned." Why cannot these men come out into the open? Why should they not make their grievances known in the proper fashion?
Take the case of the private soldier who has a grievance. Suppose he feels he is being victimised by Corporal X or Lieutenant So-and-So, what avenue is open to him to have his grievance aired and rectified? Is there not room for improvement in the present system? Suppose a junior officer wants to complain about the way he is treated by a senior officer, what channel has he except through the man he thinks is imposing an injustice on him?
It is high time the present mentality in the Army was got rid of once and for all. I do not see why a member of the Defence Forces should not be able to complain to an ombudsman or a Deputy. I should prefer a grievance officer. I could supply the Minister with a list of complaints about certain officers from soldiers in the Congo, but I have no intention of doing so. Our soldiers should be in a position to make their grievances known publicly. They should be in a position to go over the heads of their own officers and, if necessary, without consulting their own officers. At the moment grievances must pass through a certain channel, to be observed on and commented upon by the very people who are under criticism. To my mind, that is no way of dealing with injustices in the Army.
Every private soldier in every barracks should have at his disposal the opportunity of rising through the ranks to become Chief of Staff. That is not the position. The old saying that every soldier carries a field marshal's baton in his knapsack does not apply to our Army because we cut in at the halfway stage and set up a Military College which deals with the select members of Irish society. Instead of putting all men in the Army who want to be officers through the ranks as privates for two or three years, we take in the boys from Clongowes, Rockwell, Blackrock and an odd one from the Christian Brothers schools to balance it, who have their Leaving Certificate with honours and who if they happen to be sons of existing Army officers, will not be looked upon with disfavour because of that. The Army is made into a tight, cosy family group for the sons and the relations of all the others who are in the lucky club. They will be the officer personnel who will guide the destinies of the privates and the NCOs.
Where is there a hope for a private there? I will be told that a private who has his Leaving Certificate and who goes through the ranks will get extra marks if he goes forward to the College. If that argument is put to me, I should like to know, out of the number who are commissioned each year, how many go in as private soldiers and how many go in straight to the Military College. That is how I will show up the fraud that a private soldier has an equal chance of rising to the top.
I do not like this idea of segregating society in the Army. It is not suitable for a small country like this. The idea is abroad that discipline cannot be maintained unless Lieutenant Murphy is segregated from Paddy O'Brien, although the two of them are from the one townland. Our discipline, our Army training manual, the whole approach with regard to defence, is based on something alien to the Irishman's nature. We have never changed it. We took over a blueprint, when the British Army left this country, based on a British Army programme of 1896, 1904 or 1905. No provision has been made for what should be a really representative Irish Army.
The result is that the only time Irish people take any interest in the Army is when they are going abroad. They take pride in the fact that Irish soldiers, even under the severe handicaps they suffer here at home, are able to conduct themselves so well abroad. The people read in the papers that our troops were in action and they feel a kind of vicarious thrill. Possibly much of this is due to the fact that this country escaped the horrors of war and, through war films, and so on, Irish people have got the idea that war is not such a bad thing at all. They think there is some glamour about it when troops are sent to the Congo and elsewhere.
I am not taking away from the fact that our men conducted themselves admirably while abroad but I believe there is a lot more to the Army than just having them ready for events in the Congo or in Cyprus, and I intend to say a word or two about that now. This country has been asked to supply a battalion of troops for Cyprus. Deputy Booth or some other Deputy pointed out that in selecting such a force, men should be selected who would be used to one another, that at present men were selected from different companies and different battalions, lumped all together and given a few weeks to get to know one another and sent out. That is not a battalion at all.
It reminds me of the GAA when I used to play football—a county team was always better than a provincial team, although the provincial team consisted of the cream of the different counties. The members of the provincial team were all stars in the different counties but I never knew a provincial team which would beat a top-class county team. The county team knew one another's strength and weakness; they liked one another and were proud of one another; whereas half of the men who went on a provincial team, did not speak to one another. They had no contact and were not interested. It was only a matter of a glamour match. There was never the same keenness or the organised plan that was available to the county team.
The same thing applies to the selection of a battalion. A battalion should consist of a force of which all the members know one another and have served together for a period of years. When the soldier is recruited, he is made proud of the battalion. He is a member of a platoon of which he is proud, then a company and then the battalion. If a force is to be picked by going from one battalion to the next, a cohesive group will not be achieved. I know it is necessary if we are to send a battalion anywhere. It is necessary because we have not the personnel and we are scraping the barrel to get enough men. We have not sufficient personnel to man the posts in our own country and it is another example of our illusions; we are trying to keep with it all the time. In regard to our commitments in the Congo, we were lucky enough to survive that. Somebody said it was the luck of the Irish.
We are not getting the recruits into the Army. At this stage when the Government are asked for their views about a battalion, whatever about the immediate decision within the next week or fortnight, they should make their views known, on a long-term basis, as to the type of force this country will have available if called upon by the United Nations authorities in the event of an emergency in any part of the world, so that it will be understood that a limited force will be on tap here in Ireland and that similar forces will be available in a number of other countries on a full-time basis. The United Nations would be responsible for the pay, or portion of the pay, of such a force. In other words, if the United Nations ask for an Irish battalion, let us put it this way, that it be understood that the United Nations will set up its own full-time force and that we are more than willing to take part in that force. This thing of coming along at 24 hours' notice and asking for a battalion today from Ireland and a battalion from some other country at the same time, is not the wisest way to deal with a problem of the nature of Cyprus.
The Minister should give a good deal of thought to a suggestion made to him by Deputy Esmonde on the possibility of acquiring a suitable type of fishery protection boat. If the figures mentioned by Deputy Esmonde are correct and the type of boat is a suitable one, money spent on those boats would be well spent. Within a very short time, we are to have an extension of our fishing grounds through the new international agreement that is coming into operation. In spite of the remarks made here by the Minister for External Affairs last week, about how we will defend that fishing ground, we all know that there is no defence or protection for the extended area which is being made available to our fishermen. In fact, we are not able to protect the area we have at the moment. The time is more than ripe for getting a suitable means of defending the new fishing grounds. It is something that cannot be set up overnight.
A contributing factor in the demoralisation of our fishing industry is that the foreigner can come into any of the fishing grounds and play "puck" with the local fishing groups, tear up their nets and lines and treat the locals with absolute contempt. That happens regularly all around the coast. There is very little reference to it in this House and very little of it comes to light, unless on meets a fisherman in his own locality and he tells you what is happening. That is as far as it goes. The fishermen are demoralised and depressed. If we are to extend our fishing grounds, which is highly desirable, we will have to take the necessary steps to protect them.
On that question of protection, it would be money well spent to organise a proper type of protection. When I say that, priority, of course, must be given to the fishing fleets themselves. That is the main thing. In other words, let us get out and get the fish. That is the most important thing. After that, we must have suitable vessels to look after the interests of our fishermen. If we have not the fishermen and suitable boats for fishing, I do not see much point, naturally enough, in going out to protect what is non-existent; but, assuming we will have the fishermen in operation, bringing a rich harvest of fish to this country, we must have the means of ensuring that they are not robbed or that the fishing grounds are not destroyed or depleted of fish.
When it comes to cost, it should not be impossible to work out an arrangement with the Fisheries Branch that portion of the cost would be borne by the fishing industry itself. I know that at the moment the fishing industry is a very weak section and that it would be a difficult proposition, but if we extend the fishing grounds and if we organise the fishing industry on a proper basis, there is no reason in the world why that reorganisation should not, in turn, be able to help to finance a proper protection system for the fishermen and also for the fishing grounds.
It is painful to hear it mentioned here that we have only sufficient recruits available at the moment to man one of the three corvettes. It gives a wrong impression to talk about a naval service here. There is no good talking about a naval service when we have not got one. There is no good in having pretensions to having one. It would be much better to describe this as our fishery protection service, as part of our fishing industry, and cut out the nonsense about a naval service. Then you might get recruits. No parent would consider allowing a boy to join the Naval Service here, knowing that there is no such thing in reality, that we have three corvettes and that the three are not manned.
Instead of having a further recruiting campaign to man these corvettes, we should start now to reorganise the service. The ideal thing would be to "get with" the fishing people, make the organisational changes which are necessary, and purchase the right type of boats so that when the new international agreement on the extent of our fishing grounds comes into operation, we will be ready to protect them.
I would again urge the Minister to consider very carefully my suggestion about setting up a Special Committee of the House to examine into Defence expenditure. I hope I shall not hear again a reply from this Minister such as I had from his predecessor that this question of Defence expenditure is solely a matter for the Government. It is not. It is a matter for the people of the country. It is a matter for their representatives in this House, who speak on behalf of the community. It is dictatorial on the part of any Government to suggest that they do not want advice, that they do not want to hear new ideas or new suggestions as to how Irish money could best be spent, that they know it all themselves. That is a wrong approach. It has been a wrong approach and I hope that we shall not hear any more of it.
I am somewhat perturbed about the treatment meted out to certain of my former comrades who now find, in the winter of their lives, that they must apply for a special allowance. Many of the men concerned were granted military service medals many years ago by a board. Some of the members of that board were fully acquainted with many of the men. Some members of the board have gone to their reward. They were men of great honour who would not issue medals indiscriminately.
It does not matter how humble that old IRA man was, or how little service he had, he is as near and dear to me as the brass-hats who might claim that they alone freed this country. We cannot afford to insult any of these old soldiers. They joined at a time when it was dangerous and difficult. They were of a generation that, after 700 years, got freedom for us, after a terrible time. They may never have handled a rifle but they handled despatches, and dug dugouts and gave the service they were ordered to give and, in my opinion, that should leave them in a position of immunity from insults such as saying the medals awarded to them by a competent court some years ago were not merited in fact. With that in view, I ask the Minister to set up some board that will, even on oath if necessary, make certain that men awarded military service medals by people of the calibre of Comdt. General Seamus Robinson and others will not be discredited today. It is a pity that has happened.
The assessment of means and the methods adopted, we find, are not in conformity with the spirit of the Act. For instance, under the old age pensions assessment, where a man is married, half of his means are credited to his wife. In assessing the means of an old soldier for special allowance purposes, no such division of means is made. If he has £100 a year he is credited with the full amount. In the winter of his life, I say he deserves more from the Dáil and the country than this method of ousting him from that special allowance which, no doubt, he would not claim if he were not in impecunious circumstances.
The worst feature of all is that perhaps there might be a suspicion— there should not be; hundreds of men did not claim medals who might have been entitled to military service pensions—that because they did not claim until now, their entitlement was in question. There should be no suspicion in official minds that they are not bona fide. No matter what happens, it is better that people should get medals and allowances than that one old soldier should be insulted. I know of one man in particular and I could get a hundred people, if necessary, to certify that he was one of the best old soldiers in the area. Nevertheless, the medal he received many years ago, he is now told, in effect, he got fraudulently. That should not arise or be allowed to arise.
Those of us who have been associated with pensions for years know that the green-eyed monster has always played a part and that personal respect has often been responsible for insults, both to those claiming pensions and those claiming medals. I know that perhaps political backing or something like that did bring forth the full power of some of the verifying officers. That should not happen. I hope when I have finished in Dáil Éireann that nobody will say that I ever verified for or against a man because of his political beliefs. I ask the Minister to inquire fully into the method of assessing means of old IRA men applying for special allowances.
I recently heard of a poor fellow whose head had been battered in and who, as a result, at times suffered from more or less mental illness. The investigating officer went to him a fortnight ago and asked if he was getting food from his nephew. Truthfully, he said he was but he did not tell the officer that the nephew made sure to get the special allowance in lieu of it. The result was this man was reduced from £7 15s. to £3 10s. That is not the spirit of the Act and it should not be allowed to happen. At this late hour we are asking the Minister to set up a board to ensure fair play and justice, no matter what else happens.
I must refer to the treatment meted out to an old soldier of the Third Tipperary Brigade who had excellent service and who died in County Waterford in very poor circumstances. I should say the Department of Defence were responsible for most, if not all, of that. When I met this man some years ago, I had been told he was suffering from a fatal disease and I went to his doctor and explained why I wanted to know. The doctor told me the man had cancer. From then on, I wrote to the Department five or six times urging them to get a decision in his case as his disease was fatal but not until a year ago when he had died was a decision made. Because he was dead, his widow did not even get as much money as would help towards his burial.
I appeal to the Minister to set up some fund which will allow old soldiers who die in poor circumstances to be buried by the State, which will either defray the cost of burial or help towards it. We should never have to rely on "a shake of the hat", as has happened in many cases, to bury men who gave service to this country. It is disgusting and degrading that it has happened in the case of many old soldiers. I hope the Minister will set up such a fund which will in no small way help to heal the wounds which the deaths of Old IRA men in peculiar circumstances cause to their former comrades.
I do not want to mention the name of the old soldier of the Third Tipperary Brigade—he is in peace now and I shall not disturb him—but even at this late hour it is the duty of the Minister to see that his widow is compensated. It was the fault of the Department dealing with this matter that the case was not dealt with in his lifetime. The Minister is bound to meet the case yet and to show appreciation of one who gave service to free this country.
We have heard a lot of talk about the men who went to the Congo. I am glad so many came back unscathed and we are sorry for those who came back in their coffins but they did great service not only to their country but to the world. They deserve from us, in particular, our sincerest gratitude.
When the question of sending out men to the Congo was first discussed here, the then Minister for Defence gave an assurance that any man who contracted disease as a result of such service would be adequately compensated. A constituent of mine went to the Congo, having first been certified by the responsible medical authorities as being fit. Had he even a minor disease the competent, conscientious doctors who examined him would not have permitted him to go.
That man was Private Cullen of Clonmel—I have been allowed to use his name here. Shortly after arrival in the Congo, he was sent home suffering from an incurable disease. I do not know what the disease was, but it necessitated his spending some time in military hospitals and civilian hospitals. Then he died, leaving a widow and two children. The Department of Defence have now ruled that he, or his dependants, are not entitled to pension or compensation of any sort, despite the assurance given in the House by the then Minister, Deputy Boland, that the family of any man serving in the Congo would not, by his illness or death as a result of such service, be any worse off than if he came back safe and sound.
Private Cullen's two children are now left to be provided for by a grandfather and an invalid aunt. We should have greater respect for our young men who go to the Congo: we should ensure that where one of them either suffers disease or dies as a result of that service the dependants are not left badly off or destitute. It is a sad thing that even one soldier should so suffer. I am asking the Minister to have a full investigation made into this case to ensure that the children are properly looked after.
Such a situation will not act in the future as an inducement to our young men to give their services to uphold peace and good order in different parts of the world. I am certain that if the Minister found it necessary to introduce a short Bill here to give him sufficient power to deal with such cases every Deputy in the House would be only too glad to support it.
Dealing with the general problems of the Army today, I hear many complaints of inadequate housing for married soldiers in country areas. As we all know, it is very difficult for a married soldier to get a house in a small town. The time has now arrived when barracks, so suitable and comfortable in every other way, should have attached to them adequate married quarters. If we want more men to join the Army, that is one of the ways we will get them. We want our soldiers to be satisfied.
In passing, I feel I should pay a tribute to the young men who nowadays come out of the Army. They are a most disciplined body of men, an example to their counterparts in civilian life. You know they will become good members of society when they leave the Army. They are a credit to their officers; they are young men who will not turn out to be rowdies or blackguards but retain their good sense and discipline.
We know full well that if we could afford to pay them we would not have in the Army the 12,000 men immediately required but 24,000. Since we need every soldier we can possibly get, I do not think this House will ever look askance on any reasonable demands for moneys for the Army. One of the ways to defend freedom is the establishment and preservation of an active, virile Army, an army which will not take no for an answer, an army which will defend the shores of Ireland to the last drop of their blood. Circumstances of the future may differ considerably from the past. In the Emergency period we had old IRA officers and officers of the National Army to help organise and drill our Emergency-swollen forces. Though many of those men are still alive, in the future we cannot depend on them for such organisation and such general assistance. That is one great task which may lie ahead, but I have no doubt our new Army is quite capable of tackling it should it ever arise.
I agree that uniforms play an important part in influencing a young man to join the Army. An attractive uniform is always an inducement and we should try at all times to provide our troops not alone with a suitable walking out uniform but with an ordinary uniform which will be smart and not too cumbersome.
