Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 1965

Vol. 217 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Defence Resumed.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £6,959,800 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence, including certain Services administered by that Office; for the Pay and Expenses of the Defence Forces; and for payment of a Grant-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Defence).

Mr. Dowling

I asked the Minister to consider the question of an extension of annual leave for NCOs and men. I feel also that consideration should be given to the matter of good conduct pay. At the moment, the private soldier who reaches the maximum pay after ten years has no incentive to soldier on. Good conduct pay would give him that incentive. It would be good for his morale and for the Army in general. I suggest also that the Minister reconsider the question of grade pay. Its abolition was disastrous and there are good grounds for its reintroduction. It would lead to more efficiency in these groups. I have particularly in mind in this respect Army drivers, who do a substantial amount of extra duty, particularly during weekends in connection with the FCA. They are responsible for the transport of important groups of between 30 and 40 men and their services are worth something more than those of ordinary soldiers.

For the purpose of children's allowances, an officer's child who is receiving full-time education qualifies up to the age of 21 years but in the case of an NCO or a man, it ceases when a boy is 16 or a girl 18 years. Apparently, according to the framers of this scheme, the NCO and man were not supposed to have children educated at university level. I submit that where the child of an NCO or man is receiving full-time education at university level, the qualification for children's allowances should extend to the age of 21. I feel sure the Minister is in sympathy with this suggestion. After all, the NCO and man deserve all the assistance they can get to educate their children.

On the question of suggestions for betterment, the NCO and man are not heeded at all by those in authority. It would cost nothing to consider the suggestions emanating from the lower ranks—to have them compiled and analysed and, in many cases, implemented. NCOs and many private soldiers are intelligent and are capable of offering suggestions which could be implemented for the good of the Army in general. It is a fact that all the committees sitting in the Army are composed entirely of officers, to the exclusion of the lower ranks.

The Minister must give serious new consideration to the question of married quarters. It is a matter of great importance which must be tackled with courage and understanding. The present military quarters are completely undesirable and absolutely out of date. Married quarters should be built outside the barracks. I believe new married quarters are desirable and essential in Dublin. The money for this should not come from the Defence Vote but from the capital Budget. Immediate consideration should be given to the question of providing married quarters outside the barracks. I know one married quarters where a civil servant, whose brother had a house, is living. The brother sold the house and went back to the married quarters. There are young soldiers living in one or two rooms in this city. They are calling for proper accommodation. These young soldiers who, through no fault of their own, have very bad living accommodation, should receive consideration. This matter should be tackled at the earliest possible moment. Some of the people who are at present in married quarters have given no service to the country at all.

The occupants of married quarters in Arbour Hill Barracks need protection from people living in flats in the vicinity. The married quarters are being damaged by some of those people. The people living in the married quarters have to pay for the damage done, whether it is broken windows, damage to gutters or any other damage. There should be some sort of control exercised over the people living in the flats adjacent to the married quarters. The people living in the married quarters should get some sort of protection.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is quite right when he indicates that there should be a new approach to military stations, particularly the two major barracks of Cathal Brugha and Collins in Dublin. Heating in those barracks is non-existent as are services. There is great need for reconstruction, proper billets and suitable accommodation for the men who live in those barracks. They come from good homes and they should be given proper accommodation.

The military barracks in Templemore was given over to the police force and was completely renovated. The people who serve in the armed forces are serving the nation honourably and they need proper accommodation. They need new billet accommodation. The question of protection from fall-out which will be necessary is a must and will come up for consideration in the future. Deputy Fitzpatrick has already stated that the amount that would be procured from the sale of these barracks would be adequate to build a new barracks on the outer perimeter of the city.

I would like to say a word about the apprenticeship school at Naas. This is something which should be encouraged but, unfortunately, there are people in the area adjacent to the school who are enticing young men out of it by giving them the necessary finance to buy them out of the Army. The money is repaid over a period of three or four years. These are bonded men and this is a very undesirable situation. I feel that the cost of buying oneself out after having been trained in the apprenticeship school, before the nine years' service has been completed, should be reconsidered.

The Naval Service is the joke of the century. The material and the ships available are not adequate to meet the present day situation. I believe this matter will have to get early consideration. The present type of ship, the corvette, is not at all suitable. We need a dual purpose ship, something small with the necessary firing power. That kind of ship will give proper protection to our fishing fleet. They should also be equipped with the necessary technical aids which can be operated by both civilian or naval personnel. These vessels could inform our fishing fleet of the shoal movements, etc. It is not a defensive monster we want but something which will protect our fishermen and give them necessary information. The design of our ships will need to be improved to meet the new situation, particularly in regard to the 12 mile limit. There may be difficulties in the operation of these matters but I do not believe they are insurmountable. We should be able, in time, to produce something which will meet our requirements.

I would also ask the Minister to consider the question of medical facilities for the wives and children of NCOs and men. Those people get facilities while they are in hospital but they are on their own when they come out. They should certainly get some consideration when they come out of hospital.

With regard to the question of the gratuity on retirement, which was mentioned by Deputy Tully, this is an absolute necessity. When a man reaches the end of the road he gets 21 days pre-discharge leave. This, to my mind, is another joke. If the man obtains employment in CIE he can avail of this leave to set himself up in civilian life, as was indicated during the introduction of this scheme. If he gets a job in the barracks as a civilian, he cannot obtain resettlement leave. That is necessary in order to help him to resettle himself during this vital period. There should be no restriction. Whether a man gets work in the barracks, CIE or anywhere else he should be given the facility. No matter where the person gets work outside he should get the same facilities. It is wrong that any restriction should be placed on the person who gets civilian employment in a barracks. That is not the case in regard to officers. It affects only NCOs and men. The lower ranks are trampled on. I feel a gratuity on retirement helps a man to get over many of the problems that arise on pre-discharge.

I would like to talk about the Reserve. Those who were in the Reserve service from 1927 to 1938 who do one month annual training get 12 guineas. Those who were there immediately after the reorganisation of the Reserve get £9. They get £5 after training and £4 in December. There are very many reservists in Britain who would like to do reserve training but they cannot afford to come home. Those people get a warrant from Dublin Port or the nearest port to their home military station. The question of travelling from Liverpool, Birmingham or London, or wherever they may be living, is not taken into consideration at the moment. That matter should be taken into consideration if we are in earnest about this matter, if we wish to have an effective Reserve and if we want to keep it.

The question of annual grants and promotion within the Reserve for NCOs and men should get some consideration from the Minister. There were 20 commissioned from the ranks in 1962. The concession those people got is approximately eight months' service. For pension purposes the matter was adjusted. Many of them have served over 21 years. Some of them have served 22 or 23 years. It was indicated during the Emergency that the NCOs were the backbone of the Army. They guided the inflow of the young officers into the Army at that time. They were good men and have often been referred to as the backbone of the Army. Those men were promoted because of necessity. We now find that a young officer who came into the Army four years ago from the College with a commission, and is now 23 or 24 years of age, is receiving pay greater than that of the man who was serving before he was born and who is now commissioned. The Minister should reconsider the situation and at least give them something that will enable them to reach the maximum on the captain's limit on retirement. In the case of a sergeant-major commissioned with this group, he would be receiving £50 in excess of his pay if he remained an NCO. There is much scope in this question, and there are so many factors involved that the fullest consideration should be given to it.

In the case of officers, a retiring age of 54 or 56, or whatever it is, is too early. I know there are difficulties in regard to promotion, but nevertheless they are in an unfortunate situation in relation to placement and resettlement. These men come out of the Army at the time when they are rearing their families and need assistance, without guidance or resettlement. The question of resettlement must be tackled by the Department. We are told that there is no problem, but I know there is a problem. Resettlement is a personal and a human problem. I have been dealing with the resettlement of ex-servicemen for 12 years and I know their problems, their needs and their wants.

There is need for an advisory service to tell the men that when they reach a certain age, they will probably be in married quarters and will not be in a position to get a loan or a grant if they do not make arrangements now. This advisory service should deal with career planning, education, housing and other matters. At the moment when a private soldier or an NCO is released from the service, he should have something in excess of a builder's labourer, but when he reaches the labour market, he is ill equipped. Where do we find these people? They are the petrol pump attendants throughout the country. We must have career planning. At the moment they have no technical assistance, and when they reach the labour market, they are in a very poor position indeed.

We know that the local authority regulation is that a man is old when he is 40, and there is nothing for him but the petrol pumps. That day is now gone, and the resettlement of our discharged personnel should be tackled in a realistic manner. We have heard talk of a manpower authority in connection with other sectors, and there is no reason why our soldiers could not be dealt with in the same way.

Disabled ex-servicemen are entitled to very special consideration. The occupational hazards of a soldier's life are high. We have seen in the Congo and elsewhere that they can receive injuries with long-term effects which debar them from gainful employment. I should like to pay a tribute to the ABF and the Organisation of National ex-Servicemen and other voluntary organisations for the help they have given. I should also like to pay a tribute to the individuals and employers who seek to employ disabled ex-servicemen in their concerns. There is much more I should like to say but I am conscious of the time squeeze which is on at the moment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Yet another squeeze.

Mr. Dowling

I want to ask the Minister to consider each and every one of the items I have mentioned. I shall raise all of these items again by way of question and supplementary question. The Minister is a very reasonable man and having listened to the problems, I am sure he will take them into consideration. Something needs to be done. Let us forget the brass hats and remember the men with experience, the officers and NCO ranks, and the serving personnel who are on tap all the time to deal with the problems that could cause grave embarrassment and complete disruption at times.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister is a reasonable man, but the Minister is a Fianna Fáil Minister, and Fianna Fáil Ministers, and Fianna Fáil Governments take years, and years, and years, and years, to learn anything. Eventually after years, and years, and years, of being asked, begged, cajoled and threatened in this House, they do what they are asked to do during a recess. We had the instance of the helicopters. For years they were asked to provide helicopters. The need for them was pointed out from the Fianna Fáil benches, from this side of the House, by my colleague, Deputy Esmonde, and myself. We were told we had no use for helicopters, and that we could not have them.

Then there was the near terrible tragedy off Carnsore Point when the lifeboat could not be launched in the most terrible seas, and the nearest available help was from one of Her Britannic Majesty's aircraft carriers in the Bristol Channel. They put to sea and rescued the men in very trying conditions. I may say that they were very badly thanked by the Minister's predecessor, and by the Minister for External Affairs, who should have had the ordinary, common, civilised decency to thank the British Admiralty and the captain and officers and men of the aircraft carrier.

The Government then woke up and decided they would not be under a compliment to Her Britannic Majesty in the future and they bought three helicopters. They bought them in France. I want to say that the Minister's predecessor should have bought them from the British. The reason is that we are out of balance in our balance of payments with France, and we are in balance with Great Britain. The British also think it worth while to buy our commodities. In fact, they bought so many bullocks from us last year that they saved our balance of payments and the national exchequer. In future, when making such purchases, the Minister should give consideration to the countries that are in balance with us.

The Minister for External Affairs trotted off to the continent and got a 12 mile limit for our fisheries. I approve of that. I compliment him in regard to the matter of the base lines. I shall not go into detail but the base lines are very important. We have seen our shores being plundered by Russians, Poles, Czechoslovakians, and God knows who else. They do not have the type of trawler with which the Irish people are familiar—50 feet or 70 feet trawlers. They have enormous ships with crews of 40 to 60, and if a shoal is running, they catch more fish in one night than would be caught in one of our well subsidised harbours in a year.

We have three or four boats and may God forgive the Minister for Defence who bought them. I should like to find the man who sold them to us. We should employ him; he was a right salesman. He sold us three dud corvettes. At the present day only one of them can go to sea. So bad are the conditions on these corvettes that we cannot recruit our navy to full strength even if the other two corvettes were shipshape and seaworthy. Yet this goes gaily on without anybody doing anything about it.

The last speaker from the Fianna Fáil benches, I was glad to see, pointed it out to the Minister. For years and years we have been pointing out to the Minister that we should have a cutter.

But that will not do at all. On 5th November, 1964, I put down a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Defence in which I asked him:

(a) the number of armed ships or boats of his Department (1) in commission and (2) not in commission, (b) the name or the number of each ship, and (c) the tonnage, horse power, draught, cruising speed, top speed, type of armament, and complement of each ship or boat.

The Minister did not answer all of my question. This is what he said:

My Department has three armed ships, viz. L.E. Macha, L.E. Maev and L.E. Cliona. Owing to a shortage of key personnel, it is possible to have only one of them operational at any one time.

That was admitted here in the House. Now we have another Minister trying to get us 12 miles more of coastline to protect, but nothing has been done about it. If the Minister sends recruiting officers to any port recruiting men for the Irish Navy, nobody will join. I think it is a frightful state of affairs. The reason they will not join is that they know the conditions on these rusty old boats and know there are risks in going to sea on these boats which are liable to spring a leak any minute.

I am chiding the Minister for not mentioning in his brief anything about cutters. The Minister is not being nice to me and we are reasonably good friends. But my spies now tell me that the Minister is now going to buy cutters, at least one. When he would not make the announcement in the House, I might as well make it. I believe the Minister is interested in the cutters that were recommended to him by members of his own Party and by people on this side of the House. It is about time, and I shall tell the Minister the importance of this.

I met a Dutchman in Dunmore East; there was a dispute which I was trying to fix up. I was getting tired and I said: "Damn the herring." He caught me and nearly broke my arm and said: "Don't say that; we were prepared to go to war three times for that; you are a foolish people with your wonderful fisheries out there and you are letting everybody fish there."

I was told by the people in Dunmore East about the enormous armada that was there during those days, and these people were allowed to sweep our shores. There is not an Irishman who would not be mad at that. They were our fish in Irish fishery waters and were being plundered by this armada from all over Europe. I saw ships that were arrested and brought into Waterford and they had thousands of barrels of fish that were all caught well inside the three-mile limit because it was there the shoals were running. It was only a three-mile limit then; it is now 12 miles.

I hope we shall not have to come back in October and ask about the replacement of the corvettes. I hope the Minister will have them replaced and that he will not have to go all over Ireland looking for recruits. If he gives men a reasonable rate of pay, there will be plenty of young men coming forward to go into the Irish Naval Service.

So far as the Army is concerned and so far as the people of Ireland are concerned, the Army might as well be an underground force. We never see them. We read about them sometimes jumping at occasional horse shows. That is only very occasionally. We have a great Army Jumping Team and the people would like to see them jumping in Tipperary, Cork, Waterford or Galway, and not always here in Dublin. We always have them in the Dublin Show and indeed we are very proud of them there. I would point out to the Minister that one of the things they are short of in the Jumping Team is horses. We had a horse, The Gallow-glass, that had something wrong with his wind. He was one of the best jumpers we had and the poor fellow had to go all around Europe. He was dragged everywhere and never had any relief. The only way you can have a great equitation school is to have lots of horses. The best judges will be available and you must buy a fair share of horses. We are well aware of the great promotion our Army Jumping Team can give this country. It is a wonderful thing to have an Army Jumping Team going abroad in competition with the world. We can say to ourselves that we are taking our place proudly among the nations of the earth and winning these great trophies. It was an occasion of pride when our Irish Jumping Team won at the great horse show in Rome and it was telecast at the time all over Europe on what was the equivalent of Eurovision.

I shall say something I have said on this Estimate for years and years. Many people notice these things and many people from abroad have noticed what I am going to tell the Minister. If you go to a horse show abroad or here in Dublin, you will find all these immaculately-dressed riders representing the various countries and you will find well turned out men representing Ireland. But the men representing Ireland are professional soldiers who have to live on their salaries. I have been pleading with the Minister that an extra subvention should be given to the actual jumping team to put them in the position of not having the old Martin Henry practice, but of being able to buy the best cut breeches possible and the best boots that can be made. I am very proud to say this, and this is the second time I have said it to the Minister, that here in the city of Dublin we have excellent military tailors, but they are very expensive for the ordinary person. When our men are being sent abroad each season, they should be in a position to be as well turned out as anybody else. They should have spares because it rains even in foreign countries and a man can get drenched. I saw one of our officers a few years ago at a show. He had no change and he had to stand shivering but he came out and won. I would ask the Minister to look into this matter, which is a small one.

We never see the Army in Waterford and we have very fine barracks there and the security force has been maintained in case of emergency. I do not want a garrison kept in Waterford but would it not be a good thing if the Army were sent from Dublin to Kilkenny, from Kilkenny to Waterford, from Waterford to Cork, from Cork to Galway, and so on, as an exercise and as good an exercise as soldiers could have?

It is wrong to say that we have the best of everything but our Army No. 1 Band is one of the finest military bands in the whole business. It never comes down the country except on some enormous State occasion. I do not see why it should not be made available in various centres of population, especially when agricultural shows, for example, are being held.

We see the Army parading the streets of Dublin on St. Patrick's Day and we note that the only self-propelled gun in the whole Army is produced in public on that day. I think it is only a museum piece. It looks a very ferocious gun. It is enormous and it looks all right coming down O'Connell Street. But we have no self-propelled artillery. I do not think there was a full battalion armed with fully automatic weapons until the occasion arose when we sent troops to the Congo when we were supplied with arms by other countries.

It was stated here this afternoon that we have competitions in the Army in respect of the best Gustaf gun. A lot of soldiers taking part in that competition never used a Gustaf gun until the actual competition and it has been said that there is not even enough ammunition for the Gustaf gun. If we are to have an Army, we might as well have one with up-to-date weapons. We might as well have an Army that knows what modern field warfare is. The only way they can know all that is to have the proper equipment. That has been denied to them by the Department of Defence for, I would say, the past six or eight years.

On the subject of Army pensions, the case of a very old man who died some time ago and whom I knew as a boy comes to mind. He was one of the most prominent Sinn Féiners in the south of Ireland, I would say. His name is to be found in a whole lot of newspaper articles which one comes across and from which it is clear that he was one of the prominent people taking part in actions and occasions that are now part of our history. This man was known to be an officer in the Old IRA. He was a member of the IRB. He was very prominent in 1916 and during the Anglo-Irish war and the Civil War. He would have taken the part of the Government side at the time in the Civil War and later that was not in his favour. He did not apply for his pension until very late but he had a miserable job. When, at the end of his time, he did apply he got £7 a year or something like that because the referee did not recognise his services. He is dead now and I shall say no more but that was an instance of a great injustice. There are not an awful lot of those men around the country now and the Minister should take it upon himself to look after their interests. They are all getting very old. What needs to be done for them would not cost the State very much money. In spite of the scares by the Taoiseach about a shortage of money, we are not short of money for those men and this is the time to be generous to them in the latter end of their days.

I had occasion some years ago to come to Dublin in regard to the case of another Old IRA man who was vilely treated. A special allowance was paid to him. The money meant something to him but what meant more to him was the fact that he had been recognised. It has actually put him on his feet and he was a better man physically after it. I would ask the Minister to look after all that.

Army lorries were sent to various areas during the recent bus strike. They were in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. We are taxpayers in Waterford city and Waterford city is spread out over a large area. From some of the principal factories on one side of Waterford city to the other side, there is a distance of from six to seven miles. I hope it will never happen to us any more but if anything like that should happen again I do not see why Army lorries should not be sent into Waterford from Kilkenny or somewhere else.

The length of time and the hangover that occurred between the decision of the Government to put lorries on the streets and the actual time when the lorries appeared did not reflect credit on the Minister's Department or even on the Army. Many of my constituents and people in other parts of the country said to me that if the Army were hit with an emergency they wondered how long it would take them to get out their transport. We were of the opinion that with the discipline and with the running of military posts and barracks, everything was prepared and ready to move out at the drop of a hat. I would say that there must be some laxity in that direction.

Lastly, I come to one of my favourite topics. The Minister is to buy cutters. I hope he buys enough of them. They should positively be stationed in areas. There should be at least two cutters in some of the Donegal ports and a small station there. Then, we come down the coast to where suitable places can be found and where our rivers are valuable along by Galway and the Kerry coast and along into Cork and Waterford and Wexford and then up along the east coast to Arklow, Howth and Clogherhead. We must do this. We must not allow these magnificent shores to be butchered and plundered. I commend the Minister. I believe he will do it. I look forward to that day. I now give him notice that, if I am alive, I shall come in here when the Dáil reassembles and I shall roast him alive if he does not replace these three old rusty buckets.

Mr. Corry

I do not know what means the Minister's Department have of dealing with the matter of special allowances, but I do know that at least 50 per cent of those who apply for them are dead before a decision comes.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Hear, hear.

Mr. Corry

There are not so many of them left now and the least they should get is decent treatment from the Minister's Department. I brought to the Minister's attention some months ago the case of a man living in a small farm away in the Doneraile Mountains. He has to travel two miles on foot to get to his house, because you could not take any car into it. It is a good house, which gave refuge to the men on the run. This man played his part with them. After eight months of full consideration of his application by the Department, he was awarded the princely sum of £9 per year or 5d per day. That was his reward at the end of his days for his service to this nation in her hour of need.

A man is not entitled to this allowance unless he has a medal or a medal with bar for active service. But there is a re-investigation into medals given 20 years ago and an attempt to find out any means by which the man can be deprived of his right. In this particular case, I am informed that another gentleman has paddled in the long boreen for another look. It is about three months since I had a letter from the Minister's Department telling me this gentleman from Social Welfare was taking a look. The man concerned has heard nothing since. I suppose they are hoping he will die.

Mr. T. Lynch

It would be handy for them if he did.

Mr. Corry

I will deal with you in a minute. We heard Deputy Tully talking about the treatment men got after the Emergency. It is very bad recruiting policy for the young people to see the manner in which the old lads were treated—those who came out without any pay to offer their lives for the protection and safety of this country. The Minister should deal with this at once and deal with it generously. This man, who was offered the insult of 5d per day, was found after a full investigation to be crippled and unable to work. The bit of mountain was totted up. If the civil servant who did the totting up was landed down there for a couple of months, his outlook on life would be changed altogether. That is what should be done. The gentlemen who do the investigating should be compelled to live in that man's position for a period and made to learn the hard way the same as that man did.

I suppose we will have a holiday now after another fortnight or three weeks. When that holiday comes, I suggest the Minister take Deputy Lynch with him and go for a trip aboard the Macha.

Mr. James Tully

You would not suggest making a hole in the bottom of it first?

Mr. T. Lynch

You must be trying to get rid of me now!

Mr. Corry

If they took a trip in that, by the time they were finished discussing how they were to get back, I think they would decide that something else was necessary. The only defence arm out of which the Irish people get any return is the Naval Service because it is used for the protection of our fisheries. But I challenge the Minister to take a trip on that boat and come back without looking for a month's sick leave.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is what I was trying to tell the Minister.

Mr. Corry

That is what is going to happen to Teddy.

Mr. T. Lynch

Teddy is a hardened man. He does not get seasick.

Mr. Corry

Surely, since we have extended our fishery limits, something more is needed for the protection of our fisheries? You will not get that protection from the two ex-British tugboats lying around down there. If either of them goes out for a day, it is laid up for a month. The Minister should deal with that.

The other matter to which I would direct the Minister's attention is housing. During the past 15 years whenever a member of the Defence Forces in one of the Minister's houses in Cobh applied to the local housing authority for a house, the inspector of the housing authority condemned the house in which the applicant was living. It was left to the local authorities to provide housing. The regulations that apply to the ordinary man living on the mainland whose property is condemned in that manner do not apply to the Department of Defence. In that case the house is reoccupied during the following month by another family who, again, will be seeking a transfer out of it.

In relation to an area where Army and Navy personnel are stationed and which is the headquarters of the Navy, would the Minister not open his heart and say that he will do something in regard to the housing of that personnel? Not one penny has been spent by the Department of Defence in respect of housing in Cobh. In Haulbowline the roofs are off the houses. Is it not time to take nine or ten acres of land on the mainland in Cobh for the purpose of providing houses for married Army and Navy personnel?

There are five or six fathers of families who have to travel from Youghal every morning to work at Haulbowline. They have to pay their bus fares, which represent a considerable sum out of the miserable wage they get. They have no hope of getting a house in Cork or of getting a transfer to a place where they would get a house. Their families are living in houses provided by the Youghal urban council. In order to attend to their duties, these men have to travel from Youghal twice a day. It is time the Minister took steps to see that these people are properly housed.

These are some of the main matters I intended to deal with. I understand that the House is anxious to finish business and I am reserving other matters. I would suggest very seriously to the Minister that for the sake of the good name of the nation and of this House, he should take in hand the position of unfortunate Old IRA men who have to apply for the special allowance. This House would not be here but for them. At least, they should be dealt with in a humane and decent manner. I do not think the award of £9 a year to any man could be described as a decent award, coming from a Department of State that is supposed to look after the welfare of these men.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to raise three points on this Estimate. One of them has already been dealt with, that is, the question of the abatement provisions. The Minister will be aware from discussions here that his colleague, the Minister for Finance, undertook to consider sympathetically the question of making abatement retrospective. While it is true that it has been made retrospective to January last, it still leaves one isolated case where a person has not benefited and for some time will not benefit by the abolition of the abatement provision.

In the course of the discussion in the Seanad on this matter, it was suggested that this case could not be described as a hardship case. That was a somewhat unfortunate suggestion for the reason that although the person in question received an increase under the ninth round of 12 per cent, because of the abatement provisions, the said payments were deducted and consequently, although nominally benefiting, in practice and in fact the abatement wiped out the benefit which should have accrued. When we were abolishing the abatement provisions which apply, we should have gone the whole way and certainly one isolated case should not be left. It was always an inequitable arrangement and it is still inequitable to leave a single case outstanding. Further consideration should be given to that matter.

In connection with the pensions provisions, while the increases apply to retired officers including some of those who have retired for some years, the position is that, because of the method by which pension has always been calculated on the basis of pay at retirement, a number of retired personnel who are retired for six, seven or even five years find that their pension is lower than that now applicable to persons who have retired at a more recent date and who held the same rank and had the same qualifying length of service.

While in the past it was a reasonable method of calculating a pension to base it on pay at retirement, with the rises consequent on the cost of living that have been granted to serving personnel and, in recent times, to retired personnel, although on a lower basis, it does seem inequitable to continue to pay pensions at a lower rate merely because a person retired at a lower salary than that which now obtains for his fellow soldier, or fellow civil servant, as the case may be, who retired at a later date.

Therefore, the proposals in respect of pensions in the two orders should be further considered in order to raise the pensions of persons who retired some years ago. There is not a great number involved but the hardship on the individual is quite considerable in view of the rise in the cost of living and the depreciation in the purchasing power of money. These people who retired under the age limit operating in respect of the various ranks now find that people who retired at a more recent date have a higher rate of pension.

That is a matter that requires further consideration. The necessary steps should be taken as soon as possible to amend the order so as to apply the same rates of pensions. In other words, a person in a particular rank who retired some years ago should be entitled to the same rate of pension as is paid to a person who had attained the same rank and who retired this year.

The last point I wish to make relates to a specific group of officers who feel they have been and, in fact, have been, adversely affected by reason of the granting of permanent commissions to a number of officers whose seniority was based on the fact that they were commissioned as officers in the Regular Army and granted commissions on the basis of the ranks they held in November, 1946. I refer to the cadet class of 1943 who were commissioned as officers in 1945, were promoted lieutenants in 1947 and captains in 1955. The position is that in 1946, approximately 300 temporary officers were granted regular commissions as lieutenants and captains, that is, something like a year and five months after the 1943 class were commissioned. As the Minister is aware, these officers were listed senior to the 1945 group who were commissioned in June of that year.

Promotion, with few exceptions, depends on seniority and in certain excepted cases, accelerated promotion was given to offset the seniority block created by the temporary officers. I understand that 13 temporary officers who did not qualify for a cadetship in the 1943 competition were appointed in 1944 after a short course and promoted lieutenants in June 1945, captains in 1948 and commandants in 1963. The cadet class preceding the 1943 class were promoted captains in November 1948, that is, seven years before the promotion of the 1943 class, and they now anticipate promotion to commandant.

While most of the 1943 class can never expect promotion, the position is that, although, so far as I am aware, this class have satisfactory records, have passed the staff course for promotion, in fact, specially designed to qualify officers for senior appointments, they will never, because of the present seniority list, benefit by the promotion. As I understand it, between 1965 and 1973, the total number of estimated vacancies in senior rank will amount to 109. This is based on the present retirement age but does not allow for death or voluntary retirement.

Because of the decision to grant regular commissions to these temporary officers, a number of the officers to whom I have referred are now junior in rank to them. The Minister ought to consider temporary arrangements which would allow special promotion in respect of these officers whose record is satisfactory, who have passed the necessary course and who, because of circumstances completely outside their control, will never benefit by it.

In the case of non-line officers, doctors, engineers or others with professional qualifications, automatic promotion operates. In addition, I understand that on the present wartime basis in the case of personnel serving with the United Nations troops abroad, many of the ranks are appropriate to commandant rank and in certain circumstances captains from the Army here are holding this rank.

The Minister might look into this matter and consider the position of these officers. I understand that as the present anticipated promotion will operate a number of them will have to retire in about 11 years' time when they will be 54 years of age. It will be difficult for people of that age to find alternative employment, and they are retired at an earlier age then they might reasonably have anticipated if their promotion arrangements had proceeded in the normal way from the time they were originally commissioned in 1943.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

When introducing this Estimate, I referred to its introduction some months ago by the previous Minister for Defence. I mentioned the comprehensive statement he made in bringing in the Estimate. In doing so I had no intention of avoiding a debate on the Estimate as it stands which, I may say in passing, is exactly the same Estimate. Neither had I any intention of avoiding answering any questions. I made it quite plain in my statement that in so far as I possibly could, I would deal with whatever questions were raised during this debate to the best of my ability, and that I knew that Deputies would take it into consideration that I have been only a very short time here as Minister for Defence.

I regret the absence of General MacEoin as much as the Deputies opposite, the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party who made reference to his absence from this House. It is a matter of further regret in that he is a person who, like myself, served in the forces in the early years of the formation of this State and was a member of the pre-Truce armed forces of the country. It is a bit of a break to find so many of these men departing from the scene both in their private life outside and as members of this House or of the Seanad. I hope he will have a happy time in his retirement and that he will enjoy reasonably good health in spite of the fact that he suffers serious disability as a result of the service he rendered to this country.

Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan seemed to think that the public were not satisfied with the defence policy as pursued by various Governments here. This is a rather wide question and one on which it would take a long time to give an opinion and to go into detail. In view of the fact that this Dáil session is coming to a conclusion, I do not think I will go into that matter at length. The defence policy of the State has been outlined on many occasions previously. Armed forces are raised here for home service and for the protection of the State against any outside aggression. Defence policy is governed, of course, by the ability of our people to provide the necessary funds for the maintenance of a defence force.

Every country is faced with the same problem as that with which we are faced. They spend as much as they can afford on defence and the maintenance of the Defence Forces, leaving, at the same time, sufficient capital available for the ordinary economic life of the State. We are a small population; we are not a very rich country. We are not in competition with large powers which can maintain fully equipped defence forces but, nevertheless, the defence forces we maintain are capable of performing the tasks to which they are set. Over the last few years we have succeeded in providing the necessary establishments to go abroad for service with the United Nations in their peacekeeping activities in a number of countries.

As Minister for Defence and as a member of the Government, I wish to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Defence Forces and particularly to the members who have carried the flag of our country in such excellent fashion over the past few years. Our troops are very highly thought of. They take a high place in the military activity of the United Nations. Our officers are regarded as men of competence, quite capable of taking important posts in the service of the United Nations and are regarded as equal to, if not better than, the personnel from other countries.

I have been asked a number of questions in the course of this debate. Some Deputies referred to the military barracks here in Dublin and the land that goes with them. The suggestion is that other uses could be found for these barracks and the land attached if they were made available. It was said that the barracks are old. We know they are old. They were built many, many years ago by the British and I think the time has come now when we should have a look at them. I am having this matter examined but I should like to make it clear that no quick decision can be reached because there is a great deal involved, e.g., the location of troops in both peacetime and wartime. Barracks must be available into which to put troops in the event of these older establishments being disposed of. It is incumbent on us to make provision for the wives and families of the men and for stores and equipment. Financial considerations must also be examined before any decision can be taken. The problem is complicated and has many facets to it. However, I am having the position examined but, in view of the implications involved, no early decision could be expected by reasonable people.

Questions were raised with regard to pensions, improving conditions, uniforms and so on. I shall look into these matters when I read the debate and examine the points that were made. My task would be a very extensive one, indeed, if I were to deal with all the suggestions made. I would, too, need a very much larger amount of money than is provided in this Estimate if I were to implement all the suggestions put forward. As Deputies are aware the Minister for Defence is confined to the Estimate passed here unless he is prepared to resort to the undesirable practice of coming into the House later on seeking a Supplementary Estimate. As I have said, I shall read the debate when it becomes available and Deputies can rest assured that I shall not ignore their representations.

With regard to recoupment of payment for service abroad with the United Nations, that matter is under consideration. It is a matter really for the Minister for External Affairs. We are prepared to accept payment in certain conditions and a claim is being prepared for submission, through the Department of External Affairs, to the United Nations for all extra and extraordinary expenses incurred by the Government in contributing a contingent to the United Nations Force in Cyprus. I am unable to say what the outcome will be. Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out that we have contributed our share—he actually said more than our share—to these operations.

Mr. James Tully

Is there a change in the conditions under which the Government will accept repayment?

Mr. Hilliard

I have not got the exact details but there is no change. It is for the Minister of External Affairs to look after the matter and I am sure he will do so in accordance with the statement he made here.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): He will proceed on the basis that there is no scarcity of money.

Mr. Hilliard

The claim will be presented to the United Nations in accordance with the statement he made here.

There was a recommendation that meritorious service should be recognised. Proposals for awards are being examined and will be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Awards will not be confined to personnel that have served abroad. If personnel at home are entitled to awards they will receive whatever awards are decided upon. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the Coogan Commission. I do not know of any Commission under that name. I presume it is the proposals to which I have referred the Deputy has in mind.

Several matters were raised in relation to pensions. The normal minimum service for pensions in the case of NCOs and privates is 21 years. The 1/-per week for additional service above the 21 years is governed by the pension scheme, which provides for ten incremental years after the 21. That is the position at the moment and I do not think there are any alterations contemplated.

Deputy Dowling referred to children's allowances and instanced the different basis as between officers and men. Under present conditions men's children's allowances are more favourable in some respects as compared with officers' children's allowances but the allowances are payable over a longer period for officers' children who are attending secondary school.

The pre-discharge leave with pay and allowances is up to 90 days depending on the length of service.

The question of the placement of discharged soldiers in employment and the suggestions made by various Deputies in regard to fitting personnel for possible employment when they leave the Army is a very big one. I shall consider it, so far as I can, within the means at my disposal but I cannot give any firm answer to the proposals made here. So far as the Department are concerned, we go as far as we possibly can to give employment to the NCOs and privates who leave the Army where civilian posts with the Defence Forces are available. It is the practice of the Department to recommend soldiers with good discharges to employers throughout the country. I notice that Deputy James Tully said that outside employers do not co-operate sufficiently with the Department in this regard. This is a matter for regret, and I should be only too glad if employment agencies outside, owners of factories or businesses, would give at least equal, if not preferential consideration, to men leaving the Army with good discharges and physically fit and capable of doing the work required of them.

The provision of houses for married personnel is regarded as being primarily the responsibility of the local authority but the Department, out of moneys made available by the House, supplement that, where possible, by providing houses for military personnel where they feel the need is greatest. There is a limiting factor in the amount of money available. The Department have built houses in various centres and will continue to do so where possible but they cannot under any circumstances accept full responsibility for the provision of housing for Army personnel, even where it involves the reconstruction or replacement of very old houses that came into our possession from the British authorities. We shall do the best we can to meet the demand and wherever we are unable to do so the personnel must rely on local authorities.

Deputy T. Lynch referred to the Equitation School and officers' uniforms and he asked that some allowance should be paid to these men. The officers of the Equitation School are paid an extra clothing allowance towards the cost and upkeep of their uniforms. This applies to our jumping teams who take part in competitions with teams from much wealthier countries than ours. They do not always have the same pay or allowances as officers of other jumping teams. We cannot avoid that: we must take our place in these competitions as we are. We try to help our personnel on such missions as far as possible. Our jumping teams at home and abroad compare favourably with the teams of other nations. The Equitation School here has won many honours in show jumping inside and outside the country.

On the question of letting the public all over the country see the Army, we send equitation teams to shows in every county as they occur and our soldiers are seen on the streets and in the garrison towns. Unless we parade them up and down the country roads as showpieces, I do not see much more that can be done.

In regard to the cost of living increases on the pensions of retired personnel, these are granted on the same basis as to other retired State pensioners. The increases are decided by the Minister for Finance, not by me. Married officers get a gratuity on retirement; unmarried officers do not. Married soldiers get a married pension in addition to the basic pension but, as Deputy Tully says, they do not get a gratuity. That is the present position, at any rate.

Mr. James Tully

They will not go mad on the married pension.

Mr. Hilliard

Deputy Cosgrave referred in particular to the removal of abatement of any pensions. The question had to be decided on a uniform basis and the date decided upon is January 1st, 1965.

Mr. James Tully

You can put it back to 1st February for everybody.

Mr. Hilliard

That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. This is of general application.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister can do it himself.

Mr. Hilliard

In the case of those who retired some years ago the same increases are given as are given to other retired public servants. Deputy Tully raised the same matter which I have already answered. The same increases have been given to those who retired some years ago as to the other public servants.

Mr. James Tully

That is only the custom; we do not have to do it.

Mr. Hilliard

It has been the practice up to now and I do not propose to change it at present.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister should change it.

Mr. Hilliard

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the cadet class of 1943 and, speaking at length, he gave a good deal of detail which I know he would not expect me to assimilate in such a short time and he ended by asking me to consider the matter. I shall have to study the position and see what exactly is in the proposal he is putting up to me. I shall do that during the Recess and then see what can be done about it.

Deputy T. Lynch spoke about the helicopters and wanted to know why we did not buy from the British. We bought them from the French because they had the type of machines required for the purposes for which helicopters would be used here. Deputy Fitzpatrick wanted to know about the Government's decision in regard to the Army lorries. The Government decision to provide the lorries was taken on Tuesday and the Army authorities supplied them on Thursday.

Mr. James Tully

They were ready to roll on the previous Saturday.

Mr. Hilliard

The decision was not taken on Saturday but on Tuesday.

We had a good deal of talk about the Naval Service. We had references to the three corvettes which are in service here. In answer to a question, I said that I was having this whole matter examined and so I am, but I have not decided to buy any class of ship. I want to make that clear to Deputy Lynch who seemed to think that the decision had been taken to buy ships. That is not so.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I think the Minister has discovered that these three ships are not too comfortable.

Mr. Hilliard

These three ships have a history. Deputy T. Lynch said he would like to meet the man who sold them and he had something to say about the man who bought them, but I would like to say something about the men who decided to refit them in 1956 or 1957. The Macha was refitted at an estimated cost of £60,000. The matter was mooted in 1955 and in 1956 a decision was taken and the work was put in hands in 1957. It shows that the Deputies in the Fine Gael Party should have a word with their own colleagues who made that decision. They had advice from marine surveyors certifying that that particular ship would stand service for a long number of years, that it was suitable to the work it was purchased for and a suitable vessel for Irish service.

It is true, of course, that the following year and in the year after both the incoming Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence continued the good work of fitting the other two ships. The operation cost about £150,000. I do not know whether the three ships were certified suitable for fishery protection, that they were seaworthy, that they were ships which were worthy of being put to sea in the roughest sea or suitable to the class of seas encountered by seamen on the western coast. I am having this question examined but it will take a long time to carry out a detailed examination. It will require a large amount of capital to replace ships for this service. I admit that one corvette in service is totally inadequate for the protection of our fisheries.

We have a problem other than the problem in regard to the ships and that is in relation to the recruitment of personnel for this service. No matter what reason is put forward it is a fact that our young men are not inclined to enter the Naval Service. It could be that they are not inclined to enter any naval service. It was suggested over the years that they were not being paid enough. Recently the pay of ratings was raised and they received extra pay for certain services. The question of similarly increasing officers' pay is now under consideration. I do not know if it is going to make much impact on recruits into this service. We can only muster sufficient personnel to man one of the ships. It is true, of course, that these ships require a much larger number than a more modern vessel to handle and maintain and put to sea, but the fact is we have them and I can do nothing about it at the moment until I have the matter examined and am in a position to formulate an opinion from the information I obtain. I will have to satisfy myself on whatever proposals I shall put before the Government and it will be for the Government to decide how this situation is going to be met.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Is it not a fact that the British Admiralty offered to lease ships of the Vosper class at a reasonable sum?

Mr. Hilliard

I would want notice of that question.

Now we come to the question of IRA pensions and special allowances. The question of special allowances is one that may not be fully understood by most people. We had two main service pensions Acts, one in 1924 and the other in 1934. Under the service pensions Acts some 18,000 people qualified for military service pensions, such as they were. As time passed, it was felt that people belonging to certain specified organisations should not be permitted to live in poverty. That is exactly how the situation then was being looked at. It was decided by the Government to bring in this system of special allowances in order to give to the recipients a certain amount of money per year to enable them to live and which would be in addition to any income they might have. The matter is fixed by legislation with an appropriate sum. The appropriate sum is different for the various categories and cases, the married man with children, or the man over 70, and so on, but it works on an equitable basis.

To qualify for a special allowance a person must satisfy certain prescribed conditions. One of the conditions is that he must be the possessor of the General Service Medal. This is awarded on the basis that the person concerned had three months' membership, not service, of one of the specified organisations up to and including the 11th July, 1921. When you come to deal with a special allowance for a person with a military service pension, you know where you stand. That person went before a referee and obtained a Military Service Certificate which shows that he had a certain number of years of active service. When you come to deal with a man with a 1916 medal, you know that he had service in one of the organisations which took part in the Insurrection of 1916. When you come to deal with an applicant who has a disability pension, you know that he had service in the course of which he contracted a disability or received a wound. When you come to deal with Medal applications, however, you find, from the records, that in many cases the applicants' names are not even on the company roll, that is, the company of which they claim to have been members. It is true that in many cases applicants for medals some years ago obtained medals and their names were not on the company rolls.

We find now, when the medal has to be duly awarded to enable the person to get the special allowance, that some of the officers who certified do not certify any more. When you come to deal with the local company, you find that the local captain or lieutenant is not alive. When you get in a certificate saying that the applicant was not a member of the company, what are you to do?

Mr. James Tully

You do not get a reply to your letter.

Mr. Hilliard

It is very seldom that you do not get a reply. You have to decide that such a person is not a person to whom a medal was duly awarded. You could not operate this scheme without a means test. Men who have a pension in the disability category note the fact that their neighbours who had very little service, who were merely members, are getting special allowances at the rate, say, of £150 a year when they themselves are in receipt of service pensions of not more than £25 or £30 a year. We have to try to deal with this matter as fairly as we possibly can.

The means test for special allowances has been relaxed over the years, and we disregard increases in the various social welfare benefits. The first £60 of the military pension is disregarded in the case of persons under 70, and the first £30 in the case of persons of 70 or over. We disregard the value of children's labour under 18 years of age and the first £50 of any cash contributions by members of the applicants' families. We disregard children's allowances under the Social Welfare Acts. We disregard public assistance and free maintenance which imposes a hardship on the provider of the maintenance. Gaeltacht grants are not taken into consideration and certain development grants are disregarded.

It is proposed, in accordance with the Budget statements, to increase the appropriate annual sum as from August next. I do not think there is any necessity to relax the means test any further in relation to special allowances. As far as I am concerned and as far as my Department are concerned, we are as sympathetic as we possibly can be in the matter of applicants for special allowances. The Department are not responsible for the investigation of means. The means are investigated by the social welfare officers and the reports come to the Department. It is on that basis that the means are assessed. Anybody, public representatives included, who wishes to get information on the assessment of means of an applicant is entitled to it and this assessment can be contested with the Department of Defence. That may not be generally known.

As far as I am concerned, any case of that nature that comes before me will be dealt with as sympathetically as I can possibly do it because my personal sympathy lies with that type of case. It is not true to say that it takes a long time to investigate applications. Provided the person is more than 70 years of age and has a duly awarded medal it seldom takes more than two months. Such a person does not have to be medically examined. If he has not a duly awarded medal, it can take more time because of the complications I have mentioned and the delay in getting certification to make certain that the people for whom this money is provided get it rather than people who might not be entitled to it. I do not think there is anything further I need add at this stage. I should remind Deputies that there will be opportunities in the next session for dealing with many other matters in connection with my Department.

Mr. Coogan

Is it right and proper that a man who was a boy of 12 years of age at the relevant period should be the holder of a medal?

Mr. Hilliard

I know of a person who was nine years of age at that time. He was carrying despatches for a prominent member of the forces and was wounded. Would the Deputy deny that person a disability pension?

Mr. S. Dunne

Would you give him a medal?

Mr. Hilliard

I am not talking about a medal.

Mr. S. Dunne

Would the child have known what he was doing at the age of nine years?

Mr. Hilliard

He was carrying despatches. If the Deputy knew the full circumstances, he would realise how serious it was. He lost a foot. Medals can be awarded to persons who were members of Fianna Éireann. They are provided for in the Act. The Deputy can inquire into the ages of people who were members of Fianna Éireann. I know persons who were in Fianna Éireann at the age of 12 years and remained in Fianna Éireann until 11th July, 1921. Of course, I would always look twice at such applications before approving them.

Vote put and agreed to.