Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1968

Vol. 234 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Defence.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £12,452,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969, 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.

The Estimate for Defence is for a sum of £12,452,000, which is £483,000 more than last year's Vote. It is based on an average strength of 1,168 officers, 69 cadets and 7,500 men. The last mentioned figure is 350 more than the average provided for last year. Apart from other considerations, our overseas commitments impose a strain on manpower resources at home, as regards both training and routine duties. If we can reach this average strength of 7,500 —as I believe we can, because the Army now offers a reasonably well-paid job to young men—the disadvantages of having so many of our troops on overseas service will be considerably counterbalanced.

During the past year this country continued to contribute contingents for service with the United Nations Force in Cyprus. Including the 10th Infantry Group which commenced its tour of duty in March, 11 units and associated staff elements of a total strength of about 6,000 all ranks have served in Cyprus during the past four years.

For the greater part of that period, the Irish contingents have been deployed in the north-western region of the island. The normal duties of the troops consist in manning various United Nations observation posts, most of which are located between Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot positions; in patrolling the area under the contingent's care; in maintaining liaison with the local inhabitants, and in helping with social and economic problems within the area such as harvesting operations and the care of refugees. I am glad to say that over the past year reports indicate that the Irish units continue to do a very good job. Tension in their area has lessened considerably and this must be regarded as due, in great measure, to their patient and tactful endeavours. Deputies will, I know, join with me in congratulating them on the excellent manner in which they are performing their duties. I sincerely hope that the efforts of all working on behalf of the United Nations will lead to an early settlement.

The morale and discipline of the troops continue to be of a high order, and the health record of the units is also quite satisfactory. One of our officers, Captain Christopher McNamara, died in Cyprus last January from natural causes. Deputies will join with me in an expression of sympathy to his wife and family.

Efforts have continued, in co-operation with the United Nations, towards improving conditions for the Irish troops serving in Cyprus. As examples, all the exposed observation posts in the Irish area were provided with semi-permanent accommodation and all Irish troops serving on the island last winter were issued with a fully integrated combat dress designed to give better protection in wet or cold weather conditions.

In introducing the Estimates for my Department last year, I gave the House information in relation to this country's extra and extraordinary expenses arising from the supply of contingents to the United Nations Force in Cyprus. I mentioned in particular that the Minister for External Affairs was pursuing vigorously the question of a refund from the United Nations of a balance of £473,700 long outstanding against claims in respect of allowances paid prior to 26th June, 1965. I am happy to tell the House that the efforts of the Minister were successful. A refund of the balance of £473,700 was made by the United Nations in August last and since that date further sums amounting to about £200,000 have been refunded. The position now is that the only amount outstanding is one of about £90,000 in respect of a recent claim and payment of that amount is expected in the near future. It may interest Deputies to know that claims for extra and extraordinary expenses, in respect of the Cyprus operation, refunded to date by the United Nations amount to almost £1,561,000.

Once again I thank the many firms and individuals who continue to provide comforts for our troops serving overseas. It is now almost eight years since the first Irish unit went to the Congo and during all that time one or two Irish units have been continually serving abroad. All of them have benefited from the praiseworthy work of the organisers of comforts. This work is done entirely on a voluntary basis and provides an opportunity for people to show in a concrete way their appreciation of the Irish troops going on peace-keeping missions.

Irish officers continue to serve with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East assisting and maintaining peace in that troubled area. Some months ago the Government acceded to a request from the Secretary-General for the services of eight additional officers in the Suez Canal sector. These officers took up duty last January bringing the total number of Irish officers serving with the mission to 18. They are making a valuable contribution, often in trying circumstances, to the work of the United Nations. The senior Irish Officer holds the appointment of Chairman of the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission.

Deputies will recall the death last year, in tragic circumstances, of Commandant Thomas Wickham while serving with the Truce Supervision Organisation, and again I know that I am speaking for the entire House when I extend renewed sympathy to his wife and family. In awarding posthumously the United Nations Service Medal to him the Secretary-General of the United Nations said in the citation:

Commandant Wickham died carrying out his duties for the United Nations in the cause of peace in the Middle East. This Medal recognises and honours his courage and his devotion to a cause for which he gave his life.

At home, despite the strains and stresses to which I have already referred, the morale of the Defence Forces has remained remarkably good. Our policy at all times in accepting recruits is that they should be young men of good character. This apparently is not always understood outside the Army. In some quarters, it seems to be thought that an alternative to punishment in the Law Courts is to join the Army. I have had occasion to make it clear that this is not so.

I should like once again to express my admiration of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and An Slua Muirí. These forces are an essential part of our national defence, and their members by generously giving of their time and energy are a fine example of good citizens in action. Training last year suffered because of the precautions against foot-and-mouth disease, so I would appeal for the fullest possible attendance at all forms of training this year.

The ordinary day-to-day activities continued as usual. The total flying time of the three helicopters last year was 983 hours, the highest for any year since they were acquired. Apart from training and general activities, they flew 43 ambulance missions and 23 search and rescue missions in which nine lives were saved. I understand that the manufacturers of the helicopters have complimented the Air Corps on high utilisation in relation to low spares consumption, indicating high piloting and servicing efficiency.

The question of new vessels for the Naval Service has frequently been raised in the House and elsewhere. Examination of this very difficult problem is now nearing a conclusion and I expect to report to the Government at an early date.

The training of pilots for Aer Lingus continues at Gormanston, but the scheme for the training of fishermen at Haulbowline on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has terminated, alternative arrangements having been made by that Department. The Army's own apprentice schemes—at Naas and at Baldonnel—the value of which is already well known to Deputies, also continues to operate successfully. As regards the Naas location, I am pleased to say that it has been decided to erect a new billet block for the apprentices there. It is hoped that the work will be commenced during the current financial year.

The number of civil aircraft using Irish airspace is increasing annually. This calls for efficient civil/military co-ordination in the interests of safety and the smooth flow of traffic. For some time, therefore, as a result of arrangements between my Department and the Department of Transport and Power, air traffic control officers of the Air Corps are operating the surveillance radar at Dublin airport jointly with the civil controllers.

The Military College embarked on a new undertaking last October when six officer cadets of the Republic of Zambia were received for training. The visitors have settled in very well and their training to date has progressed satisfactorily. Tuition and training are designed to fit the cadets for commissioned rank and their course is generally in accordance with the syllabus for Irish cadets. The cost is met by the Government of Zambia.

During 1967, a mixed military/ civilian team competed at the international horse shows at London, Dublin, Ostend, Rotterdam and Geneva. Teams from the Equitation School also competed at 40 provincial shows and gymkhanas. It is proposed to make Army riders and horses available to take part in mixed military/ civilian teams to represent Ireland at this year's London and Dublin Shows. An all-Army team has gone to Lucerne. Further, either an all-Army team or a mixed team will compete at New York and Toronto. I understand that a decision has not yet been taken in regard to the sending of a show-jumping team to the Olympic Games in Mexico. Any Army riders and horses of suitable standard will, if required, be made available to make up a national team for the event.

Deputies, particularly those who are members of local authorities and who, in that capacity, attend Civil Defence functions from time to time are, I am sure, aware of the place that the civil defence organisation has established for itself. Apart from its primary purpose, it has also shown itself to have a useful capacity for assisting in various types of peace-time emergencies such as rescue operations of one kind or another. This is, of course, a secondary consideration but nevertheless something worth having in every county.

The inflow of new members has continued during the year, and this will, in general, replace those trained members who have ceased regular attendance at training centres. These latter, as long as they remain members, would be expected to make themselves available for service in a war-time emergency and I have every confidence that they would do so. In effect it can be said that the continual training of new members is bringing about a growing aggregate of men and women with a sound basic knowledge of various aspects of Civil Defence operations and procedures.

Some 7,600 volunteers underwent training at 378 training centres, approximately 3,300 volunteers attended 14 week-end camps and a total of 5,200 participated in 57 field days. Special courses at the Civil Defence School were attended by 740 persons. Training was suspended in all areas other than Dublin and Cork cities for over two months as part of the precautions against foot-and-mouth disease.

Considerable progress has been made during the year in the establishment of county control centres from which local operations could be directed by trained control staffs. Construction or adaptation of buildings for 16 county control centres has been authorised and is proceeding satisfactorily. In three other cases proposals are under examination.

In ten centres where the establishment of protected permanent controls has not, for one reason or another, proved feasible up to the present, the local authorities have been asked to make provision for the setting up of temporary county controls at short notice.

I also mentioned last year the preparation of county and county borough mobilisation schemes. Most of these have now been completed by the local authorities. Those schemes are designed to facilitate mobilisation at short notice of identified, and I stress the word identified, Civil Defence manpower and resources. The efficiency with which the schemes were prepared reflects excellent co-operation between the local authority officials and my Department. These schemes will be kept constantly under review and will be brought up to date as required.

I am satisfied that, in our circumstances, we are developing our civil defence organisation on the most appropriate and economical lines. We are steadily achieving a reasonable operational competence in personnel, equipment and communications, and I have no hesitation in assuring all those good citizens who have undergone or are now taking civil defence training that by their willingness to serve the nation they are performing worthwhile and patriotic service.

The Irish Red Cross Society over the past 12 months continued its laudable work for the relief of suffering and distress both at home and abroad. I cannot speak too highly of the members of this Society who voluntarily devote themselves to humanitarian work. For our children I can think of no better introduction to humanitarian activities than membership of the Junior Red Cross which, I am happy to note, devotes considerable energy to helping disabled and handicapped children. The Junior Red Cross also organised a most successful international study and friendship centre at Gormanston in August last at which representatives from ten countries were present. Those young people are a credit to their parents and schools and to the Society.

During the year the Society again donated a substantial sum to help relieve famine in India. During the past few years the Society has contributed almost £13,500 to this cause. It also rendered assistance, in response to appeals from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies, to refugees in the Middle East and Vietnam and helped in the relief of distress following earthquakes in Turkey, Sicily and Yugoslavia and floods in Italy. During the year the Society continued to care for refugees from North China at Naomh Aindrias Home in Dublin.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Estimate is £483,000 greater than last year's Vote. The increase is spread over a number of subheads; there are also some decreases. It may suffice at this stage if I say something about the larger increases and decreases. When concluding I can go into more detail in response to any points that may arise in the course of the debate.

The increase of £122,000 in Subhead B—Pay of the Permanent Defence Force—is due almost entirely to the proposed increase of 350 in the average strength of men to which I have already referred. The increase of £48,000 in Subhead C—Allowances of the Permanent Defence Force—is entirely for marriage allowance. Higher rates of pay in some instances are responsible for the increase of £58,280 in Subhead F—Pay of Civilians attached to Units. The increases of £150,000 in Subhead H—Defensive Equipment—£55,000 in Subhead J—Mechanical Transport— £32,000 in Subhead O1—General Stores—£31,000 in Subhead P—Naval Stores—and £40,000 in Subhead S— Buildings—arise from the necessity to procure essential stores and equipment and from a desire to improve accommodation and other amenities. The increase of £36,000 in Subhead K— Provisions—is attributable to the proposed increase in strength. The increase of £59,700 in Subhead V—Insurance —is due partly to the proposed increased strength and partly to the resent increased rates of insurance. The greater part of the increase of £14,670 in Subhead X—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—will go on advertising in connection with the proposed strength increase. The grant-in-aid of the Irish Red Cross Society—Subhead BB— shows an increase of £10,350 to meet possible expenditure on emergency relief work.

As to the decreases, the only one which calls for particular comment is that of £20,000 in Subhead A, which is the subhead relating to the civil side of my Department. It has been found possible to reduce somewhat the provision for the staff of the Civil Defence Branch, as a result of the completion of certain aspects of the work. A computer has recently been installed in the Finance Branch and it is now processing officers' and men's pay, soldiers' marriage allowance and all pensions. Staff savings are already materialising and this is reflected in the increased deduction for probable vacancies during the year. The increased strength figure shown for the Branch—240 as against 226 last year—is a temporary one, representing the provision of a computer team for a running-in period before the staff savings on the work now being done on the computer can be fully effected.

This year's Estimate for Army Pensions is £2,861,000, an increase of £141,710 over last year's Vote which was increased by a Supplementary Vote of £10,000 and the transfer of £170,290 from the Vote for Increases in Pensions to meet last year's budgetary increases.

The increase of £141,710 is spread over the main subheads and there is nothing which calls for special explanation or comment. The amount now being sought does not, of course, include the cost of the increases in pensions and other benefits announced by the Minister for Finance in his recent Budget Statement.

Again, when concluding, I will be happy to deal with any questions put to me on points raised during the debate.

As the Army Pensions Bill is being debated in conjunction with the Estimate, with the permission of the House I will read the statement I proposed to read in moving the Second Reading so that the House will know, so far as I possibly can explain, what is in the Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Agreed.

Mr. Hilliard

The Bill deals mainly with concessions in regard to married pensions and allowances. I am sure that all of them will meet with the approval of the House. It also provides for the promulgation by regulations of increases in benefits and for a number of other desirable amendments of the Army Pensions Acts.

Section 2 of the Bill gives a disablement pensioner who marries at any time an entitlement to a married pension. Up to now it has been a general principle of the Acts that a married pension should be payable only if the marriage took place before the date of the wound or, in the case of a diseased pensioner, the date of discharge. An exception was made for persons with pre-Truce service, in whose case a marriage contracted before 5th August, 1953, is reckonable for benefit. I consider that the time has come to relax this particular condition entirely so that in future a disablement pensioner will not be at any financial disadvantage by reason of the date of his marriage.

A statutory requirement for the grant of allowances to the widow and children of a deceased pensioner is that his death must have been due solely to his pensionable disability. It is the function of the Army Pensions Board to determine whether or not this condition is satisfied, and for that purpose the Board must rely largely on the cause of death as shown on the death certificate. Although the words "due solely" are given a liberal interpretation it is not always possible for the Board to be satisfied that the pensionable disability was the cause of death. If a pensioner has a high degree of disablement it must ordinarily affect his life span and contribute in some measure to his death, even if a doctor could not state categorically that death was due solely to the particular disability. For that reason I feel that when a pensioner with a high degree of disablement dies, his widow and children should be automatically entitled to allowances, and for this purpose I would regard 50 per cent or more as a high degree of disablement. Section 3 of the Bill makes provision accordingly and it also covers the case of a pensioner whose death took place before the passing of the Act.

Where the disablement of the deceased pensioner is less than 50 per cent it will still be a requirement for the grant of allowances that his death be due solely to his pensionable disability. Accordingly, Section 4 provides for the grant of allowances to the widow and children of a pensioner who died before the passing of the Act, whose disablement was less than 50 per cent, who was not in receipt of a married pension and whose death is found to have been due solely to his pensionable disability.

Section 11 of the Bill also deals with allowances to widows and children. It makes provision for the widow and children of a person who did not receive a pension and who died either while serving or within eight years after discharge from a disease aggravated by United Nations service.

The married pension rates provided in the Acts of 1946 and 1949 and in the No. 2 Act of 1960 for former officers and soldiers of the Defence Forces, consist of an element in respect of the pensioner's wife and an element in respect of each child born not later than nine months after the pensioner's discharge. In view of the proposal that the child of a marriage contracted at any time will in future be reckonable for benefit under the Acts, provision is made in section 15 and the Schedule to extend payment of the child's element of the married pension to all the children of the marriage.

At present an adopted child is treated as a child of the marriage only if adopted before the date of the wound or discharge or the date of the commencement of a special allowance. Section 8 and section 15, along with the Schedule, provide that a child adopted at any time will be treated as a child of the marriage.

Members of the First Line Reserve cannot at present apply for a wound pension or gratuity until they have been discharged from the Reserve. Section 5 will enable them to apply for and be granted these benefits while still serving, subject to the condition that payment of a wound pension will not be made concurrently with service pay. This is already the position in the case of the FCA and An Slua Muirí.

Part II of the Act of 1953 provides for the grant of allowances to the dependants of deceased persons who had pre-Truce service and who died in circumstances attributable to service in the 1916-1923 period. Where an application has been refused because the condition of permanent invalidism was not satisfied the case cannot be reopened. Section 6 will enable such cases to be reconsidered at the request of the applicant. Section 15 of the Bill also represents a further easing of the position regarding applications under Part II of the 1953 Act. The time limit for making applications under that Part is being abolished.

Increases in benefits under the Acts consist mainly of what are referred to generally as Budgetary increases, that is, increases announced from time to time by the Minister for Finance in connection with the Budget. Up to now formal effect has been given to increases of this type by way of amendments to the Acts. It is now the generally accepted practice in the case of public service pensions that such increases should be provided for by regulations rather than legislation, and section 7 will enable this procedure to be applied to increases in the benefits payable under the Acts.

The remainder of the Bill deals with matters of a technical nature. Section 9 removes an inconsistency in the No. 2 Act of 1960. A former member of the Defence Forces has up to eight years after discharge in which to apply for a pension in respect of disease attributable to United Nations Service, whereas if he dies from such a disease after discharge and is not granted a pension, his widow and children can qualify for allowances only if death took place within four years after discharge. This period of four years is being altered to eight.

Section 10 is designed to bring the conditions pertaining to the dependent relatives of a deceased soldier who dies from disease attributable to United Nations Service into conformity with those which at present apply to the dependent relatives of a soldier who is killed or dies from wounds, that is, the relative will be eligible for benefit only if a voluntary allotment was payable to him or her.

Section 12 amends section 7 of the Act of 1962, which introduced married pensions and allowances for persons in receipt of pensions in respect of disablement aggravated by service. The effect of the amendment is to cover cases not included in the 1962 Act—for example, that of a person who is qualified for an aggravation pension after the passing of that Act.

Section 13 is to remove any doubt as to whether certain general provisions of the Acts are applicable to the benefits provided under section 7 of the Act of 1962. It also applies these provisions to allowances under section 11 of the Bill. Finally, sub-section (5) of section 3 and the first and fourth items in the schedule repeal provisions of the Acts of 1932 and 1959 which impose restrictions on the grant of married pensions and widows' and children's allowances.

I trust that my remarks, taken in conjunction with the explanatory memorandum, have made the provisions of the Bill clear to Deputies.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

When the Estimates for most Departments were being introduced in the past year or so, some forecast of the role each Department will play on our entry into the Common Market has been given. I have heard nothing from the Minister today as to the role which it is proposed the Army may play, if and when we enter the Common Market. The Government should tell us to what extent we will be expected to contribute to the common defence of the European Community as it evolves. It is no use saying that membership of the EEC does not involve any military commitment. It is so at present in a formal sense but it must be obvious in looking to the future that if we are to play a full role in the EEC, we must pull our weight in all the areas within that Community, and clearly the defence of the Community is a burden which we must all share.

With that in mind, there is an urgent need for a review of the role, on entry, of our Defence Forces. We spend, according to the Minister's Estimate, more than £12½ million a year on Defence. That is to keep about 8,000 men in uniform. Of that sum, the Department of Defence, as opposed to the Army, absorbs about £5 million. That must raise a serious query as to how it costs £5 million a year to administer an Army of approximately 8,000. That £5 million is in addition to costs. It must be obvious that the capacity of a country of our size to maintain an Army of 8,000 men is extremely limited.

It means that for conventional military purposes, our Army can be of only very limited value. We have to think in terms of giving it a much more positive role or function, a material role, in the tasks which it can undertake and thereby give a reasonable return for the amount spent on keeping it in existence. Any study of that will have to take into account the way this country will have to fit into the defence of the EEC and that is something we might hear from the Minister. Instead, we have the usual Estimate statement relating to personnel, annual increases here and annual increases there.

The Minister has referred to the death of two Army officers which occurred during the past year and he has extended to their relatives his sympathy and that of the Government. I, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, would like to join in that vote of sympathy to the relatives and the next-of-kin of the deceased officers, one of whom died on active service and the other, from natural causes abroad. We all deeply regret the death of these two prominent Army officers.

On the Estimate itself, we are very glad indeed to hear that the strength of the Army at the moment is up to the usual level. I am in full agreement with the Minister when he states that the Army offers a good opportunity to young men of good character who wish to take up a career there, but, unfortunately, life in the Army is short and some better provision must be made for men when they retire from the service.

There are many State bodies and quasi-State bodies which could absorb ex-personnel of the Army into their employment. For instance, I understand that up to some years ago Army service was essential to qualify for the position of usher in this House. I do not know if that still holds. I do not think so. It is a pity it does not. The position of usher in this House is one of the positions for which an exsoldier would be ideal and it is one of the positions that should be reserved for ex-personnel of the Army. Again, messengers in Government employment, irrespective of the Department in which they are required, should be recruited from retired personnel of the Army.

There are many State bodies such as the Irish Sugar Company, CIE, Irish Shipping and the ESB in which, surely, many retired Army personnel could find lucrative employment and thus be satisfied, during their service in the Army, that their future after retirement would be fully provided for.

For instance, I understand that most of the catering staff in Irish Shipping are coloured. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of the position. There, surely, is an ideal opportunity to provide employment for the well-known catering staffs of the Army and Navy. Members of these staffs would be able to find lucrative employment in Irish Shipping were these positions reserved for them and were it brought to their notice that such positions exist.

Quite recently, we saw and read of the magnificent work done by the catering staff of the Army. If we look at the vacant positions advertised in any daily newspaper, we find that chefs, waiters and such personnel are required by various catering establishments throughout the country. Surely it should be possible in peak periods to second or release personnel from the Army to fill these positions and thus train personnel for the time when they will retire from the Defence Forces?

I should like to see the Department and the Minister caring more for the soldier when his active service is over. I should like to see more thought given to procuring employment for Service personnel when they retire from the Services.

The Minister has described to us the activities of the Army during the year. I am very glad that he referred to the newest or latest branch of the Air Force, namely, the helicopter service. This service is doing a considerable amount of good. In my opinion, more good has been done by the helicopter service than by the Air Force since its establishment. We all agree that the Air Force is an ideal training place for future Aer Lingus pilots, but, apart from that, it is not of much advantage to the country generally. The helicopter service, certainly, is and I should like to see much more use made of that service in fishery protection than is the case at the moment. There could be greater liaison between the Fisheries Branch and the Air wing of the Defence Forces. Helicopters are ideal for fishery protection and greater use should be made of them. I do not wish to refer now to the use being made of our helicopters for sea rescue. They are doing a magnificent job in that respect and all I wish to do is to compliment them on that fine work.

The Minister referred again to the old problem of our Navy. We have been told for many years that the replacement of our three naval vessels is under active consideration. We cannot criticise the personnel of these vessels. We all know the difficulties under which they live in these antiquated ships. We all know how often they are held up to ridicule as sailors of these ships. We should be able to come to some decision as to the replacement of these vessels and not postpone that decision from year to year. The Navies of the world have the most modern vessels and it should be possible, on very cursory inspection of these vessels, to decide what is the best type of vessel for this country. We must decide the purpose for which we use our naval vessels, apart from ceremonial. It is agreed that the sole purpose for which we use our naval vessels, or will use them, is to prevent encroachment on our territorial waters and the only encroachment which will do damage is encroachment by foreign vessels inside our territorial waters for the purpose of poaching. The prevention of such encroachment is the main duty, or should be the main duty and principal task of our Irish Naval Service.

We all know the difficulty experienced on the occurrence of the air tragedy off the south-east coast in procuring the attendance at the location of the disaster of the vessels of our naval service which were afloat. In future, we should have smaller craft which, we realise, will not in normal circumstances be required to go to sea beyond the limits of our territorial waters and it should be an easy matter to make up our minds as to the type of craft which is necessary. As a matter of fact, if our experts were to go no further than the Port of Derry and were to see some of the naval craft off Lough Foyle, they would have no difficulty whatsoever in deciding as to the best type of vessel for the purpose of fishery protection and such craft could be procured without going further than Britain. Having procured the type of vessel suitable for fishery protection, there should be greater liaison between the Air wing of the Defence Forces and the Naval wing, in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries.

I know the difficulty the Minister has in procuring personnel for the Navy but, given a little encouragement, many part-time fishermen would be only too anxious to enlist for short periods, provided they were paid reasonable remuneration for their services. I can think of some islands off our coast from which not one native resident has ever joined the Irish Navy. For that service we depend on such traditional ports as Cobh, Killybegs and other sources of seafaring men. We cannot decry the type of personnel procured from such places but I do think that it would be in the interests of seafaring fishermen that they should have some training and discipline aboard our naval vessels prior to taking up the precarious and dangerous livelihood of inshore fishing, such as we have traditionally had in the past, and now deep water trawling.

On the question of the Army, I wonder is the Minister doing anything about providing a battledress for Army personnel? As far as I know, soldiers are supplied with two uniforms, both of a similar pattern. I do not know whether the old denim uniform is still supplied, but surely there should be a separate uniform for walking out, as distinct from the ordinary clothes of the Forces? Such a uniform would be an enticement to young men to go into the Forces, just as it has been an enticement to men in other countries to join the forces. After all, if one looks at the recruiting advertisements of other armies, one is immediately attracted by the type of uniform displayed in such advertisements. The Minister should assist the personnel of the Forces by providing them with proper walking out and working uniforms.

I do not wish to criticise the FCA but I wonder are we getting value for money in the FCA? Personally, I do not think we are. I know many of the officers and NCOs of the FCA and they are truly dedicated soldiers, but I am afraid the great majority have very little interest in the FCA. We all know the enthusiasm of the Local Defence Force during the Emergency and how they did their utmost to play their limited part in the Defence Forces. But I think the FCA do not take themselves seriously, and neither do the Army take them as seriously as they should. I would rather see the Army modelled on an army of first-line short service with a reserve built up as was done back in the 20s and 30s. You would then have in your first-line reserve trained personnel. It might be a much better system than this voluntary FCA. After all, one or two weeks training in the year is not sufficient for a soldier of any modern army. I do not think it is looked upon as more than a holiday where part-time soldiers can enjoy a few weeks at the seaside.

With regard to the Bill, it is a tragedy that we should have amending legislation periodically in relation to Army pensions. I can never understand why it is not possible to introduce one Bill incorporating all the Military Service Pensions Acts of the past, some consolidating Bill. If one is consulted now about the rights of a veteran or the dependants of a veteran to a military service pension or gratuity, one must wade through a number of Acts before giving the proper advice. If we had some sort of consolidation in Army Pensions Acts, it would be most beneficial to everyone. I can never understand why such a Bill is not introduced.

We welcome the liberalisation Bill being introduced by the Minister. It ties a lot of loose ends and for that we are most grateful. But perhaps the Minister might have made some provision for a gratuity to serving soldiers. The commissioned personnel of our Army receive a gratuity on retirement, in addition to their pension, but the serving soldier is in receipt of no such gratuity. We all know that the serving soldier is unable to provide for the future because he is unable to save out of his weekly pay packet. It is true he will have a small pension but he is unable to provide for the future by way of a lump sum with which to purchase a business of some description or other on his retirement. Possibly on a contributory basis, it might be possible to give a retiring soldier after five, seven or ten years service a gratuity which should be of some advantage to him in addition to his small pension when he retires from the Forces. I personally worked out a system whereby after five years service, by means of a contribution from the soldier of 6/8d and from the State of 13/4, it might be possible to give a substantial lump sum to the soldier on retirement, even after the short period of five years. Perhaps the Minister would look into it and see if anything can be done in that respect?

I have already referred in speaking on the Budget to the fact that the Minister and the Government have now given additional pensions to the retired members of the Defence Forces, particularly those with pre-Truce service. We are aware that they will have free travel on buses and free television licences, but I would like to remind the Minister that the fight for freedom in this country was not confined to the Twenty-Six Counties. We have veterans in the 32 counties of Ireland, and even in England and Scotland. Unfortunately those who reside in the Six Counties and who have made their homes there down through the years are deprived of these additional benefits now envisaged. Perhaps it might be possible that in lieu of free transport and free television licences, the Minister could give some monetary concession to veterans not resident in the Twenty-Six Counties. In this way it might be possible, if not to put them on a par with their comrades in the Twenty-Six Counties, at least bring them as near as possible and give them some concession which has been denied to them, not through any legislation but merely because of the location in which they reside. It is something the Minister might give thought to.

It might even be possible—I do not know—that there might be some reciprocal arrangement with the British Government whereby British Army personnel could have free transport in this country and in return, Irish retired Army personnel free transport in Britain or the Six Counties. It might not work out equitably but it is something the Minister could look into. If that is not feasible, he should ensure that they receive some monetary return if they are unable to avail of these amenities owing to the location of their residences.

I mentioned the widows and dependants of retired RIC pensioners. I am referring to the members of the RIC who retired at the request of the authority of the day during the pre-Truce period. They were assured at that time that they would not suffer in any way through their retirement and that their pensions would be on a par with the pensions of their colleagues who remained in the force. Many of those old men have passed on and left widows and dependants. They did not receive the benefits which other veterans of that war received and will receive under this Army Pensions Bill. It might be possible for the Minister to look into this matter—their numbers are dwindling and there are not many of them left—to see if something could be done for their widows and dependants.

The Army Jumping Team has been a showpiece for this country. It has been an advertisement for the nation, for the Army and for the agricultural population. We have all been proud of it down through the years. I wonder if we are getting the right type of recruit into the Army Jumping Team or would it be advisable to give special marks or special places in the cadet school to youths who have shown promise in the jumping arena? This might be worth considering, because as it stands youths entering the cadet school are chosen for their academic and physical qualities and may have no equestrian desires or experience. It might be possible to reserve a few cadetships for people with these qualities, perhaps not every year but at least every two or three years. Let us try to build up the Army Jumping Team into the world-beating team it was in the thirties and forties.

It might also be possible to buy fewer horses but horses of a better quality. I am no expert on these matters, and I certainly do not wish to become involved in any argument about this, but it has often struck me when I read the record of the past and compare it with the record of the present, that there must be some solution, some method of bringing our Army jumping team back into——

Mr. Corry

The jockey cannot carry the horse.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, but the horse can carry the jockey, which is more important. It might be possible to improve the horsemanship by enlisting people who show some aptitude in that direction and at the same time, procuring a better type of horse. After all, we see Europeans and people from non-European armies coming to this country to purchase horses for their army jumping teams. It might be possible for us to keep some of these animals here and ensure they are not lost to the country.

I do not want to detain the House but I think we will have to get around to considering what is to be the future of our Army. We are all very proud of our Army. Those of us who were not privileged to see the reception accorded to the Belgian king and queen but who saw it on television were proud of the personnel of the guard of honour provided at Dublin Airport. What a tragedy it is that we have to wait until some foreign personality arrives to see those magnificent soldiers going through their paces. What a tragedy that we have not a little more military ceremonial? Why should we hide our Army away? I do not want to belittle the personnel of the fire picket or the guard mounted at Leinster House, but, in my opinion, it is not up to the standard we should have outside our national Parliament. I do not want in any way to decry the present personnel but I think a better effort could be made to display what we have in the country.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Is léir nach raibh tú ag an searmanas i gCnoc an Arbhair seachtain is an lá inniú mar dá mbeith-feá ann, do chuirfeadh an tArm áthas ar do chroí.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Táimse ag caint faoin gCéad Chath.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Cá mbíonn tú gach Cáisc nuair a bhíonn searmanas ins gach aon bhaile mór agus garda onóra agus an tArm ann?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Ba mhaith liom dá lighfeadh an Teachta dom m'óráid féin a dhéanamh. Más áil leis an Teachta labhairt ar an Meastachán, tig leis é a dhéanamh níos déanaí.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Dá mbeithfeá ann, do thuighfeá go bhfeictear iad fiú nuair ná bíonn coigchríoch ar bith sa tír.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I often wonder what has become of the First Battalion? I remember the time when the First Battalion was the pride of the Army. I remember when it was composed of nothing but native Irish speakers from Kerry, Galway, Mayo and Donegal. I wonder what is the strength of it today? Does it still recruit Irish speakers who are leaving the country at such a rate and denuding the Gaeltacht, the natural cradle of the Irish language? I wonder are they going into the Army as they did in the Twenties and Thirties, or where have they gone? Is there any inducement to native Irish speakers to go into a company or a battalion which uses the native language? I know that the words of command are given in Irish throughout the Army but I remember that in the First Battalion, the ordinary conversation of the soldiers was in the native language. I am afraid that is gone, and more is the tragedy.

However, I wish our Army well. When the Minister comes to assess the future of our Army, I trust he will find the same loyal esprit de corps in the Army of the future as he found in the Army of the past.

Mr. James Tully

I was rather puzzled this morning when I heard Deputy O'Donnell's reference to what the role of the Army should be. We are on very dangerous ground if, at this stage, we start to talk about our responsibilities towards the defence of Europe or the defence of any country except Ireland. After all, we are a neutral nation—for a very good reason. We are neutral not because we are afraid to fight, not because we are afraid our soldiers will not put up a good show, but because we have decided to remain out of the squabbles and wars between other European nations and, indeed, between European nations and the rest of the world.

I am sure that, while Deputy O'Donnell is sincere in his comments, he would, on reflection, find it as difficult as the rest of us to make up his mind whether, at the present time, we want to be associated in the defence of, say, France—which nation seems more likely to fight on the side of China or Russia than any other European nation if another war starts —or even Britain while Britain still continues to hold part of the country here and to defend it against all comers including those from this side of the Border. It is very dangerous ground.

I want to make it very clear that we in the Labour Party believe we should have an efficient Army for the defence of this country. I have the greatest respect for the way our troops, on peacekeeping missions abroad, are behaving themselves. I think all of us are very glad that, when they go abroad, they are able to stand up to the best but they are there on peacekeeping activities, not to attack anybody: it is not their job; they are not going to be embroiled. Talk such as we had here this morning has the danger that we may possibly find ourselves slipping bit by bit into the position that, instead of being the champions of peace, we shall be assisting aggressors for one reason or another. This is something we are not prepared to stand over and we do not want our Army involved in it.

Despite all the talk we heard in recent years about it, the EEC appears to be moving farther away from us. Personally, I think it is a good thing: it is a matter of opinion; other Members of this House may think differently. However, to do what I thought Deputy O'Donnell was suggesting— that the Government should be asked to declare sides at this time, which side they are on, whether they would take part in the defence of Europe, against whom we do not know—is I think dangerous. I suggest that the less discussion we have on it in this House the better. I could not let the comment pass without making our position clear.

Like the Minister and Deputy O'Donnell, I should like, on behalf of my Party, to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of the officers who died in the cause of peace—one by an assassin's bullet and the other by the fact that the rigours of the climate where he was stationed seemed to be too much for his health. In either case, it is regrettable that the officer should die and we extend our sympathy to the relatives.

There are so many aspects of the Defence Estimate which can be commented on that it is difficult to know where to start. I agree with the Minister and the House that it was the proper thing to have one debate rather than two but, when a Bill is tied in with it, it makes it a bit complicated. The main purpose of the Bill is to improve conditions in which pensions can be granted to certain people. I agree also that, instead of having to introduce a Bill every year, it should be possible, by ministerial regulation, to put into operation certain adjustments in pensions—and this has been included in the Bill. This is a good idea. It saves time and an awful lot of nonsense and expense. The preparation and discussion of Bills cost money. Therefore, I feel that that matter is being dealt with in the correct way.

I should like to refer very briefly to a number of matters. Some weeks ago, I had occasion to ask the Minister for Defence why the allowance for the soldier was reduced by 1d per day. The Minister gave me the answer I expected. I know how these things are done: I am an ex-Army man. I know that the allowances are regulated according to the prices given for contract goods to the Army. Everybody in the country knows that the cost of living to the ordinary individual is going up. Because somebody tendered for very large quantities of foodstuffs to the Army at a slightly reduced rate, this should not have the effect of reducing the amount of money the soldier's wife has to spend by 1d per day. I think it is wrong. The Minister should now have a look at the system.

There is a well-defined system of assessing the cost of living in this country. I think it is on that basis that Army rations should be paid for and not on the basis of what it is costing for so many thousand pounds of beef or bacon, or what have you, because the person who supplies that is trying to undercut a competitor and is, therefore, prepared to slice off some of the profit which the ordinary retailer who is selling to the soldier's wife is not prepared to slice off. Therefore, I think this matter should be dealt with in a different way. The Minister dealt with it in the way at present laid down: I think that system should be changed.

I think also that preparations should now be made to alter the pay of Army personnel. I am a trade union official and therefore I know, perhaps better than most people, that, at the present time and over the past 12 to 18 months, wages and salaries for various types of people have been going up because the cost of living has gone up. The usual system is that the Department waits until a pattern evolves in Civil Service rates of salaries and they then regulate the Army pay accordingly. But, very often, we have the situation that civil servants get an adjustment in their salaries or wages which may be back-dated while the Army get an increase dated from some weeks forward. The soldier misses out on this. An effort should be made to keep his earnings in line with those of outside personnel. He should get his increases when increases are given to outside personnel. He should not have to wait for the adjustment of salaries which, in most cases, are very much higher than what he is getting.

There has been comment about the well-paid Army. The view has been expressed that people should be anxious to join it because of the good wages. I do not think anybody can truly say that the wages—particularly to young people going into the Army—are such as to attract intelligent young men to don uniform. This matter should be examined and dealt with. I am quite sure that, before the debate is finished, somebody will say we must cut our cloth according to our measure.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is an old one.

Mr. James Tully

When we are dealing with an Estimate which provides over £12 million for Defence, something more than what is being given to the 7,000 or so people involved in the uniformed section of the Army, is called for. The money would not be missed if expended and it would not create a big problem in relation to a figure of £12 million.

Whether or not it has ever struck anybody associated with the Department, it has struck me that Army barracks are very drab places. Nobody ever seems to think they should look bright and clean, be painted and made look attractive inside and out. We have Army barracks in many parts of the country that appear not to have got a dab of paint for a long time. Maintenance people are employed and their job is to ensure that the buildings do not disintegrate, that roofs do not leak and water and sewerage pipes go out of order, but there seems to be no attempt to make Army barracks the shining buildings I think they should be. I speak as an ex-Army man who has been looking through civilian eyes for many years at these barracks and it would do no harm if an effort were made to brighten up— not clean; they are clean enough— and make Army quarters more attractive. Even the officers' mess in many barracks is dull and grey outside and inside. The door may not be painted, or worse, it may be painted and everything else left. It looks like nothing on earth inside the barracks. It seems as if nobody cares very much as long as the buildings do not fall down. This matter should be given attention.

The old chestnut of Army uniforms has been mentioned. Slight efforts have been made to effect improvements but I am not satisfied that everything possible has been done. It seems to be the idea that when the Army order uniforms, they do so in very big quantities. It may be cheaper that way. That resulted in the old bull's wool being retained years after everybody, even the Minister for Defence at the time, had agreed that it was entirely unsuitable. We were told they had to use the uniforms in stock before changing and when they did use up the stock and the change was made many people never noticed the difference because while it is not now bull's wool, it is very like it. There must be a new kind of animal from which the wool is clipped. I am sure it is just as uncomfortable to wear and it looks as baggy and misshapen in some cases. It was said that the postman's uniform was designed for somebody who was not too well made and, since they were all the same, they never fitted anybody. There are many well-built fellows wearing uniforms which for some reason do not seem to fit properly.

I do not know if the Army tailor has been retained, the man who stitched on stripes and indeed sometimes took them off. For a small honorarium, he sometimes adjusted uniforms. He was not supposed to take money but he always found it useful for a few pints. I do not know if he is still there but one does not see the effects if he is and uniforms still appear badly made. I suggest that before another large quantity of uniforms is ordered, somebody should try to get an attractive design and have them made accordingly. If it is decided to leave the uniforms they have for field duty, very well, but for walking out, I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that if we are to have a recruiting campaign, you must have the men going out attractively dressed. This problem must be faced. Like many other things, there is an idea that a soldier's uniform must have certain attachments. God knows why: they seem now useless and without a purpose. They possibly could have been useful when soldiers carried bows and arrows and it was very important to have something on to which to hook the quiver that carried the arrows. There seems to be no sense in some of the things you get on Army uniforms now and this is a matter that might be examined by somebody who knows something about designing Army clothing. Improvements could be made.

There has been comment on the rubber-soled boots. I do not know what wonderful music there is in hearing a couple of hundred heavily-nailed or studded boots tramping on the road. If people had to wear them for a while, they would realise the music did not compensate for the blisters. I understand the new boots are more comfortable, while leaving a lot still to be desired. So long as things are moving in the right direction, we cannot complain too much.

The question of recruiting men into the Army is one which the Minister says must be attended to this year. Expensive advertising in newspapers does not seem to have very much effect for anything. I think advertising is very much overrated at present. The newspaper reporters' bosses will probably take out every line I say for that. If we could see more Army bands, for instance, it would help recruiting. I do not know if these bands exist at present. Apart from a very occasional appearance by the Army No. 1 Band, there are no bands to be seen. Surely we do not have to have a royal visit in order to see these bands? There were numerous bands in the Army, not only brass but also pipe bands. Perhaps they are still there. I remember when it was possible, at any sizeable sports meeting in the country, for a small sum of money, to have an Army band made available by just paying their travelling expenses and this enlivened the programme and made people Army conscious. This does not seem to happen now and it is a great pity. Something should be done about it.

During the emergency when the Army was anxious to recruit in Dublin city, all they had to do was have a route march through the city with the Army band, and usually when they went back to Portobello Barracks within a very short time they had the required number of recruits. They usually finished up with about 50 dogs also which seemed to follow the soldiers and the music. That seems to be the way to recruit and could possibly be the answer the Minister wants.

If people are taken into the Army, much more should be done for them. It is not sufficient just to sign them up for a period of years, pay them whatever the payment is, give them whatever type of food is provided, and after that, have them engage in what is known as square-bashing, with the usual marching and arms drill and some lectures on the use of what are very often obsolete weapons and leave it at that. That is not the way to do it. If we are really serious we should be able to get men into the Army and not alone train them in the fundamentals they require but also give them courses of various kinds—and not just to those who apply for them. It should be mandatory that a man who is recruited should be put on some course so that, let his period in the Army be long or short, he will leave it a more useful citizen than he went in.

Some people may say their rate of intelligence would not be high enough in every case. Again this is something on which I have very strong views. They should not be recruited into the Army unless their rate of intelligence is high. I quite agree with the Minister that it is quite ridiculous so see, even still, district justices telling young thugs he will not send them to jail if they join the Army. This is an insult to the State as well as to the people who are in the Army, and I am glad the Minister made the comment he made this morning. The Army would probably find it easier to get a better type of person if it became known that recruits would be trained for something useful, and they could be trained for so many things.

At the present time if a man joins the Army at 17 years of age and leaves after 21 years, at 38 years of age, if he does not get a permanent job for two years—and this happens very often—at 40 years of age, the State will not employ him in a permanent job; he is too old and, according to the State, is not entitled to pensionable employment. Many civilian employers appear to have the same attitude. If the people going out were well trained to take up a certain job, I believe they would be able to find their feet far more quickly.

The man leaving the Army should be entitled to a gratuity in addition to the small pension he gets. A sizeable gratuity is given to the married officer who is at the top of the tree, but the single officer and the NCO get nothing by way of gratuity. Why should they not get it? We debated this here on a number of occasions. I put down a motion which was discussed for three hours in this House. I thought the case was unanswerable, but the Department of Defence has not done anything about it, and do not appear to be terribly anxious to do anything about it.

The men who are in the Army have a sense of grievance about this. They see a colonel, a major or a commandant going out of the Army with well over £1,000, while they go out with one hand as long as the other. If they are paid for a period after they go out, then their insurance cards are held. If they get a job and ask for their insurance cards, the payment for the period stops; they cannot get both. This is what is causing a lot of dissatisfaction. It would not cost very much to do what I have been suggesting. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this, because there is a very good argument in favour of it.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the recruitment of the employees of the House. I am glad to say this has not been changed. All of them are ex-Army personnel, the ushers, messengers and others. Their training as disciplined men must be a great help in the jobs they are doing now.

Another thing about which I am rather surprised is that games do not appear to be any longer of importance in the Army. There was a time when a man who played a particular game was always able to get extra leave and time off; he got training and everything that was going. In very many units, very little time is given to games, except when, just to give a show, somebody throws out a football to a few fellows and they go out in their uniform and kick it around. Each unit should be encouraged to play as many games as possible, and those who take part in those games should not go out with dirty old jerseys, togs or stockings; they should go out impeccably dressed, as they would be if they were going out in uniform. It is important that appearance be kept up.

I mentioned to the Minister before that when people leave the Army, they seem to have no connection whatever with one another or with the Army. There was an organisation set up many years ago which took in several other organisations, and it was called ONE, Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen. Some effort should be made by the Army authorities to see that the men who are leaving the Army with a good record are kept together. This can only be done by co-operation between the Department of Defence and ONE. I would go further and say that if those leaving the Army have any grievance, the better way to process it would be through ONE. I know how jealous the Department of Defence are about anyone trying to interfere, as they call it, in what they claim to be their field, but this would not be interference, and the ONE representatives should be entitled to discuss glaring grievances of ex-Army personnel with the officials responsible for dealing with the matter.

There is another matter which was raised here some time ago, and I wonder if the Minister has had time to look at it. It is the question of the men who have served 21 years. Instead of continuing pension entitlement at the same rate as up till then gets a small same rate as up till then a man gets a small increase, 1/- a year, until he reaches 30 years, and after that he can stay there until he is as old as Methuselah but he gets no further pension entitlement. I understand this matter was further examined, and I should like to know from the Minister if it is proposed to give a pension for service to people who stay in the Army for longer than the stipulated 21 years. In civilian life, a man can stay in his job up to 40 years; then he gets two-thirds of his pension and after that he does not get any more. But it does not make sense that a man in the Army should have his normal pension rights for 21 years and have to accept a reduced rate for the remainder up to about 30 years. I know this has happened to people with 37 years service.

On the question of the taking up of equipment supplied to the Army, I know that occasionally personnel who have served in Cyprus and such places have brought back modern equipment. We should not have to wait for these people to bring back modern equipment. It would probably cost a substantial sum to supply modern weapons, but a small Army such as we can only claim to have here in this small country should be fully equipped with modern weapons. This should be attended to if it has not already been done. My information is that it has not. Perhaps the Minister would tell me when he is replying. It is ridiculous in 1968 to see people going out to train for military activity with 1913 or 1914 single-shot Lee Enfield rifles on their shoulders.

The FCA has been mentioned, and while, like Deputy O'Donnell and the Minister, I have great respect for the FCA, I feel there is something wrong in the whole set-up. I mentioned in previous years that while I would be prepared to agree that those dedicated men who turn up for parades and for training should get only the best in regard to uniforms, equipment, gratuities and everything else, I would have no sympathy with those who attend just in order to clock up enough hours to be included for the annual fortnight's training. We have too many of those men who do not do anything except get free holidays. We have them in every county. Some may think that they are being clever; some may do it because they have to get a holiday. I have a certain sympathy with a person who cannot get a holiday otherwise, but we are fooling ourselves if we continue to believe that the figures we have for FCA personnel training at present are correct, because they are not nearly correct. We have some wonderful groups who for years have been in the force, and some young people coming in who do everything they can to get their training but we have too many of the others. Some of the older men have been leaving and I understand that a long service medal was supposed to have been struck for them. Many of them have complained to me that they have heard nothing about this medal, although it was mentioned to them before they left. If there is a medal, it should be given to them, and if there is not, the position should be made clear. It is a very small thing to look for.

I am afraid that Civil Defence is in very nearly the same position. People have complained to me about what I said in regard to Civil Defence on other occasions. Civil Defence can do a wonderful job and here again we have small dedicated groups doing everything they can within the service but unfortunately we also have too many hangers-on. Like the FCA, it seems stupid that money should be spent on equipping people who are only in the organisation to see what it looks like and who then get out if they do not like it. The people in it should be properly treated and those who leave should not be allowed to take equipment with them. The Civil Defence officers are doing a good job but too many people do not take it seriously. They attend for a while when there is excitement and then they ask what good can they do if something does go wrong, that they cannot stop an atom bomb. They should be told that atomic warfare is something we hope never to see affecting this country but there are so many other ways in which they could be useful. An effort should be made to publicise the other side of Civil Defence. They have done very useful work and they should be encouraged. Possibly the ultimate aim should be to put both the FCA and Civil Defence into one body because there seems to be overlapping. People who would be very interested in Civil Defence have been in the FCA for a number of years and do not want to leave it. This is something which might be considered at a later stage.

I am sure the Minister will pardon me when I say that for the life of me, I have not been able to find out where the 1,168 officers, 69 cadets and 7,500 men are stationed. The Minister must know where they are but if there are nearly 9,000 under arms at present, even omitting those who are in Cyprus, they are keeping very quiet, if I may put it that way. I travel around a good deal and meet a lot of Army and ex-Army people but I have never been able to find out where all the men are. However, I take the Minister's word for it that there is this number.

The people in Cyprus are also doing a good job. The Minister referred to the fact that they were engaged in harvesting operations. During the emergency here, during one of the bad harvest seasons, we had Army personnel who were accustomed to farming being encouraged to go out to help. If labour is scarce, it has not been unknown for serving soldiers to help on farms and be well paid for it, but it is a tricky situation if Army personnel appear where there is unemployment among local workers who would normally do that type of work. It can create pretty bad feeling. There is no use in the farmers saying that they are better than the local workers because that does not mollify them at all and it usually finishes up in a nasty scene. Perhaps the Minister will explain what is meant here by "harvesting"? Perhaps it is pulling grapes and perhaps the men like it and as long as there is no element of compulsion, it would be all right. The Minister stressed that the men's quarters are good. He may remember that last year because of information I had received from somebody who had been out there, I raised the question of their quarters. I had been told that while other forces had very comfortable quarters, the Irish troops were under canvas in bad weather. I am sure that it was following the Minister's visit to Cyprus that the situation improved so much.

I am glad that the balance due to us from the United Nations since 1965 has now been collected, because while I agree that we must play our part in regard to peace-keeping operations, and I think we have more than played our part in regard to supplying troops, I would not like to see it being done at the expense of the taxpayer. As long as the United Nations meet their responsibilities and our men like to go to get the extra money and to get enjoyment from it, there should not be any objection. There would be an objection if it were costing the taxpayers money. The fact that nearly £500,000 was not paid for almost three years must, I assume, have cost the taxpayer a considerable amount in interest. It is similar to the Government paying local authority grants on 31st March while the local authorities are carrying an overdraft for five or six months. The ratepayers pay the interest there and I am sure the taxpayers will have to pay the difference here. However, perhaps nothing can be done about this at present. The Minister says that £1,561,000 has been paid for the Cyprus operation while £90,000 is still outstanding.

Our officers in the Middle East, eight of them, are doing a good job over there. Many people do not realise that we have so many officers abroad at present. The Minister says there are 18. I hope their mission will be successful because a far more serious situation could develop there and it is a task which requires tact and courage, which our men have.

With regard to new vessels for the Naval Service, we have heard this so often—God rest Thady Lynch! If he were here now, he would be talking about the cannibalising of some of the vessels to make them run. It is a pity one was so far away when it was needed recently. Perhaps the Minister would let us know if what the late Deputy Lynch was so anxious to see done a number of years back will be done because a number of us are anxious to see it done. Will smaller vessels be made available? With a 12-mile limit, it is ludicrous to suggest that one slow-moving corvette can patrol the area. If we are serious about it at all, we should get some type of smaller, faster boats or get the helicopters to do a certain amount of patrolling. I am told that the running cost of a helicopter is £11 per hour— perhaps it was the Minister who told me—and that would be rather expensive; it would be cheaper to keep our fishermen at home and let the foreign trawlers take the fish.

The Minister tells us the training of pilots for Aer Lingus continues at Gormanston. That is highly desirable and it was an excellent idea to use Gormanston in that way. I wonder has the Minister had any further applications from people who wanted to use Gormanston as a civil airport. A few were anxious to use Gormanston as a helicopter port. Some felt it might be possible to bring small planes in there. Perhaps the Minister would say if this idea has got any further consideration from himself and the Government because Gormanston is very often free from fog when Dublin Airport is fog-bound and it might be possible to develop something at Gormanston.

With regard to the Army Jumping Team, there was a good deal of sound commonsense in the crossfire between Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Corry; one cannot win trophies without good horses. On the other hand, if you have good horses, you cannot win unless the riders know what they are doing. It is not easy to get a combination of both. Perhaps there might be some method of recruiting young men with a special aptitude into the Cadets, but I do not agree that they should be simply horsemen. They will have to be soldiers as well. That is the difficulty. A combination of Army riders and civilian riders is not, I think, the best way. It has been mentioned already that, while other countries have been sending army teams here, these teams have not had any spectacular success. Usually our team is able to give them a good run, possibly beating them, but I think an effort should be made to improve the present position. Perhaps the training is the important thing. With regard to the type of horse being bought, over the past few years we appear to have gone for economy rather than quality. That tendency might possibly be changed with advantage.

It is rather a pity that, when the Pensions Bill was introduced, the Minister did not avail of it to deal with pensions and gratuities in regard to serving personnel. As the Bill stands, it is not possible to include gratuities for serving personnel at the present time.

Mr. Hilliard

That would be a matter for a pensions scheme, a different business entirely.

Mr. James Tully

But there would have to be a Bill introduced to deal with it.

Mr. Hilliard

No. I want to correct the Deputy. We took steps recently to have a pension scheme laid before the House and implemented in that way rather than by legislation.

Mr. James Tully

I mention this particularly because quite a number of people have written to me suggesting that the Minister should have introduced in this Bill a number of improvements, improvements I know he could not introduce but which these people apparently do not appreciate, and I am making the point now to stress that this Bill does not deal with that type of thing.

Mr. Hilliard

That is quite correct.

Mr. James Tully

It is important that that should be got across to those outside who are interested. It is a good idea that a disabled pensioner who marries is given, under section 2, entitlement to a married pension. The preceding situation was altogether too narrow. That is one provision in which I think the Minister is right. He is, I think, wrong in another; I refer to the statutory requirement for the granting of an allowance to the widow and children of a deceased pensioner that death must have been due solely to his pensionable disability. The Minister says this is a matter for the Army Pensions Board to decide and the cause of death is shown on the death certificate and, although the words "due solely" are given a different interpretation, it is not always possible for the board to be satisfied that pensionable disability was the cause of death.

The Minister says that, if the individual in question has got 50 per cent disability, or over, that will be accepted in future. That is all right, but how does the Minister reconcile that with the case of a person who has less than 50 per cent disability and in whose case there must be proof that the death was due to disability? If, as the Minister says, it is impossible for this to be dealt with when the person has over 50 per cent disability, if he has 49 per cent, or under, then, even though the Minister knows that this is almost impossible to prove, he still leaves the regulation which stipulates that the position must be dealt with in the manner he has suggested. I think the Minister is wrong in that. He may not be able to do everything at one and the same time, but, when he was changing it, he should have changed right along the line. He has made a mistake, and I predict that, within a year or so, someone will have to introduce a Bill changing this regulation. The Minister was wrong in dealing with the position in the way he did.

Treating an adopted child as a child of the marriage is only right. It is about time that was introduced, particularly as so many children are now being adopted. It would have been a mistake to allow that situation to continue. Another improvement is the inclusion of the child born after the period laid down. That was not the position up to now.

With regard to the First Line Reserve, they cannot apply for a wound pension or gratuity until they have been discharged. The Minister is right in the attitude he has adopted there. Whether or not the person concerned would be useful after the disability is a matter the Army authorities will have to decide, but it is only right that the situation should be dealt with in this way. These people cannot apply for a pension or gratuity while they are still in the First Line Reserve.

I am quite happy about Part II of the Act of 1952 which provides for the grant of an allowance to the dependants of deceased persons who had pre-Truce service and who died in circumstances attributable to service in the 1916-1923 period. Where an application has been refused because the condition of permanent invalidism was not satisfied, the case cannot be reopened. Section 6 will enable such cases to be reconsidered at the request of the applicant.

Unless this is very widely publicised, unless the section is dealt with in a proper way by the gentlemen of the Press, there may be people who would be entitled to benefit but who will not be aware of the change. The Minister may say he cannot possibly communicate with everybody who has been disqualified because of existing law and because many of them have died since, but at the same time, an effort should be made to publicise this as widely as possible.

The time limit has been abolished and this is a sensible thing. Because of the number of these people who are passing on, any improvement now is of very limited value, of very limited cost and all the rest of it, and I do not think the Minister will be in danger of being charged by anybody with being over-generous if he tries to improve their lot during the few years of life left to them. The provision to bring in changes by regulation rather than by legislation is a sensible one. It saves an awful lot of trouble to a good many people. There is the provision in regard to the period of eight years during which a person, after discharge, can apply, and then there is a provision of a period of four years. The point I wish to make is: how did a period of eight years come in. It seems an extraordinary period.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Eight years in this House before we get a pension.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Which we pay for ourselves.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is the truth.

Mr. James Tully

My experience has been that provisions like this are tied to individual rather than to a whole lot of cases, and it is possible that when the original Bill was introduced, there was somebody who had just less than eight years and an effort was made to ensure that he was not left out. As I have said, eight years seems an extraordinary period and I cannot see any reason for it.

The improvement in section 10 in relation to dependent relatives is, I assume, to ensure that there will not be a whole lot of relatives who were possibly not on speaking terms with the person before he died who can come along grieving after his death, looking for benefits. It has happened. Section 12 amends section 7 of the 1962 Act which we are changing so that if the aggravation occurs after the passing of this Act, it will be included again. This seems to be a sensible approach.

I do not think there is anything more I can add except to say that when the Minister is dealing with the question of the discharge of personnel, it is important that the problem of employment in civilian life should be kept in mind. I can give one example of how this is being spoiled because of petty action by another Department. A soldier may be a driving instructor in the Army but immediately he leaves the Army—during his period of service he did not require a driver's licence—he is required to pass a driving test. Could anything be more ridiculous?

Mr. Corry

He will be turned down.

Mr. James Tully

There is evidence of one such person being turned down. Would the Minister talk to his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, and ask him——

Mr. Hilliard

I have done it already.

Mr. James Tully

Has the Minister succeeded? If he has, he has gone a long way to satisfy the point I have been making. I ask the Minister to consider the situation that only the best are taken into the Army; that they should be trained while in the Army so that when they leave it, they will be able to stand up with others in the matter of securing civilian employment. The extraordinary position at the moment is that a man who has served 20 years or more in the Army is looked at askance by employers outside. This is a situation I should like to see the end of.

Mr. Corry

I should like to say a word or two of congratulation to a man who takes a lot of abuse here at times, the Minister for External Affairs, who succeeded in getting back £1½ million of the money due to us for the service of our troops with the UN contingents. If I may be pardoned, I should like to point out as an ordinary individual that a lot of sums of that nature come back from time to time and I wonder where they go. I have searched the Department of Defence Estimate looking for an account of that £1½ million which came back to us for service of our troops. I take it the money was paid out of the Defence Vote to those soldiers but I cannot find any account of it. What becomes of those refunds? Would the Minister let me know where exactly in this Estimate for the coming year I can find that £1½ million refund? It came back and surely to God somebody got it. Where is it shown?

Also in relation to this Estimate, we come up against the bogey of the EEC and our potential obligations to it. I do not think the Minister for Defence in his particular sphere will meet it but I have met it many times since I first heard of the EEC. If one is trying to make a bargain, a price, for one's agricultural produce with, say, the Sugar Company, the first thing that will be thrown out is the EEC and how the Sugar Company have to keep their prices down so that we shall not be getting too big a crack when we go into the EEC.

I admit that Deputy Tully expressed my views and the views of the vast majority of the people when he pointed out that we are a neutral country. We are building up an Army for the protection of this nation and when I say "this nation", I am taking 32 counties, and our obligations do not go beyond that. That brings me to another point I should like to have some clarity on. With memories of the last emergency and of the arming of young men with shotguns and a handful of buckshot cartridges to protect this nation, I wonder, if an emergency occurred again, would we be still thrown back on the shotguns and the buckshot, or what sort of weapons are there in this country for arming our people in cases of emergency?

When I ask what sort of weapons are there, I mean very definitely arms under the control of the military forces of this country which can be distributed quickly to our young men, if necessary. I am well aware that during the last emergency there were stocks of arms principally under the control of the Garda Síochána which were not available. It was a very funny thing to see a young man going in to do his duty to the people of this nation and being handed an old shotgun with buckshot cartridges while there were plenty of rifles lying up in the Depot. I suggest that they should be put under the control of the military forces. I am not speaking of anything I did not see.

The first thing I am concerned with is the Naval Service, and recruitment for the service. Does the Minister consider that it is any improvement to take the young men who are being trained for fishing service from Haulbowline? I would like to know the reason for their removal from Haulbowline to Donegal, as the old song says "from Cork to Donegal", apart from the undoubted overwhelming influence of the Donegal Deputies in this House. I wonder what is the reason for it, considering that those young men, when training at Haulbowline, had the advantage of seeing the naval forces there and being attracted by them? Is it intended, when this Donegal contingent get a little stronger, to shift the Navy up to Donegal? I am wondering. I feel it is a disadvantage in so far as recruitment to the Naval Service is concerned. Deputy O'Donnell alluded to it and said that the part-time fishermen sometimes join the Naval Service. The reason for that was that their training school was where the Navy was. I do not think this change is any advantage when you look it in the face.

The ordinary people here — apart from ceremonial affairs and all the rest—are wondering how far this body of men on whom £13 million a year is being spent can be made useful to the ordinary community. The principal way, I think, they can perform useful work is in the protection of our fisheries. I am waiting to know when we will see some proper vessels handed over to our naval forces so that they will be able to perform that very useful and essential work for our people, the protection of our fishery areas from foreign trawlers and ships. I should like to hear something more definite from the Minister as to when those ships will be available. It is all right talking of the helicopter service. It is good, undoubtedly, but I was looking up the other day a bill received for the removal of a patient from a hospital in Dublin to a hospital in Cork by helicopter. The bill was for £168. It is cheaper to die than to have to pay to be moved from one hospital to another by helicopter.

I can find nothing in this Estimate for the provision of houses for married men in the Forces. I would like to see something provided in that line. Before I leave that famous island of Haulbowline, I would like to say it should not be difficult for the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance to put their heads together for a couple of hours and to decide once and for all, whether a bridge which cost some £300,000 between Haulbowline and the mainland can be used by people who, because of their work, are compelled to live on that island. It is nonsensical. If I am a commissioned naval officer, I get a permit for myself and my family to cross the bridge, but if I am not a commissioned officer in the Navy, I have to cross by boat. This kind of class distinction is finished with in this country, or should be finished with, and I make no bones about it.

There is a bridge there which is supposed to belong to Irish Steel. We know that Irish Steel went burst twice and that it owes its continuance as an industrial firm to the work and the money put into it by this Government on the two occasions it went burst. They built a bridge out of the money of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Finance and men with their families who are compelled to live on that island, serving in the Defence Forces, are not allowed to use it to reach the mainland. I often heard of red tape and of men cutting it. God knows, I would nearly prefer to see a land mine put under it, rather than have that situation continuing in any constituency of mine. I am asking now as a special favour from the Minister for Defence that he consult his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance, and that the three of them put their heads together and settle this matter. They should settle it now before other methods are taken of settling it and we have rows. It is intolerable to see unfortunate families in the position that they have no way except a launch to the mainland while there is a bridge there they could walk across.

I want to say one or two things about our present naval vessels. When my lad learned to drive a motor car, I bought an old secondhand one and by the time he had travelled in that for a year, he could drive anything. I suggest the Navy are long enough in Macha and company to know everything there is about them and to be experts. I do not know how they are keeping the blooming things going. It is a great credit to them. Now, having been well trained in those wrecks, we should get rid of them, get decent ships and let them go out and be of service to the people.

I made appeals here often for naval apprentices and I am afraid now that the few men who had extra skill there in that line are gone that the naval apprentices there will not do too much to learn engineering apprenticeship. I would ask the Minister to consider that point again.

We hear a lot about medals. There are medals for this, that and the other. I would like some appreciation at the same time for those who made sacrifices for their country. I had a case last year with the Minister for Justice. This is another case on which Government Ministers, in my opinion, should come together and ensure a little collaboration between their different Departments. This case is the case of a comrade of mine who served his country well. He was with me in 1922 and he went into the Free State Army. He served there for a period, went into the Garda and became a sergeant. Due to the fact that his new-found friends did not bother too much with him, he came out under the 1924 Act and never got a pension. In later years he got a medal. He was a good soldier. His son was killed in the Congo, Lieutenant Kevin Gleeson. I suggest that instead of medals and all the rest, the couple of years service Sergeant Gleeson served and fought as a soldier of Ireland, should be given to him instead of his being compelled to get out of the Garda at 65 years of age, a strapping man.

All he asked for was a couple of years service. We hear a lot about medals and all that glory-o. That is what it boils down to when you consider those things. I regret this, but it is a sad reflection on what we are getting. I saw the time in this House when most of those who were here had served Ireland but there are only a few of us left today. We have an example and a sample of what is happening and we can carry it down along the line. I say it is a campaign of hatred against those who served Ireland in her hour of need.

Most of those men are incapacitated today. The majority of them are around the 70s or thereabouts and all we are looking for is what we call special allowance for their service. I would like, for the benefit of the House and the records of the House, to let the people see how much attention is paid to those people by the civil servants of today. Here we have an allowance prescribed of £150 a year. The estimated profit on the plot of this incapacitated man, who is supposed to be able to go out and work a plot of ground attached to his own house, is £6 a year. The contributory old age pension, of which he got something docked off, is £80 16s 5d a year. Then they come to the cream of the joke, the contribution from his son Edmund, £39 a year, totalling £125 16s 5d. Out of the £150 that man was entitled to, he got £24 a year, or £2 a month for his service to this nation.

I wondered when I got this information and I looked through it to find out about this £39. I sent a note about the contribution of £39 and I got an answer from Jimmy that the contribution from his son Edmund was as follows: He hands £3 a week to his mother for his board and lodging at home, and an expert who comes in every year with a Civil Service pay covering the increased cost of living found that that poor "divil's" mother, out of the £3 a week he was contributing to her for his board and lodging, had £39 a year profit after feeding, boarding and lodging him for 12 months. I wonder who is the expert who went out to that unfortunate man and examined that case. I should like to take that gentleman's salary over a five year period of Civil Service increased cost of living and to see whether he got more than £3 a week—more than the total amount this boy was paying for his keep at home. Does he get more than that by way of extra cost of living allowance?

The idea of an unfortunate fellow who went out and did his part for Ireland, who went through the Tan War and the Civil War afterwards coming in his old crippled years and looking for an allowance to help him to live is preposterous, when a civil servant takes the whole £150 he is entitled to and scales it down until it came to the point of giving him £2 a month— £24 a year. They even go down and inquire into his family circumstances at home. I do not know whether they asked the mother whether her son was getting meat with his meals or what he was getting for the £3 a week he was contributing at home for his board and lodging. Can anyone here imagine it or can any member of the Labour Party who talk so much about the cost of living here get up and justify that to me?

Mr. Cluskey

You justify it; you voted for it.

Mr. Corry

Compare the civil servant you are so anxious to protect and the man who is paying £3 a week at home to his mother. Heavenly goodness, it is disgraceful. You would be ashamed to be in a country where that treatment is meted out to a man who fought and did his part for the nation, but that is his treatment. Fellows who fought and suceeded in getting those gentlemen their jobs are blackguarded by them in that manner. It is an outrage.

I should like to bring a few more cases of that kind to the Minister's notice. A number of soldiers, Sir, or men who joined up during the Emergency, were living down in a place known as Rockgrove, Little Island. Some of them had pensions and were married and had retired. They occupied three or four huts converted into living quarters. We all know what happened during the Emergency. In those cases electricity was thrown in in one kind of way, water in another kind of way, and sewerage—God help us. But these unfortunate men have received in the last fortnight a nice little letter from the Department of Defence. They were paying 15/- a week for those huts and now they have been notified that the 15/- is increased to 21/-, that they are to be responsible for the rewiring for electricity of the houses and that they are to be responsible for the putting in of water supplies and sewerage schemes. I made it up roughly with the increase of 15/- a week on their cost of living. I want to know from the Minister under which of those Pension Acts those fellows come in order to get more than 15/- a week?

It is like putting a penny into a kid's hand and taking a shilling out of his pocket. They are all liable for the same taxes. It is miserable. It is contemptible to come here and say that everybody is well provided for. We see these Pension Acts brought in to improve their position but we do not see a circular or notification to the effect: "Those are the conditions in which you are to live in future and you will accept those conditions or get out within seven days."

I do not know who is responsible for it but I suggest to the Minister that if he finds the joker responsible, he should give him a pension and not leave him to interfere with the welfare of the people as he is doing. There is a commonsense way of looking at it. What in heaven's name is the good of giving 5/- to one man with one hand and with the other, taking 15/- a week from him and providing along with it that he either pays the 15/- or gets out within seven days from his home?

This is the kind of thing that creates dissatisfaction. We have unfortunate husbands who are serving in our Navy at Haulbowline and they have to take their wives and children and pack them into boats to take them to the mainland. They are not allowed on the bridge which has been put up. They are not allowed to go that way but must cross by boat. It is time this kind of thing ended. I have already suggested here that the Minister should have a conference with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance and at least get permission for the wives and children as well as the personnel serving in the Naval Forces on that island to be allowed to walk from the island and not have to go by boat.

Deputy O'Donnell was anxious that various firms would employ ex-Army personnel. A lot of that is being done but Deputy O'Donnell's suggestion took my mind back to the good old days when General Mulcahy, as Minister for Local Government, found employment for the dupes he had finished with and thrown out at the time. He provided that first preference for employment in the county council be given to ex-members of the National Army. In plain language, that meant that a man who had served in the National Army was entitled to be served out with a hammer and to sit down on his tailboard and crack stones on the side of the road. That was his treatment for the men of that day. If Deputy O'Donnell, when he was Minister for Local Government, had referred to the sheets of instructions issued at that time, he would have discovered that. I discovered it when I went into the county council first, about 44 years ago. Thank God, we have gone beyond the stage when men need do that kind of work. There has been an improvement in this country as far as working conditions are concerned.

I would urge Deputy O'Donnell, whatever pull he has worked in getting the training camp moved from Haulbowline to Donegal, to consider very seriously the implications of that and to remember that no matter what extra influence Donegal succeeds in getting here, they will hardly shift the Navy from Cork to Donegal for another while. Let him be certain of that.

The sum of £13 million seems a hefty amount to pay for defence. I do not begrudge any money that is spent for the defence and protection of the independence of this nation. I begrudge nothing for that. I do complain bitterly of the miserable manner in which the present-day gentlemen are treating those who made it possible to have an Army of our own here.

Mr. P.J. Burke

First, I want to welcome the Army Pensions Bill which gives further concessions to the Army, which we all agree are very necessary. We appreciate the Minister's outlook with regard to the Army. He has been a great success as Minister for Defence and has promoted a spirit of goodwill between the Minister and the Department and the Army. We are all very proud of our Army, both at home and abroad. There are very fine men in all ranks of the Army, who have distinguished themselves at home and in peacekeeping operations of the United Nations in foreign countries. I had the pleasure of meeting some of our Army personnel in the Near East. Any of us who had the pleasure of meeting them there were very proud of them. They were doing a fine job. The members of our Army who have been serving with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force have earned the respect and admiration of the people of other countries. We cannot praise them too highly.

Everything possible should be done to elevate the status of the Army. As far as the resources of the nation will allow, the Army should be paid well. I would deplore any attempt to acquit a person prosecuted for a criminal charge on his undertaking to join the Army. We do not want such types in the Army. They are no use to us. Their recruitment would not be fair to decent men serving in the Army. I have seen during my time in this House Army pay increased considerably and conditions improved. We should like standards to be upheld. A man with a criminal record should not be accepted as a recruit in the Army.

The Army is the defender of democracy. So long as we have a standing Army, the State is assured of its freedom. If we had not the Army, the lunatic fringe might be encouraged to attempt to take over. The Army may cost money but the only guarantee that our democracy has is the fact that we have an Army, the personnel of which can be depended on. Those who say that we should abolish the Army do not realise what that would mean. The Army has been, and will be in the future, the guarantee that our democracy continues to exist.

On a number of occasions I have referred to the desirability of training Army personnel for civilian life. I know that this has been going on. Persons who are approaching retirement age should be trained for civilian employment. While it may not be possible to do that in every case, I know it is the policy of the Minister to train people for civilian life on retirement from the services. I regard this as a very important matter.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a pension scheme for widows of deceased Army personnel? I do not know what the cost of such a scheme would be but I suggest that the Department of Defence should examine this matter. During the past few years, it was found that a number of Deputies who had been Members of the House for many years had lost their property as a result of their attendance in this House and on their demise, their widows were in very poor circumstances. I know of men who came in here wealthy and whose property was depleted as a result of their attendance here. Deputies had to initiate a scheme whereby each Member would subscribe over £90 towards a pension fund. The Army might be able to submit a scheme in which officers and men would agree to give so much towards pensions for widows and dependants. I know a lot of them are already entitled to a widow's pension but some of them might not be. Since we are looking after the people suffering from 50 per cent disability, this further social advance should be made and considered seriously by the Army authorities. We have a very kindly Minister who would consider sympathetically anything put up to him. He cannot dictate to the personnel what they will do for themselves and their dependants. It would be a wonderful social advance if it could be achieved.

In regard to the means test Deputy Corry spoke about, the Minister should look into this matter. Where a son or daughter is working, it is assumed that £3 or £3 10s a week is going to the parents, but very often in actual fact the son or daughter are not paying sufficient to feed themselves at home. I have had several such cases taken up with the Minister and previous Ministers. A more liberal view should be taken of the means test. I know we have to draw the line somewhere, but I think we are being too exact on this point.

Deputy O'Donnell said we should get ready for going into Europe. I have always been a great believer in crossing bridges when you come to them. Our application for the EEC has not even been accepted yet and that is a debate for another day. We have to change with the times and meet the situation as it arises.

No Government have done more to place retired Army men in employment than the Fianna Fáil Government. All our semi-State bodies and indeed many big private firms such as Guinness have been approached to employ ex-Army men. Wherever they have been employed, they have proved themselves efficient and courteous.

We have heard a good deal about the FCA, a voluntary organisation. I was the first county secretary of the Irish Red Cross Society in Dublin. At one time we had 5,000 members on the roll. Of those 5,000, only a small number proved to be very efficient people. The same applies to all voluntary organisations. You will only have a percentage of the members who will be there all the time. It applies to political committees and charitable committees. Only a hard core will always be ready to work. Nobody is perfect. If we were all perfect, it would be one of the greatest miracles since Moses struck the rock. But there will always be a percentage who will do the job if they are called on. The same applies to the FCA and Civil Defence. None of us is perfect. I am not perfect myself. Anybody who thinks he is going to get perfection in this world is seeking the impossible. We are all human and liable to err. We all have our motives for joining a voluntary organisation, because we like to do it or because we feel it is the right thing to do. Charitable people will join a charitable organisation and help in every way possible. I do not think we should say anything hard against any man or woman who is a member of a voluntary organisation. They are good citizens, and God bless them.

I am grateful to the Minister for all the help he has given to the Irish Red Cross Society over the years. Although it may be unorthodox, there is one matter in this connection I should like to refer to. I would like the Minister, through his Department, to carry out an inspection of the ambulances we have in the Society. I do not want him to spend a lot of money in replacing them, but merely to carry out an inspection. The Minister's Department is responsible for the Society and I am not too happy about some of those ambulances. I do not want to say any more for the present.

I have visited many Army barracks. I have a number of Army personnel living within my constituency, or, I should say, the ecclesiastical area of Dublin. I know the Minister feels the same as I do when I say I would like to see these barracks made more like home. We should raise the standard of accommodation for our soldiers so that when they are in barracks, they can feel just like at home. It is a big problem and our resources are limited, but if it could be done, however slowly, it would help us a good deal.

I am happy to see that the Army strength is reasonably good. The Minister has been a wonderful success. Army officers and Army personnel have spoken to me about his great human approach to those in his charge.

Mr. Hilliard

First, I would like to thank Deputy Burke for his compliments. Many matters have been raised during this debate. The Estimate carries such a variety of items that it is difficult to deal with all of them. I may not reply to all the points raised but I will do my best.

I appreciate the manner in which the Estimate has been taken and in which the Bill was received and included for discussion in the Estimate debate. Deputy O'Donnell, leading for Fine Gael, asked me to comment on the role of the Army in relation to our proposed entry into the EEC. The position in this regard has been made very clear by the Taoiseach and other members of the Government on several occasions. It should not be necessary to ask me to cover the same ground again. The position has been fully explained and made clear. There is not any military commitment whatsoever attaching to our application for membership of the EEC.

I fail to understand how Deputy O'Donnell, in his calculation of expenditure on the civilian side of the Department of Defence, arrived at a figure of £5 million, out of a total £12 million, which he alleges is spent on the Department as distinct from the Army. The cost of the Civil Service staff of the Department, as can be clearly seen from the Estimate, is £510,000. I do not know why Deputies make such allegations in relation to the civilian side of the Department, because the figures are there in the Estimates Volume and can be clearly seen.

One of the principal matters raised was the Naval Service and the corvettes. The corvettes, built in 1940 and 1942, were purchased in 1946-47. They have since been overhauled at various times to keep them in seaworthy condition. A decision was taken in 1956 to have them overhauled and this was implemented by the incoming Government at considerable expense. They have a maximum speed of 15 to 16 knots, and can stay at sea in all weathers. They have given good service as fishery protection vessels.

A limited refit of two of the corvettes was completed, one in January, 1967, at a cost of £20,000, and one in July, 1967, at a cost of £20,500. An examination of the vessels during refit did not disclose any structural defects which would interfere with their seagoing qualities. The third corvette is being refitted at present at an estimated cost of £34,500. The increased cost is due mainly to the purchase of ancillary equipment, principally radio equipment, which did not arise in the case of the other two vessels. These refits render the ships fully seaworthy for about two years and are a normal feature of ships' maintenance. The cost is economical in relation to the cost of new vessels of the corvette class.

Naval vessels with adequate speed and approximating in size to the existing corvettes would cost up to £1.4 million each. Extra speed is required as modern large trawlers have speeds up to 18 knots. Ships of the coastal mine-sweeper class which are smaller than corvettes would have a limited fishery protection value but smaller vessels such as inshore minesweepers would have slight value as they could operate only in favourable weather, whereas modern trawlers are capable of operating in severe weather.

As to the future role of the Naval Service, a decision was taken many years ago—I think in 1948—to establish a Naval Service as part of the defence establishment, with fishery protection as a secondary role. That decision still obtains. It is a question whether that role will be still maintained, or whether we will need a Naval Service as distinct from a fishery protection service, and if we need a fishery protection service only, what are the best decisions to take arising from that?

As to the criticism that one of our naval vessels was not available at the scene of the crash of the Viscount, the vessel was on fishery protection off the coast of Donegal. I explained in reply to a Parliamentary Question that it would take some time to get a vessel down from Donegal to the search area, and that there was not any prospect of carrying out a rescue operation after that crash. Apparently the aircraft disintegrated, and even if the three corvettes were in action and on fishery protection in the area, there would not have been any possibility of carrying out a rescue operation.

Deputy Esmonde had already asked me the speed of these vessels and in reply to his question, I told him the speed at which they can travel. Corvettes of this class can travel at 15 or 16 knots.

With regard to the pay of the Naval Service, they get more than the ordinary soldier, in an effort to induce personnel into the Service. We find difficulty in securing recruits but with our new recruiting drive we hope to get extra men to enter the Naval Service. The pay for non-commissioned personnel is 4/- a day more than the Army rates, plus a further 6/- a day while at sea. The pay rates in the Naval Service are attractive enough. Recruitment has been reasonably satisfactory and we should get whatever extra men are needed from the new recruiting drive.

The use of helicopters for sea fishery protection is not a good idea. In that type of operation they have a limited capacity only, and their range is limited. If they were to be used for fishery protection duties, it would be necessary to set up bases on the west and south coasts so that helicopters would be available when the information came in that foreign fishermen were fishing inside the limits. There would also be a difficulty in taking the foreign vessels into custody or taking their crews into harbour if it were necessary to prefer charges.

The Army Jumping Team was also mentioned. Suggestions were made in relation to the recruitment of qualified people to the Team. When young men enter the Cadet grade they can opt for the Equitation School. Any Cadet found suitable is encouraged to pursue that side of his training so that he can become a useful rider. But these are not too easy to get and we have to do the best we can with the material we get.

On the subject of the purchase of horses, I can say that there is no limit on the price the purchasing board may pay for the horse. I have already explained—last year, I think—how the board is constituted. It is their business to buy horses. I do not, as Minister for Defence, interfere in the purchase of horses at all. It will be appreciated that the choice of first-class horses is not absolutely unlimited.

Many questions were raised in relation to pay, barracks, pensions and gratuities—by Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Tully. I just want to comment on some of them. The matter of gratuities for soldiers discharged on pension has been raised. Only married officers are eligible for gratuities in addition to their retirement pay. Single officers are not. While a married officer receives a gratuity, he does not get a married pension. Married soldiers discharged on pension are eligible for additional married pension. The rate of married pension payable to personnel currently discharged is £1 6s 4d per week.

The question of gratuities was mentioned in relation to the Bill before the House. Any change in service pensions or gratuities is provided for under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, which is different from this Army Pensions Bill. Under the legislation passed recently, the mechanics of the operation are that the scheme is laid before the House, and if any Deputy wishes to raise the matter, he can do so by motion.

Mr. James Tully

I mentioned it because so many people do not know that.

Mr. Hilliard

Yes; we shall try to make that plain as far as we can. Mention was made of uniforms. That matter is constantly reviewed. There have been many improvements in recent years. The most recent development has been with regard to boots. I was glad to hear Deputy Tully comment on the boots. It will put an end to the criticism outside this House. They want the soldier to march in the old heavy, nailed boots. It was time we adopted this new boot which will give some comfort to the men when they are marching.

The maintenance and repair of Army barracks hangs on the question of money. We must do the best we can with the money voted by this House. We have to be as economical as possible and, at the same time, to preserve the buildings as far as we possibly can and not allow them to deteriorate. I have inspected several of the barracks where our troops are billeted. We have been doing as much as we possibly could to improve living quarters. It is a long, slow process. Nevertheless, it has been proceeded with on a limited scale each year, I think that anybody visiting barracks now can notice the change that is taking place. I know it takes a long time. I would wish to billet troops in good conditions and I know Deputies would have the same inclination. A new block is to be erected in Naas for the apprentices. Living conditions there will be good In any of the more modern barracks, I think the conditions under which our troops live are fair enough.

Deputy Tully mentioned allowances in lieu of rations and I should like to explain the position. It is not a ration allowance but an allowance in lieu of ration.

Mr. James Tully

In Army jargon it is "CRA"—continuous ration allowance—if the Minister wants to change that one.

Mr. Hilliard

Every non-commissioned officer and private of the Permanent Defence Force is entitled to receive rations or he is paid an allowance in lieu based on the actual cost of the ration. This allowance does not purport to be the cost to the man of purchasing three meals a day. It is an allowance in lieu of the rations-in-kind to which he is entitled and should be looked upon as one element in a man's total remuneration. It is costed twice yearly and the allowance is adjusted upwards or downwards, as necessary. The calculation is made on the cost of the ration during the previous six months. Thus, at the end of June next, the calculation will be made on the cost of the ration from January to June. If there is an increase in the cost of the ration in the current six months, that increase will be reflected in the increase that will be paid to the soldiers in the allowances in lieu of ration.

Mr. James Tully

I know how it is made up, but I still do not agree that it is a continuous ration allowance. You may call it what you like; it is 1d a day less.

Mr. Hilliard

The recurring inregard to the cost of living, that when the tenth round of pay increases was given to those entitled to get it, the soldiers also received it. A married man got £1 a week extra and a single man 15/——

Mr. James Tully

No, the single man outside got £1 but the single soldier got only 15/-.

Mr. Hilliard

The recurring increases in the cost of ration since the review in 1964 amount to 6s 5d a week. There have been slight reductions on very rare occasions, but, in my view, the system on the whole has been more of a benefit than a disadvantage to the soldiers. I do not think any other system can be devised that would be of more benefit.

Mr. James Tully

A quarterly cost of living review would surely be a more accurate way of checking on what it costs a soldier?

Mr. Hilliard

We do everything we can to assist in the placement in employment of discharged or retired Army personnel. It is not an easy matter. The organisation, ONE, does a certain amount of work in that regard and my Department co-operates as far as possible. I always make a point of giving employment in my Department to ex-service men, as far as possible. I think that also applies in all Government Departments. It applies in the House here, as Deputy Tully pointed out, but I have no control over private employment. All we can do is recommend a soldier, if he seeks a recommendation from us. This he gets, provided his record is clear. He has his discharge book in any case. We do our best to impress on people that it is in the interests of the country that those who serve in the armed forces should be offered employment when they retire. That is as much as we can do. The problem is not easy to solve.

Mr. James Tully

Would the Minister not try to give them some training?

Mr. Hilliard

That is a big question and it is one that I am prepared to consider.

Mr. James Tully

They can learn a lot in a couple of hours per day for 21 years.

Mr. Hilliard

It is not easy to find means of providing any specialised training when you have men engaged in military duties and so on. The Army is not geared for it and it might be necessary to go to outside sources for educational facilities. It is a matter I am prepared to consider fully and if we can find a means of doing it, it will be done. I am inclined to the view that young people who have not had opportunities before they join the Army should get some further education or training if they want it but it is a matter that must be examined in more detail so as to try to find some method of doing it.

Deputy Corry raised a number of points with which I want to deal. Refunds from the United Nations are shown in the Appropriations-in-Aid Subhead of the Vote—for instance, at No. 13 of Subhead Z on page 161 of the Book of Estimates, 1968-69—and are accounted for in the Appropriation Account. In regard to the case of the Garda Sergeant which he raised, I understand that it is a Department of Justice requirement that in order to get an extension of service, a member of the Garda must have a military service pension or medal with bar. The Deputy should take up the matter with another Minister.

The Deputy also raised the question of the use of the bridge at Haulbowline. He has been in communication with the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to this bridge and he also mentioned the matter to me. This bridge does not belong to the Department of Defence. Representations have been made regarding the use of the bridge by personnel living or working on Haulbowline. The matter has been raised by other Deputies also. The bridge is the property of Irish Steel Holdings Limited and was built to facilitate their operations. It is not a public bridge and its approaches are within the property of Irish Steel Holdings to which the public have no right of access. For reasons of security the company consider it necessary to limit and control the use of the bridge.

Arrangements have been made with the company to facilitate the Department in bringing heavy stores to Haulbowline via the bridge where there would be a considerable saving in costs. This traffic is infrequent and special precautions are taken. It would not, however, be reasonable to endeavour to secure the general use of the bridge by naval personnel, their families and civilians employed by the Department at Haulbowline. The absence of such permission does not cause hardship having regard to the fact that the Department's launch service is available to Cobh throughout the day and to Ringaskiddy and Monkstown at suitable times to facilitate the persons concerned. It is understood that a small number of officers have been afforded limited use of the bridge. Deputy Corry has alleged that this is discrimination. There is one method by which we can end that position. The military authorities are considering whether the use of the bridge by officers should be discontinued. Before doing that, I should like to consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance to see what can be done about the matter.

Deputy Corry raised the question of the investigation of means for special allowances. I have dealt with that here before and have told the House that there has been considerable easement of the means test over the years. Special allowances are not pensions in the sense of being pensions payable for service. They are really an effort by the Government and the House to better the lot of the less well off members of the organisations that are named in the Army Pensions Acts, the personnel who served in the IRA, Cumann na Ban and the other organisations in the period between 1916 and 1921.

We must have a means test; otherwise every person who served in these organisations and who is still living would be entitled to a special allowance. It would apply even to myself, to Deputy Corry and others. A large number of very well off people could claim these special allowances if there were no means test. There are complaints about small special allowances. The average special allowance is £88 a year—it is not a princely sum, as Deputy Tully would say—but if there are allowances below that figure, there are also allowances above it. Of course, the persons in receipt of allowances above £88 a year have practically no means except a non-contributory old age pension or something like that, which is practically disregarded as means. Where there is a ceiling, no matter how high, and a means test, no matter how framed, there will be cases where applicants will have assessable means approaching the ceiling, so that there will always be small "marginal" special allowances. They are the exception. It is natural they will always be the ones to be complained about. As far as the children's earnings are concerned, I have already explained that they are governed by the Joint Directions, and the social welfare officer investigating the means has no option but to report what he finds.

Mr. James Tully

What I dislike about it is that if a child is having meals in the house, the officer assesses that as money given to the applicant.

Mr. Hilliard

He follows his directions.

Mr. James Tully

He does, but I wonder how he would like it.

Mr. Hilliard

Deputy Tully raised the question of the long-service soldier and the pension payable to a man who remains on after 21 years service in the Army. A shilling a year is added in respect of each year of service over 21 but not exceeding 31 years. This has remained unchanged since 1947 but the question of an increase is under consideration.

Mr. James Tully

Good.

Mr. Hilliard

The issue of medals to long-service FCA personnel was also referred to. Some 13,000 medals have been ordered, but there have been various delays by the contractors as regards the supply of the medals, the ribbons, the ribboning of the medals and the supply of tunic ribbons. The intention is that the medals will first be issued to serving members whose entitlement can be readily established from records, and that, when this phase has been completed, applications will then be invited from former members by advertisement.

Mr. James Tully

If the die has not already been cast, could I suggest the provision of smaller medals. Some old people who have medals are leaning over with the weight of them. They would appreciate far more a small medal they could wear.

Mr. Hilliard

The die is cast. Issues to serving members are being made as supplies become available, and, in an effort to expedite completion of this phase, arrangements are in hand to have a quantity of the medals ribboned by Army tailors instead of by contract. It is not known when sufficient medals will be available to permit of advertising for applications from ex-members.

Deputy P. O'Donnell referred to the First Battalion. The traditions of the First Battalion have been well maintained. Unfortunately it is not as strong as we would wish, but no opportunity is lost of attracting personnel. A new recruiting campaign will be undertaken presently for the Army, as I have already announced, and the needs of the First Battalion will receive special consideration.

Mr. James Tully

Are they still Irish-speaking?

Mr. Hilliard

Yes. The question of the FCA was raised by Deputy Tully. Looking at the matter from my point of view as Minister for Defence, I would wish to have greater attention paid to the FCA. I think it is a useful force, a force of which good use could be made in the event of its being called upon to give an account of itself in straight warfare. I do not agree with Deputy Tully and the other Deputy who said the force was not up to strength. We have responsible Army officers in each area in charge of the FCA. As Minister for Defence, I could not question the returns they make.

Mr. James Tully

Surely the Minister is not saying that there are more than a couple of dozen in each area when in fact on the books you would have three times that because that is a cod.

Mr. Hilliard

The responsible Army officers in charge of each area make the returns.

Mr. James Tully

I am not challenging the returns.

Mr. Hilliard

The returns are genuine and exact returns as to the strength of the FCA and to the number of training hours to which each member of the FCA subjects himself. The FCA is a very useful organisation and a very important component of the Defence Forces. It has a good potential from the point of view of straight warfare. The position may be different in regard to the modern warfare methods which we see in operation in various parts of the world.

In regard to the Bill, the Second Stage of which I will move after the conclusion of this debate, I should like to have the Committee Stage taken on 28th May. Then Deputies will have the opportunit to deal with the Bill section by section and can obtain all the information they need on the various sections. In relation to the greater benefits which the Bill will confer on applicants, I want to say that we will make sure the changes are brought to the notice of the public and we will personally contact as many potential beneficiaries as we know. We have a number of files on our hands regarding cases where the allowances have been refused and we will write to all those people and enable them to apply for the benefits which they will be entitled to receive.

Deputy Tully mentioned the question of the eight years after discharge and I want to deal with that. I do not intend to deal with the Bill at length as my introductory statement was circulated and, as I said, we will be dealing with the Bill in Committee. Prior to the enactment of the Army Pensions Act, 1960, applications for pensions in respect of diseases had to be made not later than four years after the date of discharge. Normally a four-year period was sufficiently long to allow a disease to reveal itself. This time limit was considered necessary because of the difficulty which might arise in determining whether a disease which manifested itself after a longer period than four years after the date of discharge was attributable to service at all.

Originally it was the intention to retain the four-year limit in the Army Pensions (No. 2) Bill, 1960, but in the course of the Second Reading, it was strongly represented by a number of Deputies that this time limit was too short. Having considered the representations, the then Minister felt that the possibility could not be excluded that in some cases a disease, especially a tropical disease such as might be contracted on overseas service, might have a longer period of incubation than four years and accordingly the time limit was extended to eight years. That is the reason eight years appears in the Bill. I think I have dealt with practically all the major points raised in the debate and again I want to thank Deputies for the manner in which they received the Estimate and the Bill.

Mr. James Tully

I asked the Minister a question about this 50 per cent for those who have——

Mr. Hilliard

We will be dealing with that on Committee Stage.

Mr. James Tully

If the Minister considers it should be altered, will he do something about it?

Mr. Hilliard

That section deals with a limited number of persons. We know the exact number. They have pensions on a 50 per cent or more disablement basis. It is clear that when a man is 50 per cent disabled it must affect his span of life. But pensionable disablement can be as low as 20 per cent.

Mr. James Tully

If it is 49 per cent, he is out.

Mr. Hilliard

The Army Pensions Board determines this.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Can the Minister say approximately how many pensioners there are in that category?

Mr. Hilliard

The number is small, only a matter of hundreds.

Vote put and agreed to.