I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend and extend the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1964.
Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1968: Money Resolution.
I want to say a word on this Money Resolution. This is legislation to which no objection will be taken on any side of the House. I want to direct the attention of the Minister to a matter which he might consider when dealing with legislation, Estimates and Money Resolutions arising out of the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1964. Owing to our particular circumstances, the administration of these Acts involves a not inconsiderable number of civil servants and a considerable establishment. Anyone understanding our special circumstances fully realises that, of its nature, this is a diminishing charge and that there is no desire on any side of the House to approach it in a grudging or mean way. However, our practice has been to consider the Estimates for which the Minister for Defence is responsible together when they have been presented to the House and this does give rise to some misunderstanding in the public mind. On more than one occasion, I have heard the suggestion made that the civil staff required for the administration of affairs for which the Minister for Defence is responsible to the House seems to bear a disproportionate proportion to the actual Army personnel. In fact, of course, we who are aware of procedure know that this Money Resolution does not relate to the active Army personnel at all but to a section of the Department of Defence which deals with the pension rights of retired soldiers from the existing Army, the civil war and the Anglo-Irish conflict which preceded it.
I feel that that would be a matter for the Second Stage. We are now on the Money Resolution and the discussion must be kept to the purposes for which the money is being provided.
I make the suggestion to the Minister in order to clarify the fact that he is responsible to the House not only for the actual Army expenses but for Army pensions and their administration and that the administration of the Army Pensions Acts, for which this Money Resolution is required, has no relation at all to the actual charge which comes in course of payment for maintenance of the Defence Forces. I believe it is desirable that this matter should be directed to the attention of the Minister for Defence so that he may avail of some suitable occasion, if not this occasion then some other occasion, to differentiate very clearly to the public mind between the Civil Service expenses involved in regard to the actual standing Army and the expenses raised by other services for which the Minister is responsible.
We are all aware of the allegation under the British Naval Estimates that when they had 100 Admirals, they had 1,000 civil servants and that when they had three Admirals, they had 2,000 civil servants. That position does not exist here. What it is necessary to direct to the attention of the public is the fact that the Minister for Defence is responsible not only for the Army and Naval Service but for the administration of pensions for which this Money Resolution is now being moved. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this?
Deputy Dillon raised this point before. At the time, I controverted the allegations he made.
On a point of order, I am not making any allegations. I am trying to help the Minister to rebut allegations which I have repudiated.
I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking. Staffing on the civilian side of the Department of Defence is not appropriate, I think, to the Bill we are discussing. There are about four people directly engaged in the administration of the matters contained in this Bill. If Deputy Dillon would have a look at the Civil Service Directory, he will see, fully set out, the number of people engaged in each section of the Department of Defence.
Yes. That is what I am trying to say.
Deputy Dillon could well satisfy himself that, in fact, the Department of Defence is understaffed.
Is that not what I am saying? I am asking the Minister to make it public.
I am making it public now. Deputy Dillon repeated what he said here previously in relation to this matter.
Either the Minister is deaf or else he cannot understand ordinary English.
I am not deaf, nor do I lack intelligence.
I wanted to provide the Minister with an opportunity of pointing out that the number of civil servants is not disproportionate to the services they have to discharge. The astonishing thing is that the Minister now charges me with promulgating a falsehood which I wanted him to avail of this opportunity finally to dispose of, with my agreement and my assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.