Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Apr 1934

Vol. 51 No. 12

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 65—Army.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £984,487 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun costais an Airm agus Chúltaca an Airm (maraon le Deontaisí áirithe i gCabhair) fé sna hAchtanna Fórsaí Cosanta (Forálacha Sealadacha); chun costaisí áirithe riaracháin ina thaobh san; agus chun costaisí fén Acht Bunreachta (Leasú Uimh. 17), 1931.

That a sum not exceeding £984,487 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the cost of the Army and the Army Reserve (including certain Grants-in-Aid) under the Defence Forces. (Temporary Provisions) Acts; certain administrative expenses in connection therewith; and Expenses under the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931.

The Army Estimate for the regular Army for the financial year 1934-35 is based on an establishment of 560 officers and 5,350 other ranks. The number of other ranks is the same as that in the Estimate for 1933-34, but the number of officers shows an increase of five. The figure of 560 includes 20 officers specially commissioned in connection with the new Volunteer force. The actual officer strength at the end of March was 547, so that the figure of 560 allows for the promotion to commissioned rank of 13 cadets at present serving in the Military College, who, if they pass the necessary tests and examinations, will be eligible for commissions during the financial year.

The number of cadets provided for is 15 against 28 in the previous year, and the reduction is due entirely to the limitation in the number of new entrants. In this connection it should be observed that non-commissioned officers of a suitable type are, from time to time, selected to undergo courses for commissioned rank at the college, and it is anticipated that during the present year there will be about four such non-commissioned officers who will be eligible for commissions.

Under the heading of re-entries, provision has been made for the re-entry into Army service of 300 other ranks over an average period of three months. This provision is to enable reservists who show particular aptitude to extend their term of training so that they may undergo intensive courses of instruction in the specialist branches of Army service, and thus render themselves capable of undertaking the task of instruction.

Class "A" reserve is composed of soldiers who serve a number of years with the colours, and the remainder of their term of enlistment on the reserve. The provision for this force has had to be increased from 4,700 to 5,200 other ranks. The increase is practically authomatic inasmuch as it depends directly on the number of men whose time with the colours will have expired, and who will, therefore, be due for transfer to the reserve during the year. The financial provision for 5,200 has, however, been reduced by 20 per cent., because it has been found that the numbers reporting for annual training are about 70-80 per cent. of those on the reserve rolls.

Class "B" reserve is composed of soldiers who, having served three months with the regular Army, are transferred to the reserve in which they serve the remainder of their term of enlistment. Recruiting for this force has practically ceased for some time past, and the number provided for has, therefore, been reduced from 3,500 to 2,500. The actual strength at the end of March was approximately 2,700, and when allowance has been made for wastage and for soldiers not reporting for annual training, it will be seen that even the reduced financial provision should be adequate to meet requirements. In point of fact and of policy this force will gradually disappear.

The provision for the Volunteer reserve is based on the actual strength of 358 all ranks obtaining when the Estimate was compiled. It is intended in due course that this arm will be absorbed in the new Volunteer force, and consequently no provision has been made for any increase in it.

As regards the Officers' Training Corps, provision has been made for 700 cadets as against 650 in the previous year's Estimate. The actual strength at the end of March was about 698, so that the provision is practically based on the existing strength of the corps.

The number of personnel provided for the Officers' Reserve remains at the same figure as in the previous year's Estimates. Finally, as regards the new Volunteer force, provision has been made for the annual training of 300 who were enlisted before the end of March, for the initial or annual training of 12,000 to be enlisted during the present financial year, for enlistment grants in respect of 14,000, and of training grants for 20,000 volunteers. The policy and organisation of this force have already been fully outlined to the Dáil when the Supplementary Estimates were taken on February 7th, 1934.

Turning from the aspect of establishments to that of finance, it will be observed that the present as compared with the previous year's original Estimate shows a net increase of £223,417. Of this amount £196,116 is directly attributable to the new Volunteer force, and £6,000 to expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment) Act, so that there is only a nett increase of £21,301 on the original Estimate as submitted last year. This amount, together with any decrease on certain sub-heads, has been utilised in providing partly for the increased numbers of class "A" reserve, but mainly in providing for technical courses, equipment and material for all corps and services of the Army. The increased expenditure on technical equipment and material finds ready justification in the very fact that the regular Army is a small one, and that the smaller the Army the more intensive must be its training, the more highly organised its units, and the more specialised its equipment and weapons. The policy of the State as regards the Army is briefly to have a small highly trained standing Army which will serve as a pivot around which may be organised, developed and trained the entire reserve and Volunteer forces and, if necessary, the entire man-power of the State, and to that end the Army itself is being and will be provided with the most intensive training and the most up-to-date arms and equipment which the State can afford.

Hitherto we have more or less concentrated on providing the artillery with suitable guns, but the time has now come when the needs of the other corps and services and infantry must be seen to. In the present Estimate we are taking steps in that direction. Thus Army educational schools for soldiers will be increased and equipped and specialist military courses abroad will be provided for specially selected officers. For the infantry we are testing the value of new self-loading rifles; we are providing more portable light machine guns, and we are making a beginning with the most modern pattern of trench mortar. For the Armoured Car Corps we are providing light tanks, and we are enabling the corps to bring its cars up-to-date. The Signal Corps will have a new mobile wireless car to enable it to communicate with aircraft in flight; wireless sets to permit of intercommunication between armoured cars operating at a distance, and its telephonic system will be modernised. Such equipment costs money, but it is money economically spent, for if there is to be an Army at all it is in the long view more economical that it should be an effective instrument of defence rather than a weapon that cannot be relied upon in an emergency. Moreover, in carrying out this policy every effort will be made to make the Army self-reliant and as far as possible self-contained. The Army will in fact be made as far as possible to adapt itself to the State's economic policy of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.

Modern types of technical materials and weapons will be purchased, but no endeavour will be spared to produce and find the requirements of the Army within the country, so that it will be independent as far as possible of foreign stores. Thus the construction of a munition factory continues to engage active attention, and during the year it is hoped that some of our plans will reach fruition. The Air Corps is about to embark on a scheme of training boy mechanics who will be instructed in the detailed assembly of aircraft, and on the repair and maintenance of aero engines. During the year it will undertake the reconstruction of two crashed aircraft, and as soon as the boys are trained and the personnel have acquired the necessary experience, the general assembly of all Army aircraft will be undertaken. Incidentally such trained technical personnel should in due time prove a valuable asset to this country in the development of civil aviation. The Armoured Car Corps will recondition and modernise their own cars; the Signal Corps will bring their own equipment up-to-date, and will fit out the radio van intended for communication with aircraft, and finally, the Ordnance Corps will undertake the manufacture, or at least the assembly, of field kitchens needed for each corps and service of the Army.

Such in outline is the Army policy on which the present Estimate has been framed. At this point it may be well to emphasise that the moral and physical, as distinct from the technical qualities of the Army, are of the highest possible character. During the last financial year about 600 recruits were enlisted for Army service, and the average strength of the Army fluctuated around the figure of 5,700. Out of that number we had only 14 deaths, and of these three were due to accidents in the air; and the percentage of casualties, due to illness, was only just over 2 per cent. As regards the moral qualities of the Army, the discipline, loyalty and enthusiasm of the soldier, it may be pointed out that during the whole year we lost only 25 men through desertion, a fact which bears testimony to the good relations existing between officers and men, to the admirable conditions under which the men serve, and the high morale of the troops generally. In this connection also, it should be observed that during the combined exercises our young soldiers with full kit carried out for a fortnight long marches daily, despite much physical hardship and discomfort, and that not a single complaint was received from any of the four counties in which they operated reflecting on their conduct or discipline.

The two outstanding events in the Army during the past year were the combined exercises and the inception of the new Volunteer force. The later is now getting into its stride. The area officers have taken up their duties: 151 Sluaighte Committees have been formed and 24 are in course of formation and the first batch of the new formation were sufficiently advanced in training to take their part in the annual parade on St. Patrick's Day.

As regards the combined exercises, it must be noted at the outset that field exercises are an essential element of training in all arms, because through them alone can be tested the theoretical training given to officers in schools and colleges, and the collective training of separate units. No exercises of this nature had been carried out in the Army since 1926, and even then the exercises were of an elementary character, being confined to infantry units with a small detachment of other arms. There was, however, no real test of the system of command, staff and supply. The exercises carried out during the past year were of a more searching and ambitious character. A reinforced field brigade of all arms about 4,000 strong was pitted against a skeleton force of about 1,000 strong, specially organised for mobility and consisting of armoured forces, horse cavalry, air corps, and three small infantry battalions, to afford necessary fire cover. Both forces had their own system of command, staff and supply. The general object aimed at was to test the effectiveness of a non-mechanised against a highly mechanised force, but the special object was to test the theoretical lessons imparted at the Military College and subsidiary schools. In both directions valuable information was obtained. The system of command was thoroughly tried out, and was found to be proceeding on the right lines. Staff work was found to be particularly good, and the system of supply was shown to be most efficient. Night after night, for 14 days, 120 tons of food, forage and petrol were loaded 20 miles from the front lines, and were successfully delivered and distributed under the cover of darkness, to each unit in the field, so that men and horses were fed, vehicles were replenished, and the forces were ready at dawn to restart their operations.

The air corps continues to render any service which civil aviation may call for. It provides landing and accommodation facilities not only for the Irish Aero Club, but for any visiting aircraft. Repairs were carried out, but care is taken to ensure that such repairs cannot be done elsewhere by local commercial firms. Sites for proposed aerodromes or landing sites are inspected for the purpose of seeing that international requirements are complied with: applicants for commercial or private flying certificates are examined: aircraft are inspected for the purpose of registration and the renewal of certificates of airworthiness: and regulations are now being drawn up concerning the conditions which should govern the airworthiness of aircraft generally.

Finally, the equitation team continues to renew its previous successes. During the past year it participated at horse shows held in Nice, Rome, Brussels, Lucerne, Chicago, New York, Toronto and Berlin. The cost to the State of seven of these shows—the figures for Berlin are not yet available—is approximately £2,199, but this was offset by prize money amounting to £717, so that the net cost to the State was only £1,482. The prize money represented 9 first places, 11 seconds, 12 thirds, 8 fourths, 4 fifths, and 12 other placings. The primary purpose of the equitation team attending these shows is to advertise the Irish hunter and the Irish horse breeding industry generally, but the team also serves other national purposes. Their contact with foreign officers engenders a spirit of comradeship between armies; their sportsmanship in friendly rivalry excites feelings of admiration and goodwill in the countries they are visiting, and their victories in crowded arenas demonstrate to the ordinary citizens of foreign lands better than any diplomatic missions the fact of this country's distinct nationhood and sovereignty.

I wish to join with the Minister in the tribute he paid to the splendid quality of the men in the Army. That was my experience while Minister for Defence, and, from what I have been able to learn about it, that still is the character of the Army. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that and pay a tribute to this splendid body of men. I rather regretted to see that the Minister has estimated at the present strength of the Army in certain directions. He even calculated, for instance, on a decrease in the reserve. I should think it is rather unwise to go on that line because it is possible that the new Volunteer force may not materialise exactly as he expects it. I think it would be a pity if that should happen, but one should just as well recognise the possibility of it.

With regard to the B reserve, I should mention that they are drawn from all over the country. They come into the Army for just three months and after that they are passed on to the reserve. It is a pity that the Minister should definitely budget now for their disappearance. He also seems to calculate on a more or less stationary position with regard to the O.T.C. He may be quite right there. It may be that from his knowledge of the educational institution from which the O.T.C. comes he is satisfied that the highest point is now reached. At the same time it is to be hoped that the authorities will do all they can to encourage young men in these educational institutions to come in their strength into the O.T.C.

It would be rather hard to follow exactly the figures as the Minister read them out. He mentioned that there were 600 new enlistments during last year, which is quite gratifying, but there is one point to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention—it is this: it must be recognised that in the case of the man who has been in the Army for ten years, that Army work has actually become his normal mode of living. But the Minister referred to the time expiry as automatic—that when a man's time expired he should go automatically into the reserve. I do not think that that necessarily follows. No doubt it frequently must follow that he goes out into the reserve when his time has expired. At the same time, the Government has to consider what is just and they have to consider that when a man has been reattested over a period of years, say for eight or ten years, he has automatically mapped out his life in the Army service, that the man has been in the habit of thinking of himself as spending his life as a member of the Army. Though the Government or the Minister has the power arbitrarily when the time has expired to enforce the expiry, yet to send out such a man at the same time is a thing in which I think the Minister would agree there are questions of justice involved. When considering the case of the man who has been for a long time in the Army, then as between that man and another there is a prima facie case for his being retained.

I think that the Minister announced that an Army Pensions Bill is coming on shortly. I think I am correct in that. I do not want to anticipate what is to be contained in that Bill, but actually before I left the Army a draft, possibly requiring amendment, was in existence. If I remember rightly that draft did visualise that the men who spent almost 20 years in the Army or something less than 20 years would be eligible for a pension. That is long overdue. It would be possible for the Minister to arrange that anybody who has been in the Army for a long time should go out, and thus no pension could accrue. I think if that Pension Bill is coming in, consideration should be given to men who have gone half-way towards qualifying for a pension. There would be a decided element of injustice in arbitrarily closing their careers in the Army and driving them out into the world to find a living anyway they could whereas if they were allowed to stay in the Army there would be a regular career for them. The Government has recognised that anybody who gives service should have a pension.

With regard to the new Volunteers the Minister said that his policy with regard to them was outlined on a previous occasion. That is true. I do not remember everything the Minister said on that occasion. But he said that one of the most worthy and deserving objects one could have in mind was the bringing together of men who had been comrades at different periods but who had taken different sides afterwards. He said he wished to see that brought about and used this as an instrument to bring them together again. I assume that the Minister referred to 1922 when the men were on two different sides. One would assume that none of them would have been under the age of 18 which would now mean that all of them would be over 30 years of age which would seem to indicate that the real recruitment, as far as that end in view is concerned, should be for people of not less than 30 years of age—say, between 30 and 40—and that that would be more or less the major portion of it. I do not mean that that can be assumed to apply to any of the younger recruits. As far as they are concerned, the object of the Volunteers is quite a different matter. Just a short time ago the Vice-President made what, with all due respect, I would suggest was rather a foolish speech, to the effect that if guns were necessary with regard to our fellow-countrymen belonging to the Six Counties there was the Volunteer Reserve behind the National Army. I have no doubt that the President, and probably the Vice-President himself, regretted that statement as soon as it was made, but I think it was unfortunate to suggest that this body was being recruited for the purpose of aggressive, or possibly aggressive, action against the people of the North. There is one point which I do not suppose anybody is interested in, except perhaps myself, but I do think that it is about time the Government adverted to it—it does not seem important—and that is the official name for the National Army in Irish. It takes two forms, that of Oglaigh na hEireann and Fianna Fáil. Those are the Irish names of the Army. When an officer of the Army is writing on behalf of the Army he writes on paper headed "Oglaigh na hEireann" and he may sign himself adjutant-general, chief of staff, or quartermaster-general, according to the position he holds. The Government permits another body, a seditious and illegal body, to call itself Oglaigh na hEireann, which is a name legally applying only to the National Army. When a letter is sent out by the body to which I refer, a letter very often of a seditious or criminal nature, headed "Oglaigh na hEireann" and signed adjutant-general, or O.C. Dublin, or something like that. it is a libel on the Army.

In the same way, the words "Fianna Fáil" are an Irish equivalent of National Army. The Army transport goes about, and soldiers have on their badges the letters F.F., standing for Fianna Fáil. With the National Army in existence, any body calling itself Fianna Fáil is clearly acting, if not in a seditious, at least in an illegal, way. In all friendship, I suggest that the Government Party might, on some suitable occasion, take the opportunity of changing the name of their Party. They could do so without changing their policy. It actually is illegal, if not seditious. With regard to the other body, I have seen letters— threatening letters and seditious letters—with Oglaigh na hEireann printed on them and signed adjutant-general and so on, and really one has had to look at such documents to see if any particular address was given, because the other body carefully did not put any specific address, but just put "Dublin" on the documents. When one saw that there was no address, such as Parkgate Street or whatever it might be, one knew that it emanated from a criminal organisation. At present the Government has permitted this body to go about calling itself that, and when a man does so and signs himself adjutant-general on such a document he is signing the name of a definite high officer in the National Army. Usually the letters are of such a nature that, to attribute them to an officer of the National Army, is decidedly libellous.

I am not going to crow over the Minister, who so often objected to the cost of the Army by pointing out that it is costing more now than it did when he protested against its cost in my time. I regret that the cost of it is going up. At the same time, I am quite satisfied myself that as far as reduction and economy were concerned, I did all the work that need be done, and to carry it on further would be definitely harmful. I notice, however, that there have been a number of promotions, judging from the figures here, and promotion is a matter where, with the best will in the world, injustice is often done. I think that some time ago—it may have been last year— Deputy O'Higgins asked certain questions about the medical service. It looks as though there have been certain promotious there and that captains are costing more than they did last year although other ranks are costing just the same. Now, the increase in the cost of captains could be brought about in two ways, either the lower commissioned ranks had been promoted to be captains or there were additions. I have heard that completely new men have been taken into the medical service since the Minister took charge.

As far as I remember, Deputy O'Higgins asked questions about that, and the Minister said that they had been recruited in exactly the same way as had previously been done. The Minister said—he can correct me, if I am wrong, because I am not saying that I am quite right—that there were no appointments in that service from about 1924. As far as my memory goes, in the early stages there was a sort of advisory board to advise the Army in the selection of qualified medical doctors and that at a later stage, say, about 1924—I am speaking subject to correction by the Minister —the deans of the medical faculties of the various diploma-giving bodies in Dublin were communicated with when anybody was wanted for this service and their advice taken. From what I understand, when the Minister took charge men were brought over here from England. I did hear that one man was commissioned for a day or two and then went out, presumably because the Government were going to bring in a Pensions Bill and it would look bad for him to claim a pension as being disabled—the Minister will correct me on this—but that he had already been taken into the Army as a man able to carry on in the medical service.

I have referred on other occasions to the bringing into the Army and the commissioning of 20 men from Australia and other places. I do not want to question that policy, but I want to point out again to the Minister that my objection to that chiefly is that it is an injustice to the men already in the Army. Every man, who is a lieutenant, or second-lientenant, has the right to expect, provided that he does his work properly, that when vacancies occur it will mean promotion for him. If you bring men in arbitrarily and place them in some rank of the hierarchical scale of the Army, it is an injustice to the men in the lower ranks. There are men in the lower ranks of the Army who have given completely satisfactory service for the last ten or 12 years and who have not been promoted for one reason only, and that was that from the very nature of the way the Army came into existence there was not the natural flow of promotion up through the Army because there was not that more or less average distance in age between the various ranks that would normally exist. To bring in men and place them over those men with that long service is a definite injustice. A minor matter arises on that. As far as I noticed in Iris Oifigiúil when these men were taken in they were commissioned as captains. I think it was an understood thing, or a general order in the Army when I was there, that if anybody were being commissioned, no matter what one might intend to make him, he was only commissioned as a second-lieutenant. He could be made a second-lieutenant and then promoted to be a colonel or a general the next day, if the Minister desired. The advantage of what I think should have been done is this: if you commission a man with a high rank in the Army it is not possible to demote him. If it became necessary, if you felt that there was redundancy in the higher ranks, or that he deserved some punishment, not to the extent of being dismissed from the Army, but in the nature of demotion, then it could be done provided his commission was as second-lieutenant, which does not prevent promotion. I think it is a decided mistake and a bad rule in the Army if men coming in are to be commissioned with a high rank, which is quite unnecessary.

With regard to the cadets, I think the Minister made provision for 13. He referred to the limitation of the number of entrants. The number of entrants may be limited merely by the fact that only a certain number may present themselves for examination or only a certain number may pass. On the other hand, he seemed to imply that the limitation came from above, namely from the Minister. I hope that is not to be the case. I hope the Army will continue annually to take in cadets. In saying that, I am not in any way proposing that there should not be promotion from the ranks. The Minister suggested, I think that as he had drawn up the Estimate it was possible to have five or six men from the ranks promoted to officer standing. That, I think, is a very desirable thing. If a man gives good service, shows proper qualifications and ability, and is in every way suitable to be made an officer, that should be recognised in him and he should have, at any rate, an opportunity of becoming an officer. At the same time, I think that if we are to keep recognising that the Army is not a thing for one generation only, but that it must keep on taking in from outside each year, the Minister should see that a certain number of young men are given the opportunity of becoming cadets, of passing the examination, and, during the two years' training, passing the examination at the end of each year, and then becoming officers in the Army. Most of the officers, I admit, are rather on the young side, especially the senior officers. At the same time, the Army has been in existence for 12 years and there was fighting long before that. Young men of 18 coming along should be taken into the Army, so that in ten, 20 or 25 years' time they will have had every opportunity of studying the soldier craft and the officer science and will be able to run a really regular Army for us.

I should have liked to have compared the Estimate of this year with the actual figures of recent years, but I have not got them with me. The figure given here is £1,476,731. That is roughly, I think, about £300,000 more than before the Minister came in. I think that that is a very large increase in the cost of the Army. £300,000 at present is a very serious matter. I know, of course, that each year that goes by there is naturally a normal increase in salaries for length of service and so on, but I think that actually this increased cost is due to the fact that the Minister has branched off into this new Volunteer body. I should like to have heard more about the way he proposes to administer this. There is no doubt that it is very difficult to get proper discipline and proper order in an Army which is scattered in small bodies all over the country. I think that the business of having a civilian committee more or less in charge is a thoroughly wrong proposal. The Minister said on one occasion that the officers in charge are going to be part of the Army and going to be subject to the ordinary hierarchical order of the Army.

It seems to me an extraordinary situation in which you will have in any given town a body of Volunteers and you will have an officer there and a civilian committee. It seems to me that if the Army is going to be run as an Army it should go through the Minister, the Chief of Staff and G.H.Q. straight down to the officer. Those civilian committees, although they might work quite well at the beginning, are ultimately only going to be a nuisance to the Army and to the Minister himself. I can understand that he might want them in the beginning as a sort of recruiting committee, but I hope that once the men are recruited those civilian committees will cease to have any function; that when the men are recruited the Army will control them. The civilian committees must almost inevitably, with the best will in the world, only make themselves a nuisance, trying to get things to go the way they want them rather than the way the Army with a full knowledge of its needs wants them to go. I think the committees will be only a nuisance, and I should like to hear that they are only to cover the recruiting period. I had an idea that the original number of those Volunteers was to be about 15,000. The Minister spoke in the special allowance business of 20,000. I see the figure here for these recruiting fees is £11,000.

The number is 24,000— 12,000 first line and 12,000 second line.

Am I right in saying that £11,000 is the amount for training grants? That is for 24,000 Volunteers.

It is estimated that 24,000 Volunteers will be recruited and that 20,000 will complete their annual training in this financial year.

It seems to me that you have provided for enlistment grants for 14,000 men and training grants for 20,000 men.

In the Supplementary Estimate we provided for recruiting grants for 10,000 men. This is an additional provision for 14,000 men in this financial year.

This is a Vote on which it is very difficult to speak. It is a Vote for raising and maintaining an Army in the Free State. The Minister for Defence, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army is responsible, of course, for everything in the matter of administration and so forth. I regret, Sir, that during the discussion the Minister was supported by only one member of his Party, and that was a woman. I noticed that a pacifist came in later. We should really get some statement as to what is the Government policy with regard to defence, and, if I may say so, offence, in this country. Putting it plainly, what is the Army for? It does give concern to more than the two members of the Minister's Party who are here tonight. It gives concern to persons outside who heard the wild statements such as that referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald. Sitting here and having had experience of the heat which is sometimes introduced into debates, and the way in which it all dissolves into cold air sometimes, we may not take those remarks so seriously, but I think everybody in this House and outside it will agree with me that a remark made by a responsible Minister of the Government and one with long experience in political affairs in this and other countries—a remark such as that referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald—is one which will have repercussions, not only within the Free State itself, but from one end of Ireland to another. It is a matter of common knowledge that next morning an order was issued by the Government of Northern Ireland saying that he would not be allowed to enter there. I think that that was a case of the Vice-President putting himself, putting his Government, and putting this State into the position of being insulted by the Government of the Six-County area. Those matters and other things which have happened are matters to which I shall refer on the figures in the Estimate itself, because people are perturbed as to what is the intention of the Minister for Defence, and of course, of the Government itself, with regard to the Army.

Deputy Fitzgerald has referred to several matters to which I do not want again to call the attention of the House, but I should like to go through a few of those figures, and draw the attention of the House to the particular sections and sub-sections in which there is an increase. I take it that it will be all more or less covered and is all explicable by the fact that this new force called the Volunteers is being established. I think that the Government must give to the House, and must give to the country, some more satisfactory explanation as to the necessity for those gunmen who never broke out should not be interrupting in the House—and secondly, as to the efficiency or otherwise of such an organisation. Nobody will object to the expenditure of money on physical training and on training, if necessary, in the use of arms, although God and the country know that we have had too much knowledge of arms in this country during the last ten years.

The first increase is that of £24,127 for provisions and allowances in lieu. I take it that that increase arises also from the establishment of this new force. The second I see is an increase for clothing and equipment of £73,862. In war-like stores there is an increase of £49,508. In incidental expenses there is an increase of £7,545. That is Sub-head X, and is particularly interesting when an examination is made of what is called "Incidental Expenses." The other increase to which I desire to refer is in Sub-head AA, Expenses in connection with the Constitution Amendment (No. 17) Act, 1931, which shows an increase of £3,200. This is in the year of grace 1934, when the Government have been over two years in power, after giving a promise of peace, prosperity, good-will and a general Garden of Eden throughout the land.

We should like to hear from the Minister an explanation—at least I am not sure whether or not he explained already—of the increase in the number of short-term recruits and re-entries, and whether that also covers the new force. I see that for the year 1933-34 the number was 900 and that for 1934-5 it is increased to 12,300, the expenditure increasing from £5,940 to £27,960. Under Sub-head P, I see the most important increase is in ammunition. There is an increase from £54,872 to £104,380 under the sub-head, the greatest increase, as I have said, being in ammunition — from £20,400 to £58,365.

I referred to Incidental Expenses, and I observe that the greatest increase in that is in the second-last item, where something called "the hire of halls" is increased from £300, which was the provision in the Supplementary Estimate, to £7,500. I want to refer finally to Y.3—Volunteer Force, Enlistment and Training Grants (Grants-in-Aid). I think the Minister should explain more fully to the House what this particular money is, and how it is to be expended. It says: "Provision required to enable Capitation Grants of 5/- for each 1st and 2nd line Volunteer who is finally approved and 7/6 for each 1st and 2nd line Volunteer who has performed certain prescribed training, to be made to Area Funds to be established under Regulations and to be administered by Area Administrative Officers for such purposes and in such manner as are defined in Regulations by the Minister for Defence." The regulations, I take it, have not yet been published. The two matters which I want to refer to in connection with those two expenses are, first of all, the expenditure on halls, and secondly, expenditure on what is called Grants-in-Aid to local committees. I had the advantage of having a short holiday in the precincts of the village where the President of the Executive Council spoke last week. The Government paper was covered over with expressions of delight at the huge concourse. I do not know whether the Minister, his Government, or his very few back benchers realise that the general conversation through the country is: "Oh, why would they not get a big meeting, are they not giving away thousands of pounds to keep up halls for their own Party all over the country and calling them soldiers' halls?" I am telling the Minister what is said throughout the country.

Indeed it is not. It is just your talk.

Whether it is pure or impure does not arise.

I said that it is only your own talk.

The statement is untrue and I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

The matter seems to me to be a mere difference of opinion.

The Minister said that I have made an untrue statement; that I invented it. I say that is untrue, and I ask you, Sir, to ask the Minister to withdraw his statement.

The Chair did not hear the Minister make any such statement.

He said: "That is your talk." These were his words.

The suggestion clearly is——

The Chair cannot interpret suggestions.

The suggestion, as I told the House generally canvassed and stated openly in the country is that the moneys expended on the Volunteer force are being used for political purposes, either in halls or otherwise. The Minister's reply is: "That is only your talk."

The Minister said that it was the Deputy's own statement. It is not for the Chair to inquire into the foundations for the statements.

I challenged the Minister. I stated that he had told an untruth.

There is nothing for the Chair to rule upon.

I agree that the Chair should not be asked to decide the truth or otherwise of this particular matter. If I say that his statement is untrue the Minister should take my word. I thought that was one of the rules of this House.

The statement of the Minister does not really reflect on the veracity of the Deputy.

I take your word for that, Sir. As a matter of fact it does not matter what the Minister said as far as my veracity or otherwise is concerned. Returning to the huge expenditure on this new force or the necessity for or the efficiency of it, this is giving some thought and worry to the country. In the very praiseworthy expressions used by the Minister in connection with the Army and its work during the last year, I am sure every Party in the House, as well as the people outside, will join. We are very pleased to hear it. The more the Minister praises the old Army, the Old Contemptibles so to speak, the more one is worried about what will happen to the defence forces, and to the defence of Ireland generally, in view of this new departure. He told us what an excellent standard was shown during the 14 days' training. I should like to remind the Minister that the best way of preserving that very high standard is to ensure, as Commander-in-Chief and as Minister, that as far as honesty and straightforwardness go, every facility will be afforded to every officer, N.C.O. and man in the matter of promotion by service. Some of us read of the man in the Scriptures who was brought in at the eleventh hour and got the same treatment as those who had worked all the day. The Minister is now bringing in persons in the eleventh year and he is not giving them the same status as those who were in for the previous 11 years. He is promoting them over those who have been there for 11 years. It is really a matter of importance that young officers—second lieutenants or first lieutenants—should feel that they have settled down to a career in life, that at some time there will be promotion for them, after 11 years, or possibly less. It is regrettable and it must be a cause of disturbance and chagrin to these young men to find persons brought in—it does not matter what their political opinions are—and placed in a position superior to them.

I would like to have a contradiction from the Minister as to whether these persons were not recruited to the Army Medical Corps, but were commissioned with the rank of captain, and made senior to a number of other officers who have been waiting for promotion since 1923 or 1924. Before I left the Army a special examination took place and officers in the Medical Corps—qualified doctors—were placed in a regular list from one down to 19 or 20, when a line was drawn and all below that line were asked to retire. The others were kept on and promoted according to the position they found themselves in after the examination. It is quite possible that only one or two doctors have been promoted to vacancies since 1924. There is a number of officers with the rank of lieutenant or second-lieutenant. I would like the Minister to realise that in the Army more than in any other service, and in a special service in the Army more than amongst the rank and file, efficiency and honest service is expected. Efficiency, honesty, thoroughness and satisfaction with one's lot can only be assured when persons holding a rank have the feeling that they will get promotion when someone else goes out, and that they will get it because they deserve it. There is a feeling generally running through some of the special services in the Army, and even in the regular infantry, that it is more important for the junior officer to be a friend of the man up at the top than to have a good record for efficiency, or to be able to pass all tests from the day he entered, whether it was 11 years or one year ago. The other sub-section of the Vote to which I want to refer is A.A.— Expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1931. In the year 1933-34, £2,800 was spent under this sub-head, and this year the sum which it is proposed to expend is £6,000, an increase of £2,300. I should like to know, in the first place, whether the Minister expects that, as a result of Government policy or for some other reason, there will be a recrudescence of crime and a necessary invocation of the powers of that Act during the present year. I should like to know also whether the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Education is responsible for the payment of the lecturer in education of the persons arrested and kept in Arbour Hill barracks—the lecturer who, as the Minister probably knows, described certain estimable citizens of this State, now dead, in most dastardly words.

In proposing this increase of £2,300, the Minister and his Cabinet have the satisfaction of knowing that every penny, so far as they can ensure it, will be used not legally to punish but illegally to punish men who are of opposite political opinions to themselves; that they will use it as mercilessly as they can, first, last and all the time, simply because these people are their political opponents. This, taken in conjunction with what Deputy Fitzgerald has referred to, taken in conjunction with the talking and crowing of the Vice-President about taking a gun to the North, this increase in the numbers of men trained militarily, this increase in each detail of war-like stores must be regarded seriously by the country. These are matters for which the people on the opposite benches will very soon have to answer to the electors of this country.

The Minister, in asking the House to consent to a Vote of about £1,500,000 for Army purposes, is asking for what he described on the 22nd May, 1930, as "a huge sum." Having just listened to soldiers and ex-soldiers speaking on this Vote, I am tempted to ask if the Minister has at all considered the capacity of the country to bear this burden. On all sides we hear cries and tales of distress. We have a reduced revenue, and increased expenditure. We have embarked on a policy of what I can only designate as "crazy economics." Yet, we have the Minister asking for this huge sum of money for the purpose not only of maintaining the regular Army but of maintaining a new Volunteer force—a proposal which I opposed when it came before the House in its First or Second Stage.

There are one or two matters on which I should like to be satisfied and upon which I feel many citizens would like to be satisfied. We should like to know something further about the purpose for which this new force has been established. The Minister, in the course of his statement, mentioned something about the equitation school and the officers and men who are engaging with other nations in friendly rivalry. This is one of the few items in this huge Estimate with which I find myself in agreement, because it has done more than all your military displays and all your pageantry of arms to advertise the resources of this country in horseflesh. We always boasted that we could breed good horses, but we are forced to ask ourselves, if we have thrown away the market for our horses in the same way as we have cut out the market for many other things produced on the farm, that that money will be spent to the best advantage.

A good deal of doubt exists in the minds of ordinary citizens as to the objects for which this new army has been established. We had a speech during the past couple of weeks—a most bellicose speech—from a responsible Minister. That speech has been adverted to in the course of this debate. In reading it, I wondered whether I was reading the speech of a generalissimo of the Mexican Army or whether I was reading the words of that gentle soul, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly. I never thought that Deputy O'Kelly, who occupies such a responsible position, was such a war-like and bellicose gentleman. He has succeeded in antagonising the persons with whom he and his Party professed to be endeavouring to unite. All Parties in the State proclaimed, when facing the electors, that one of their great objects was to reunite with the North, that the present division was an unnatural division and all of us subscribed to that. We are told that the North must come in some time. I believe that the North will never come in—why should they?—if bellicose speeches of this kind represent the mind of the Minister. We have a new army. For what purpose? Is it to march on the North? Is it to march on Great Britain? Is it to march on the United States? Perhaps a quarrel might be provoked with some of the eastern nations in order to show our wonderful military progress. Listening to the speech of the Minister this afternoon, one would think that this country was rich in all kinds of resources and that, instead of a revenue of £30,000,000, our revenue ran into billions. There is a certain school of thought in this country, as in other countries, which subscribes to the principles laid down by the League of Nations, providing for the scrapping of munitions of war and the cultivation of the arts of peace. We, in this country, have subscribed to that doctrine all along and now not alone are we making an addition to the plant which comes under the heading of "warlike stores" but we are establishing a new army. Again I ask, for what purpose? We are told that it is for the defence of the country. If I thought that there was any danger to the country from a foreign invader, I should agree with that but I think that the people have got enough and to spare of the use of arms. If this army is to be used against men who have given loyalty to the Free State since its establishment, if it is to be used against men who established that State, let us be told and we shall then know where we are.

In that connection I would like to know from the Minister if it is a fact that for some time past a number of officers, known as the "hunting squad," have been interviewing soldiers, non-commissioned officers and men at the Curragh and elsewhere as to their activities during a certain period of the history of this country. Amongst the questions put is one to this effect: "Have you had any British service?" Those who have been ex-British soldiers and served in the National Army from 1922, 1923 or 1924 have got their marching papers. That goes to show that these men, on account of whose activities and loyal service to established government we are sitting here, have got their marching papers. This Parliament functioned because of the work of good statesmen and loyal soldiers who defended the State. Now because of their activities over that period they are handicapped and in other ways victimised. It is now a crime if an Irishman had served during the European War. Our present National Army must no longer have men in it who had previous service in the British Army. We are told about the friendly rivalry that exists at different times in various parts of the world where our mounted officers take part in contests. We all take pride in the victories achieved by our equitation officers. When the Minister speaks of friendly rivalry can that be said to describe the kind of rivalry that the Minister is setting up in the establishment of this new army? Is it for the purpose of friendly rivalry or for the purpose of something that I could call by a different name? For instance, is it for the purpose of turning their guns on peaceful and law-abiding citizens because they helped to build up this State that he is creating this army?

There are one or two matters that I would like the Minister to take into consideration. I would not mind if one-half of this Vote, although it is a huge sum of money, were devoted to provident purposes such as making some kind of provision for the ex-soldier in the National Army who completes his time and leaves the Army. What is the position of a man of that kind? Such a man leaves the service and enrols in the reserve. He is called up annually and receives a relatively small sum of money. But in 99 cases out of 100 he joins the ranks of the unemployed. Whatever little sum he had leaving the Army is soon exhausted, particularly in the case of married men or men with dependants. I said if one-half of that was devoted to making some provision by way of a small pension or gratuity for men who leave the Army, it would be a good thing. Everyone knows that a man who served ten or 15 years in the Army finds it very difficult to get work in civilian life unless he has some trade. Young men after eight or ten years in the Army will be turned adrift with little or no prospect of getting work. I put it seriously to the Minister apart from partisanship or Party politics that this is far more important— looking after and making provision for soldiers when they leave the Army —than adding to our guns and warlike equipment.

I have personal knowledge of, and personal contact with many of those unfortunate wretches who have completed their service in the Army and registered at the labour exchanges. I make this charge very definitely—and I do not make charges unless I have the proof-that from the advent of this Government to power discrimination has been exercised against men because they were ex-National Army men. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the necessity for making some provision out of the money voted here for soldiers, non-commissioned officers and officers, after leaving the service. I could give the Minister several instances of the exercise of the discrimination I have referred to. I would like if the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance, would indicate in the proper quarter that it is not the policy of the Government to discriminate against these men.

There are many items in the Vote to which exception could be easily taken. While I would like to criticise some of those items, most of the money has already been allocated and spent. In addition to that it is the declared policy of the Government to increase these armaments. Again I say the more you spend upon war-like stores the less there will be to spend upon unemployment assistance and so forth. I feel that the citizens of this State are going to get a very great shock before this session is through when they will find that the Estimates of 30 millions of expenditure will have been increased by another six or seven millions. In this State of 26 counties does it not appear to the Minister that this is an extraordinary sum to spend upon an army that would not be able to stand up any longer than the Belgain Army did in the Great War, even in a country suited as this is to guerilla warfare? I ask the Minister to consider these matters. This money of the people is going to be spent upon armies and war-like stores. Surely in this State of 26 counties, not so rich in mineral resources or any resources except agriculture, it is time to cry off this crushing expenditure of money. I fear there will be a financial collapse in this country. We have been informed that we must all reduce our standard of living and come down to the hair shirt. If anything is going to bring us down to the hair shirt I think it is the Minister's policy of the military tunic. I will not vote against this measure because I believe it must be passed but I suggest to the Minister that he could reduce it by one-half and still have an army sufficient for this State, fit for all ceremonial purposes, fit for receiving distinguished visitors with all the necessary paraphernalia and equipped to assist the police force in the event of serious civil disturbance if, which God forfend, such necessity should ever, arise in this country again.

Between new armies and new police forces, all these things involve a huge expenditure to the State, a huge expenditure from the unfortunate working classes of the country, a huge expenditure from persons who would otherwise put money into industry, a huge expenditure calculated to deter people outside the Free State as well as inside it from putting money into industry.

Two years ago, the Minister promised the House that he would carry out a scheme which was then in preparation to enable members of the O.T.C. to acquire technical training in certain branches of the defence forces, particularly with reference to aviation. The Minister promised that he would carry out that scheme, and on two subsequent occasions in this House in the last two years he reiterated his undertaking. I regret that that promise has not been carried out. As far as I know, no steps have been taken to enable members of the O.T.C. to acquire efficiency, at any rate in the aviation branch. I do not know whether the Minister has definitely turned down the scheme, but certainly if so, he should have made an announcement to that effect because it has caused very considerable disappointment. Some years ago the Minister for Finance assured the House that after careful consideration and study, the Party which is now in power had come to the conclusion that the defence of the State could be carried on for £750,000. That was some years ago. The Minister has been in power for two years, but he has not yet decided to carry out the decision arrived at by his Party at that time.

We see in this Vote certain sums involving a large increase. There are also sums in other Votes which are incidental to the Government policy with regard to increasing the Army. We have a large sum in the Vote for Public Works which does not appear here and which is not under discussion to-day. There are other items in other Votes which would add considerably to the amount of the increase of which we are asked to approve. As other Deputies have pointed out, the Minister refused during his opening remarks to give any inkling as to what was the Government's policy with regard to national defence. The Minister is obviously funking his duty as Minister for Defence. He is obviously funking the duty of facing up to the problem presented by the continued defence of our coasts by the British forces. The Treaty to a considerable extent has lapsed. It has been broken in many directions. The items in the Treaty dealing with the coastal defence of this country, in my opinion, are no longer operative. They have ceased to be operative because they have not been carried out. The Minister is very careful to avoid tackling the problem of the Treaty ports. Ministers may be very bellicose and patriotic in their statements to ignorant people in the country, but when it comes to dealing with the really vital matters affecting our national defence they run away.

The Minister is not prepared to face the question of the Treaty ports. He is not prepared to face the question of taking over control of our coastal defence. When we look at the large amount of money which is being spent on establishing this political army of territorials or whatever you may call them—in Wexford they were known a century ago as yeomen—we realise the amount of good which could be done in the way of national defence if this money were properly spent. A sum of £300,000, say after five years or so, would give us a small navy of submarines, but that is being wasted in village halls. It would also provide us with some efficient coastal defence air squadrons, whether they be land machines or flying boats, does not matter. Certainly we could have a reasonable attempt at coastal defence with the money which we are squandering on this political Army. I myself am in favour of the establishment of an Irish Navy, even if it starts from very humble beginnings. Money spent in that way would certainly be better spent than in the manner in which it is proposed to be spent by the Government. The Minister, as I say, is not prepared to face the main issue of national defence. He is asking us to waste the people's money on a political Army, which cannot under any circumstances be considered capable of undertaking the duty of the defence of the coasts of this country. For that reason, I do not see why the Estimate should be passed.

Some years prior to the Fianna Fáil Party getting into power they occasionally published in the newspapers and on the dead walls particulars regarding the Governor-General's salary. In that connection, they exhausted not alone the Vote under the heading of the Governor-General and his establishment, but they went further and added to it various items which are usually published either at the end of the first list of sums of money which it is proposed to vote, or at the end of the Estimate. Following on their example in that case, and taking this instance, this Vote, if it were published on the dead walls of the country from one end to the other, would mean a total expenditure of £1,923,897, to be found on page 298 of the Estimates. I suppose if that were to be published as the cost of the Army in this particular case, we would be accused of misleading the public, but it is there in black and white, and that is the amount some of the taxpayers of this country, if not all, will have to contribute. The cost has gone up on that of the previous year. As Deputy Anthony has pointed out, our wealth has not increased proportionately to the increase shown in this Estimate. The resources of the country are not superior to what they were 12 months ago. If you take only the figure which the Minister asked for in the Vote it is something like £200,000 over last year.

One of the first things that anyone would have to consider in a case of this sort is: can we afford it? The view of the Government and of its supporters up to the time that they came into office was that we could not afford what we were then spending. They said it was too much; that it was beyond our resources; that it was unnecessary, and so on. Now some case should be made for the increase in the expenditure under this Vote: some case other than what has been made up to this.

I do not remember the exact words which were used by the President of the Executive Council when he went to Geneva some two years ago, but my recollection is that they ran in this way: that the League of Nations had been meeting year after year, that pious expressions of opinion about peace were being heard on all sides but that no great effort had been made towards bringing about that peace: that one might draw the inference that the continued production of armaments, the massing of troops and the efficiency of the various armies on the Continent were all against peace. Now, we cannot go to Geneva and preach peace and come home and prepare for war.

Why not?

And that is what we have done. Are we preparing for war or for defence? The Minister says why not prepare for war? Those who do prepare for war usually have got to meet it.

That is the way to get peace.

And people would be led to believe from the President's speech that we were hypocrites on the Continent. That was what they said. Are we to have continental hypocrisy imported into this country? Three questions arise in connection with this Vote. The first is: what are the resources in this country equal to in the matter of defence; secondly, can we afford this; and thirdly, are these the best means to adopt? This scheme, according to the Minister, will give us a considerable number of troops at a given moment. On the question of efficiency in the field, there is one notable instance on record which occurred 32 years ago. An army of some 50,000 or 60,000 men kept at bay for some years an army of 400,000 men. I think there were practically 400,000 troops sent into the Transvaal, and for two years 50,000 efficient troops, properly handled, were in a position to keep that big force at bay for practically that length of time. This is a huge army that is proposed here. What about its efficiency or what is the scheme that is behind it? Who are the military experts who have advised on it? We have been told nothing about that. When one speaks about a reserve, one usually finds that reservists were formerly soldiers who had spent a considerable time in learning the work of soldiers, in being trained as troops, in being officered by men whose whole position in life is taken up in soldiering—by non-commissioned officers who have risen from the ranks, who have been accustomed to command men and know all about military manoeuvres and who were in a position to take the field at a moment's notice. Here we are going to have a reserve without those in it having had previous training. To my mind that is not good business.

We would like to know who the military experts were who recommended this. We have sent men, I believe, to the Continent, to America and to England. Does that scheme represent their considered opinions? Is it their view that it is the best that can be given for the people's money and, mind you, there is a considerable amount of money involved in this—£200,000 over and above what we spent before. If we can afford it, if the country is sufficiently prosperous to bear this additional burden of a couple of hundred thousand pounds, and if the circumstances are such that our defence needs the expenditure of so much money as this, then a case ought to be made for it. We are not living in a time when it is necessary to finesse. The people own this country and the resources of it. It is from them that we are to get this money. They are entitled to know, in the first place, what further need there is to strengthen the defences of this country, what dangers have got to be met, and what need there is for an extra army of something like 34,000 men, and if the resources of the country are in a position to meet such expenditure.

Let me take one item in this Estimate. Under the heading of Appropriations-in-Aid, revenue from lands is estimated at £3,726 as against £4,250 for last year. Are they the same lands and is the same area involved as last year? If so, it must be plain that the receipts have gone down by 12½ per cent. This is an estimate, I know I presume that the best face that could be put on it has been put on it. The reduction there is one-eighth. As the main wealth of this country is derived from the land, are we to take it that the Government measure of the reduction in receipts from land is to be put down at 12½ per cent. over a year? If that is so, is there not a greater need still for an examination of this Estimate from the point of view of the people's capacity to bear this particular burden? The main and the important items in connection with this business is: first, what is the need for the extra defence; secondly, are we capable of meeting the burden, and thirdly, is this the best method and is it backed by expert military advice?

Taking some of the smaller items I would like to know from the Minister what is the present method of buying tea for the Army. When I was Minister for Defence it was put up to me on one occasion that we should advertise for tea and take the lowest tender. That is not good business, in my opinion. If you want good quality tea you have got to pay for it. The suggestion that I made was, I believe, acted upon at the time, namely that you should fix a price at which good tea would be available, then ask for samples at that price and take the best of them. I do not know whether that system has been departed from or not.

The second point is in connection with the equitation school and the sale of horses. The Minister wants good horses. They are in this country. They can be got here and trained here. My view about it is that if we get a sale for these horses in other countries we are, in effect, sending out an advertisement for Irish bred horses. It may be that we will not win perhaps as many prizes. I am not so much concerned with prizes as that the quality of Irish bred horses should be known all over the world. I think it is a very great mistake to allow high-class bloodstock out of the country. I believe we would have been more successful in some competitions if we had kept in the country some of the good bloodstock that was exported some years ago.

I cannot say whether the provision which is made for the feeding of horses is for the same number of horses as last year. On page 304 the feeding is estimated to cost £6,182 this year as against £7,055 for last year. If the number of horses be the same, the Minister can appraise in the same way the reduction in the cost of feeding as compared with last year. On the other hand, if the number be not the same, there is no point in it. I take it there is not the same number of horses. The hiring of horses is down by £2,000 for the month and that probably accounts for that. The other point which has been referred to by some Deputies is in connection with the organisation of this new force and the commissioning of persons who had not got Army service and the giving to them of Army service equivalent to the service of men who have served over the whole period. If the thing is done and cannot be remedied, there is an end of it. If it were done simply to reward people, it ought to have been done in another way.

It is not good business from the point of view of an institution like an army to grant arbitrarily or generously service which has not actually been given. It is most upsetting and must be unsatisfactory to persons who have given actual service. This is not one of the subjects which I like dealing with in this House. The events of the last 10 or 12 years must be lived down some time or other. I say, however, that it was not necessary to do things of that sort in the way in which they have been done. In connection with administration it is very necessary in the case of this Government, as with us, to take such steps as not to give dissatisfaction to people who have given good service or give to persons outside an opportunity of using political power to obtain advantages to which their services do not entitle them. Similarly, in connection with the way in which the new Army is supposed to be recruited, there is a tinge of political activity which it is not desirable to see in any country. If that job has been done, it cannot be remedied, but it is not good administration to have a Ministry using its political supports throughout the country over a matter of this sort. If they were denied help from other directions there would be an excuse, but they were not denied help. They did not seek help to make up what should be a national army and not a sectional army and there is absolutely no excuse whatever for the way in which they have dealt with this matter.

There have been very few points of any great worth made about the Estimate. Deputy Cosgrave has asked a few questions which it might be as well to answer. He asked what is the need for the Volunteers? The need for the Volunteers is that we want to secure that this country will have the most efficient and the most effective army that it can possibly afford. No matter how much we all hope that there never will be war again, or that no one will attempt to interfere with our rights, we would be neglectful of our duty if we did not prepare to defend our rights if called upon to do so. That, I take it, is the policy that the previous Government were acting upon when they organised and kept an army. Deputy Cosgrave wants to know is this the most efficient way to do it. My answer is that even the previous Government, or at least the Minister for Defence and the General Headquarters Staff then must have been convinced that it was, because they endeavoured to do exactly the same thing which we have succeeded in doing.

Deputy Fitzgerald said the Volunteers were a flop, or he used words to that effect; he indicated that the Volunteers may not have been a success. Deputy Fitzgerald endeavoured, when he was Minister for Defence, to organise Volunteers and he spent quite an amount of money on it. He succeeded in getting about 300 over a period of years. In two weeks after recruiting was opened we succeeded in getting 10,000 to come forward, and at the rate at which applications are coming in I have no doubt that within the next few weeks many more men will have offered their services than we can possibly accommodate. We have a need for an efficient Army. The best way to get peace is to be prepared for war. That is my opinion. When other countries show their guarantees that they are not going to go to war by reducing their armaments, it will be time for us to follow suit. At the moment you have other countries increasing their expenditure on armaments. Since 1926 they have been doing that to the extent of something like 100 per cent. It is well known to anybody who knows anything that the decrease in unemployment in England has been caused by the increase in armaments. It is well know that the people employed recently in other European countries have been employed in consequence of the increased expenditure on armaments. I do not know if all this is going to mean a clash. Anyway, we must be prepared to guarantee to our people that we will be in a position to defend our neutrality in case Europe goes to war. That is the job of the Army.

I believe that this country with its resources is able to afford an army that will secure it against external aggression, if it has the wisdom to utilise its resources in the proper manner. We are providing for an increase of £196,000 consequent upon our decision to organise the Volunteer force. Practically every penny of that money will be spent within the country. Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies will have perceived that, following upon our decision to secure uniform and equipment for the Volunteers, some factories that were on short time are working overtime supplying the material. This money is not going out of the country. It is circulated within the country and in that way it is not a national loss. We have resources in food and other necessities of life to compensate men for working or fighting for us, and I think it is up to us to do it to the extent that is necessary.

The efficiency of the Volunteers was questioned. Deputy Cosgrave asked what was going to be the efficiency of the Volunteers. My belief is that within a year or so the national defence forces here, taking the combination of the regular Army, the Volunteers and the reserve, will be as efficient defence forces as the Swiss army. The Swiss army with a small population and a small country of about 3,000,000, just the same as ourselves, was able to guarantee the neutrality of Switzerland at a time when it would be greatly to the advantage of any of the contending Powers in Europe to go through that country in the Great War. They were able to defend themselves in the centre of Europe, and I believe that with that combination of the regular Army, the reserve and the Volunteers, we will similarly be able to guarantee our neutrality. Deputy Fitzgerald, speaking in relation to the Volunteers, said it was a bad thing to have sluagh committees and that the committees should be dropped as soon as the recruiting would be finished. He does not seem to me to have grasped the functions of the sluagh committees. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.
Committee to sit again on Thursday, 12th April, 1934.
Barr
Roinn