asked the Minister for Defence whether, in view of the information conveyed by him on the 14th November to the effect that the estimated number of officers who will retire on pension between the 1st January, 1945, and the 31st December, 1946, is 118, and that it is now proposed to appoint approximately 600 new officers to the permanent forces, he will state in what respect the pre-war Army establishment is being increased and in what way the pre-war Army organisation is being changed, and whether before committing the country either to the new increased expenditure or to the new Army organisation, he will seek Parliamentary authority for the changes and explain the necessity for them.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Establishment.
In moving the Estimate for the Army on the 21st June, last, I informed the Dáil that the Estimate was based on a gradual reduction in Army strength to the figure of 12,500 all ranks.
I stated also that the general plan of an Army, at least in the immediate future, of about two and a half times the size of the pre-emergency Army had been approved and that it would be necessary to recruit about 600 officers and 6,000 men other ranks to complete the provisional establishment as soon as the necessary regulations were made.
The Estimate was approved by the Dáil and I do not propose to bring the matter before the Dáil again.
Is the Minister aware that, by recruiting officers to the extent of 600 now, he is imposing a continuing, large burden for defence purposes on the State, and will he give the House an opportunity to decide what the defence organisation should be, and what its cost should be in post-emergency circumstances?
May I refer the Deputy to Volume 97, No. 5 of the Official Debates, where he will find a full discussion on the matter?
May I ask the Minister where he can find in any past discussion here authority from the Dáil to establish and build up a substantially increased Army in the future over the pre-emergency Army?
If the Deputy would have a look at the Debates, he will see.
Is it the Minister's intention to continue to treat Parliament, in respect of the Army and its size, in the way in which he suggests now that he intends to treat it? Does he not realise that, if this country has to be strengthened for defence, its economic strength must be made greater and that we cannot increase its economic strength if we expend our resources in maintaining an Army here of a size that, for present purposes, is neither wanted nor warranted?
This matter was fully discussed on June 21st last. If the Deputy was in the House I am sure he will remember it. I do not know whether he was in the House or not. If he was not, I surely cannot be blamed for that. At any rate, the whole matter was discussed and I put the plan that is now under discussion before the House.
I should like to ask the Minister why he considers that in June of this year the post-emergency Army and its size and cost were discussed and what were the factors then introduced into the discussion that brought him or the Government to that conclusion?