I was rather disappointed that we still have not got any statement from the Minister as to the over-all rôle of the Defence Forces, with particular reference to the land and air aspects of those Forces. The Minister said this morning that the policy was to have such close co-ordination with the F.C.A. that at very short notice a considerable land force could be made available. Later in his speech he referred to the role of the Civil Defence Organisation which he appeared to visualise as being primarily concerned with protection against the effects of nuclear warfare.
I think we should face up to the point that it is difficult to plan policy for the Defence Forces, unless we have some conception of the sort of war or sort of hostilities we are envisaging. It seems at least highly unlikely that our Army will ever be involved in hostilities using only what are now known as conventional weapons.
The really important part of the Minister's speech in this regard was his stressing of the necessity of defending ourselves against the effects of nuclear explosions. If that is our main danger, I cannot see why at any date in the future we would need to raise any considerable number of men to serve in the land forces at all. I believe that the day has now gone when in this country there is any tactical or strategic significance in the defence of Europe.
It was quite different in the days of the last wear. Now with the inter-continental ballistic missile and supersonic aircraft, we are of no advantage to anyone, either as an ally of Great Britain or as a base against her. I am not at all sure, therefore, that we are wise in organising our Defence Forces in such a way as to be able to put 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 men into the field at comparatively short notice. Even if we were able to do that, I do not know what those men would be expected to do. I would hope, therefore, perhaps not today but at some time, we might have some statement from the Minister as to his conception of the general rôle of the Defence Forces.
I have excluded from this the role of the Naval Service because I think that is quite different, yet, to some extent, it comes under the same criticism. Its main duties at the moment appear to be fishery protection but to confine a naval service to fishery protection again appears to be rather unusual and rather hard to justify. If we are to have a Naval Service and if we are to justify such expenditure, I think we shall have to show that something, apart from fishery protection, is required. I personally cannot see what additional service is required, apart from fishery protection.
The size of the Naval Service which we could have at any time would preclude anything in the nature of engaging in naval warfare, that is, assuming that ordinary surface naval warfare is something which will ever happen again, which I greatly doubt. It might be said that a naval service would have some function as regards harbour protection but I do not think that could be sustained either. Again, it might be said that a naval service should be some protection against submarine warfare but certainly our corvettes are quite unsuitable for that rôle. The present development of submarines is such that, even with those submarines which are not powered by nuclear power, submarines would be able to outsail any one of our ships, even when submerged. The chances of our corvettes catching up on a submarine, even if they could find it, would be absolutely nil.
With the Naval Service organised as at present, I think we are wasting money to be training new personnel as cadets, as ordinary naval cadets as in the naval services of the Great Powers. I would hope that here again we could have a new assessment of what we require in this regard with a considerable saving of expenditure. Even the small corvettes we have cost a lot of money to maintain and run and the regular re-fits which are necessary, if they are to be kept seaworthy, are very expensive indeed and require the maintenance of a considerable shipyard and shore personnel. I hope, therefore, that we can have a reassessment of that service as soon as possible.
I should hope, too, that we would be able to face up to the decision that all that we require is fishery protection and that we should then proceed, as soon as possible, to dispose of the corvettes and replace them with smaller and faster surface craft which will be able to give better protection to our fishermen at a very much reduced cost to the taxpayer.
I am disturbed to find that we are still in possession of anti-aircraft artillery. That has no function whatever in any Army anywhere any more. I am not saying that purely as a matter of my own opinion. Anti-aircraft artillery simply cannot hit modern aircraft and never will be able to do so. The time was when it was possible. I know that we have spent—and I think very properly spent—in the past years a considerable amount of money on radar control for anti-aircraft artillery. There was some chance 10 or 15 years ago. There is now no chance of an anti-aircraft gun or even an anti-aircraft battery hitting anything in the supersonic range.
The Minister told us that some new type of medium anti-tank artillery has been purchased. I can see quite some point in such a purchase because anti-tank artillery is not restricted in its use to firing against tanks. High velocity armour-piercing shells might be very useful in any artillery action which might be undertaken in almost any circumstances.
Now, if the Minister will forgive me, I should like to come back to my old complaint about coastal defence artillery. When I was on holidays in Cork last year, I saw the report of the annual shoot of the coastal batteries in Cork. The target was towed across 2,000 yards from the guns. Quite a number of very near misses were reported and one or two direct hits. That seems to me to be a waste of time and money, because we can never hope that an enemy will be sufficiently foolish to cruise up and down within 2,000 yards of an artillery battery. That sort of thing does not happen.
Everybody knows this coastal artillery was necessary for harbour protection and ordinary harbour duties in time of war and emergency. To be perfectly frank, that does not make sense to me at all because we did extremely well in the port of Dublin, and even in the port of Dún Laoghaire without any coastal defences at all. So far as I know, we never had any there, even during the war years. There was a small battery of extremely ancient 18-pounders on the East Pier at one time but my recollection is that nobody ever knew what they were there for and they were used more as a saluting battery than anything else.
I have a horrible suspicion that they would have been more dangerous to the crew manning them, if they were fired, than to anybody on the other end because they were extremely ancient weapons. Even though the very heavy coastal defence guns are no longer exercised, they must involve considerable expenditure. When we find that even fixed sites for inter-continental ballistic missiles are now being abandoned as being hopelessly vulnerable to attack, the idea of our maintaining coastal defence artillery batteries seems to be entirely ludicrous. In an Army you must always be able to show the men who are serving that they are doing something intelligent and I cannot see how anybody in the coastal defence artillery can seriously consider he is serving a useful purpose.
Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the Army Bands. I agree with what he said but I should like to go a little further. I always feel it is a pity that these bands are known only by their numbers, the No. 1 Army Band, No. 2 and so on. That does not seem to me to be giving them a proper standing. It would be very much better if the authorities could think of some name for each band such as the Band of the Eastern Command, the Band of the Western Command, the Band of the Curragh Command, or whatever you may like, or even of attaching them to the Brigades. But to have a band which is not attached to a unit does not seem appropriate, nor does it give it a proper dignity.
As I did last year, I should like again to criticise the continued occupation of some old city barracks in Dublin. There is at least one modern barracks, Clancy Barracks, with some excellent accommodation. When you compare that with the very dingy and depressing circumstances of Griffith Barracks, Collins Barracks or even Cathal Brugha Barracks—which is not quite so bad—I feel the continued occupation of these old and rather prison-like barracks is very depressing for the troops. They are almost certainly costing an awful lot by way of maintenance. I hope that if possible one, or even more, of these old barracks will be closed down and no further maintenance undertaken on them so that any money voted in respect of barrack maintenance can be spent on barracks which are kept at least moderately full. It is very depressing to be one of a very small party in a very empty barracks. These old barracks involve heavy duties on the troops themselves and if we could have more troops in a lesser number of barracks, the duties would be much more evenly distributed.
Last year, I commented on the number of infantry battalions. I do not credit myself with being responsible for it, because I think it was obvious that the number would have to be reduced, but I am glad that the Minister has reduced the number of battalions by one. It was unfortunate that he selected the last battalion with which I myself served. I was sorry to see it go but there was every reason for that decision. It was the 7th Battalion and while I was sorry to see it go, the decision was perfectly correct.
Last year, I commented on the need for more battle training for the troops and I feel I should comment again on it. I still feel that their physique is not good enough. They are not being trained in modern battle technique, or being hardened up, and if I look at them individually or in a body marching from here to there on parade, I cannot feel they are really hardened troops ready for action. I think that is partly because there is not a sufficiently realistic approach to the whole question of what the Army is supposed to be preparing for. I would hope for more battle training, a greater hardening of the troops and less routine duty.
A good example of the bad effect of this lack of realism can be seen in the sentries on duty outside Leinster House. I do not want to be too general in my criticism. One sentry whom I saw on duty last night was behaving in a singularly soldier-like way and quite clearly he thought he was doing something important. He was very smart and very soldierly in his bearing. The previous day there was another sentry whom I noticed for a considerable time and for whom I have the greatest sympathy because I think he knew he was not doing any sort of job at all, just knocking off his two hours' duty and hoping and praying that the two hours would not be too slow in passing so that he could get back to the guard room for a rest.
To be perfectly frank, I do not know what those sentries are doing and why we should have sentries only from sunset on. I cannot see that there is any likelihood of greater danger after sunset than before it. If there were to be an attack, anyone with two eyes in his head could see that sentries would not be on duty until sunset. The sentry could not go into action anyway, unless he took shelter behind a couple of parked cars. He has no protection whatever. Consequently, I believe he is not there for defensive purposes and I wonder what on earth he is there for because he is not a ceremonial soldier. He is an ordinary soldier not on ceremonial duty or equipped for it and he has not got the uniform for it. Sometimes, I am sorry to say, he has not got the bearing, either.
I hope we can clear up small matters like that. If they are required for ceremonial purposes, they should be in the better uniforms and be drilled in a better fashion. I am not a great believer of ceremony of that kind and I feel they would be much better withdrawn out of sight. If, for defensive purposes, it is necessary or desirable to have a body of troops on immediate call for defence of the House in case of trouble, they should be kept out of sight in the guardroom and not be asked to parade up and down in the way they are called upon to do at the moment.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he was considering standardising the Army and the F.C.A. uniforms. For a long time, I have considered that that should be done. I believe it will do nothing but good. I can quite see that old stocks will have to be used but this differentiation between the Army and the F.C.A. personnel can do nothing but harm and I think it puts it into the heads of the F.C.A. that they are an inferior group. If they are to be integrated with the Army and be ready on a moment's call for calling up with the regular units, they should be dressed and equipped exactly as the Regular Army is. I hope some thought will be given to an appropriate uniform.
I am not at all happy with the design of the ordinary uniform of the Regular Army. The idea of having a closed-neck tunic is absolutely abhorrent to me. It is very unhealthy and an open-neck tunic or one which can be worn open at times is very much better. Whether what is known as the battledress form of tunic is preferable and whether the skirt of the tunic should hang outside the trousers is a question I leave to somebody else, but the idea of standardisation has been mooted and I urge the Minister to proceed along these lines as rapidly as possible.
One item of uniform that always irritated me is the forage cap. Very few people can wear it properly and I was never one of them. I tried it and I looked more foolish, perhaps, than usual. I was delighted to be able to get a peaked cap. I believe the forage cap is expensive because it takes an enormous amount of material and I think it should be abolished. There is a lot to be said for the Glengarry of the F.C.A. or else the ordinary beret which is much more serviceable and in which it is much easier to look smart.
I also want to congratulate and thank the Minister on having at last got round to the promotion of the Reserve Officers. These reserve lieutenants served for very many years and have at last achieved the third bar and I think everybody is delighted that action was taken.
Greater care could be exercised by officers commanding units to make sure their troops turn out well. I have seen soldiers walking around the city who were not a credit to the Army. They were exceptions but I was sorry to see them at all. Sometimes you see soldiers out wearing dirty leather, unpolished leather belts, both leather and brass not cleaned at all. Personally, I hate leather belts and even military police, I think, should be equipped with the web belt and web holster rather than leather belt and leather holster which they carry at the moment. The leather holster hangs awkwardly. The revolver carried in that holster is sometimes quite unsafe because of the tendency it has to fall, whereas in the web holster the revolver is held straight up on the belt. It looks smarter and is very much safer.
The Minister has been asked to give consideration to the question of payment of children's allowances to officers. The facts are well known to him and, I think, to most people, but it does seem to be a great pity and a source of grievance amongst the officers that while civil servants receive ordinary children's allowances, Army officers do not. There are all sorts of arguments backwards and forwards as to hospital treatment and other facilities which officers may or may not get for their families, but I feel this is a genuine grievance on the part of officers and I think it is bad that anything looking like a genuine grievance should remain. I would urge the Minister to give very serious consideration to this and see if he can persuade the Minister for Finance—if he needs persuasion—to allow payment of children's allowances to officers.
On the question of Army pay, as far as I can see, there has been no increase in the professional pay of legal officers. As one who was a legal officer for a short period myself, I feel sympathy for them——