When this debate adjourned I was dealing with equipment that had not been sent with our troops to the Congo. I mentioned it was unfortunate that adequate provision had not been made to ensure, by the installation of fans, that conditions in armoured cars would not be oppressive in the tropics and that smaller parties of our troops operating there had not been given water-filtering facilities that troops from some other nations possessed. I wanted to go on from that to mention that I have heard complaints that, though certain types of concertina wire had been requisitioned, it had not been made available.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Defence (Resumed).
D'athcromadh ar an tairscint seo leanas:
"Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £5,126,700 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31 ú lá de Mhárta, 1962, le haghaidh Óglaigh na hÉireann (lena n-áirítear Deontais-i-gCabhair áirithe) faoi na hAchtanna Cosanta, 1954 agus 1960 (Uimh. 18 de 1954 agus Uimh. 44 de 1960), agus le haghaidh Costais áirithe riaracháin i ndáil leis an gcéanna; le haghaidh Costais áirithe faoi na hAchtanna um Chiontaí in aghaidh an Stáit. 1939 and 1940 (Uimh. 13 de 1939 agus Uimh. 2 de 1940), agus faoi na hAchtanna um Réamhchúram in aghaidh Aer-Ruathar, 1939 agus 1946 (Uimh. 21 de 1939 agus Uimh. 28 de 1946); le haighaidh Costais i ndáil le Boinn a thabhairt amach, etc.; agus le haighaidh Deontas-igCabhair, do Chumann Croise Deirge na hÉireann (Uimh. 32 de 1938).—(Aire Cosanta.)
Requisitioned here?
Requisitioned by our troops for use in the Congo.
Requisitioned from us?
I do not know whether the Minister sent the supplies. I want to go on, in relation to that, to inquire whether wire for entanglements —that can be put up and taken down quickly—was sent out with our troops, whether it was requisitioned on the spot, whether it was a United Nations Quartermaster's job, so to speak, or an Irish Quartermaster's job. The type of wire for protection of camps, be they small or large, that was made available was entirely suitable for a barricade that was likely to be there for a long time but entirely unsuitable for the patrol that wanted to erect a barricade quickly and to take it up again quickly if the necessity arose to move the camp.
The Minister's interjection has led me to a point I am not quite clear about and that I do not think many people are clear about. Where exactly did responsibility lie for the provision of equipment? Our armoured cars were sent out from here. Therefore, I presume that any equipment for them was our responsibility.
Again, I think it was our responsibility to provide the necessary equipment for filtering water for our own troops. In relation to other things, such as the wire, I have mentioned, I am not a bit clear whether that was our responsibility or the responsibility of the United Nations. The Minister should make clear where exactly the responsibility started and ended for the provision of equipment for our personnel.
There might also be some clarification on the pay of the troops in the Congo—how far it was governed by the United Nations and how far the Minister and the Government had discretion in the amount of what, for want of a better word, I will call, active service allowance, special pay for those serving there. I suppose it would not be appropriate on this Estimate but rather on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs or on the Estimate for International Co-operation that I should refer to the fact that while we have contributed our quota to the cost of the United Nations operation other countries have not. Whether or not the difficulties that arose occurred because those countries did not contribute, the Minister will agree with me that the prime responsibility, no matter who refunds us afterwards, for ensuring that our troops get proper treatment in relation to pay and equipment in the Congo, must rest on ourselves. It is up to us, if we send them there, to ensure they will get everything that is reasonably needed by them in relation to pay, allowances and equipment —obtaining the maximum refund from the United Nations.
I was very surprised to hear the Minister say that the primary purpose of the Air Corps was to be the provision of pilots for Aer Lingus. I admit he did not phrase it like that but nothing else could be taken from the tenor of his remarks. I suggest that that is entirely reversing the position. The situation in regard to any civil air line of any country owned and operated on a national basis should in so far as pilots are concerned be exactly the reverse. It should be for the civil airline to provide a pool of pilots from which the country concerned could draw in case of emergency. I do not know whether the Minister intended to give that impression and it was a most unfortunate one.
The Minister referred to the Army Apprentice School at Devoy Barracks, Naas. Anyone who has observed the progress of that school will congratulate those responsible for commencing it. It has proved an excellent scheme. The people of Naas are loud in their praise of the demeanour of the pupils in that school. They have done a great deal to improve the prestige of the Army in that locality.
The Minister also referred to the Army Jumping Team. I do not know whether there is still a limit on the price that may be paid for an individual horse. Not so very many years ago the show-jumping horse did not command a very high price in the commercial market. It was possible to buy a very great number of horses comparatively cheaply, to weed out those which were not satisfactory and to have a residue of horses suitable for training for jumping. That day has largely gone. The popularity which show-jumping of all sorts has achieved literally in the past four or five years has meant that the likely show-jumper is now very much dearer. I think there has been some revision in the approach to the purchase of likely show jumpers, but, in my opinion, an even greater revision in that approach is necessary.
In the years when we had such an excellent team, we were all very proud of its achievements and proud of the honour, prestige, merit and glory it brought to our country. Probably we all feel that it is best to have a good team or no team at all. Of course, one cannot always ensure that every horse is a winning horse, but I think the approach of almost everyone would be to provide enough funds out of which a good team could be built, or else not spend any money at all. A bad team is no advertisement for us and, therefore, I would urge on the Minister that it should be approached from that angle. Without throwing money away—that, of course, would be stupid —whatever money is necessary to provide the reasonable possibility of a first-class team should be made available.
In doing that it is inevitable that mistakes will be made. No one could go out and buy ten horses, even with the greatest skill in the world, and know that all those ten horses, or even half of them, would be successful. The only possible way of providing a first-class team is to buy what is likely to be successful and if it fails, cut your losses quickly and look for something else. The team does seem to be coming back to some of its former skill and we can only wish it luck and, in addition to wishing it luck, ensure that it gets a reasonable chance in the future.
I should like the Minister to elaborate also on the arrangements that exist in regard to the utilisation of Army fire-fighting units in cases of civilian emergency in peacetime. The first responsibility in relation to the provision of fire-fighting aparatus and personnel is that of the local authority, of course, but is it clear that, in the event of the local authority service not being able to cope with an outbreak of fire, the Army authorities will weigh in with their specialised equipment and personnel? I would suggest to the Minister that should be clear.
The fear voiced once before that if they went out from barracks, there might be a fire in the barracks while they were absent, should not be taken as a serious difficulty. After all, no matter where a fire-fighting team may be, it can always be brought back, if necessary. In a case of fire, there should be no differentiation as to whether civilian property or Army property is concerned if the assistance of the Army fire-fighting service would help to put it out.
I want finally to mention a matter which is agitating to an enormous extent the Army personnel, not merely in my constituency but all over the country. The Minister said that the new rates of pay "compared favourably." I think he will find very few Army personnel to accept that view. I will admit to him at once that the scales of Army pay are perhaps pretty technical, and for that reason, unless one is dealing with them regularly, one cannot hope to be an expert on them. I want, therefore, to make it clear that I do not pose as such an expert.
Certain figures have been drawn to my attention and I should like the Minister to tell the House whether these figures which have been given to me are correct in their comparisons, and if they are incorrect, where the fallacy lies. In relation to trade union negotiations, it has been the practice to take 1939 as the basic starting point and to add for present-day purposes a figure of approximately 165 per cent. to arrive at the equivalent values of money and the cost of goods money can buy. Certain groups got even greater increases than that, but I think the Civil Service adjustment was roughly on that basis.
In 1939, the daily rate of pay of a second lieutenant was 8/-, with 1/8d. added, which was equivalent to an annual rate of £186. If you add 165 per cent. to that figure, you get £466 as the equivalent of the 1939 figure. The figure the Minister has provided in the new regulations, which he says compares favourably, is, I think, £444, and if you subtract room allowance, it is £384. If you take the 1939 annual rate and add 7/- to it, then the equivalent is £627.
The annual pay rate of lieutenants in 1939 was £213. Again, adding a proportion of 165 per cent., you get a figure of £564, whereas the Minister's figure is, I think, £503, and if you subtract room allowance, it is £443. For married officers, with 165 per cent. added, the equivalent would be £901 for lieutenants, whereas the actual figure in the Minister's new regulations is £686. After two years the old figure for a single officer was £249. With the 165 per cent. added, it would be £660; whereas the present figure is £551 and, if you take off room allowance, £491. For married officers the position there was £376 annually. With 165 per cent. added, it would be £996; and the Minister's figure is £732. I am just taking those three as typical figures, which, perhaps, the Minister might be able to explain.
It would seem on that, if the information given to me is correct, that civil servants, by and large, equate to the 165 per cent. addition but that, in the case of the younger officers, that equation has not been carried through in the new scales of pay. I might add that, although I have only given the figures for those three grades, the same differentiation follows all the way along, that in relation to Captain, Commandant, Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel there is exactly the same position and that the additions that have been made certainly are nothing like the equivalent of the 165 per cent. addition to which I refer.
I should add that, in reply to a Question I put down recently, the Minister referred to children's allowances. There was 6d. a day children's allowance before. Therefore, I do not think it would be strictly correct to say it is a new departure. It was there —it was built-in at one stage—and it has come in now again. Therefore, it is not an entirely new departure, as was suggested by the Minister. If he likes to call it a reintroduction, I could not quarrel with that.
In relation to N.C.O.s and men, the situation is similar. The revision in the rates of pay, particularly of senior N.C.O.s and long-service soldiers, has caused very considerable grievances and has left them very disappointed. I hope the Minister will be able to explain to me that I have made some mistake, or that those who have been consulting with me have made some mistake, in our computations because, on the face of it, it does not appear that the N.C.O.s and men have been given a square deal in the new arrangements.
There is always trouble in relation to the position that arises when people are stationed away from home, either temporarily or on permanent transfer. Of course, one must accept the principle that when a person gets a ration allowance for his home or is being fed on rations, there is a difference when he is taken away. But there is not the same difference at all in costs as is suggested by the regulations. The cost of putting a person "in the pot" who is going to be there anyway is very much less than the cost of that person being fed on his own. The cost of running the officer's or soldier's home when he is away, either temporarily or permanently, is not varied by as much as the regulations suggest.
As well as that, there is often an additional cost to the individual. In commercial life it is usually met by the payment of what is known as a disturbance allowance if a person is sent far away from his home on the business of his firm. Because of the necessities of Army life, that may not be completely comparable, but one of the necessities in relation to the Army is that it would be possible to have it absolutely mobile and to change personnel from one place to another as the exigencies of the military situation required. It is much easier to do that if the allowances that would be paid in those circumstances are designed in such a way to cause the minimum of hardship to the person being transferred. I think the new regulations failed in that respect.
It seems to me, having regard to the very great amount of "grousing" and dissatisfaction existing in the last six weeks, that the Minister will find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain good quality recruits and cadets. Unless those who are in the service are satisfied, one is not going to get the right type to join the service. The general feeling now—and I have met it regularly in my own constituency in the last six weeks—is one of disappointment, and indeed I could have used a very much stronger word. Rightly or wrongly, the Minister led the Army personnel to believe they would come very much better out of the pay award than they did. To say the least of it, that was unfortunate. It is disappointing for men not to get as much as they expect. It is far worse than disappointing for them to get less in the way of pay and allowances than they were led to believe by their Minister they were going to receive. Unless a new atmosphere is created, the Minister, or whoever is Minister in the years ahead, will find it extremely difficult to get recruits of the calibre and the type we all want to see in the Army.
Perhaps, before the Deputy sits down, he might like to say when they were led to believe they would get any specified amounts of an increase?
They tell me they were led to believe from June to December—in the last six months.
What does the Deputy say they were led to believe they would get?
The personnel in the Army were led to believe by the Minister that they were to get at least as favourable terms as those in other occupations. The percentage figures which I have given make it clear beyond question that they did not get that. It is clear beyond question on those figures they did not get that or anything near it and the great majority of them feel that the Minister took them for a ride.
In other words the Deputy cannot indicate when they were led to believe it.
I indicated it already. Show where my figures are wrong.
Pádraig Ó Dubhlaoich
Mar aon leis na Teachtaí eile a labhair ar an Meastachán seo, ba mhaith liom focal molta a rá fén ár saighdiúirí sa Chongo—na saighdiúirí atá ann fé láthair agus iad san a bhí ann. Ar mhaithe le síocháin idirnáisiúnta a chuaigh siad ann agus is maith a rinne siad—agus atá siad ag déanamh —a gcuid oibre. Tá ag éirí go maith leo anois agus tá súil agam go leanfaidh siad mar sin.
Cúis mórála é freisin gur ceapadh an Ginearál Seán Mac Eoin mar Cheannasaí sa Chongo. Tá cosúlacht air anois go mbeidh leis san obair thábhachtach atá roimhe. Tá súil le Dia agam go mbeidh sé mar sin.
Bhí áthas orm a chlos ón Aire gurab é a thuairim go mba chóir go mbeadh bealach eile ag oifigigh neamhchoimisiúnta céim oifigigh a bhaint amach seachas an roint daltais a choimeádtar gach bhliain do bhaill de na Buan-Óglaigh, agus go bhfuil an cheist dá scrúdú fé láthair. Tá súil agam go rachaidh an scrúdú san chun tairbhe do na hoifigigh neamhchoimisiúnta.
An cheist seo, ardú céime a fháil san Airm, is cúis le níos mó míshástachta san Airm ná aon rud eile. Creidim féin gur mar gheall ar chomh deacair is atá sé ardú céime a fháil go bhfuil oifigigh ag imeacht ón Arm agus nach bhfuil fir eile ag teacht isteach. Chuala mé—níl fhios agam an fíor é, nach raibh an méid céanna ag lorg postanna mar dhaltais i mbliana. Más fíor é sin is olc an rud é. Cruthaíonn sé nach bhfuil gach rud san Arm mar ba cheart dó bheith.
Tá cúiseanna eile gearáin ann leis, mar atá, pá, títhe agus seomraí codlata. Tuigimid nach féidir an pá céanna a thabhairt sa tír seo agus i dtíortha níos saibhre, ach tugadh ardú pá i mbliana agus is maith an rud é sin. Níor chuaigh an tAire fada go leor, im thuairim, ach ar aon chuma thaispeáin sé go dtuigeann sé an fhadhb. Ba cheart go dtuigfeadh mar bhí sé féin san Arm, agus b'fhéidir go mbeadh sé i n-ann níos fearr a dhéanamh sar i bhfad.
Ar an gceist seo ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire na liúntais leanaí céanna a thabhairt don Arm agus atá le fáil ag múinteoirí agus eile. Tá fhios agam gur mhínigh an tAire i bhfreagra anseo sa Dáil, ach ceapann siad san Arm go mba cheart na liúntais leanaí céanna a bheith aca. Tá siad ag fáil £20 nach raibh le fáil aca cheana. Tá mé cinnte, má fhaigheann an tAire seans, go bhfaighidh siad an méid céanna, £28, sa mblian seo chugainn.
Ceist eile ar mhaith liom go dtabharfadh an tAire freagra uirthe, sé sin, an fíor go mbíonn ardú cíosa ann de réir mar a bhíonn ardú pá le fáil? Más fíor é sin, ní dóigh liom gur cheart é. Má fhaigheann saighdiúr ardú pá, ní ceart ardú cíosa a chur air ag an am céanna.
Maidir le tithe, tógadh cuid mhaith tithe nua ach tá a lán le déanamh fós agus is maith liom a chlos go bhfuil ocht gcinn le tógáil i nDún Uí Dubhuidhe, ach ba mhaith liom go ndéanfaí i bhfad níos mó chun na seantithe atá ag an Arm a dheisiú agus a choimeád go maith.
Is breá an rud, freisin, go bhfuiltear chun clúdaigh urláir agus troscán a chur ar fáil do no seomraí codlata i mbliana. Más maith, is mithid, is táid ag teastáil go géar.
Tá géarghá le scoil náisiúnta nua do chailíní ar an gCurrach agus chím sa mhéid a dúirt an tAire go bhfuil sé ar intinn tosnú ar an obair sin i mbliana. Labhair mé ar an gceist sin anuraidh agus dúradh ag an am san go mbeadh tús leis an obair roimh deireadh na bliana. Níor deineadh aon rud. Tá súil agam i mbliana nach mbeidh sé mar sin agus go dtosnófar ar an obair go luath.
Ós rud é go bhfuil mé ag caint ar scoil, ba mhaith liom focal molta a rá féna scoileanna do phrintísigh san Arm. Tá sárobair á dhéanamh ins na scoileanna san agus tá moladh agus buíochas ag gabháil do gach éinne a bhfuil baint aige leo. Tá locht amháin, do réir mar a inistear dom—agus arís níl fhios agam an fíor bréag é— sé an locht sin ná nach mbíonn an cleachtadh céanna ag na buachaillí ar a ngairmeacha nuair a théann siad amach as na scoileanna agus go gcailleann siad an chuid is mó den mhéid a d'fhoghlaim siad sna scoileanna. Ba mhór an trua é dá mbeadh locht ar bith le fáil ar an scéim sin. Scéim an-mhaith is ea é. Tá mé cinnte de, más féidir leis an Aire, go ndéanfar atharú.
Rud amháin eile, is é sin an éide nua do na Buan-Oglaigh agus don Fhórsa Cosanta Áitiuil. Dúirt an tAire go bhfuil an cheist sin fé scrúdú fós. Tá sí fé scrúdú le fada anois agus ba cheart go mbeadh réitiú le fáil. Tá súil agam nach bhfanfaidh an tAire níos faide.
Ó chuaigh an tAire i mbun na hoibre, tá ag éirí go maith leis agus má tá cúiseanna gearáin le fáil fós, táim cinnte de go ndéanfaidh sé a dhicheall chun iad a chur ar neamhní in am.
Before I comment on some aspects of the Minister's opening statement or the details connected with the Department of Defence I should like to repeat what I said here for a number of years in connection with this Estimate, that is that, since modern developments have greatly modified the usefulness of present expenditure on defence and rendered it wasteful in large measure, a Select Committee of both Houses should be set up to enquire into the whole question of national defence expenditure. I wonder for how many more years, if I have the honour of being in this House, shall I have to keep on repeating that request?
There were one or two encouraging comments made here, both from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, in the course of the debate which lead me to think that the time is not far distant when the Parties themselves will give serious consideration to that suggestion. I do not think it would be unfair for me at this stage even to quote Deputy Booth, who has been looked upon as one with some expert knowledge of the Army, and to compare his statement here in the last few weeks with his views here over the last ten or twelve years. At Column 1284 of Volume 187 of the Dáil Debates of the 23rd March, 1961 on this question of expenditure on defence he had this to say:
It is time that we reconsidered the whole matter and had a debate at some period on what our Defence policy should be, what the main purpose of the Army should be.
That is from a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I think it is high time that such a discussion took place, but I would prefer if that discussion took place after a Select Committee of both House had sat and examined the entire question. Deputy MacEoin and other members have criticised that suggestion in the past on the ground that it was not the duty of this House to prepare a policy on defence. If he thinks so he is shirking his duty as a Deputy, and so is every other member if he fails to stand up to his responsibilities in a matter of that nature. This is not just a matter for a Government alone. It is a matter for this House, because we are charged with the expenditure of the public's money on the defence problem and it should not be left to the particular Government of the day to decide the defence policy.
It should be a unanimous decision by the public representatives, advised by the technical experts in the Army. The last thing that should be agreed upon is that the Army chiefs themselves should be allowed to decide the defence policy. Even in America, where the power of the Pentagon is almost supreme, civilians are still in control when it comes to laying down defence policy, and it is a good job that that is the position. It would be a tragedy here if we in this House were to hand over our responsibility in regard to defence policy to any group of military experts acting on their own.
We are spending money in this Estimate on a defence plan prepared in 1947. There has not been the slightest change in the attitude of this Minister in connection with defence in spite of the tremendous developments that have taken place in warfare and methods of warfare. We are still back on the 1947 defence plan which envisaged a standing Army of 12,500 men, and it might interest members of the public to know that in spite of all the ballyhoo in 1947 that we would have a Defence Force of 12,000 professional soldiers, at no time and at no date or period since then have we had more than two thirds of that number. In other words, we never had the Defence Force which we envisaged. We had it on paper, and in spite of that, since 1947 our expenditure on a none-existent Defence Force—when I say non-existent I mean one that was not capable of carrying out the functions for which it was set up—has been over £90 million in the past 13 years. It is time the public were told the facts of this, and told the fraud perpetrated on them in the name of defence policy.
If we accept the position with regard to the so-called Army we have today, let us look on the way it is being trained. The training of the Army is on pre-1939 tactics. If any member of the House cares to go down to the Curragh, to Waterford, Athlone or elsewhere and watch the stupid Stone Age manoeuvres which intelligent men have to undergo it is no wonder that soldiers and officers are getting out of the Army in disgust.
If the Minister does not believe me I shall quote what Deputy Booth said on it when he was referring to the training given to F.C.A. men and speaking of what he had seen himself recently. He said as reported at column 1282 of the Dáil Reports for the 23rd March, 1961:
What impressed me more than anything else was the amount of training that was being carried out by F.C.A. officers and N.C.O.s of their own men. At the same time there was a very large number of regular Army personnel training as well.
Then he went on to say:
It was only afterwards I began to ask myself what were these men actually training for... I saw one field exercise which took me back to the volunteer force of pre-war days where the situation was exactly the same—a simulated situation of an enemy invader moving up the valley whom we were trying to repulse, an unreal situation which could not possibly arise any more because there is not the slightest possibility of a land force trying to invade us, within our lifetime anyway. For that reason it seems to me that a great deal of money is being spent for which there is no reasonable return.
That is what the taxpayers' money and the ratepayers' money is being spent on, and that is the way petrol is going on these stupid manoeuvers, cod-acting around the country, wasting petrol, machinery, and the time of intelligent men. It is even worse than that. We have the position that a post of two N.C.O.s will actually have to simulate or pretend that they are a company of men, and I have known a position where a captain had to pretend that the two lieutenants and perhaps 20 men he had, represented an entire battalion. Where was the tactical training of the young officers and N.C.O.s there? Outside a lunatic asylum I do not think you would get anything as ridiculous as that performance. That is the way money is being spent today and what we are voting money for in this Estimate. I am at this stage talking as if the 1947 plan was even workable when I say that no officer or N.C.O. can be really intelligently trained on these tactics and that type of manoeuvre, or can be trained in leadership unless he has the actual men whom our officers never had since 1947.
I am not suggesting that my views on these things should be accepted by the House. I am merely suggesting that, in the light of modern developments in equipment and methods of warfare, it is time we selected members of this House and of the Seanad to sit down and examine the whole situation coolly and decide what the purpose of the Army is, whether we need this type of Army at all, is it time to scrap it as such, and if it is, to face up to the situation properly.
I want to say, so far as some remarks by Deputy Sweetman are concerned, I could not agree more. Let me say— and I want to say it slowly—that the morale of the Army was never as low as it is today. For that, the Minister must accept entire responsibility. The position in regard to the pay of officers, N.C.O.s and men is very serious and there is great dissatisfaction amongst the junior officers and personnel of N.C.O. rank. The members of the Minister's Party have, I think, whispered in the Minister's ear—apart from those of them who spoke in the House—that the situation is more serious than he appears to think. The numbers who are about to leave the Army should be a warning signal to him of the danger and so should the fact that, in spite of all his brass bands all over the country, the number of recruits is diminishing. All the ballyhoo, all the medals, all the baloney that went on about the Congo and everything else and about the wonderful thing it was to have service there were all part of the Minister's and his advisers' ideas that they could cash in on this and have a first-class Army. They got their answer in the last recruiting drive. I think the people who have shown such poor judgment of the young men of this country today are not fit to be in the position of estimating the Army's requirements.
Before dealing with points in the Minister's statement, I want to say a few words on the Irish language question. Last year, the Minister came to the House and was praised by Deputy MacEoin for his work for the Irish language in the Army. It was a kind of "I'll scratch you and you scratch me" effort.
"I'm all right, Jack."
I think it is only fair to quote the Minister. Last year, when speaking here of the advance that had been made in regard to his policy of reviving the Irish language in the Army, he mentioned previous attempts that had been made but which were not very successful. He gave a number of reasons for that. He went on to say, as reported at column 862 of Volume 181:
The position is different now, due largely to the foresight of my predecessors in making a knowledge of Irish a condition for the recruitment of Cadets, and it is now possible to make some advance.
He said that his efforts in this regard were "being received enthusiastically by the Army". That was the big joke of the century. I wonder who told him that or what private line he had down to the officers, N.C.O.s and privates to enable him to hear that they were cheering him in every mess and barrack-room because of his wonderful ideas regarding the revival of the language?
Is it envisaged by the Minister that he will have all the officers talking Irish and the privates talking English? The standard of the recruits coming into the Army for some years past—I have to say it and I have to be blunt— is low. In my opinion, their education is poor. That is not their fault but the fault, to a great extent, of those who are teaching them and of the system of education. It is partly due to the lack of education for poor people. I do not blame the individual soldier but the fact is that the standard of education is low. Is it suggested that a man who is a poor speaker of English will be turned into a fluent Irish speaker? Shall we see the position reached that on these pre-1939 manoeuvres, we shall have a group of officers discussing tactics in Irish, discussing their plans, where they are going that night, the amount of petrol needed next day, discussing the ambushes, discussing fire-power and air-power—all non-existent, of course? While the officers are doing this, what will the private soldiers and N.C.O.s be doing? What language are they supposed to use? Will all the commands be translated from Irish into English for the lower ranks?
Our defence system is based, in the case of an attack, moryah, on co-operation with Britain and America. There is no doubt about that. What will be the position if we are to have liaison officers? What will be the position if this invasion—which we all know will never happen—takes place and which the people who are training the Army and responsible for the Defence Forces fear so much? How shall we resolve the difficulty when Irish units are incorporated in the British or American Army or have to work alongside English speaking units? What tongue will be used by the troops and the officers who have spent all their time being trained in Irish, using Irish expressions and terms of command? Are they expected to become suddenly completely familiar with the English expressions? I do not think we could imagine anything so foolish.
If this were being discussed within a mental home, one could understand the type of nonsense that is going on. The Minister, like the Gaelic League, has sickened the ordinary members of the public with his raiméis of pseudopatriotism in reviving the Irish language in the Army. Give the men and the officers good pay and good conditions and leave the language. A love of the language can be inculcated but not by compulsory methods. It can be left to the men themselves and if they wish to utilise Irish in their private capacity, that is their business, but for the Minister to utilise his position in order to ram it down the necks of men under his discipline is to my mind most unjust. He is reaping the fruits of his shortsighted policy in that respect and has already brought the Army to the stage where it is just a waste of time so far as efficiency and defence purposes are concerned.
The increased pay and allowances to which I have referred are inadequate. The officers were led to believe that a far more generous measure would be brought into operation in their case. I recollect that after I left the Army in 1945, with the good wishes, I am sure, of all the senior personnel who were there at the time —if jet propulsion could have got me out of it they would have used it— pay increases were given to the men who stayed on in 1946 and the decision as to the allocation of the increase was left to the brass hats. That was not decided by the Minister or his Department but by the brass hats who put their hands down to the elbow in the kitty and fixed themselves up first. What was left went to the junior ranks. That happened again in the past three months.
A decision as to the amount to be given to each group should have been made by the Minister and not by senior Army personnel. I shall be told by the Minister that, on the advice of his officials, my statement is not true. I do not care what advice he is given by his officials; I know the statement to be true. The Army is controlled by brass hats and under some of those brass hats there are nothing but brass heads. That is clearly shown in the way in which they have treated the junior ranks, the N.C.O.s and privates. "I'm all right, Jack", which Deputy Carty mentioned, seems to be the motivating factor today with regard to pay, allowances and increases so far as senior personnel are concerned.
The Minister should get away from the idea of running the Army on a system that goes back to the Boer War. He should get rid of the idea that he is dealing with the Connaught Rangers. The discipline that was needed in the British Army in the past, when men were shanghaied into the Army, is not the discipline required today. Today, the Minister is dealing with decent Irishmen. These decent Irishmen should have some method of airing their grievances. I suggested last year—I hope it will meet with a more sympathetic reception this year—that there should be a conciliation board to deal with the grievances of members of the Defence Forces. Why should the Army be deprived of such machinery when it is available to civil servants, to the Garda Síochána, to trade unionists generally? Why should Army personnel be deprived of first-class advice?
Last year, a certain Deputy told me that it was up to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence to deal with grievances on the part of Army personnel. I put down some Questions to the Taoiseach on that and he assured me it was no function of the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with such grievances. Apparently there is no channel through which grievances can be aired. If a private, N.C.O., or junior officer has a grievance, he must channel that grievance through his immediate superior and it ultimately goes to the individual about whom the complaint is made, and he has to pass it on. Did anyone ever hear anything so fantastic?
Is it not the same in every army?
Never mind what the practice is in other armies. Deputy Carty knows nothing about it. If he knew anything, he would know that the system has changed in Britain and Germany.
Nonsense.
I will give the facts. Within the last two years, the German defence forces have been reorganised on a democratic basis and there is now in Germany, as there is in Sweden, an oddsbodman to deal with grievances on the part of Army personnel. The day of the jackboot and Prussian officer has gone. N.C.O.s and privates when off duty are equal in social life with the commissioned officer. Does that apply here? Does it apply in the Curragh where the officer and his wife go into the front pews in the Church and the privates must stay at the back? I was told that as an officer I might not go into the same seat as a private. That is a nice state of affairs when one remembers that the officer and the N.C.O. came from the same bog as the private. It is just another of the delusions of grandeur which seem to be seizing upon some people here. I doubt if it would be fair for me to comment too much on these at this stage, but the delusions exist all right. I suggest to the Minister that he should set up a conciliation board in the Army—an oddsbodman with a small staff to deal with genuine grievances. This iron discipline must disappear.
With regard to our defence forces in the air, I understand that we have purchased three more Vampire jets within the past few months. That brings the total so far to six. Nine planes constitute a squadron. I presume we will purchase three more whenever they can be slipped in without too much criticism. The cost of this little venture to date is over £1,000,000. In order to facilitate the first three jets the runways at Baldonnel had to be extended. First-class agricultural land was purchased for this purpose. The total cost of that venture was £640,000. The three jets cost £147,000, exclusive of spare parts and everything else. I understand these jets have been grounded for the past three years.
We are saving them.
To add insult to injury and to rub still more salt into the taxpayer's wounds, we have now purchased three more jets. The argument put forward by intelligent men in defence of this expenditure is that we need them to train pilots for Aer Lingus. That is utter nonsense. There is a special civil aviation school in Britain to which we could send potential pilots and have them trained for civil aviation. I regard all this as a shocking waste of money and I think it is time public opinion was sufficiently roused to bring some sense of responsibility to those who so blithely indulge themselves in this luxurious whim. This is a criminal waste of money, the more so when we discover that there is not so much as one penny available for the purchase of a helicopter to save life and relieve distress.
We spend £147,000 on three Vampire jets which are obsolete before they come here. For what? To fly at 600 or 700 miles an hour over our city, do a tour to Cork and across-channel perhaps training a few pilots. We cannot spend one penny on a helicopter to help to contact the Aran Islands and the other islands off our coast and for the purpose of carrying out a survey of our mineral resources and so on. The number of uses to which a helicopter could be put is unlimited and yet there is no money available to purchase a helicopter. Let us leave out the use of helicopters for mercy missions, helping our lighthouses and keeping in contact with the men who watch our coasts. Looking at the matter from a purely defensive point of view, it is an established fact that a helicopter is of the almost importance for tactical purposes.
A former brilliant officer in the Irish Army, General MacNeill, commented within the past two years—I have a copy of his remarks here—on the necessity for the purchase of a helicopter which could be used for manoeuvres and tactical purposes with the Army. At other times it could be hired out to the local authorities or other bodies for the various uses to which it could be put. I cannot understand why to this day no steps have been taken by the Minister during the past three years to purchase a helicopter. I do not say that one is sufficient. I say that we should have at least four at an approximate cost of £40,000 per helicopter with £10,000 for spare parts—let us say £200,000 for a helicopter section. That is a far better way to spend money, if we are to spend it on this Estimate, than to spend another £100,000 in addition for the purchase of jet planes. I am putting that point to the Minister. I think it is time he took seriously the question of the purchase of helicopters.
I have not much to say about our naval service because I think most Deputies will agree that the least said about that the better. We have a number of corvettes in operation. Not so long ago, when a colonel in the Army was making an announcement about the new defence plan, reference was made in that plan to the uses to which the corvettes could be put. It was stated in the new defence plan that the seaward defence of ports and harbours would be the main role and that corvettes would have an effect in this. I am not a very fast long distance swimmer but I venture to remark that I would keep up with any one of the corvettes. The only practical use for a naval service in this country is the protection of our fisheries and not the alleged seaward defence protection of our ports and harbours.
The corvettes are not suitable for fishery protection purposes. I think it would be no harm at this stage to suggest to the Minister that he should sell them if he can and buy motor patrol boats. There are first class motor patrol boats available with a speed of 50 knots. They are cheap, comparatively speaking. They will be useful for fishery protection purposes. I do not think there is any necessity to deal further with the defence of our coasts so far as the naval service is concerned.
There is a statement which the Minister made at Column 1191 of the Official Report which I should like him to clarify. As far as the Minister was concerned, he intended to allow a number of non-commissioned officers to be given the opportunity of reaching commissioned rank. I understand that offer is being made to a limited number of N.C.O.s with qualifications as store-keepers and quartermasters. The idea is good. As far as N.C.O.s and privates are concerned, there is not enough scope available for them to reach commissioned rank.
I know that my own suggestion in regard to this matter would not be accepted by the Minister. Direct admission to the cadet school should be abolished. No young fellow of 18 or 19, on getting his leaving certificate, should be allowed to go direct into the cadet school. He should join the Army first and take his chance and, on examination, then go on the cadet college. There should be no such thing as a boy going straight into the cadet school on getting his leaving certificate. Personally, I think it is a wrong system. It breeds a form of class distinction which we should not tolerate in this country and in a small army like ours.
The Minister's statement to which I referred is at Column 1191 of the Official Report for the 23rd March. He said:
I have felt for some time, however, that there should be some further way in which suitable experienced non-commissioned officers could progress to commissioned rank and the possibility of selecting such non-commissioned officers to fill certain administrative appointments—stores officers and the like—is being considered.
Might I ask the Minister to tell us now whether he has in mind certain changes? I prefer to have this thing discussed while the Minister is in the House now. When he is replying, would he tell us about the matter rather than have it extracted as a later stage by question and answer? I prefer to have it clarified at this stage so that there could not be even the slightest suspicion of favouritism in this particular matter.
Quite a considerable amount of time was devoted to a discussion on civil defence. I want to express appreciation of the Minister for his having adopted my suggestion in that particular field, namely, utilising the services of the officer personnel of the regular Army to be responsible for civil defence co-ordination and organisation. There is nothing more nonsensical than to suggest that civil defence is the responsibility of local authorities. There is nothing more foolish than to expect an engineer attached to a local authority, as a part-time duty to organise and prepare plans for civil defence in the county or local authority to which he is attached while the barracks are full of officers twiddling their thumbs.
The question of civil defence should be the responsibility of the Army. If there is any suitable role for them to play at all at the present time, that is it. It is not that I think there is any possibility whatever of a proper defence against a hydrogen bomb— I do not think there is—but when the decision is made by the Government to spend money on civil defence, let us see that the money is spent in a reasonable way and that the men who are charged with that responsibility are men with a knowledge of military matters and with plenty of time on their hands for that purpose. I am very glad to see that the Minister has agreed with my suggestion that this matter should be the responsibility of Army officers and not the responsibility of local authorities.
I appeal to the Minister to put it to the Government that it is desirable, even at this late stage, having spent over £90 million since 1947 on an ineffective defence system, to set up a Select Committee of both Houses to examine into expenditure on defensive equipment, and so forth, to recommend what the role of our Army should be and decide on the whole question of national defence expenditure for the next few years.
I hope it will not be suggested that I want to be a member of that committee. The Minister has a peculiar mind in that regard. He has often suggested in this House that I sought to put myself in the position of deciding defence policy. That is not so. I am suggesting that members of the House should be in a position to examine into the expenditure, send for the experts, in order to obtain all the technical advice that is necessary and come into this House with an agreed plan which can be adopted and put into operation and which will restore the morale of the few that remain in the Defence Forces.
Caithfidh mé a rá i dtús ama gur chuir an méid a dúirt an Teachta Mac Coilin faoin Arm samhnas orm. Luaigh sé an tréineáil a bhí le fáil san Arm agus nárbh fiú tréineáil a thabhairt air, go raibh sé lochtach, nach raibh arm sa domhain a bhí comh iargcúlta leis an Arm atá againn. B'fhéidir go bhféadfaí é sin a rá anuraidh nó ins na blianta roimhe sin agus nach dtiocfaidh le duine a bheith cinnte an raibh sé fíor ná nach raibh, ach seo drochbhliain len a leithéid a rá. I mbliana tá ár n-Arm amuigh sa Chongo ag na Náisiúin Aontaithe. Deir siad gur ceann de na hairm is fearr sa Chongo fé láthair é agus tá sin le feiceáil san méid gradaim atá le fáil acu ann.
Labhair an Teachta céanna fé na hárdoifigigh san Arm agus dúirt sé go raibh orthu cinn phráis faoi hataí práis. Ní hé sin an bharúil a bhí ag na Náisiúin Aontaithe a cheap Ceann Feidhme Arm na hÉireann le beith i gceannas ar Arm na Náisiún Aontaithe sa Chongo.
Bliain i ndiaidh bliana labhair muid fén Arm ar an Meastachán seo. Ní raibh difir ró-mhór ó bhliain go céile ar an méid a dúradh faoi dtaobh dó. D'aithin muid uilig go raibh Arm a dhíth orainn agus bhí muid sásta méid áirithe airgid a chaitheamh air. Ach i mbliana tá athrú ann. Tá an tArm i ndiaidh a pháirt a ghlacadh i ngnó domhanda. Tá sé anois ní hamháin ina chosaint dúinne sa bhaile ach tá sé mar chomartha cosanta shíocháin an domhain. Tá ár saighdiúirí anois i dteanta le saighdiúirí as tíortha beaga eile ar misiún síochána san Chongo. Támuid uilig anseo ontach bródúil as sin. Ba mhaith liomsa fosta a rá go bhfuil muintir Lughaidh an-bhródúil cion is go bhfuil an Ginearál Seán Mac Eoin, as an Chondae sin, ina cheannphort ar shaighdiúirí na Náisiún Aontaithe sa Chongo. Is mór an onóir é sin agus admháil é fosta go bhfuil an tír seo tagaithe in aois mar Stát imeasc náisiún an domhain.
Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do na cearda atá le fáil ag fir óga san Arm. Aontaím le Teachta éigin a dúirt nach raibh go leor bollscaireachta á dhéanamh ag an Arm faoi na gnótha seo. Is beag duine a bhfuil eolas cruinn aige faoi na cearda atá ar fáil. Síleann an chuid is mó dár dhaoine go bhfuil an tArm ar an dóigh cheanna in a rabh sé sa tsean-am, nach dtig le duine rud ar bith a fhoghlaim ach amháin gnó míleata agus mar sin nach fiú do dhuine óg gabháil isteach ann cionn is go mbeadh sé ró-shean le ceard a fhoghlaim nuair a thiocfadh sé amach as i ndiaidh tréimhse a chaitheamh ann. Ní mar sin atá sé. Tig le duine óg ceard fiúntach a fhoghlaim san Arm agus de ghnáth, níl trioblóid ar bith aíge post a fháil nuair a fhágann sé an t-Arm. Nuair atá sé beartaithe ag an Arm theacht go baile áirithe le hiarracht a dhéanamh ar dhaoine a fháil don Arm, tá mé den bharúil go mba cheart dófa na nithe seo a lua sna fógraí a bhíos sna páipéirí, chomh maith leis an am agus an áit in a mbeidh siad. Chomh maith bheadh sé in a chuidiú dá dtabharfadh siad an t-eolas seo don Fhórsa Cosanta Aitiúil, muna bhfuil an t-eolas seo á thabhairt cheana féin.
Labhras anseo cheana féin faoin chabhlach. Ba maith liomsa leathnú mór a fheiceáil sa chabhlach seo againne. I dtír cosúil leis an tír seo, a bhfuil an fharraige timpeall orainn, ba chóir i bhfad níos mó suime a bheith againn san fharraige ná mar atá faoi láthair. Tá fhios againn go bhfuil cúiseanna stáiriúla leis an fáth nach bhfuil an oiread suime againn innti agus ba cheart. Ag an am céanna tá na fáthanna sin imithe anois agus tá seans anmhaith ag an Aire suim a mhuscailt inti anois. Bheadh sé sin in a cuidiú, ní hamháin do chabhlach na h-Éireann, ach do chúrsaí iascaireachta chomh maith. Bhí áthas orm nuair a chonaic mé tamall gairid ó shoin go ndearnadh Oifigí i gCabhlach na hÉireann de thriúr óigfhear agus a fheiscint go bhfuair siad sin a dtréineáil uilig sa tír seo. Taispáineann sé sin an dul chun cinn mór atá déanta againn i gcúrsaí an chabhlaigh. Chomh mhaith leis sin, da mbeadh cabhlach ceart againn d'fhéadfaimis cosaint éifeachtach a thabhairt dar n-iascairí.
Mar is gnáthach bhí cuid Theachtaí ag gearán faoin Ghaeilge san Arm agus ag iarraidh a chur ina luí ar an Teach seo go rabh foréigin á imirt ag an Aire ar na saighdiúirí cionn is go raibh sé ag iarraidh cuidiú le labhairt na Gaeilge san Arm. Mar is gnáthach, labhair siad go ginearálta faoin adhbhar seo. Níor luaigh siad ainm duine ar bith a ndearnadh eágóir air cionn is nach raibh Gaeilge aige. Labhair siad go borb agus go tréan, ach mar dúirt mé go ginearálta, agus an aidhm acu ní chun éagóir a cheartú, ach chun mí-shuaimhneas a mhuscailt san Arm le súil is go bhfaighidís tuilleadh vótaí ag an toghchán atá le teacht. Tá sin ar siúl acu le ceithre bliana anois agus níor éirigh leo. Tá súil againn go leanfaidh an tAire ar aghaidh leis an deá-obair.
Labhair an Teachta Mac Coilín fe'n rud gceadhna. Dúirt sé nach féidir leis na saighdiúirí na horduithe a thugann na hOifigigh dóibh as Gaeilge a thuiscint. Sílim nach bhfuil aon cheart ins an meid sin ós rud é go bhfuil sé ar eolas againn chomh deacair agus atá sé na horduithe a thugtar do saighdiúirí as Béarla a thuiscint. De ghnáth, tuigeann an saighdiúir cén sórt ordú atá ag teacht bíodh agus nach dtuigeann sé i gceart agus go díreach an méid atá á rá ag an oifigeach. Aithníonn sé an fhuaim. Ón eolas atá agamsa ar an F.C.A., is eol dom nach bhfuil aon trioblóid ag na daoine óga san Fhórsa sin an Ghaeilge a thuiscint.
Bhí an-áthas orm a fheiceáil sna páipéiri i rith na bliana go bhfuil Scoil Eachaíochta an Airm ag dul ar aghaidh go maith. Bhí scoil iontach ag an Arm roinnt bliana ó shoin ach chuaigh sí i laige agus bhí sin nadúrtha. Uair amhaáin bhí na capaill agus na marcaigh go maith ach nuair a tháinig an sean-aois ar na capaill ní raibh siad in ann dul ar aghaidh mar bhí cheana. Le himeacht aimsire, ní raibh an scoil chomh láidir agus a bhí uair amháin ach anois, i ndiaidh a chéile, tá sí ag teacht chun féin arís agus is maith linn go léir é sin.
Tá thart fá 22,000 fir ins an F.C.A. faoi láthair Ba chóir go mbeadh 1 bhfad níos mó. Ba cheart don Aire níos mó bollscaireachta a dhéanamh chun na daoine óga a mhealladh isteach san Fhórsa sin. Déanfaidh sé an-mhaitheas d'fhir óga bheith inti. Dá dtuigeadh na tuismitheoirí an mhaitheas a dhéanann sé do na fir óga a bheith san Fhórsa sin, do bheadh áthas orthu ligint dóibh dul isteach inti.
My views on Army expenditure are so very unorthodox that it would be much more discreet if I did not express them here. I believe we are spending too much money on the Army. I believe we are spending more than we can afford to spend. This is an Estimate which has increased by more than half in the past ten years. Disregarding the recent Supplementary Estimates, I think it is correct to say that the Estimate now before us is almost £1,000,000 greater than it was a year ago.
An expenditure of £7½ million on the Department and an expenditure of nearly £2,000,000 on Army Pensions makes a total of nearly £10,000,000. Such an expenditure discloses a very odd sense of values, a very peculiar scale of priority, when one compares it with the amounts we are spending on essential services such as education. The contrast between the £10,000,000 for which the Minister is accountable and the £1,000,000 for university education is a very sorry one indeed. We spend only £1,500,000 on technical education. I do not want to labour that contrast but I suggest the time has come to take an objective view on Army policy. Deputy McQuillan's suggestion that a joint committee of the House should be set up to take expert advice and objectively appraise Army expenditure is sound.
Five, six or seven years ago it would not have been correct to say we were spending too much on the Army. By reason of recent developments in nuclear warfare, nuclear armaments and atomic weapons, it seems to me, a layman, our Army is largely obsolete. Conventional armaments throughout the world would appear to be completely out of mode and to be completely disregarded by other European countries. We could not afford to arm our soldiers with nuclear weapons, even if we considered it desirable to do so. I should like to hear from the Minister what use our conventional armaments will be, in future, in a nuclear war.
There is a further reason why I regard this Army expenditure as obsolete. It appears that neutralism as a doctrine or as cardinal fundamental State policy will not in future be adopted by us. In the last war, we could not have maintained our neutrality, were it not for the fact that we had a most efficient Army ready to defend our neutrality. In the next war, a conflict of ideologies between the Western World and the Reds, it would seem to be most unlikely that our people largely will permit any Government to maintain a policy of neutrality. Any future conflict if it comes, which God forbid, will be a conflict of opposing ideologies.
My view is I suppose a very unorthodox one, but it is one which thinking people outside this House are beginning to express on a fairly widespread scale. There is no doubt we will always need some form of Army to put down civil commotion, civil uprising, if that unfortunate eventuality materialises. That, however, is extremely unlikely, and, for domestic purposes, we will need an Army on the lines of a police force.
There is great discontent in the Army. It is obvious that the Minister must economise but, as a result of his economies, he has been upbraided for not giving the increase some Deputies say he should have given. If we must have an Army, we should at least pay our officers properly. It is unfortunate that such discontent exists and that there is such a high rate of resignations from the Army. I should like to see our defence expenditure restricted to, say, £2 million or £2½ million, and certainly not more than £3 million, on the ground that we cannot afford to spend any more on the Army. If we cannot spend more than £1 million on university education, we certainly cannot afford to spend £10 million on the Army. That is why the proposal that an objective reappraisal of Army policy should be undertaken commends itself to me. We are far too ready to copy precedents established by wealthy countries and, in particular, by our nearest neighbours, Britain.
Administration is a very technical matter and few of us here are competent to discuss the technicalities of Army administration, but it appears to me, as a layman, that we should develop a super-efficient crack force, which could be expanded in time of war, whose men would be highly paid, if necessary, and attain to the highest standards in their profession. I hope I shall not be misunderstood in what I am saying, but I feel very strongly that other speakers have made a very good case for an increase in Army pay. Like other Deputies, I am very proud of the way our troops have acquitted themselves in the Congo. Particularly at a time like this, we should strive to examine the Army objectively, and avoid placing ourselves in the position of being unable to see the wood for the trees.
It seems promotion prospects in the Army are very limited. On a recent occasion, the President of the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen, Senator Carton, made a suggestion which I want to put before the Minister with a view to enlarging the limited promotional possibilities. He suggested that after a good period of service in the Army, openings, should be made available to ex-Army men in the Garda, the Post Office and, if possible, in the State companies. I understand that in the British days every other postman in the country was an ex-soldier. I may be wrong, but it seems that men who enter the Army at the age of 18 years, serve for perhaps 21 years, and leave it at the age of 39 or 40 years, are at a disadvantage in seeking outside employment, and that not enough efforts are being made to place them in civilian occupations. The question of placing them in other branches of the State service on a wider scale than is the case at present should be very closely considered, and might serve as a means of allaying much of the uneasiness they now feel.
I was not here during the earlier debate on the Estimate for Defence and I am rather sorry to be here tonight. I listened to Deputy McQuillan endeavouring to use this Vote to make an attack on the Irish language. I am not an Irish speaker, a matter I have always regretted. The time I would have spent learning Irish, I was putting to better use and advantage for the nation. I do not think, first, that it is right that this House should be used in the manner in which it has been used by Deputy McQuillan to attack a Minister for endeavouring to forward the cause of the language of our country. Secondly, I am sure the non-commissioned officers of our Army will be rather proud of Deputy McQuillan's remarks about them as an uneducated tribe who did not learn the language in their schools! I take it that young men joining the Army today are aged 18, 21 or 22 years. Our educational system should at least provide them with a knowledge of the language of their country on leaving school which would enable them to pick up the orders of their officers. I have seen it proved that they can. So much for that.
Then we were told we were still on 1939 manoeuvres. I do not claim to be any kind of Army genius, but I shall say this much: I have seen the arguments put forward here tonight disproved. We are paying 91 major-generals, lieutenant-colonels and all the rest of it to see that our Army is kept up to date. I take it they know their business and I am satisfied to leave it to them.
When I heard Deputy Byrne telling us about how useless it was for us to have any Army at all, it took me back to my younger, and perhaps wiser, days. I remember the lads outside the chapels saying: "Look at the fellows going out to beat the British Army with shotguns." And in 1939 I heard all the pessimists in this House telling us there was no hope of maintaining our neutrality. We heard that from several learned gentlemen here at the time, and I am prepared to quote them if I am questioned. Yet we did maintain our neutrality.
All I hope is that sufficient arms are being provided so that in the case of another emergency, when we might have to expand our Army quickly, there would be no shortage of arms. I had the misfortune of having to train about 70 or 80 young lads during the emergency when all we could get for them were blunderbusses—American shotguns which were thrown over here. You found yourself with a thing called a Springfield rifle which was a very poor imitation of the German Mauser of 1902. We all know what the policy should be—a standing Army capable of expansion in cases of emergency. I hope that that policy has not been changed.
I was anxious to deal with a few matters which might seem very trivial compared with all we heard here tonight. First, I am concerned about the position of the water supply in Haulbowline. That has existed now for two or three years. About 12 months ago the Minister shifted his responsibility. I should like to remind the Department of Defence that the livelihood of some 1,100 men and their families is dependent on that water supply. They have been experimenting with the pipes for about six months now and it is time these experiments finished and the water supply put in. We are in the unfortunate position of having a big steel industry absolutely dependent on that water supply. I have had complaints on several occasions recently about the condition of the supply and I do not want to have any more of them. I hope this is the last occasion I shall have to draw attention to this matter in the House.
The next matter I wish to deal with is the question of housing. I complained here some time ago about the condition of certain houses in Spike Island. The cure the Army found was to knock them down, but they did not go to the trouble of building any houses instead of them. I had occasion to go over the list of applicants for houses in Cobh recently and I can tell the Minister that some of his men there are living in shocking conditions. The local authorities are doing their utmost but the problem is very difficult. It is about time some portion of this Vote was devoted towards providing decent houses for Army and Navy personnel in Cobh. I had hoped that if the houses were to be knocked down, other accommodation would be provided instead; but the idea of knocking the houses and then throwing on the local authority the responsibility of providing accommodation is unfair and unjust. The local authorities will be put to the pin of their collars to provide houses for all the young men working, thank God, at Haulbowline. The Minister should give attention to these small matters concerning Army personnel in my constituency.
I find myself in agreement with Deputy McQuillan on one or two points, and I do not always agree with him. Where grievances arise in the Army, I believe the Army personnel should have a means of redress. I have in mind a question I raised last year in regard to the discontent that existed at my centre so far as promotions were concerned. Where such discontent exists we should have a means of dealing with it and not just put the heavy heel on them. I must compliment the Minister in laying emphasis on voluntary effort. I refer to the F.C.A., the Red Cross, Civil Defence and other organisations. If only that it tends to bring out the best in our manhood, this is something worthy of being helped in every way, particularly in these days when voluntary effort is so much on the wane. We should remember that the greatest achievements in this country were secured through voluntary effort. I do not think, however, the Minister should go too far in that sphere.
Again, I must agree with Deputy McQuillan when he says we should have that useful aircraft, the helicopter. Hardly a year passes without need arising for that aircraft. It is about time we stood on our own feet and were not dependent on the cross-Channel army or the army of occupation to come to our rescue. Undoubtedly, the need for a helicopter will arise again in the future.
I must express disappointment when I note again this year that the Minister is not prepared to build married quarters in Renmore Barracks, Galway. Over the past couple of years, there has been a reshuffle of the Army from Athlone and other centres. That reshuffle brought married men into Galway city. The Minister is putting the onus on Galway Corporation to provide houses for these men. Our rates are quite high enough and it is about time the Minister noted this for next year. I hope that is what he is noting with his pen at the moment.
The Army is worthy of being properly housed and Galway Corporation has quite a sizable list of housing requirements and it is most unfair that these men should have to wait so many years to be housed. They are entitled to the houses and the onus is on the Minister to see that they are housed. I should like to take the opportunity of complimenting the military police for their action recently in coming to the assistance of the Gardaí when the occasion arose in my city.
I should like to know what steps have been taken to raise the standards of our jumping teams. Are we cheeseparing when it comes to giving them sufficient to get the best? There is no doubt that we have the best, both in personnel and in horses in this country. We have the personnel in the Army but have they the material in regard to the horses? We boast about having the best horses in the world and here is our opportunity to show that we have. In the past, they have brought great honours to the country and I feel they can do so again in the future.
Deputy Corry brought up that old point again, the question of neutrality. It is about time we realised that we may thank Almighty God for our neutrality and our geographical position and that it was not any group of politicians that saved us.
Is mór an náire é nach ligeann an Teachta Mac Coilín aon ócáid dul thart gan ionnsaí a dhéanamh ar theanga a thíre féin. Fear óg is ea é agus má ionnsaíonn sé úsáid na teanga san Arm tá sé ag tabhairt fogha faoi fhoghlaim na Gaeilge sna seirbhísí poiblí. Fir óga is ea na saighdiúirí seo agus is cúis bhróid don chuid is mó againn na hórdaithe mileata a chloisint i nGaeilge ar ócáidí poiblí agus iad dhá gcomhlíonadh go pras acu. Nuair a chuaigh na Fórsaí go dtí an Congo bhí ar a gcumas, tré úsáid na Gaeilge, caidreamh a dhéanamh idir a chéile. Ba mhór an leas dóibh an teanga ar an ócáid sin.
It is depressing to hear a young man like Deputy McQuillan using every possible occasion in this House to attack the language of his country and the use of it, because when he is attacking the extension or the use of our native language in the Army, he is attacking the very foundations of its learning in the public services. These are young men with a good knowledge of the Irish language and it is a source of pride to most of us to hear the orders being given on public occasions in the native tongue, and to see the various ranks responding so readily to them. We have heard also when the Forces went to the Congo that in scenes of confusion, they were able, by using their own language, to establish proper communications between themselves in their different posts, and it was to the general advantage of the purpose for which they went there.
The last speaker mentioned neutrality again. Surely everybody understands that on that occasion, or any other occasion, if we had not an adequate force to defend our shores, we would have been open to attacks from all sides. We were not likely to be left in peace if we had not at least that nucleus and the fine response from the people to act, if necessary, in defence of the freedom that had been won.
The point raised by Deputy Corry regarding the housing of married personnel in the various posts is an important one and would be a desirable development of the adequate housing which is now Government policy. Requests of that nature have been made to the big industrial firms and the public services should act in the same way. A good beginning has been made in some of the big centres but an extension of that good work would be a great help to the local authorities in their housing drive and if the military personnel were catered for by the Army organisations.
That is all I have to say beyond complimenting those who are guiding the destinies of our Army from the Ministerial positions, and the senior officers, many of whom came up from the days of our national struggle. Some of them are in high positions and they have the training which suits this country. We can have every confidence that they will bring credit on the country both at home and abroad, according as their duties call them.
Ní aontaíom leis na Teachtaí a bhí ag lochtú an Aire toisc é bheith ag gríosadh lucht an Airm chun na Gaeilge do labhairt agus d'fhoghlaim. In ionad é a cháineadh caithfeadsa an t-Aire a mholadh ar son an iarracht atá déanta aige san Arm. Tá caoí aige a lán maitheasa a dhéanamh ar son na teangan.
Tá Gaeilge ag na h-oifigigh a chuaigh isteach san Arm le blianta beaga anuas agus ba mhaith an rud é dá labhraidís í san Arm. D'fhéadfaí uair sa ló a thabhairt do lucht an Airm gach lá ag gabháil do cheachtanna Gaeilge nó ag iarraidh í a labhairt. Tá súil ag cách go leanfaidh an t-Aire den dea-obair atá beartaithe aige ar son teanga na hÉireann.
The debate on the Defence Estimate follows the customary pattern here year after year. None of the criticisms and none of the suggestions was very revolutionary. All were unanimous in paying tribute to the Army for its participation in the Congo venture.
I think the tribute from the Minister himself and from the various Deputies who spoke was well-deserved. No matter what misgivings there were about the Congo men, we must all admit that the motives behind sending the Army to the Congo were most laudable.
The Army went there on a mission of peace, and their calm and their restraint must be commendable to everybody. They have done more to put this country on the map than anything that has occurred in recent years. It was unfortunate that we had casualties in the Congo but I suppose these are the fortunes of war. We can only hope that they will succeed in their efforts and that the United Nations, which is the main hope of civilisation today, will get what help it is in need of and that those nations who failed to honour their financial obligations to the United Nations will think twice and try to fulfil their obligations just as this little nation has done.
The Army at home has enhanced itself very much in the people's estimation. It is becoming more associated now with national events. The Army is called out on all ceremonial occasions for Church or State. That is one good thing, that the people should come to realise that the Army is the people's Army, that it is there for the people's protection, and the more of the Army the people see on parades or on the streets the better for the Army itself, and for the morale of the men who serve in the Army. On parade the Army is always impressive in its deportment, but one thing I have often thought was that the uniforms of the rank and file were rather mean and petty though the uniforms of the officers were smart and attractive. The rank and file have to be considered if they are to live up to the standard we should expect in our Army.
Reference has been made to the Army jumping team. We may be gratified to see in the papers these days that the Army jumping team has had successes already this year, and there is every possibility that they will emulate the successes of the years gone past when the Irish Army jumping team won fame the world over.
The Defence Estimate is rather forbidding when one thinks that it caters for only 8,000 men and 1,000 officers. It approximates to something like £8 million, a considerable sum for a country like ours in peacetime surely. The tendency today is to centralise business in the interests of efficiency and of keeping down expenses. That has not been done in the Army, and possibly it is wise, because modern trends demand that the Army should be dispersed in various places throughout the country. There are about 20 places in the country which Army men occupy, and I think that more use could be made of the Army in those various centres. One thing we should reflect on, is that those frightful grey sombre looking walls around every barracks throughout this State should be removed. They are there from the days when this country was held by foreign forces, and if this is to be our Army and we are to have respect for it, and if it is to be associated with our national activities, there should be nothing secret. There is nothing secret behind the walls in barracks, but the people have that tradition in their minds and the conviction of former generations that the Army was a place apart for certain types of people.
The Army should be made more attractive and more professional if it is to have greater intercourse with the public. I see no reason at all when the men of the Army are deployed in so many places throughout the country that they should not be permitted, where they go in as recruits, to live in their own homes provided that they come from the localities where they are stationed. There is no reason why they should not go home just as men working in any other walk of life can go back and join their families in the evenings after their day's work. That would cheapen administration considerably and lessen the obligation on the Department of Defence to provide rations for those men in the barracks at all times.
Some Deputy spoke about the living quarters. I do not approve of having too many living quarters for men in the various barracks, because if they are shifted away those houses may become idle. There may be no married men to replace them, and if they were allowed more opportunities to live in their own homes it would redound to the good of the men themselves and of the Army in general and help to keep expenses to the minimum.
While I say that the Army should be made more professional we should try to get a better type of recruit. It is true that the Army was built up by men coming out of the national ranks of the volunteer forces, and again during the emergency days men from all walks of life joined the national forces to give service to the Army in the protection of the country. Now when there is no national issue at stake, when the Army is a more professional calling, everything should be done to make it a real everyday livelihood for those people who take up soldiering as a career. We should be careful about the type of recruit we take into the Army. because the feeling in the past amongst the people of our country was that the ordinary rank and file of the soldiers who served here in the days when this country was in the occupation of the foreigner were of a type for whom the people had no respect, that the waifs and strays of life often found themselves recruited into the forces. I hope that that will never happen in this country. People, especially young people sometimes think that if they get into trouble they can go off and join the Army as a last resort. That is not a good thing. There should be a standard of education for the ordinary recruit taken into the Army, especially in these days when we have nuclear development and the Army will become a more technical force. For that reason there should be a certain standard of education required from those people who are going to take up soldiering as a career. We should not allow any degeneration in the type of recruit coming in.
The Minister spoke on civil defence, for which he is making provision of £40,000 extra this year. He has given us very little information, but I believe he said that there were about six thousand men being trained in civil defence at this moment. They were being trained through the efforts of the local authorities, but some of us from the country hear very little about civil defence. The Minister should tell us where the personnel are deployed or whether they are purely under the local authority or associated with the Army or some other organisation.
I believe there is one very admirable provision in the Army in regard to men who served in the National Forces in years gone by. Before the Christmas recess, I asked a question here about some unskilled labourers employed on a housing scheme at Cork barracks. Nothing resulted from that but I investigated the case since and I found that men who were holders of medals, and who had served in the Volunteers in days gone by, were denied work when it was available at Cork barracks and that men who had no medals and no national service whatever were taken on. I think that is political patronage that we must decry. If the Army has a declared policy to help those people when employment can be put in their way, it is such men, and not men direct from the labour exchange with no national record, who should be given the work.
Deputies have appealed here to have the first Commander-in-Chief of the National Army honoured each year at Beal na mBláth. It is about time that we grew up in our thinking on this matter. This man was the first Commander-in-Chief and one of the founders of the Army and I think it is the least tribute we could pay to him. People of all shades of political thought in their disillusioned years now realise that the least tribute that we should pay to that man is to have a yearly commemoration of him by the Army at Beal na mBláth. It is not very much to ask of the Minister or the Army. It is not sufficient to say that if permission is given in one case, it must be given in all cases. This was the first Commander-in-Chief of the Army which has the same uniform and many of the same regulations today. Surely such a man should get that tribute from the Irish people in this, the 39th year of our freedom.
Is iomdha maidhm agus muar-bhlosc a chuir an mhuc ná gointear le saighdeoireacht aiste ón gCaisc glórmhar in ar theas an caol-fhoireann in aghaidh fóirneart Gall sa chathair ársa seo Baile Átha Cliath. Ba bheag sain-eolaí mileata a bhí ina measc agus ba shuarach an t-arm-lóin a bhí acu ach d'ainneoin an easba sin do chruthaíodar nach raibh deire le caomh-shliocht Niúil.
Rith sé liom agus mé ag éisteacht le Teachtaí áirithe a labhair ar an Meastachán seo gur trua ná raibh saineolaithe mar iad ann an tráth sin chun a ngaois mileata a thabhairt don Phiarsach, do Shéamus Ó Conghaile agus na ceannairí eile a bhí ag treorú na n-óglach. Is eagal liom, áfach, ná h-éisteodh an Piarsach ná ceannaire ar bith díobh leis an dTeachta a ghaibh buíochas le Dia nár éirigh leis an Aire Gaeilge a ropadh síos i scórnaigh na n-Oifigeach. Ba ró-bhaol, áfach, ná h-éisteodh an Piarsach ná neach ar bith eile díobh le cómhairle an Teachta. Dob fhéidir go n-imreoidis í feallaire air.
Ba thrua liom a chlos gur labhair an Teachta Mac Coilín in aghaidh Gaeilge san Arm. Níl ann ach naoidhe trua agus ní ceart dom milleán a chur air. Tá sean fhocal sa Ghaeilge adeir go mbriseann an dóchas tré shúile an chait. Tá ceann eile againn adeir go mbíonn gach dalta mar oiltear. Fágaim an scéal mar sin.
Nílim chun mo thuairimí a nochtadh ar chúrsaí mileata. Fágfad na cúrsaí sin dóibh súd san Arm gur gairm dóibh é. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil éinne san Tigh seo, taobh amuigh den Aire Cosanta agus an lar-Aire, atá i ndán cómhairle a thabhairt do lucht stiúrtha an Airm. Molaim an t-Aire as ucht an méid a rinne sé chun feabhas a chur ar shaol, ar thuarastal agus gnáthbheatha an tsaighdiúra. Tá moladh ar leith tuillte aige as ucht a bhfuil déanta aige ar son na Gaeilge. Ní ceart d'éinne é a cháineadh as ucht a bhfuil déanta aige chun Arm ceart náisiúnta a dhéanamh d'Arm na tíre. Dubhairt an Piarsach san mBarr Buadh gurab é dualgas gach fír airm a bheith aige agus gurab é dualgas gach Éireannaigh an Ghaeilge a labhairt. Dubhairt sé freisin gur theastaigh uaidh go mbeadh Éire ní amháin saor ach Gaelach chomh maith. Tá Teachta nó beirt sa Tigh a theaslaíonn saoirse de shaghas éigin uatha ach ní theastaíonn náisiúntacht uatha.
Do baineadh an tsaoire uainn i rith 800 bliain ach gabhaim buíochas le Dia nár éirigh le Gaill, Gall-Ghaeil ná le Sasanaigh an náisiún a bhaint dínn riamh. Molaim an t-Aire mar geall ar a bhfuil déanta aige ar son na Gaeilge. Rinne sé amhlaidh mar is dual do dhuine de chlann Uí Bheoláin. Leo siud a bhí in aghaidh na Gaeilge sa díospóireacht seo deirim mar adubhairt an file tráth. Tuille cainte a chuirfinn chugaibh a bheadh snoite suairc i bhfriotal fuinte ach dom mheas nach ceart gach sórt péarla a chur i mbéal na muice.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a labhair ar an Meastacháin seo. Go ginearálta, sílim go gcuireann formhor na dTeachtaí a lán suime sa Mheastachán seo agus sna Fórsaín Cosanta agus i ngach a mbaineann leis an Roinn Cosanta. Dar ndóigh, bíonn Teachtaí i gcónaí a thugann faoi gach rud a dhéanann an Rialtas. Tá Teachtaí áirithe eile anD, de ráir dealraimh, a thugann faoi gach rud a dhéanann oifigigh an Airm ach ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé riachtanach morán suime a chur sa mhéid adúirt siad-san. Fé mar a dúras, is soilér go bhfuil an tuiscint cteart in aigne formhór na dTeachtaí sa Tigh seo.
Táim buíoch de na Teachtaí a labhair i bhfabhar an méid atá atá á dhéanamh chun an teanga a chur chun cinn sna Fórsaí Cosanta. Maidir leis an gceist seo freisin, tá Teachtaí ann a thugann faoí gach beart a dhéantar ach tá fhios againn go bhfuil cuid bheag de na Teachtaí a chuireann i gcoinne gach aon rud a bhaineann le náisiúntadit. Táim sáta go bhfuil formhór na dTeachtaí i bhfabhar na teaogan agus táim sásta gur labhair an tAire a bhí ann romham thar ceann formór an fhreasúra anuraidh nuair a chuir sé in iúl dom go raíbh sé ar aon-aigne liom maidir leis an gceist seo. Dar ndóigh, bíonn daoine ann i gcónaí atá ullamh chun tabhairt faoin teanga Ghaeilge cibé acu san Arm, sna scoileanna nó in áit ar bith eile é. Ach tá siad sin ar an mbeagán. Tá mé cinnte go bhfuil an chuid is mó de na Teachaí agus muintir na hÉireann i bhfabhar athbheochan na Gaeilge agus tá a fhios ag na daoine nach bhfuiltear ag iarraidh an Ghaeilge a ropadh síos scornaigh na nOifigeach san Arm. Tá iarracht á dhéanamh chun an oiread úsáide agus is féidir a dhéanamh den Ghaeilge. Sin iomlán an méid atá á dhéanamh. Tá ag éirí sáthach maith leis.
Labhair an Teachta MacEochagáin i dtaobh tréineáil an F.C.A. Bhí sé ar an tuairim nach bhfuil an tréineáil atá á fháil acu chomh maith ón uair a cónascadh an Fórsa leis na Buan-Óglaigh. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an ceart aige sa mhéid sin. Is é mo thuairim féin go bhfuil tréineáil níos fearr á fháil acu mar go bhfuil an Fórsa ar aon-dul leis an Arm. Mar sin, is í an aidhm atá ann ná go mbeadh an caighdeán céanna acu mar shaighdiúirí is atá ag na Buan-Óglaigh.
Is fíor a rá, mar a dúras sa ráiteas i dtosach na díospóireachta, go raibh cur-isteach ar an méid a bhí le déanamh mar gheall ar an dá bhuíon a chur amach go dtí an Congó agus mar sin de, ach ní raibh ann ach cur-isteach sealadach agus tá an tréineáil ag dul ar aghaidh go maith arís. Bhí cuid de na hoifigigh a bhí i mbun tréineála an Fhórsa Chosanta Áitiúil ar chuid den chéad dream a chuaigh go dtí an Congo. Tá réiteach déanta ó shoin agus tá mé sásta go bhfuil an tréineáil ag dul ar aghaidh chomh maith agus a bhí roimhe sin.
Dúirt an Teachta Mac Eochagáin gur dóigh leis gur cheart go ndéanfaí tréineáil an Fhórsa Cosanta Áitiúil chois baile, nach ró-mhaith an rud é go gcuirfí óglaigh ó Chonamara go dtí Campa Fionniubhair i gcóir na tréineála bliantúla. Ba mhaith liom é sin a dhéanamh agus, go mór-mhór, ba mhaith liom go mbeadh tréineáil á chur ar bun sna Gaeltachta. Tá deacrachtaí móra ag baint leis sin. Níl aon bhuan-áit oiriúnach againn sna Gaeltachtaí faoi láthair agus bhéadh sé costasach buan-áit mar sin a chur ar bun. Níl aon dul as againn ach óglaigh den Fhórsa Cosanta Áitiúil ó Chonamara a chur go Campa Fionniubhair chun tréineáil a dhéanamh.
Rinne an Teachta céanna tagairt do na seomraí codlata atá ag na saighdiúiri san Arm. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an scéal chomh holc agus a cheap sé. Tá mé sásta nach mbíonn an iomarca saighdúirí ina gcodladh in aon seomra amháin in áit ar bith. Ach, táimid ag déanamh díchill chun gach feabhas a chur ar na seomraí agus gach rud eile maidir leis an gcóir mhaireachtála i gcoitinne san Arm. Ní féidir liom aon gheallúint a thabhairt don Teachta go n-éireoidh linn seomra codlata faoi leith a thabhairt do gach saighdiúir. Níl sé sin ar aigne againn. Ní dóigh liom gur mhaith an rud é sin a dhéanamh. Táimid ag cur gach feabhas is féidir ar chóir mhaireachtála san Arm.
Maidir le tithe do shaighdiúirí pósta, táimid ag déanamh a mhéid is féidir faoi sin chomh maith.
Thug gach uile Theachta a labhair ard-mholadh do na saighdiúirí as Arm na hÉireann a thug seirbhís sa Chongó agus don Ghinereál MacEoin a ceapadh mar Cheannasaí ar Fhórsaí na Náisiún Aontaithe sa tír sin. Tá mé buíoch de na Teachtaí as ucht a ndúradar faoi sin.
Rinne an Teachta Ó Dubhlaoich gearán faoin slí a dtugtar ardú céime san Arm. Níl fhios agam go cinnte céard a bhí i gceist aige ach tugtar arduithe céime san Arm ar mholadh an Chinn Foirne. Is do réir sinsearacht a théann sé de ghnáth. Níl ach corr-uair nach mar sin a thugtar ardú céime agus bíonn cúis maith i gcónaí nuair is mar sin a bhíonn an scéal.
Nuair a thagann sé go dtí na postanna is airde, ní féidir cloí go dlúth le sinsearacht. Caithfear an duine is fearr a thoghadh chun post an-tábhachtach a líonadh.
Rinneadh gearán freisin faoin ardú pá a tugadh le déanaí don Arm. Bhí gach uile Theachta beagnach ar an tuairim chéanna, gur cheart níos mó a thabhairt. Dá mbeadh níos mó le fáil agamsa bheinn sásta níos mó a thabhairt don Arm ach ní féidir níos mó a thabhairt ná mar is féidir le muintir na tire a thabhairt don Rialtas le haghaidh an Airm. Is fíor a rá go bhfuair saighdiúirí san Arm arduithe a bhí ar aon-dul leis na harduithe pá a fuair dreamanna eile den tSeirbhís Phoiblí. Labharfaidh mé are an gceist sin aris agus tá mé cinnte gur féidir liom a chruthú gur mar sin atá an scéal agus go ndearnadh feabhas maith ar phá an Airm i gcoitinne.
Maidir le na liúntais leanaí a tugadh don chéad uair le déanaí do na hoifigigh, is fíor go bhfuil daoine áirithe sa Stát-Sheirbhís a bhfuil níos mó á fháil ach tá daoine eile ann ar lú atá á fháil acu. Den chéad uair, tugadh £20 sa bhliain do na hoifigigh i leith gach páiste. Is é mo thuairim gur feabhas maith é sin ar an scéal a bhí ann cheana. Nuair a smaoinítear faoi oifigeach a bhfuil ceathrar clainne aige go bhfuair sé £80 sa bhlian sa bhreis liúntas leanaí, maraon leis an ardú ar an tuarastal a bhí aige cheana, ní dóigh liom gur féidir gearán a dhéanamh faoi sin.
Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl don Teachta Ó Dubhlaoich, chomh maith, go bhfuil sé cinnte go dtosnófar ar an scoil nua le haghaidh cailíní sa Churrach an bhliain seo.
Labhair an Teachta Ó Fachtna faoi na ceirdeanna is féidir a fhoghlaim san Arm. Cheap sé nach bhfuil bollscaireacht go leor á dhéanamh chun a chur in iúl don phobal go bhfuil caoi san Arm chun ceirdeanna a fhoghlaim. Déanaimid ar ndícheall chun fógraíocht a dhéanamh go bhfuil na scéimeanna seo ar fáil, scéim na bprintíseach i Nás na Rí agus i mBaile Uí Dhomhnaill agus, chomh maith le sin, gur féidir le saighdiúirí teacht isteach go díreach san Aer Chór agus san Cór Comhathraíochta agus ceirdeanna a fhoghlaim ansin. Is maith an rud gur mar sin atá an scéal. Rinne an Teachta Ó Maonghaile tagairt dóar shlí eile nuair a mhol sé go múinfí ceirdeanna mar sin don méid is féidir den Arm agus ba mhaith liom go ndéanfaí é sin chomh maith.
Rinne an Teachta Ó Fachtna tagairt don tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh agus go ndéanfaí méadú ar an tSeirbhís sin chun cosaint a thabhairt dár n-iascaireacht. Tá an cheist sin á scrúdú againn faoi láthair féachaint an bhféadfaí feabhas a chur air agus má dhéantar teorainneachta na bhfarraigí náisiúnta a shíneadh amh beidh gá le leathnú ar an tSeirbhís sin chun an chosaint chéanna atá á thabhairt acu don iascaireacht faoi láthair a choimeád ar siúl.
Rinne cuid de na Teachtaí a labhair Gaeilge tagairt don Scoil Eachaíochta agus b'athas liom a chloisint go rabhadar uile i bhfabhar gach rud is féidir a cur i bhfeidhm chun an scoil do chur chun cinn, chun na capaill is fearr is féidir a fháil agus chun gach sórt tréineála is féidir a thabhairt dóibh a chur ar fáil. Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl dóibh gurb é sin an t-aigne atá agam faoin gceist sin, go mbeadh sé níos fearr gan an scoil a bheith ann chor ar bith munar féidir caighdeán ard a choimeád. Tá siad ag dul ar aghaidh anois agus tá súil agam go leanfaidh siad mar sin agus go bheidmuid chomh mórálach astu agus a bhíomar roinnt beag blianta o shoin. Tuigfidh Teachtaí gur féidir le foireann eachaíochta meath a theacht orthu mar a thagann meath ar dheáfhoireann peile nó iománaíochta. Ní féidir leis na foirne peile agus iománaíochta maithe a bheith i mbuaic a maitheasa i gcónaí agus an chraobh a thabhairt leo i gcónaí. Is mar sin le foireann eachaíochta an Airm é. Is é mo thuairim gur gearr gurb iad an scoth arís iad agus go mbeimid mórálach astu, agus a ábhar againn, mar bhí cheana.
I can thank the vast majority of the Deputies for the satisfactory manner in which they approached this Estimate. They showed a keenness that everything possible should be done to keep the Defence Forces in the best possible condition. With the exception of Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Byrne, the attitude seemed to be that the Estimate was too small. I was assured on a number of occasions, and in respect of a number of different items, that there would be no difficulty in getting more money from the Dáil for this or that purpose.
One prominent Fine Gael Deputy suggested we should build up the Naval Service, irrespective of cost. While I should like to do many of the things suggested here, I am unfortunately in the position that I must take the question of cost into consideration. It is true, as some speakers said, that the proportion of our total revenue spent on defence is very small in comparison with that spent in other countries. As far as we are concerned, that is something that cannot be helped. We have managed to maintain a Defence Force of a reasonable size and of quite exceptional efficiency on that comparatively small amount of money. Until the economy of the country is built up even more than it has been in the past few years, we will have to watch, as it has had to be watched in the past, expenditure very closely indeed.
I should like to express my appreciation of the manner in which Deputies generally dealt with the question of the contingents we sent for service in the Republic of the Congo. I should like to thank them for the sentiments they expressed and their congratulatory comments on the fact that an officer of our Army was chosen as Supreme Commander of the U.N. Forces in the Congo. That certainly is a tribute to our Army, to the officers who organised and trained it, and to the efficient service given by our first two battalions in the Congo. As Deputy Faulkner said, the fact that international recognition has been given to the efficiency of our Defence Forces in the Congo gives the lie to those who maintain that the Army is run on antediluvian lines or that, as one Deputy so picturesquely put it, underneath the brass hats in the Army there are brass heads. International opinion does not endorse that view.
There was some criticism with regard to the equipment of our troops in the Congo, largely based, I think, on misunderstanding and on mischievous reports in certain papers. I am satisfied that the equipment is adequate and suitable. We would not have agreed to send out troops unless we were convinced that that is so. They have not gone out to fight a major war. They have gone out to try to maintain peace. The United Nations neither asked nor recommended that the equipment of the type appropriate to a major war should be provided. The request was that only lightly armed troops should be sent out. I am satisfied our troops are adequately equipped and that their equipment is in general comparable with that of other contingents there.
Of course, conditions may change there and have, in fact, changed since they went out there. It should hardly be necessary for me to say that we keep that question constantly under review and any additional equipment considered necessary in the light of experience or changed conditions will be supplied, and no effort will be spared to make it readly available. There have been no considerations of niggling economies, as one Deputy expressed it, in relation to the question of equipping our troops in the Congo.
It is not true to say that either I, as Minister for Defence, or the Minister for Finance, objected to providing the small amount of money required to install fans in the eight armoured cars that went out to the Congo. That suggestion is too ridiculous for words. I find it hard to believe that any Deputy really thinks that would happen. Of course, it did not happen. The armoured cars have, in fact, been found suitable. It is true that we expected it would have been possible to install those fans as an additional improvement to the cars before they went out, but that did not prove to be practicable. I understand steps are being taken to have them supplied out there. There is certainly no question that any consideration of economy entered into the matter. Obviously, the amount involved would be so small that no one could seriously believe that that is so.
The question of the training and preparation generally of troops for service in the Congo was raised. Most of us, anyway, appreciate the fact that the Army staff are efficient and that they can be depended upon to do everything possible in that regard. The first contingent went to the Congo within ten days of the request, and, obviously, they did not get any very extensive training with regard to the conditions they were going to. No one in our Army had experience of those conditions, but all the available information was collected as quickly as possible, and every possible advice and information was given to them. I think events showed that they were able to fulfil their duties very well indeed. Since then, of course, the Army has acquired considerable experience of what is required there. The House may be fully assured that every possible use is being made of every bit of experience gained there by our troops.
Deputy Booth expressed regret that the 32nd and 33rd battalions, the first to go to the Congo, were not kept together after they came home. Anyone who knows anything about conditions in the Army realises that that is an utterly impracticable suggestion. There could be no question of causing all the domestic upset and hardship that would be caused by such a decision. Anyone who appreciates conditions in the Army or has any knowledge of them knows that suggestion is impracticable. There was no shortage of volunteers for six months' service in the Congo, but it would be a completely different matter if we were to tag on to that volunteering for service abroad, the condition that when they came back, they would find themselves permanently stationed at some distance from their home station, or the place they had come to regard as their home station.
Deputy Booth also referred to the fact that no heed was taken of his suggestion of the previous year that a unit should be got together at that time and be specially prepared for service abroad with the armed United Nations Forces. That was not because we did not realise that it was possible that such a request might be forthcoming. We knew that such a thing was possible, that other countries had been asked to supply units in similar circumstances and that we might be asked. We also knew that under existing legislation it would not be legal for us to send troops abroad. Our soldiers had joined for service in this country only, and special legislation would be necessary to permit of their serving abroad.
We decided quite deliberately not to do what Deputy Booth suggested. We realised that there were many countries in a better position than we were to give that type of assistance to the United Nations, and we did not think it any part of our duty to advertise the fact that we were available for any and every type of service with the United Nations. When the situation did arise, our decision to accede to the request was taken in the light of the situation as it existed in the new Congo State, in the knowledge that there was a desperate need for a stabilising force there, and in the light of the importance of preventing the situation from developing into war between the great Powers.
We realise, of course, that their experience there has been valuable to the officers and men of the Army. Our contribution to the United Nations effort in the Congo has raised the status of this country considerably among the nations, but it was not for those reasons that we decided to accede to the request. We did so because of the importance of the job that had to be done. Of course, there was no way of knowing in advance that this particular situation would arise. We knew that any unit we would send abroad to take part in a United Nations operation such as this would have to be based on volunteers.
It would not have been reasonable to expect us to ask people to volunteer a considerable time in advance for some unknown type of service. In fact, I remember that when the permanent Bill to enable units to serve abroad was being discussed in the Dáil, I found it hard to convince certain Deputies that in the battalion that was replacing the 32nd and 33rd battalions, we were not holding men to an offer of their services made six months before in different conditions.
Deputies pressed me, rightly, on the point, to make sure that it was a current offer that was being availed off: in other words, that the men were going on the actual service for which they had volunteered and that we were not then asking people to volunteer in advance for some unknown type of situation. Even if we did get them to offer in those conditions, it would be unfair to hold them to it, when some particular situation developed.
With regard to the Congo operation, the request came up very suddenly. Independence was granted to that country on 1st July, 1960. The request for a contingent came to us on 16th July, 1960. Our troops were on their way— the main party—on 28th July, some of the advance party having gone before that. The response to the request was made with as much rapidity as possible. It was not a hotch-potch battalion. It was carefully selected and has proved itself well able to adapt itself to the difficult conditions there. It has proved itself one of the most effective units that served with the United Nations.
We do not intend to gather a special unit together for general service with the United Nations in any situation that may arise. The decision to send a contingent will be made in the light of the circumstances that obtain. We shall bear in mind that there are other countries that are better equipped to give this assistance to the United Nations.
The situation in the case of the Congo was that most of those countries would not be acceptable there. We realised that. It was one of the factors that helped us to make up our minds to accede to that request. The suggestion was made that we should now be training a battalion to replace the 34th Battalion that is at present in the Congo. There has been no request yet for a replacement. There has been no decision yet on replacing them if we are requested to do so.
I have dealt with the question of equipment for our troops. In the first instance, there was some delay in getting some of the tropical equipment but that was a United Nations responsibility. We were assured it would be available for the troops on arrival. Barbed wire for defensive arrangements, and so on, are obviously not questions to be dealt with by us here. If there has been any delay, as Deputy Sweetman alleges, in their provision it is obviously a matter for the United Nations.
Mention was made of overseas allowances. We had very little knowledge of conditions in the Congo. We did not know what would be required or what it would be reasonable to give. Judging by our conditions here, which were all we had to go by, we decided on a certain flat rate of overseas allowances. In the light of circumstances in the Congo and of what was being paid to troops of other nations, and in the light of the arduous nature of the service that had to be given there, we increased the allowances retrospectively to the first day of service there. I think the increased rates would be looked upon by anybody as adequate. The rates of overseas allowances which we pay here and which are in addition to the nine shillings per day paid by the United Nations and also in addition to the ordinary rank pay of our soldiers which they get, anyway, are:
Private (single), 15/- extra per day; (married), 25/- extra per day.
Corporal (single), 17/6 per day; (married), 27/6 per day.
Other non-commissioned ranks: (single), 20/- extra per day; (married), 30/- extra per day.
Second-Lieutenant up to Captain: (single), 26/3 extra per day; (married), 41/3 extra per day.
Officers of the rank of Commandant upwards: (single), 36/3 extra per day; (married), 51/3 extra per day.
I think these overseas allowances are reasonable. I cannot see what the complaints raised here were about.
I have also to thank Deputies in general for the manner in which they dealt with the question of civil defence. The Government regard this as a very important aspect of national defence. I am glad that practically everybody here took the same line.
A question was raised as to the possibility of introducing civil defence teaching in primary schools. That is a rather difficult matter. It would require much consideration, having regard to the nature of the subject and the demands already made on the teachers and on the pupils by the ordinary curricula of the schools. At a later stage of development of the civil defence organisation the question of giving some tuition in the matter to young boys and girls will receive further consideration. I gave a figure of six thousand for the active membership of the civil defence organisation. Some Deputies appear to question that and to think that that figure was inflated in some way. I can assure the House that as far as my information goes the figure is correct for the present active volunteers in the civil defence organisation.
It is true that in some parts of the country there is not the same activity as in other parts. I do not think there is any county in which there is no civil defence organisation. There are some counties where the activity is fairly poor. It is my hope that when the regional officers take up duty the weak spots will be reorganised and that civil defence training will be on a wider basis. I assure Deputy Esmonde that it is not intended that these officers shall be part-time. They will be wholly engaged on the work of civil defence. I do not think it will in any way adversly affect the normal work of the Defence Forces.
We have attempted to do everything we can to encourage people to volunteer for the different branches of the civil defence services. We have not attempted splash advertising such as was suggested here because we did not think it is a matter that lends itself to that type of advertising or that it should be dealt with in that way. It is preferable that the appeal to join should be based on the facts of the situation and that it should be an appeal to reason and to the sense of responsibility of people to train themselves for this very important work. That is the type of person we want to get into the civil defence organisation, men who will come in because of sound reasons and know the purpose and the importance of the work and will therefore be more likely to remain on and fit themselves to carry out this important work should the need for it ever arise.
In addition to the advertising that has been carried out by my Department, the majority of local authorities have also incurred expenditure on their own local advertising, and some of them have embarked on other public efforts such as civil defence displays, film shows, demonstrations, parades and the issue of pamphlets on the matter.
I can assure Deputy Corish that no pressure whatever is put on local authority officials to join civil defence. It is true that in the early stages the local authorities were asked to find from their staffs people who would train as instructors. That was with a view to avoiding the problem of the release and payment of people in private employment for the period of two or three weeks which was necessary in order to train people as instructors; but since December, 1958, local authorities have been authorised to make good the loss of wages that volunteers in private employment may incur while attending courses at the Civil Defence School. In addition, civil servants are granted special leave with pay to attend these courses, and national teachers may also be recouped any payment in respect of substitutes while attending courses at the request of the local authorities.
There is a modest fee payable to all instructors, including members of local authorities, who have obtained this certificate from Scoil Cosanta Sibhialta, so that there is no question of there being pressure put on local authority officials to qualify as instructors and do this work. In fact, we would welcome instructors from different walks of life.
There was some slight complaint mainly from Deputy Corish with regard to placing the fundamental responsibility for civil defence on the local authorities, but the Deputy is aware that it is in fact the position that this is a statutory function of local authorities, and from the whole nature of the problem it is obvious that that is the best way in which it should be handled. It is essentially an administrative problem. Most of the services catered for in civil defence are merely an extension of services already provided by local authorities in peacetime such as hospitalisation, fire fighting, rehousing of those in need, and care of the homeless generally. We have to bear that characteristic of the civil defence problem in mind. There seems to be a tendency on the part of a lot of people to confuse it with military operations which, of course, are on an entirely different basis. Civil defence is essentially the organisation and training of individual citizens so that they may mitigate the consequences of nuclear war. While the State accepts responsibility for the full direction and control of the civil defence organisation and for the provision of appropriate financial support for securing technical knowledge and for the initiation and formulation of plans, together with the provision of training equipment, it is still a fact that it is essentially a local organisation and can best be developed by the local authority and as an adjunct of the local authority. The ultimate effectiveness of civil defence must of course depend on the extent to which the people themselves are prepared to give voluntary service.
Deputy Esmonde was worried as to whether my Department was keeping itself fully informed as to the dangers of fall-out, and whether we were collecting all possible information on the effect of such things as radio-active fall-out. I can assure him that that is being done. Officers of my Department both civil and military frequently attend at the British Home Office and British Civil Defence Staff College training centres, and I am satisfied that their training is as up-to-date as it is possible to have it.
We have given lectures on radio activity illustrated by film shows in every county in the State. The Director of Civil Defence personally showed such films to all the local authorities towards the end of 1958 and the beginning of 1959. These civil defence films have been availed of by a number of local authorities for showing locally. For example, during the quarter ending 31st March, 1961, there were 192 issues of civil defence films to various local authorities. The suggestion was made that these films should be shown in the ordinary public cinemas, but the films we have are 16 mm., which cannot be shown there, and in any case I doubt if that would be a desirable suggestion to adopt. I thank Deputies generally for the manner in which they approached the question of civil defence.
The praise given also to An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil was richly deserved. They have continued throughout the year to give very good service by training themselves to take their place with the regular Army in the defence forces of the country. I was glad that practically every Deputy has realised the importance of that force and that most of them advocated that we should try to expand it as much as possible. There was one suggestion, however, that we should disband the force completely. I would not contemplate doing that for a moment. So far from it being true that An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil has no function to perform, the fact is that without the F.C.A. the regular Army would be practically futile. We have by amalgamating or integrating An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil with the Army succeeded in ensuring that it would be possible to put an efficient and reasonably-sized Army into the field at short notice, and, as I said earlier, the training that is being given to An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil now is along similar lines to that being given to the Army, and it has been established that the Army is being well trained.
Most Deputies appreciate that, and they have paid a well deserved tribute to both An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil and An Sluagh Muirí to show their appreciation of the fact that they by their patriotism and devotion to training are providing us with an efficient defence force at a very small cost.
I cannot accept the idea that there is no function for our Army except to support the civil power and to provide units for service with the United Nations. We are not prepared to leave the defence of the country in other hands. We accept it as one of the obligations of our independence that we should be prepared to make every effort within the scope of our resources to preserve our territorial integrity, and we realise that it would be unreasonable to expect the Great Powers to allow a military vacuum to develop here.
I reject completely the idea that the Defence Forces of this country have no other function than to support the civilian power or to supply a token contingent to the United Nations Forces. The primary purpose of the Army is to defend our country. In deciding whether or not to respond to calls from the United Nations for assistance, that primary function of the Army must be borne in mind and, as far as this Government are concerned, will always be born in mind.
There was some discussion on the Naval Service. It is true that the main function of our Naval Service in peacetime is to protect our exclusive fishery limits. I think it is doing that fairly effectively. I was asked if I accepted it was adequate to stop poaching. Of course, it cannot be everywhere at the one time, but I believe there is little or no poaching inside the three-mile limit which goes on undetected for any considerable length of time. The whole question of the Naval Service, with particular reference to its role in fishery patrols, is under examination at the moment. It has been stated that the corvettes are entirely unsuitable for this purpose. That has not been the experience of the Naval Service. They are quite suitable for that purpose and their replacement, at present at any rate, is not contemplated. The three corvettes have had major overhauls recently and are fit for quite a considerable amount of service in the future.
It was in respect of the Naval Service that Deputy Flanagan made his plea that it should be expanded "irrespective of cost." As I said, I am in the position that I have to consider the question of cost. I am sure Deputy Sweetman is glad he will not be in the position of having to find the money to carry out Deputy Flanagan's ideas after the next election. The question was raised as to the purchase of a vessel for the training of An Slua Muirí. The vessel to which the two Deputies who spoke were referring would not be suitable for the Naval Service because of its construction and slow speed. While it might be used to give some training to the members of An Slua Muirí, it was not considered advisable to purchase it. Many desirable things have to be cut out of the Estimate each year. I realise that these young men who have volunteered for service with An Slua Muirí feel very much the need for a training vessel. If at all possible, I shall consider doing something about it, but I cannot hold out any definite promise that we will be able to accede to their request in the near future. I can see it is desirable. Each year we find that, because of the great amount of money involved, it is necessary to omit some things we would like to include in the Estimates.
With regard to the sergeant-pilot training scheme introduced in 1943 and discontinued after that, while it did produce a number of very excellent pilots, it was not considered entirely successful. The minimum educational qualification laid down was a bit unrealistic. It was found that not all the personnel recruited were capable of absorbing the technical instruction necessary, although there were a number who did very well. Apart from that, at the moment the Air Corps are training as many pilots as possible. I did not think I gave the impression, as Deputy Sweetman said, that the primary purpose of the Air Corps was to provide pilots for Aer Lingus. I merely mentioned that one of the aspects of the short service commission scheme is that it does provide pilots for Aer Lingus. I think it is a good idea that we should be able to train pilots here for the civilian airlines. Of course, they are not lost to the Army; they remain available to us as reserve officers and do their annual training with the Air Corps every year. In addition to supplying pilots to the civilian airline, we are in that way also building up a reserve of flying officers for our own Air Corps.
The biggest question raised was the question of the pay of members of the Defence Forces and, in particular, the recent increases given. It is obvious that a great deal of misrepresentation has gone on with regard both to the question of the pay of members of the Defence Forces and in particular to the increases recently granted. I am afraid it is obvious that that has been to a large extent deliberate. It is dishonest, to my mind, to compare the cash payments made to members of the Defence Forces with the wages of people with similar qualifications in civilian occupations because, of course, the cash payments are only part of the total emoluments of members of the Defence Forces.
It was pleasing to see the generosity of members of the Opposition when they are out of office. No pay, apparently, would be too high for the Army while they are out of office; but of course there was no evidence of the same approach when they were in office. It seems to me that this unjustified attack on the recent pay increases is largely inspired by the fact that the Coalition Government during their two periods of office never lasted four years, but long before four years were reached, they had reduced the economy of the country to such a state that they were not in a position to give an increase to anyone. The increases given to all sections of the public service by this Government, and I am referring now to this increase given to the Army, are in addition to adjustments that have been made to meet the cost of living and represent a real improvement in the pay of the members of the Army.
In view of the misunderstanding of the position, I think I should give some details both of the increases and of the actual pay and emoluments of different ranks in the Army. First, the manner in which those increases were given was that it was decided to approach the matter from the standpoint of the long-term value the increases would give to officers and men and which would obviously afford them the maximum benefit.
For instance, there has been a lot of propaganda about the fact that no increase was given to second-lieutenant, as if second-lieutenant were a separate category in the Army. Everybody here knows that a man is only a second-lieutenant for the first two years of his commissioned service, when he is a very young man and unlikely to have family responsibilities. After that, he automatically becomes a lieutenant and after eight years as lieutenant, he is promoted to the rank of captain, so that the scale of pay of second-lieutenants, lieutenants and captains was properly treated as a single scale. The important thing obviously is what the man will ultimately earn, even if he gets no further promotion—what he will earn on his maximum. Of course it is the maximum in the rate of pay that will affect his pension if he should retire at that particular rank.
It is also important to the second-lieutenants that the higher ranks of officers should get reasonable increases because quite a big proportion of them will get further promotion beyond the rank of captain. However, the amount of money that was available for these increases was limited by what the economy of the country could afford, what it was reasonable to ask the tax-payers to provide and the problem was to distribute it to the best advantage. I also want to say that the percentage given to the Army compares favourably with that given to other sections of the public service. That is a fact that can be seen from the figures, so that there was no question of the Army being treated on a less favourable basis than other sections of the public service. The people making that case know that it is not true.
As I said, we treated the ranks of second-lieutenant, lieutenant and captain as a single scale and the new maximum which was fixed provided for an increase of £70 a year for a married captain and £54 for a single captain. An increase of £70 was not an insult to any man, as was alleged, and is not something that made no significant improvement. Of course in the case of officers that increase should not be taken on its own because for the first time they were granted children's allowances of £20 a year for each child. The increases given to the higher ranks were, for a married commandant, £76 on his maximum, a married lieutenant-colonel £83, a colonel, £95 and a major-general, £119. In addition to that, there is the provision of £20 a year for each eligible child.
It must be agreed that the payment for the first time of this children's allowance of £20 a year for each child marks a big advance in the evolution of officers' remuneration. Deputy Sweetman maintained that there were children's allowances before. I answered a question of his on Wednesday, 15th March, on this subject and it was quite obvious that there was no question of any children's allowances, properly so called, in the Army prior to this. There was a time prior to the consolidation of Army pay when there was an allowance of 6d. in respect of the fourth and each subsequent child under 16 in the case of a boy and 18 in the case of a girl. That disappeared on 1st April, 1950, when there was a Coalition Government in office, of which Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Finance at the time. If there was, as certain Opposition speakers claim, an inherent right to this children's allowance, it seems peculiar that it was not granted at that time.
It is obviously quite right to claim that this is an innovation in regard to officers and certainly the fact of the matter is that not only has their remuneration improved by £70 for a captain, £76 for a commandant, £83 for a lieutenant colonel, £95 for a colonel, and £119 for a major-general, but in addition they have been given £20 per year in respect of each child. These allowances, of course, are in addition to the social welfare children's allowances. The case has been made that the allowance should have been fixed at the higher rate which is paid to certain grades of civil servants but not to all, but the pay structure of these grades of civil servants was adjusted many years ago to provide for a special lower rate for single men. It was decided at that time that this lower rate of pay would entitle them to a higher rate of pay and to children's allowances on marriage. There are quite a big number of civil servants outside those grades who receive no children's allowances while others received an ex gratia payment of £11 a year.
However, this allowance of £20 has been granted and the claim made on behalf of the officers that it should be £28, or the same as the higher rate paid to certain civil servants, continues and may possibly be granted at some future time. A married captain on the maximum, then, received an increase of £90 a year if he has one child; an increase of £130 if he has three children; and £170 if he has five children. That means the actual pay of an Army captain with one child is £1,145 per year; £1,185 per year with three children and £1,225 with five children. A commandant on the maximum of his scale with one child received £96 increase; with three children, £136; and with five children, £176 a year. The salary of a commandant with one child is £1,269; with three children, £1,309; and with five children, £1,349 a year. A lieutenant-colonel with one child received an increase of £103 a year; with three children an increase of £143; and with five children, £183. The salary of a lieutenant-colonel with one child is £1,531; with three children, £1,571; and with five children, £1,611.
In view of the misrepresentation which there has been, it is necessary that I should make that clear. I cannot understand how people can say that the granting of increases on that scale was an insult to the recipients.
In the case of the increases given to men, there has also been gross misrepresentation and in giving the true facts, I have to maintain that what has been said with regard to the rates of pay in the Army is not correct but I do not want to be taken as saying that I would not like to give increased pay to the men in the Army if I could. The giving of any further increases to any sections of the public service must await a further development of the economy. The fact that we were able to give those increases at this stage is due to the development that has taken place and which followed directly from the change of Government in 1957. No doubt conditions will continue to improve and it will be possible to do more but I want to make it clear that conditions and pay in the Army are not as they have been represented to be. That does not mean that I would not like to improve them further.
It should be remembered—and I believe that most of those who spoke knew this to be the case—that a private grade 1 is a recruit, that is, a young man coming straight into the Army. He should complete his recruit's training in six months and become a private one star. Normally after a further three months he should become a private two star and after a further 21 months service he should become a private three star. With the particularly keen soldier who has a good education promotion could be very much faster than that. It was decided that the greatest increase in the rank of private should be given to the private three star. I think that was the correct way to handle the matter as that is a status that every soldier should reach at an early age.
The amount of money available is limited and I think that from the point of view of the best interests of the Army the best use was made of it by giving the major increase in the rank of private to the private three star. Just as in the case of the officers the important thing for the second lieutenant is not what he will get during the first two years service when he is a very young man but the maximum that he will reach, so in the case of the private the important thing should be what he will get as a three star private and not what he gets for the first six months as a recruit. No increases were granted to privates grade three and grade two. These are boy apprentices under the ages of 18 and as they advance in grade and service they will also benefit by the higher rate.
The same principle of progressional structure increases was borne in mind in the case of N.C.O.s. The increases were framed to improve the progression from the lowest N.C.O. rank to the highest. I think that it is in the best interests of the Army that the differential in pay between one rank and the next higher rank should be sufficient to give a soldier an incentive to improve his knowledge and efficiency so as to qualify for promotion.
In the case of single soldiers here is how the increases worked out: Private three star—6/5d. per week; Corporal one star—7/- per week; Corporal two star—7/7d. per week; Sergeant—9/11d. per week; Company Quarter Master Sergeant—10/6d.; Company Sergeant —11/8d.; Battalion Quarter Master Sergeant—12/10d., and Sergeant Major —18/8d. These are for single men and there are numerous openings for promotion to corporal and higher N.C.O. rank for the keen and efficient soldier.
Married soldiers comprise over 40 per cent. of the present strength of the Army and they have been given further increases. The position in regard to married soldiers is that a private three star with three children got an increase of 11/1d. a week; with four children he got 13/10d. increase and with five children 16/7d. A corporal one star with three children got 11/8d.; with five children he got an increase of 17/2d. A corporal two star with three children got 12/3d. and with five children, 17/9d. A sergeant with three children got 14/7d. and with five children 20/1d. There were correspondingly higher increases for the other N.C.O.s up to sergeant major who with three children got an increase of 23/4d. or 28/10d. if he had five children.
I do not say that these are wonderful increases but they mean a considerable improvement in the means of members of the Defence Forces and they are over and above increases already given to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. They constitute a real improvement in the soldier's conditions. As I said earlier, there is a considerable amount of misinformed opinion about the total pay of soldiers. It is completely unrealistic and dishonest to compare cash payments made to soldiers with the wages earned by people in civilian life. Of course the figures that are quoted here were the minimum figures for single men. There is never a reference to the figures for a married man. In fact, at column 1231 of Vol. 187 of the Official Report, Deputy Flanagan said:
A married sergeant in the British Army receives £14 15s. 6d. a week as against £6 9s. 1d. per week for a married sergeant in the Irish Army.
That is completely untrue. Even in regard to the cash payment he was deliberately giving the figure for a single sergeant as the figure for a married sergeant.
Could the Minister give us the correct figure?
I shall give the correct figure. The people who have been most vociferous in complaining about rates of pay in the Army are the same people who on other occasions complain bitterly about the cost of living. But in this case they completely ignored the fact that the soldier is maintained and clothed and fed free in addition to the cash payment that he gets. The single soldier living in barracks has full board and lodging and free uniform. He is entitled to two free travel vouchers home annually and it is estimated that the cost to the State of these free items amounts to £2 3s. 11d. a week on average but of course the retail value of these items would be considerably more, I think it is obvious that a fair comparison with other callings can only be made if the value of the main free items at least is taken into account. I shall give examples of the weekly pay including increments plus the value of the free items for single soldiers. I want to emphasise that this is for single soldiers only as there are additional payments for married soldiers.
The private three star gets £6. 7s. 11d. to £6. 17s. 3d.; corporal one star—£7. 1s. 11d. to £7. 11s. 3d.; corporal two star—£7. 7s. 2d. to £7. 16s. 6d.; sergeant £8. 4s. 8d. to £8 14s.; company sergeant—£9. 3s. 11d. to £9. 13s. 3d.; sergeant major £10. 8s. 5d. to £10. 17s. 9d. These are single men.
In the case of married soldiers in addition to regimental pay and increments they normally receive a ration allowance in lieu of rations, the current rate being £1. 6s. 3d. a week. They also receive a marriage allowance which consists at present of £1. 17s. 8d. for the wife and 7/6d. per week for each qualified child and they are provided with free uniforms valued at 9/6d. per week. I think it is necessary in view of the misrepresentation there has been to give some figures to show what this means.
A private, three star, with three children, goes from a minimum of £8.19.11 to £9.9.3 after ten years; with five children, he goes from £9.14.11 to £10.4.3. A corporal, one star, with three children, goes from £9.13.11 to £10.3.3. With five children, he goes from £10.8.11 to £10.18.3; a corporal, two star, with three children, goes from £9.19.2 to £10.8.6; with five children he goes from £10.14.2 to £11.3.6. A sergeant with three children goes from £10.16.8 to £11.6.0; with five children he goes from £11.11.8 to £12.1.0 A company sergeant, with three children, goes from £11.15.11 to £12.5.3; with five children he goes from £12.10.11 to £13.0.3. A sergeant major, with three children, goes from £13.0.5 to £13.9.9; with five children, he goes from £13.15.5 to £14.4.9. These rates are for line soldiers. For the technician and trades-man classes, which include ranks up to and including sergeant, the figures are higher. I admit these rates are not excessive and I do not suggest for one moment that they are but, bearing in mind the qualifications appropriate to the different ranks and comparing them with civilian employment, the rates do not compare unfavourably, as some Deputies have sought to infer. There is, too, a provision that both officers and men can retire on pension at a comparatively early age, an age at which they are still fit to take up other employment. That is an advantage that must be considered. There are many people in other pensionable jobs who would like to have that advantage.
Again, the children's allowances to which I have referred are paid in addition to and not in substitution for those paid by the Department of Social Welfare. The increases granted compare favourably with those granted to other public servants. While it is only right that the increased prosperity which has followed on the change of Government in 1957 should be shared by all sections of the community, it would not be advisable to give the Army such exceptional treatment as to justify further demands from other sections at this stage. If there are further increases it is essential that the economy should be further developed in the first instance. It should be remembered, too, that these increases will result in pro rata increases in retired pay, pensions and gratuities.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to deal with all the matters raised in any great detail. I can assure those who are interested in the apprenticeship scheme that that scheme will continue. Provision has been made for that. The scheme has been successful. It was suggested that it might be possible to extend it. That will be borne in mind but at the moment it is not intended to extend it. The period of training is considered satisfactory by the trade union organisations and it is not intended to extend the period.
Reference was made to the fact that there has been a slight increase in the rate of resignations by officers of late. There is no reason to think that that trend will continue. It must be related to the fact that, unlike other public servants, Army officers may retire on pension before reaching the compulsory retiring age. The rate is admittedly higher than last year and I regard that as an indication of the greater availability of attractive jobs outside which has resulted from the change of Government in 1957. These men are not completely lost to the Army because in the majority of cases they remain on the Reserve.
A number of Deputies raised the question of housing for married soldiers. A building programme which was initiated some years ago is still continuing. The greatest need at the moment appears to be in Naas and provision has been made for a housing scheme there. The other areas mentioned will be considered later.
Do not forget Deputy Corry's water supply. If the Minister forgets that he need not come back here.
I think Deputy Corry knows the position about that.
I know he knows it, but that will not satisfy him. I am looking after the Deputy's interests for him.
He would be a long time there before he would tell me as many lies as the Deputy told me.
Is that parliamentary now?
It was intended as a joke, obviously.
The position is that the Board of Works are in process of laying pipes.
I forgot to mention the Haulbowline apprentices tonight.
Mention was made of the Equitation Team. I was glad to see so much interest in this. There is ample evidence of an improvement in the standard. The team did very well last year. In its first foreign show this year it has done exceptionally well, and I think we can look forward to continued improvement.
Deputy O'Sullivan said more rural shows should be attended by the team. I can assure him that is my opinion also; we should attend as many shows as possible. The team is very popular at any shows it attends and by its attendance it can do much to help shows. There is, however, a limit to the number that can be attended because of the resources available both from the point of view of horses and riders. It is essential that as many international shows as possible should be attended. This year I understand 20 shows will be attended. That is as many as can be undertaken at the moment.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 12th April, 1961.