Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1963

Vol. 201 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Defence (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £6,339,200 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1964, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Cosanta, lena n-áirítear Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin; le haghaidh Pá agus Costais Óglaigh na hÉireann; agus chun Deontas-i-gCabhair a íoc.—(An tAire Cosanta.)

Sir Anthony Esmonde:

When the Minister introduced this Estimate last week, he gave a very wide coverage of everything, but if you read his speech carefully you will find that he really said very little about anything. Perhaps that was designedly so, with the idea of encouraging a full debate on all the matters he covered in his speech. The first point I want to deal with is Civil Defence. The argument of quite a few Deputies has been that Civil Defence should be a matter for central Government. I do not agree with that. If we are faced with a situation where we have to go into action in Civil Defence here, it is far better for us to have local organisations so that we may utilise all the resources at our disposal.

That does not mean to say it should not be controlled and operated by a central Government service. I took the speeches of the Deputies to mean they wished the system to be changed as a whole. I do not agree. I think we should continue the system we have. I feel that the response to Civil Defence, which, perhaps, is not as important in this country as in other countries on account of our not having very many big urban centres, has not been as good as it might. I would go a certain distance with these people who advocate the centralisation of the problem in agreeing that the Government should, in so far as it is possible, sponsor it, perhaps, more actively than they are already doing.

The Minister did not really give us any defence policy. It appears to me we are going to keep on with an Army of a certain standard, largely, I suppose, for the purpose of being in a position to train personnel in the event of its being necessary, because of a flare-up in the European or world situation, for us to fight. The idea is to train a greater number of personnel. He mentioned that the Army was up to date—at least, I think he did. He did not give us any indication as to how it was up to date, what kind of weapons we have or whether we were keeping in touch with other forces moving into more modern types of warfare. Perhaps it is some top secret which the Minister does not want to divulge to the House, but he could have given us a little more information than he gave. On reading his speech, so far as the Army is concerned, I found no information whatever except that it was modernised and up to date. Perhaps the Minister might care to enlarge on that when replying.

The Minister dealt with the Naval Service. I have repeatedly asked questions in this House to ascertain if we propose to continue with the naval corvettes or not. I think I am right in saying that corvettes have been disposed of by every navy in the world, with the exception of our own small navy. I cannot see that these corvettes are suitable for the purpose for which we largely require them: the protection of our fishing grounds. We have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands telling us we are to have a great expansion in the fishing industry here. We all appreciate that is possible but, to have that, it must be fully and competently protected.

I have tried to point out in this House on several occasions that the corvettes have several disadvantages. First, they can be seen hull up miles away, so that anybody can get away before they can get on the scene. Secondly, they are very slow. Under modern conditions, they are probably one of the slowest fighting craft afloat to-day. Third, their draught is considerable. As a result, there are only about three or four harbours around our coastline into which they can go. It is not very difficult, therefore, for the fishing fleets to have a pretty good idea where our corvettes are located.

The only thing that can be said for the corvettes is that they provide a means of training crews. I wonder if that is a great advantage. As far as I can see, we are training our naval crews to move subsequently into the merchant service. Surely if we are training them for ordinary merchant ships, the up-to-date training they get is not of any particular benefit to them one way or another?

I should like the Minister to tell us if it is the intention to keep these corvettes indefinitely. They are becoming more and more obsolete each year. I was given to understand under the tenure of office of the previous Minister an offer was made for them and they could have been sold. I do not know whether that is true or not. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether we are wedded to them for the rest of our naval history.

There is one other point concerning the Naval Service to which I wish to refer. About a year ago, a ship was in difficulties off the Wexford coast and the lifeboat went out and the crew did their best to take the marooned sailors off the ship. They found it was impossible to do so and they radioed to their people ashore that a helicopter was required. I am informed that the message was passed to the senior naval officer of the Naval Service at Haulbowline. He had not got the authority to order a helicopter and I believe he had to telephone the Department of Defence to get the consent of either the Minister or some of his officials or, if I am wrong in that, he had to get the consent of the Army authorities. In this case, it was a matter of life or death for the people on the ship which was breaking up and it took a quarter of an hour to phone from Haulbowline to Dublin to get the green light to go ahead, although anybody who has had experience of trunk connections during the past few years could reasonably have imagined that it might have taken half an hour. Is it not possible for the Minister to give the senior naval officer in charge the necessary authority, when he thinks fit, as a trained sailor knowing conditions, to give a direction to get, as in this case, on to Cornwall to secure the available helicopter for the rescue work? It is a small point but it might mean the difference between life and death. Perhaps the Minister would consider it.

The Minister mentioned that we are to have a helicopter service. We in Fine Gael are pleased to hear it because over a period of years we have been pressing the Department of Transport and Power to do something about it. As far as I know, we are the only civilised and up-to-date country in the world which has not got a helicopter service. This service is to be operated by the Department of Defence and I think everybody will agree that that is the best arrangement. Again, when we examine the Minister's statement, the information appears to be fairly limited. It may be that the Minister was hoping to initiate a discussion and, indeed, he has succeeded in doing that and there has been a considerable debate on most points in the Estimate, but the House would like to know what type of helicopter the Minister has in mind. One can only surmise from the figures —the only information we have had to date on this matter—the type of helicopter he may be considering.

I am not a technical expert but I am advised that there are two types of helicopter. There is the turbine type and the piston type. The difference between them is that the turbine type can take off immediately; in other words, it can go into action as soon as the SOS message or emergency message comes in. The piston type cannot do that and it is a matter of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before it is heated up and before it can go on its errand of mercy.

I am also reliably informed that there are two types of turbine helicopters available to the Minister. It may be that there are more but this is the information I have. One of them is manufactured by a British firm and the other by a French firm. The British type of helicopter is the type which has been used for lifesaving, ambulance work and hospital work and so on — in fact for all the different types of work which go to make up the uses to which a helicopter can be put under modern conditions.

I am further informed that the British manufactured helicopter, the "Westland Whirlwind" is the one very much in use across Channel in all these circumstances. It is able to cater for six stretcher cases. There is plenty of room for manoeuvring in it. It is also able to carry, as part of its equipment, up-to-date medical services so that any emergencies may be dealt with. As well as that, it may, if necessary, be used as a vital maternity unit and, in fact, in other countries is being used as such. I am told it is capable of travelling a considerable distance without refuelling which is important in regard to our helicopter service here as it might well happen that it would have to function out over the Atlantic in emergency rescues from aircraft and ships in distress. I am informed that its overall range is about 270 miles and that it is capable of carrying a reserve fuel tank which, when it has been utilised, can be ditched so that the helicopter can travel another 80 miles or so.

All things considered, it does seem to me that that would be the most suitable type of craft we should order. As well as that, there is always the difficulty of obtaining spare parts and this type of craft is manufactured only a few hours distance away. I am also informed that if the Minister is considering a smaller type of craft it is possible to get such a craft manufactured by the same firm. There is also a French type of helicopter which, admittedly, is cheaper than the other one I mentioned. I think it is called the "Alouette" but it has not got the same ambulance capacity as the other one. I am taking the long-term view and I believe that if we are starting helicopter services here—and it seems that from the amount of money being voted the Minister's mind is moving in the direction which I respectfully submit it should—we should get the bigger and better equipped type of helicopter. He will then have a better service at his disposal, one which will be easily serviced, which will have a wide range and which has been tried and tested throughout all the rescue operations that have been going on around our coast by British helicopters because we had not got one of our own. I would ask the Minister to take those factors into consideration. It would also be useful if he would indicate to the House what he has in mind and whether or not any decision has been taken so far.

The training of the personnel for the helicopter services is a vital matter and I feel sure the Department of Defence, which has shown itself, with one or two minor exceptions, to be an efficient Department, will be well able to provide the personnel to man these craft. I would further ask the Minister, when he is arranging for the training of this staff, to bear in mind the fact that if we are establishing a helicopter service, we will have to have a round-the-clock service. He should not stint himself in any way in regard to pilots and personnel. We on this side of the House can claim credit for having fought during the past few years for a helicopter service. Many people outside the Dáil were interested to learn that we are to have this vital and efficient service.

If the Minister has decided that the price of the French helicopter is cheaper than its British counterpart, I would ask him to take into consideration that certain difficulties will have to be faced in regard to the training of personnel. There may be a language difficulty. I do not know the proficiency of the Irish Army in speaking French. I know they are very good at speaking Irish. The previous Minister was very keen on that. It is easier to train pilots in a language which is known to everyone than in a foreign language. I hope the Minister will give a full explanatory statement on this very vital and important new service.

In conclusion, I want to agree whole-heartedly with Deputies who have spoken about the Irish soldier's uniform. There is no doubt that the uniform of the private soldier and the non-commissioned rank is the most unglamorous outfit I have ever seen. I understand there has been considerable difficulty in recruiting personnel to the Army. There has not been the same difficulty since the start of the Congo operations because it has always been the wish of an Irishman to spread his wings. I suppose he has it in his blood from the days of the Wild Geese. If the Minister did something about the uniforms—which Deputies of all shades of opinion recommend—it would be far easier to get recruits. There does not seem to be any reason why we should continue with the extraordinary outfit that has been worn over the years.

In the south of my constituency there is a barracks, in Duncannon Fort, which I think would be suitable for the training of personnel. In the summer months, it is used by the FCA, and I do not see why more use should not be made of it by the Army. I agree that it is rather a back-end and there probably would not be a lot for the soldiers to do, but it is a healthy spot and it is not too far from New Ross. The Minister should consider using that barracks because that would help to preserve it in good condition. It is a fort which we might need some time in the future.

Mr. Crinion:

I welcome the decision to introduce a helicopter service, and I welcome the fact that the service has been taken over by the Department of Defence. We have seen during the past couple of months how this service could be used to great effect, particularly during the bad weather in the Wicklow mountains and in the recent tragic incident on Lugnaquilla. It is good that we are to have that service.

Looking over the past year, there are a few aspects of this Vote to which I should like to draw the notice of the Minister. One is in relation to what are called temporary workers on the Curragh. They are really permanent workers but they are not established. Workers in the other State-sponsored bodies have superannuation schemes but these people have not. Some type of superannuation or pension scheme —call it what you will—should be introduced.

These men are civilian workers in the Curragh, in which I am very interested. There are some people who are living in my constituency and working in the barracks in Mullingar but this goes for all the barracks all over the country: when the civilian workers retire, they have to depend solely on the old age pension and I feel that some insurance or superannuation scheme should be brought in to cover them. Men will always work better when their conditions are right and they are happy. It is always better to have employees happy, and I feel that some such scheme would help towards that end.

Some of the lower paid civilian workers were rather disappointed by the White Paper, Closing the Gap. Some of them were coming up for an increase in pay and they feel that it has now been postponed. I know that in some of those positions the pay is anything but good, and it was hard that the White Paper had to be imposed on those people.

The Army uniforms were mentioned and I fully endorse what has been said about them. The uniforms could be greatly improved, and should be improved, particularly now when our soldiers are travelling abroad and meeting the personnel of other armies serving with the United Nations in the Congo, and prior to that in the Middle East. A soldier definitely takes pride in his uniform and in everything connected with his army. He likes to have a well-cut uniform of nice material when stepping out. The stepping-out uniform of the American Army is particularly attractive, and the personnel are proud of it. It would help the morale of the Army if our Irish soldiers could be picked out as having nice uniforms. It would help in another way. It would help our trade because new countries look for fresh places to trade. I feel it would be a help to the country in general if our soldiers abroad had good, wellfitting uniforms.

Sufficient interest is not being taken in Civil Defence. At present there is no world war in progress. Last Christmas was the first Christmas for 20 years that there was not a world war being waged. Last October, the world was on the verge of war. The President of the United States of America spoke for half an hour over the American television and radio network and the world realised how near it was to the brink of war. The threat of war is always present.

There is great enthusiasm about Civil Defence work in the Celbridge, Maynooth and Kilcock areas of my constituency and in Kildare generally, but the people concerned are not getting sufficient encouragement from headquarters. Where people have taken the trouble to attend Civil Defence courses provided by the Department of Defence, their enthusiasm should be kept alive.

I attended a dance a few nights ago and was surprised at the number of people in Civil Defence uniform there. The people in the hall were impressed. Civil Defence corps have the idea that the general public do not know of their existence. It is proposed to issue a handbook through the post to give the people some idea of what to do in case of an emergency arising from atomic war. Where there is an enthusiastic Civil Defence corps in an area, it would boost their morale if the distribution of this handbook were entrusted to them. That would have the effect that, in case of an emergency, the people would know to whom to go for help. At present they do not know. It would be a very simple way of making known to the people in a locality the personnel associated with Civil Defence. Where there is local enthusiasm, the Department should encourage it. In peacetime, it could happen that no interest would be taken in Civil Defence and enenthusiasm would wane. Army personnel should be engaged in promoting interest in this aspect of our defensive measures.

The Minister's Department is responsible for a section of the Curragh. It seems to me that artificial fertiliser could be used to great advantage on the lands of the Curragh. Sections of the Curragh could be used for experimental purposes to demonstrate the beneficial effects of fertilisers. Fertilising would have the effect of increasing the number of sheep that could be grazed.

I have noticed that the Board of Works put out fertiliser on certain sections of Phoenix Park. The Department of Defence could do the same in respect of the Curragh lands. It would benefit sheep owners and would improve the appearance of the Curragh. There is a striking contrast at present between the appearance of the enclosed racecourse and the surrounding area of the Curragh. The turf on the racecourse presents a more luxuriant appearance.

There is a great deal of furze growing on the Curragh. Steps should be taken to control it. It may be picturesque but too much furze is wasteful of land. The Curragh is the most important Army centre. It is a show place. Foreign army personnel visiting this country are always brought to the Curragh. The main road to the south of Ireland crosses the Curragh. The Curragh is a scenic attraction, being the largest open space in the country.

I should like to say a few words about the Army Jumping Team. I was pleased with their successes in the past year. They got seven first prizes. In jumping, horse and rider form a team, a partnership. In that partnership, the rider plays the most important role. From my own experience, I know that, when a horse falls or hits a fence, in 50 per cent of the accidents, the fault lies with the rider. It takes a long time to train a rider and one of the things I have noticed about the Army Jumping Team in recent years is the frequent changing of the members of the team. Before the war we had the one team practically all the time. I believe one of the main reasons for the continual change now is the slowness of promotion. Promotion in other sections of the Army is much more rapid. Since the war, we have produced two outstanding riders. No sooner were their names made than they left the Army and went back to civilian life. Promotion was not coming quickly enough. If a member of the team marries, it is only natural that he will need more money to support a wife.

Another thing I have noticed is that our men are much lower in rank than are the members of other army jumping teams. That means that they have less pay. Presumably they are allowed expenses when they go abroad but those expenses would not, I am sure, permit them to rub shoulders freely with the more wealthy types with whom they come in contact. Naturally, they would like to feel they were the equals of their competitors from other countries. One way to solve that problem is by more rapid promotion.

The training of personnel is all right. It can be an advantage to have personnel without much prior experience because then there is no need to break them off faults. Training can start right away. If the Minister can see his way to encouraging more rapid promotion for these riders I am convinced our Army Jumping Team of the future will restore some of the former glory we gained and bring back plenty of prizes. Nothing gave me greater pleasure a few years back than watching Loch an Easbaigh and Cloyne on television coming in first and second in Rome and winning the most coveted trophy of the Rome show. A contented team will go a long way towards ensuring success and towards, therefore, recovering some of the pre-war glories.

Mr. T. Lynch:

The Minister mentioned that the number of Irish troops in the Congo would be reduced. We are, I think, at the stage now when we should pay more attention to what is happening in the Congo. Last December, I asked some questions about the Congo. I drew the attention of the Government to the fact that several newspapers in America, Great Britain and France had said that fighting was about to break out in the Congo. I was told the Government had no such information. The House rose and we went home. Two or three days afterwards, fighting broke out in the Congo. The Government should take steps to ensure that we are better informed as to what is happening out there and for what purposes our troops will be used. They are a credit to the country and to the service.

The Minister said the Naval Service continues to be occupied with the demanding problem of fishery protection and also said it participated in air-sea rescue operations as required. When it comes to air-sea rescue operations we remember the famous case off Wexford when the lifeboat could not put out to help a small vessel which was breaking up rapidly. At great peril to themselves, the British Navy put a helicopter into the work from an aircraft carrier in the Bristol Channel. Apart from anything else, we did not express ourselves as being very grateful to the officer commanding that carrier. If he had been commanding a vessel of some other country I have no doubt such would not have been the case: we would have been very quickly off the mark in such circumstances. And then we come to the problem of fishery protection. As far as I know, the Naval Service consists of three outmoded corvettes, one of which is used as spare parts for the other two. To use a seaman's words, these corvettes are capable of steaming at 15 knots.

Mr. McQuillan:

Too fast, under our new traffic laws.

Mr. T. Lynch:

They are capable of steaming at 15 knots. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that after the arrest of the Russian trawler off Waterford, the trawler captain when giving evidence—I nearly said he swore; he did not—he only gave testimony—said that he could have got away because his ship was much faster than the corvette. That is the position. The Minister said they have to engage in the demanding problem of fishery protection. They are engaging in a job for which they are not fitted. They are slow and unwieldy and unsuited to the business of protecting our coasts from foreign trawlers.

When asked what would be the most suitable vessel for the job of fishery protection off our coasts, people who have been in other navies throughout the world have recommended the cutter type of boat used by the Americans. They have the speed required to overhaul modern trawlers. It may be said I am off the line in discussing fishing at such length on this Estimate, but I feel compelled to dwell on the Minister's reference to the demanding problem of fishery protection. I want to point out to him that this protection is practically nonexistent. Only last week there were several foreign trawlers fishing into the rocks off Waterford and Wexford while the corvettes were at Cobh.

I would suggest to the Minister that he should dispose of these corvettes and acquire some cutters of the type I have mentioned. They could be based on ports all over the country, from Donegal right around to Louth. Then the Minister could say he was giving a 24-hour fishery protection service. There is no use saying two corvettes can do that job. As soon as they arrest a trawler, even while they are taking it into port the others are inside our territorial limits, fishing away. I do not think I could exaggerate our losses in this respect. If I said we were losing thousands of pounds I would be making the understatement of the year. Our losses can be counted in millions of pounds. We cannot say we are seriously defending our fisheries with the present service.

Another point I would put to the Minister is in connection with his proposal to purchase helicopters. He will have these craft at his disposal, and I take it they will be stationed at different ports. With these, and with improved vessels of the type I recommend, the Minister could say he was giving a 24-hour protection service. It is a terrible thing to hear the crews of these foreign fishing armadas boasting, when they put into our ports, of all the fish they have been taking from our waters. We should not let them get away with it.

I am told we are to buy French helicopters, that we are not to buy British helicopters because they are dearer, even though they carry bigger loads than the French. I would advise the Minister not to turn his back on the British like that. We bought the corvettes from them simply because we could not get them elsewhere. When we go to buy any type of aircraft, we always go to the continentals, to countries which buy very little from us. I would draw the Minister's attention to the action of the Minister for Defence in Poland recently. He cancelled an order he had given for British aircraft because the British had reduced the quota for Polish agricultural produce. Like good businessmen, the British very soon restored the quota. We are sending trade missions to Britain, and here in these helicopters we have a bargaining power which we could use. We have the balance of trade against us and we could use that against the French. According to what I am told, the British helicopter would be more suitable for the kind of work we have for them and would be easier for the Irish Air Force officers to learn to operate.

It seems strange to me that there are so many very well-equipped military barracks in the country that never have a garrison. It can be said that it is peace-time, that there are not enough troops and yet we have personnel trying to maintain those barracks. I suggest that battalions should be sent out from headquarters to these barracks in the country for a couple of months each year and that it would be a good idea to issue a sudden order that a battalion should be moved within a time limit from Dublin to one of these outlying places. We have such a barracks in Waterford but we hardly ever see a soldier there. Deputy Esmonde has already referred to Duncannon Fort.

As a member of a local authority, I do not like the idea of Government Departments thinking up schemes and asking the local authorities to carry them out and contribute to them. It is a good thing that civil defence should be run locally as it gives local people the idea that they are useful. Everything is not centralised in Dublin now as it used to be and if—God forbid— an emergency ever comes the people would be there and ready. But the fault I find is that the local authority is made responsible and the ratepayers must foot the bill. Deputies must try to get Ministers and Departments to break away from this arrangement. It is a handy way of getting money, to make up some scheme and say: "We will give 50 per cent or 60 per cent and the local authority must provide the balance." The central authority can then wash its hands of the matter. The central authority should be responsible for civil defence and should organise it.

I should like to see more Army personnel at various centres rather than in a few centres so as to train people and let them know we have an Army in the country.

It is a good thing that the Army was got out of the bull's wool uniform but still, when we compare our young soldiers with visiting soldiers, we find the visitors have smarter uniforms. Young people at present demand a better standard in these things and that is a good tendency. The Minister should see that our soldiers' uniforms for walking out are as smart as possible. When I first came to the Dáil I mentioned the bull's wool in the case of the Garda and it was not well received by my colleagues in Government then, but I stood by it. The Garda were entitled to smarter uniforms and I think the soldiers should have them also.

I do not know how many Army bands we have but we have splendid Army bands which the people do not hear often enough. I am associated with the group responsible for the Waterford theatre and I think it was during a recruiting drive that one Army band gave a concert there. Up to then the younger generation had no idea that there existed an Army band. People do not listen very much to Army bands on the radio and I believe the radio cannot convey the presence of a band or an orchestra to the listeners. It would be good for the Army and the great musical combinations in it if they were sent to various areas to play and be heard by the people. They should be sent to our great seaside resorts to play in a season of music for, perhaps, a week.

Mr. J. Brennan:

They do.

Mr. T. Lynch:

We never get them but we pay taxes for them.

Mr. J. Brennan:

You have no decent seaside resort like Bundoran, for instance.

Mr. T. Lynch:

We have. I am not going to fall for that. Anybody who could be so ridiculous as to say what the Deputy said about the Economic War will not be noticed when he makes this ridiculous statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Economic War does not arise.

Mr. J. Brennan:

I said the Deputy should be ashamed to talk about it and I say it again. We know the side he was on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Let us get back to the Estimate.

Mr. T. Lynch:

It is not a matter of the side we were on but what it was costing us. We had something to lose and we lost——

Mr. J. Brennan:

The Redmondites lost.

Mr. T. Lynch:

Your leader has followed the Redmondite policy and gone to England. It is easy enough to shout "Traitor" at John Redmond for doing what the Taoiseach is doing now. It took you 40 years to wake up.

Mr. J. Brennan:

You wanted to be going over to sit there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Lynch is in possession.

Mr. T. Lynch:

This is what we have from the members of the Government.

General MacEoin:

Let us hear Deputy Brennan on that.

Mr. T. Lynch:

I am a proud and unrepentant Redmondite and we would have had all of it only for you.

Mr. J. Brennan:

All of what?

Mr. T. Lynch:

A free Ireland of 32 Counties, only you could not wait.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We were discussing Army bands.

Mr. T. Lynch:

It would be good for the bands to come to places where the people know something about music——

Mr. J. Brennan:

That is why they do not go to Waterford.

Mr. T. Lynch:

——and where people would appreciate the music they play. It would be good for them to come to Waterford which has the only musical or light opera festival in the country that has not to be subsidised. I recommend that to the Minister. I would also say with the Donegal men —and I have said it three times here already—that we should produce a Captain's Guard of our soldiers and maintain a guard here in Dáil Éireann on the opening day of a new session of the Dáil. They should mount guard on Government buildings on certain occasions. It would be an encouragement and a competition to different battalions to mount the guard, especially when we could have the bands which could play on the occasion.

Mr. J. Brennan:

There is a good Donegal man in charge of the No. 1 Army Band.

Mr. T. Lynch:

He must have been in Waterford for some time and got the benefit of some civilising influence. Now we come to something which is very important for soldiers—weapons. I am informed that we have a great deal of obsolete artillery, a museum of obsolete rifles, bayonets and a whole lot of stuff like that. I am informed that the only battalion that is armed and equipped with modern weapons in the Army is the battalion we have in the Congo and that but for the fact that the arms were supplied by the United Nations they would not have such arms at all.

I am told they have no self-propelling guns of any calibre in the artillery. I should like the Minister to tell us something about that. I am told there is not a battalion in the Army which is equipped with fully automatic weapons and small arms. I am told that a great deal of the range-finding equipment which the Army have is obsolete and the reason it is obsolete is that it is fit only for the artillery we have. I should like to hear the Minister's view on this when he is replying.

On the question of air-sea rescue work, I hope the Minister will make his commanding officers in areas commanding officers. I trust they will have the authority to use their discretion, as commanding officers, in times of distress in an area to send out their helicopters or aeroplanes or whatever it may be on sea rescue without having to ring up not necessarily the Minister—I am not saying anything about the Minister—but the Department of Defence in Dublin. That is tying these men to the apron strings of the central authority here. We have had some experience of that in the recent snow. When people came to the officers and told them of the great difficulties they were experiencing—and there were officers and men willing and anxious to go out with their transport, some of which would have been very useful in pushing aside snow drifts—they could not go out to help because the order had been given to them not to go unless the local authority asked them to do so. This is the usual by-passing of the Irish people again. Surely it should be enough for a member of the local authority to see the commanding officer and tell him of certain roads with snow drifts six and seven feet high when the commanding officer is quite willing to go out? The local authority may be 40 or 50 miles at the other end of the county. The wires may be down. Surely the attitude should not be that nothing can be done and to leave the people to freeze? I would say to the Minister to do away with that.

In the various areas where battalions of troops are stationed, men of high rank, colonels, commandants, and so on should be given carte blanche in an emergency so that at their own discretion, if members of the local authority or responsible people tell them there are people in distress, they may go to the rescue. If that had been the case, there would not have been half the trouble in Wicklow or in the Nire valley in County Waterford during the recent snow storms.

I come now to the subject of horse jumping. A Fianna Fáil Deputy spoke about the men but never said a word about the horses. I suppose the Minister knows what the steeplechase jockey said. A man asked him: "Why did you not win?" and the jockey said: "I could not win without the horse." We know that the man contributes an awful lot but the horse does so as well.

Buying horses is a chancey business, a gamble, and so on, and we all know that. If the Minister gives a small subvention to the Army Jumping Team, they are confined to buying just a small number of horses that will eventually be ridden to find out which will be put on the team. The only way to raise the quality in that respect is to give the people selecting them the authority to buy more horses and to keep on bringing in horses. It is done in other countries, some of which are only small countries like ours. They can see advantage in the great prestige for a country it is to have its flag raised at the great horse shows all over the world. We have our great horse show here in Dublin but when you go to the Continent you discover that the horse shows there are greater still. Greater numbers of people attend and there are many visitors from countries all over the world.

It is a matter of pride to us that our flag is raised and that the Irish horse and the Irish rider wins a trophy. Some very good riders have left the Army because they say promotion is slow in the Jumping Team. The Minister can remedy that. I agree with the Fianna Fáil Deputy who said we have too many lieutenants riding in the Irish Jumping Team. The people with whom they are competing are colonels and officers of high rank. The point is that those people contesting against the Irishman have the pay of colonels. It is very important. The pay of the Irish Army man would not be considered great as against that of his competitors. Our men have to go away and meet those people on level terms. They have to mix with them and talk with them with the eyes of the world on them.

It is very important that our men be turned out better than any of them— not just as good as them but better than any of their competitors—and it can be done. Irish tailors have turned out magnificent outfits for the Irish Jumping Team. The only thing that was wrong with them was that the men probably had to spend their lives in them. The riding members of the Irish Jumping Team should be given a special subvention and when they join the team they should be given at least two pairs of new hunting boots and a least two or three pairs of breeches.

I want the Minister to think carefully on that. It is very important and is a source of pride. I did see an Irish rider one day and it was a source of pride to me, when he was surrounded by Frenchmen and Italians who were talking out at the Show, that he was better turned out than any of them. However, when I saw him at a show two years afterwards, I think he had the same outfit on which had got a bit threadbare. I am not casting any reflection on the man in that respect because I know he was doing the best he could. It is only in this House we can talk about this and it is only in this House and through the Minister that we can remedy it.

I ask the Minister now to let us see more of the Army around the country. Let us hear more of the Army bands down the country. If possible, let us have a ceremonial changing of the guard on what are called State days and holidays and at the opening of Parliament. Let him get rid of his two corvettes and buy some oceangoing vessels that will be of some service to the country, more especially if they are used in conjunction with the new helicopters he is about to buy.

Mr. McQuillan:

I do not propose to speak at any length on this Estimate because it is a waste of time to put any point of view before this House, particularly on the Defence Estimate. There is a vested interest involved, naturally enough, in the whole question of Defence, and speakers on both sides of the House are all part of this vested interest. The vested interest in this is the matter of promotion of pals within the service.

The people experienced in military matters who talk here about a defence system in this country will admit, if they are really honest, that a defence force of the type we have in Ireland is an absolute waste of money as regards the defence that could be put up by the forces available to the State. That is not by any means meant as a criticism of the personnel involved. There is a sum involved here of no less than £9½ million, which is a very substantial sum of money. On what is it being spent? Is it for the purpose of having a couple of battalions out in the Congo for reasons of prestige? Is it for the purpose of training a few soldiers and officers so that they can parade or mount guard as some Deputies want them to do? Can we afford an expenditure of public money on flummery and nonsense of that nature, putting up a front? Is that what we are prepared to spend the public's money on?

Could the Minister tell me what help the Army gave to the public during the very bad weather since last November? On how many occasions have the Army come to the assistance of the community which is paying £9½ million to keep them there? How many colonels or lieutenant-colonels got off their warm seats inside any barracks to move out and help in Wicklow, Wexford and Waterford during the snow storms and the terribly severe weather? Surely if the Army is to be of any benefit it is on occasions such as this that this expenditure can be justified? How many of them left or were directed to leave their barrack fires to go out and help the public who are paying for them?

I do not know on whom the responsibility lies for the failure of the Army to help in these matters. However, somebody must take the blame and the Minister is the responsible person in charge of the Forces. Unless he is able to throw light on this then he personally must accept the blame for the deplorable lack of help on the part of the Army in the recent situation to which I have referred.

The main reason I stood up to speak at all was in connection with the policy that motivates the Government in sending troops to the Congo. I know that in this House there are many people who have no compunction in the world about creating a number of war heroes, who would sympathise with the relatives and families of those who died in the Congo. I know they are not worried about those who died as long as the prestige of this country goes up in proportion to the numbers who die. There is a blood lust in this country in regard to this business of fighting. We can trace it down through the years in every history book or alleged history book that was ever written about this country. There was never anything written about the advancement of human beings, civilisation or anything like that. All Irish history is devoted to wars, fights, heroes and traitors. Even today we have this situation of helping in the Congo, the belief that it is something we must do.

Are we serious and are we honest about the use of our troops in the Congo? The other countries which were asked to supply troops in the Congo include Sweden, India, Ghana and Nigeria, to mention some of the troops that were connected with the Irish troops and had associations with them. Will anybody in this House allege that the four nations I have mentioned are anything but neutral? Is it not a fact that Sweden, Nigeria and Ghana are noted for their neutrality, that they were invited by the Secretary General of the United Nations to supply troops to the Congo on the basis that their neutrality could not be questioned? Ireland was so invited and our Minister for External Affairs in the past four to five years—I do not propose to bring in the debates in this House for record purposes again—has expressed himself before the United Nations Assembly as representing a country that does not want to be part of any power bloc, that deplores the creation of a third world power bloc, a country that is neutral.

That is the reason Irish troops were selected for service in the Congo. What is the position today? We have the Taoiseach over in Bonn telling the Europeans that Ireland is not neutral, never was and never will be. He tells the American journalists the same thing. He says bluntly—backed by Deputy Dillon—that Ireland is not neutral and would accept any defence or political arrangements set up by the EEC. How does the Taoiseach reconcile his European aspirations of non-neutrality with the fact that we have Irish soldiers risking their lives in the Congo because Ireland is allegedly neutral? Do the lives of a few Irishmen in the Congo matter at all?

There are people here who are prepared to sympathise with the relatives of those who died in the Congo and say that Ireland has its heroes still. But the heroes are dying for a wrong cause. These young Irishmen are idealists in their own way, but they are misguided in the sense that they do not know what they are fighting for. They were sent out on the basis that this country is neutral in the terrible struggle between the two great world Powers today. They are prepared to give their lives in the cause of freedom at the direction of the United Nations, while at home the Government who sent them out are prepared to say, for the purpose of gaining admission to this new commercial club of the EEC, that we are not neutral and never have been. Where is the honesty there? Is it not hypocrisy from the word "go"?

I should like to go a little further. Last week, I asked the Taoiseach if he would elaborate on the discussions he and the Minister for External Affairs had with the members of the British Government in London. I had to drag out of him—he would not say it—that one of the subjects discussed in London was the question of the Congo. It was not important enough to bring the Minister for Agriculture when the question of trade was being discussed. However, the question of the Congo was also discussed. I should like the Minister for Defence to tell me what was this discussion in connection with the Congo which his Taoiseach had with the members of the British Government within the past three weeks. Would it be correct to say that this discussion took the form of an assurance to the British Government that we were pulling out of the Congo as soon as this particular battalion, which has been invited, has completed its service? Is it a fact that we gave an assurance to some of our potential colleagues in Europe that we will no longer have hand, act or part in functions of this nature?

It must be remembered that certain countries in the EEC have been very critical of Ireland's participation in this matter of the Congo. We know that many of the false reports printed about Irish troops and alleging misconduct in the Congo emanated from countries which are members of the EEC. Deputies have rightly deplored the fact that Irish troops are blackguarded in official reports. Why did those Deputies not point out that those reports emanated in many instances from the very countries we were down on our knees hoping to join in the EEC?

While all this is going on, these young men are out in the Congo. It is no thanks to this Government that more of them are not under the sod in the special plot in Glasnevin. I notice when they die in the Congo now that, instead of the Taoiseach, the President, the Minister for Defence and all the other big knobs attending the funeral, they send their aides de camp and the lower fry. They are getting used to the business. It is an extraordinary situation that we find Senator Eoin Ryan going to Strasbourg as a representative of this Government, speaking on this question of Irish neutrality and saying that Ireland is not neutral and has no intention of being neutral in the future. I am not quoting him but paraphrasing what he said. He said that we in Ireland had the utmost sympathy with the Swedes who were neutral and that something must be done in Europe to get them in as associates of the EEC. The Swedish delegate got up, however, and said that his recollection was that, up to a few weeks ago, Ireland needed the same sympathy because she was neutral also.

Those two countries have sent troops to the Congo. Our troops are fighting side by side with the Swedes, ready to shed their blood. They were both sent on the basis that their countries were neutral. What do these United Nation countries really think of Ireland when we say one thing as far as the Congo is concerned and another as far as the European situation is concerned? The Government do not seem to know themselves what they have in mind, but the matter is too serious to let slip, especially when the lives of young Irishmen are involved.

I noted that Deputy Booth and one or two others referred to the troops who took part in the Jadotville action. I do not know how accurate it is, but I understand there has been no recognition, by decoration or otherwise, of the service given by the troops involved in that incident. I should like to put it on record that I think the conduct of the Irish troops and their officers at Jadotville deserves the highest commendation. They showed common sense, intelligence and integrity. Had they not displayed those characteristics, a further 50 or 60 young Irishmen might have been killed. If there is no recognition of their services by the powers that be, it is, to me at any rate, positive proof that the mentality behind it is the same mentality as I referred to earlier, a bloodlust mentality. The people concerned who have the decision in this would prefer to see these men as dead heroes.

Mr. Bartley:

I think the Deputy has gone too far with that and he ought to drop it.

Mr. McQuillan:

I will drop what I like.

Mr. Bartley:

That is a disgraceful charge to make against fellow Irishmen.

Mr. McQuillan:

The charge is made by Deputy Booth.

Mr. Bartley:

It is not. He did not say what the Deputy said and the Deputy has said it half a dozen times in the past 15 minutes.

Mr. McQuillan:

Only that the rules of procedure do not allow it, I would repeat it much more often. The Minister and his clan, or his ilk, and his Government will be brought to book. It may not be in the next 12 months or two years, but they will be. The Minister and his Government are not going to have it both ways. I cannot disclose the conversation I had with another Minister of the Fianna Fáil Government. I do not think it would be correct in this House. I can go this far and say that he told me that a few human lives were nothing when it came to the prestige of this country.

Mr. Bartley:

I do not believe you.

Mr. McQuillan:

I do not want to cross swords with the Minister in any way personally but I can assure him that that is a fact.

Mr. Bartley:

I do not believe it.

Mr. McQuillan:

I can assure him that it is a fact. I should like the Minister, if he is in the inner circle of his Government, which I doubt very much—and the Minister is quite aware of the reasons why I doubt that—to tell the House what the discussion was in connection with the Congo that his Taoiseach had with the British Ministers. Was the Minister for Defence told what the discussion involved? Did a question of the use of Irish troops there arise in the course of the discussion and if so, was the Minister informed, and if he has not been informed, surely as Minister it is his right to know what took place at those discussions? Surely he will stir himself sufficiently to say to the Taoiseach "Dear Taoiseach, can you tell me, as Minister for Defence, what this discussion about the Congo was? I have a right to know as Minister for Defence, seeing that I am charged with the safety of all those young men we have sent out there."

The Minister should also seek clarification from the Taoiseach on this issue of neutrality. The Minister is now preparing another battalion for service in the Congo and does he still maintain that as far as the Congo service is concerned, we are neutral and that we have been invited to send troops there because we are neutral in the eyes of the United Nations? Does he consider it correct that for European purposes we say we are no longer neutral, that we never have been neutral and we are associating in very close union with the very countries who have been responsible for stirring up the tragic events which took place in the Congo?

The Minister has drawn me to the extent of saying that I made charges against Army personnel and the people who give decorations. I am now making a charge against the Government. I charge them with a crime against the Irish troops. This Government obtained the permission of this House to send those troops over there because the United Nations invited them to go, on the ground that Ireland was a neutral country. Deputies in this House at that time realised that vested mining interests of the Belgians and French in particular and of other countries were involved in the Congo.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy may not discuss the internal position in the Congo. It does not arise on the Estimate for Defence.

Mr. McQuillan:

I do not intend to pursue it to any great length, except to say that if I cannot comment on the sending of troops to the Congo on the Estimate for Defence and on their use or misuse, then I would like to know from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on what Estimate I can discuss it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I cannot give the Deputy the information he seeks. All I can do is to point out that on the Estimate for Defence, the internal political situation in the Congo is not relevant.

Mr. McQuillan:

In other words, it is like the Charge of the Six Hundred— our troops are to go onward, onward to slaughter. It does not matter what they have to face. In this debate, we are not entitled to criticise their use or misuse, or suggest their withdrawal or continued use under the circumstances which obtain in the Congo. At any rate, all I have to say is that this Government, having acceded to the request of the United Nations to send troops to the Congo, are now in the process of ganging up with certain European States which behind the scenes were stirring up the trouble in the Congo in which Irish lives were lost. It is as simple as that.

I have referred to the fact that over £9½ million is requested in this Estimate for defence purposes and I posed the question: what is the purpose? How is it to be expended? On other occasions here, I have asked for the setting up of a Select Committee of this House and the Seanad to examine into the whole question of defence expenditure. The time is over-ripe when such a committee should be set up and it would be a far better way of dealing with this question of expenditure than having an annual Estimate paraded in this House every year. It is an insult to the people and to the Deputies who are asked to get up and comment on whether the jumping teams should get two sets of riding breeches a year, whether a barracks in Clare or Connemara should be opened or whether troops should be sent down to various barracks in the country rather than have them in the city.

The main issue involved is: is the expenditure of money necessary and if so, is it being spent properly? We are not going to get a proper answer to that by cross-examining a Minister who is the tool, shall we say, of Government policy. The major Opposition Party, at the moment, are in the same boat. What we want is to have those two Parties stop fooling and set up a Select Committee where we will have an opportunity of examining the whole question of expenditure and, arising from that, a proper decision can be taken on whether it is necessary to have a standing Army of the size we have, whether it is necessary for the purpose for which the money is now being used, whether the size of the Army should be increased or decreased, or whether we should consider the Army solely as an auxiliary to the police force and how much we are prepared to spend on the Army for prestige purposes. All those questions could be examined coldly and calmly by such a committee. They cannot be examined coldly and dispassionately in this House because Deputies are the last people in the world, when speaking in this Chamber, to speak in that fashion on a matter of this nature because they are out to collect votes.

They have some kind of illusion that the Defence Forces will be able to protect this country in the event of an invasion. I want to be charitable to those people who still think that is possible. If such a committee as I have suggested were set up, all these questions of the proper type of recruiting for the Army, proper treatment, proper dress and equipment could be properly discussed. My opinion is that if we are to have an Army, we will certainly have to modernise the living conditions of the men.

I have listened to the Minister and other Ministers telling us that we are getting the most up-to-date equipment in so far as we have the money to purchase it. They are proud of the fact that they have the latest submachinegun. What modern development has taken place in the treatment of the individuals who make up the force? Has the same progress been made in that modern development as in the matter of modern equipment and weapons? Do we still think in terms of big barrack rooms, and big long dormitories with no privacy for the soldiers?

Do we still think in terms of an unfortunate young soldier who, through family responsibility in this country, may be tempted to go to work in England to make money to help his family in Ireland, being tried by a courtmartial and getting 200 days detention for what he was rightly entitled to do? We have the shocking position here today that men in the Army can be punished by a group of officials comprising a courtmartial for a petty offence which would be thrown out of any normal civilian court. An unfortunate young soldier can get 56 days detention. That is done by men who have not the slightest knowledge of the law except what they have read up in Defence Force Regulations which have been there since 1922, which were, if you like, brought into one code a few years ago and some of which dated back 100 years or more to the early days of the old British army. Modern treatment for the soldier, my foot.

As reported at column 614 of the Official Report of 28th March, 1963, the Minister said:

The estimate for the pay of the Permanent Defence Force is, as usual, based on the full peace establishment of 1,359 officers and 11,607 men, with deductions in respect of the numbers by which the actual strength is likely to be below establishment over the year.

Instead of providing for 11,000 men, the estimate provides for 7,500. In other words, at the moment we are 4,000 men short of what was envisaged as the standing army, and that has been the position since 1946, since the end of the emergency. On paper, we have a standing army of 11,000 men, but since 1946, we have never filled that establishment and we have had about a half a dozen Ministers for Defence since then.

We have had radio programmes and television programmes, and we have had bands going around the country with all sorts of gimmicks, to induce recruits into this wonderful Army, but since 1946, we have failed to reach the establishment figure. What happened a couple of years ago, and what happened when the Congo business started? The wise people in the Department of Defence, those brilliant gentlemen who were in charge of defence policy and administration said: "Now we will get them in. With the pomp, the prestige and the glory attaching to the Congo, wait until you see all the recruits, and we will not have to pay them one penny extra."

There were people in this House who were foolish enough to believe that Congo service would bring a big influx of recruits. I should like to challenge the Minister on how many new recruits joined the Army as a result of the glamour of service in the Congo. I challenge him to tell me whether one single extra man has come into the Army as a result. Not at all. We have the position that in spite of the Congo service and other service abroad in which our troops were engaged with distinction, the Government and the Army authorities have failed to get recruits. Are we not living a lie so far as our defence is concerned? Is money not being spent under false pretences? Is it not plain to the public that we have made provision for a standing army of 11,000 men, and that since 1946, we have not reached that strength, or come within 3,000 or 4,000 men of reaching it?

The mentality behind this reminds me of the time I was in the Army myself. I was sent out on manoeuvres in charge of demolitions. I was directed to lay down anti-tank mines in a big area of the countryside. That was the nearest approach we could get to the actual reality of war if it ever comes here. Do Deputies know what the anti-tank mines were which it was my duty to lay down? — bits of trees, sawn-off lumps of wood. I do not know how many hundreds of gallons of petrol I and the troops under me wasted going around laying the mines in the minefields. It was stated on paper that it was a minefield, but we had not even one mine to lay if we had to do it in actual fact. We were playing at soldiers, playing at minelaying, just the same as on the question of defence, we are playing at defence, but it is expensive playing and the public do not know what is happening.

In regard to the Irish Jumping Team, I want to say to the Minister that if we want to win international events, we must widen the scope of the team. There is no justification in the world for making the Jumping Team a closed shop for Army personnel. I think that civilians, if they come from the back end of Mayo but are good horsemen, should be entitled to represent this country abroad. Whether they are in or out of the Army, they can bring credit to this country. We are trying to gain kudos from Irish horses, and not from the Irish Army. I am not criticising the Army and I want to get that into the heads of Deputies who may think I am. If we are to win prestige from our Irish horses, we must pick the best horsemen. If they are in the Army, well and good, and if they are not, we must go outside it. One year, four or five of our best horsemen may be Army men, and the next year, three or four civilians may be better. The idea is that the team best fitted to represent the country is the team that should be selected.

We know that the Government got rid of the cavalry escort and utilised motorcycles instead. I heard Deputies talking about ceremonial parades and about the mounting of the guard that takes place at Buckingham Palace. I do not think any Deputy is serious in suggesting that we should ape that. At present a motorcycle escort is used on the occasion of visits by diplomats and VIPs. The motorcycles used by the Army may be assembled in Ireland but they come from Czechoslovakia, America, France or Britain. The report of the CIO Investigating Committee made it quite clear that the motor assembly industry will go to the wall.

If we are anxious to secure a good name for the Irish product, why is it that we do not utilise Irish horses for the escort duties for which motorcycles are used at present? Would it not be a nicer spectacle for Deputies watching that type of ceremony if Irish horses were used for the purpose of escorting a visiting dignatary to Árus an Uachtaráin rather than 20 or 30 motorcycles? If the Government are anxious to boost Irish horses, that is one way in which they can do so.

Why was the cavalry escort discontinued and the motorcycle escort adopted? Is it not a fact that a certain individual did not like the horses at the time? Is it not a fact that he is no longer there and could not this question be revised? What about the present occupant of the Park? Surely he has no objection to the use of Irish horses for escort duty? His predecessor had, but the present occupant of Árus an Uachtaráin is very fond of horses. I would suggest that the Minister for Defence should have a chat with his former leader in the Park and say: "How about going back to the cavalry escort?"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister for Defence is responsible for his Department, and no one else.

Mr. McQuillan:

He is responsible for escorts provided by the Army and I suggest he should use Irish horses rather than motorcycles.

Reference has been made to the purchase of helicopters. The purchase of helicopters is overdue. I should like the Minister to tell us whether it is proposed to sell the obsolete jet planes purchased in the past few years in order to meet the cost of the helicopters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That would not be a matter for the Minister for Defence.

Mr. McQuillan:

Either the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is in cuckooland or I am. I understood that the jet planes in Baldonnel under the control of the Air Force were the Minister's responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I understood the Deputy to refer to civil aviation, not to the Army.

Mr. McQuillan:

No; I am referring to the obsolete jet planes which are the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. I can well understand the Leas-Cheann Comhairle being slightly puzzled because no one has heard of these secret weapons for quite a while. I should like the Minister to tell us how many of these Vampire jets we have and how much of the taxpayers' money have these Vampires sucked out of the Department of Defence since they were purchased. Were they utilised economically with regard to fuel, hours of flying, cost per hour? How many Irish pilots have been trained in the Air Corps and are now employed by Aer Lingus as a result of the purchase of these jet planes?

Let us not forget that when I criticised the purchase of these obsolete jet planes I was told, as I am often told, that I was anti-national, that these planes would enable numerous Irish pilots to be trained by the Army as short term commissioned officers, who would then be recruited into Aer Lingus. How many have been recruited to Aer Lingus as a result of the purchase of the Vampire jet planes? Is it not a fact that Aer Lingus had to go outside the scope of this arrangement and make alternative arrangements for the training of their pilots and that at the same time the taxpayer had to pay over £1 million for the purchase of these obsolete planes and for the construction of a runway to enable them to be flown? To me it represented a scandalous waste of public money, a sum of íl million down the drain, and you cannot get a sixpenny bit out of this Government for social services or for old age pensioners or any other needy group.

When I refer to these jets and make other criticisms of the Army, I do so, not for the purpose of criticising individual members of the Army, many of whom are personal friends of mine, but of criticising the entire set-up, the thought behind it, the misuse of funds. The only way this question can be properly examined is, as I have suggested, by setting up a Select Committee of this House to examine into the whole question of defence expenditure. The sooner that is done, the better and the more the public will be satisfied.

Mr. Bartley:

Is beag atá agam in aghaidh rud ar bith a dubhradh ar an Meastachán seo ach an t-aon rud amháin. Is cuma cé an locht a gheibh tear ar an Aire Cosanta agus ar an Roinn Cosanta, ach tá mé ag ceapadh go ndeachaidh an Teachta atá tar éis suí ró-fhada nuair a chuir sé i leith oifigi árda an Airm go raibh tóir na fola ortha i leith seirbhís sa Chongo. Moladh gníomharthaí ár gcuid saighdiúirí sa Chongo. Ní abróidh mé níos mó ná sin ina thaobh san.

A number of matters were referred to by almost every Deputy and I take it that it is to these that I should direct my attention chiefly.

With regard to resignations mentioned by Deputy MacEoin, and his reference to newspaper suggestions of large-scale resignations from the Defence Forces in the past 12 months, I want to assure the Deputy now that that is not so. The Deputy was referring, I think, to resignations of officers. The Deputy knows that under the pensions scheme an officer becomes entitled to pension after 20 years' service.

General MacEoin:

I know that.

Mr. Bartley:

He comes out of the Military College at an early enough age and, as the Deputy remarked, and other Deputies also, our Army has not the same scope and does not offer the same prospect of promotion as armies do in larger countries, and it is possible that young officers will get offers of good civilian employment, take their pensions, and go out.

General MacEoin:

There is nothing abnormal?

Mr. Bartley:

Nothing abnormal.

General MacEoin:

I want the rumour contradicted.

Mr. Bartley:

In the past 12 months, 17 officers retired or resigned on grounds other than age or ill health. Three of these went to Aer Lingus as pilots. So far as I know, the majority of the others went to good civilian jobs. The fact is that most of these men who leave the Army on the minimum pensionable service usually get good employment here and are available for the defence of the country should an emergency arise. During the last emergency, a great many of that type came forward and we were, indeed, very glad to have them.

With regard to the accusations made against our troops, and against the United Nations Force generally, in the Congo some months ago, I am at one with Deputy MacEoin when he says that, while no one here in his wildest imaginings believed any of the accusations made, there could have been a black sheep, to use the Deputy's expression, and it was necessary to establish beyond yea or nay that no Irishman had any hand, act or part in such events there. That fact was established.

With regard to delay, I want to assure Deputies—there was more than one who spoke about this matter— that there was no avoidable delay. A letter was published by a member of the Oireachtas referring to this allegation and charging undue delay. On the very day that letter was published, the Minister for External Affairs issued a statement indicating the steps that had been taken and the date on which each such step was taken. That statement was a complete refutation of the charge of delay. It is hardly necessary for me now to go any further than that. The Minister for External Affairs may have something to say on the matter when he moves his Estimate. Certainly, if Deputies ask him about it, he will say something.

Another matter raised was the suggestion of favouritism in selections for the Congo. This is, of course, a purely military matter and, as Minister for Defence, I do not interfere in the discretion reposed in the headquarters staff in choosing personnel to form units for service in the Congo. I get representations from Deputies and others. These I pass on for consideration on their merits. From the inquiries I have made, I am quite sure that merit, and merit alone, is the guiding principle in the decisions. There is one overriding consideration: the headquarters staff want to spread this service over as large a number as possible. If it happens that certain officers and NCOs have had two trips —a very small number have had three —I understand there is a very special reason for that: the purpose is to keep the practical liaison that has been established since the beginning. In other words, the purpose is to ensure that there will not be a completely new unit with no tie-up with its predecessors. That entails the sending of a very small number a second or a third time. The principle of sending out new personnel is on the whole always observed.

I was asked by several Deputies whether I was satisfied with the pay and allowances. It is very easy for me to answer that question. I do not think I am. I do not think any pay would be too much for our Army. That, of course, is——

Mr. McQuillan:

A pious platitude.

Mr. Bartley:

——a very pious platitude, to repeat Deputy McQuillan's phrase.

Mr. McQuillan:

Bull!

Mr. Bartley:

But, pious and all as it is, it certainly enshrines a higher opinion of the Army than the Deputy voiced.

Mr. McQuillan:

And that is just hypocrisy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Order.

Mr. Bartley:

Within the resources of our little country, I think we do reasonably well. It is very easy to belittle the military effort of a small country like ours. There are, however, some of us who still retain our faith in such effort.

With regard to the School of Equitation, I have yet to be convinced of the force of the argument put forward by a number of speakers that there should be a mixed team of Army personnel and civilians. It is true that civilian jumping teams go abroad. As a matter of fact, I understand there are two organised civilian bodies catering for Irish horse jumping. The Army teams go abroad but it has not been demonstrated by any of the speeches made here that a mixing of these two elements would produce better results. By all means, let the civilians go and bring the best horses and riders they have, but I cannot see why it is necessary that they should have a leavening of men in uniform, or conversely why the men in uniform should have a leavening of civilians in order to get better results.

There is a set policy being followed by the Equitation School and I am satisfied from all the evidence supplied to me that it is a sound policy—sound with regard to the purchase of horses and sound with regard to the training of riders. I was asked by Deputy MacEoin how the purchase of horses was effected. There is a purchasing board composed ordinarily of three members—at the moment there is one vacancy. The other two are the officer commanding the Equitation School and a senior veterinary officer of the Department of Agriculture. With regard to the suggestion—I do not know where Deputy MacEoin got it —that a horse bought for £2,000 had been disposed of to the knackers, it simply is not true.

General MacEoin:

Sold for £45. It is this sort of rumour that has to be scotched.

Mr. Bartley:

It simply is not true. I took particular note of the Deputy's remark in that matter and during the week I made inquiries.

General MacEoin:

The suggestion was made that a horse bought for £2,000 was not worth twopence, that it was sold for £45. That is why I put down a Parliamentary Question asking what prices were given and what prices were got.

Mr. Bartley:

On that matter, the Deputy seemed to think there was some inconsistency between the reply I gave to his question and remarks made by me in my introductory statement. What I was trying to do, while refusing to give figures for individual purchases, was to keep to the practice of not indicating the prices of named horses. The practice has been that we would not divulge the prices of particular horses and, while keeping to that practice, I gave the Deputy prices of individual horses without identifying the horses.

General MacEoin:

Has the Minister sold any of the horses of which he gave me the prices?

Mr. Bartley:

No.

The uniform was mentioned by practically every speaker. I am in full agreement with the sentiments expressed that our men should be turned out as smartly as possible. I do not think, however, there can be any criticism of the good quality of the cloth. It has been praised very much across channel. Design, I understand, is the main cause of difficulty here and that problem has been under consideration for some time. I am hopeful that before this Estimate comes before the Dáil again, a satisfactory solution of the question of design will have been reached.

It is a matter, of course, of considerable financial import because of the large number of uniforms involved. Nevertheless, I think the financial aspect will not cause any delay in finding a solution. The desirability of keeping a stock of material of the same cloth—this was raised here last week when the necessity for its purchase was questioned—was brought home very clearly to us when the Cuban crisis loomed up last year. We had not the stocks which we would have liked. That situation brought about a decision to lay in a stock. This will enable issues to be made as the need arises and the current annual contracts will always be called upon to top up withdrawals as they take place in the normal course.

With regard to cadets, two speakers at least said we hold them too long before finding out that they are unsuitable material for officerships. There is not much substance in this complaint. Looking up the figures, I find that 44 cadets were recruited in 1961 and that of these three were let go, one after six months and two after 12 months, while of 40 recruited in 1962, one was let go after three and a half months. You have the two difficulties to face there, one being that you may not give a young chap a sufficient trial, and that is a matter of concern to the officers in charge of the Military College—they do not wish to send young fellows away until quite satisfied that they have not in them the makings of good officers.

General MacEoin:

They miss other examinations in that 12 months period.

Mr. Bartley:

There is that possibility, but the number is not large. With regard to Civil Defence, I cannot agree with the opinion that it should be made a national responsibility. Let us take one hazard—that of radioactive fallout. We do not have to be militarily involved to have this to contend with. Assuming there were a major war, it is obvious that we could have a radioactive fallout problem to deal with. To meet this, Civil Defence must be civil in fact.

Local authorities, dealing in the ordinary way with problems of the relief of distress, have fire-fighting apparatus, ambulances and so on, and if there is a natural disaster, the local authority is the first on the scene. It is natural, therefore, to base Civil Defence on the local authority. If there were radioactive fallout in a remote part of the country, there would be no point in sending military personnel there. Radioactive protection is something that can only be effected locally. Civil Defence is designed to teach people what to do. They must protect themselves and the methods of doing so are described in a handbook which we hope to issue at an appropriate time. But if the people in an area affected by radioactive fallout do not themselves carry out these precautions, there is nothing anybody else can do for them.

General MacEoin:

That is agreed, but my contention is that no portion of the cost should fall on the rates, which are high enough at present. I was not arguing that you should change Civil Defence from the local authority but that expenditure on Civil Defence should be a national charge rather than a local one. As it is, the Government contribute so much.

Mr. Bartley:

Seventy per cent.

General MacEoin:

I suggest it should be 100 per cent.

Mr. Bartley:

Certain services will be 100 per cent, such as food and rest centres, when they come to be organised. Ambulances and fire engines and so on have been made available to local authorities and the authorities have the use of these in any event. They are in addition to the ordinary supply of these vehicles.

General MacEoin:

You are having a barter with them. You give them so much and they give you so much in return?

Mr. Bartley:

On the whole, I think it is a reasonably justified expenditure. For all practical purposes, the vehicles are their property.

Mr. McQuillan:

Will the local authorities have the use of these vehicles?

Mr. Bartley:

The Deputy may take it that an emergency is an emergency and whatever the cause of it, every instrument of help available to the local authority will be used.

Mr. McQuillan:

What type of emergency does the Minister envisage?

Mr. Bartley:

Suppose there were a natural disaster. Surely there would be no punctilio about authority or anything like that if such a disaster placed a large number of people in danger? Surely the local authority and the national authority, if necessary, would use all means at their disposal to relieve the situation?

Mr. McQuillan:

If somebody is hurt in an accident and the ordinary ambulance service of the local authority is not available, will the authority in such circumstances be able to utilise the Civil Defence ambulances?

Mr. Bartley:

They are handed over to the local authority and the matter would be one for decision by the county manager.

Mr. McQuillan:

That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. Carroll:

Is the Minister satisfied that the ordinary ambulance service in the country at present is adequate?

Mr. Bartley:

I am not competent to answer that question. Under Civil Defence, the vehicles are physically present at these locations and the Deputy may draw his own conclusion as to what would be done with them, if there were urgent need.

Helicopters have been discussed. It has sometimes been said here that it was infra dig nationally for us to ask others to supply helicopters in situations of danger or distress. Most of these situations occurred at sea around our coasts and I could never see that it was infra dig. We have never accepted lighthouses as a national service because the vast bulk of sea traffic off our coast is not Irish. Nobody ever seemed to think it was nationally infra dig that that service was not taken over by any Government here.

However, the Government have now made a decision with regard to helicopters. Too many Deputies, and too many people who have been reading what Deputies have said about helicopters, may be placing too much reliance on their capabilities as a means of lifesaving where other means fail. So far as I can find out, there has been only one situation around our coasts, and that is the one referred to by Deputy Lynch off the Wexford coast, in which a helicopter would have been effective when the lifeboat was not. Helicopters are not unfailing, universal lifesavers in all situations.

Deputy Coogan thinks they should be used at Croagh Patrick pilgrimages but most pilgrims I know will continue to prefer to make the pilgrimage the hard way. It has been suggested that helicopters, when not engaged in lifesaving, should be used for spotting poachers inside our three-mile limit and it has been suggested that they should be placed at two or three different locations. One or two Deputies seem to have quite a fund of technical information about helicopters but what I have been told is that this is technically and practically impossible. The service simply could not be provided unless these three machines are kept together. You must have three as a minimum if you are to be sure of always having one in service. That is what the experts tell me about it. I think it answers, without any further elaboration from me, the plea that the machines be segregated and placed at two or three different posts.

With regard to their efficacy as poacher spotters, I have no doubt they will be able to spot the poachers all right but there is one thing that the helicopter cannot do. It cannot arrest the poachers. It can pass on information to the corvettes but it will not be able to do any more than spotting. Perhaps that may mean that information will be made available more readily to the authorities of the Naval Service but I do not think it means that the corvettes would be any sooner on the location than they would be by getting a call from the Garda.

I have not got sufficient information to say that the corvettes are the most effective means possible of dealing with poachers. We have had some expert opinion this afternoon about the type of boat that would be more effective. As one Deputy says, it may be that they are too big, too slow and of too deep draught and that the previous Minister should have availed of an offer which he received for them. The fact, if it is true, that an offer was made for them indicates that they are not quite as worthless as is sometimes made out. The information supplied to me with regard to their seaworthiness is that they will be serviceable for anything from six to eight or nine years. I take it that they will be retained for a number of years to come and that will give us time to decide what type of boat should replace them.

I do not know whether there is any international protocol in relation to the types of boats comprising a naval service even as small as ours. It is possible that, as we are a maritime country — an island — international usage requires that we have craft of a certain kind. We shall have time enough to resolve that aspect of the question as well as suitability from the point of view of fishery protection before it becomes necessary to replace them.

I was interested in one remark made by Deputy T. Lynch with regard to the corvettes. He had much the same to say about them as other Deputies. He said they were out of date. He also said that a Russian officer — he was accepting the Russian officer's statement — said that the Russian boat taken prisoner recently could have got away: in other words, it had greater speed than our corvette. The fact is that it did not get away. Nevertheless, Deputy T. Lynch is prepared to accept that it could.

With regard to the FCA, I think it was Deputy Corish who had a good deal to say about the rather quick turnover of personnel. In such a force, that is inevitable. Young chaps join it. There is a good deal of comradeship and, in itself, that is an inducement to join. Naturally, young fellows will tire even of military service. Furthermore, young chaps of the age of those who join the FCA have their careers to look after. They must attend to their studies.

There are various reasons in the life of a young lad why he may not be able to continue service in the FCA for as long as we should like. They get a certain amount of military training— the rudiments, in any event. To the extent to which they remain in the country, they will be better material than completely untrained material if their services should ever be required. Therefore as in the case of officers who leave at an early age and go into civilian employment, it is not an entirely unmixed blessing.

There is always a difficulty in retaining the Army Bands at full strength. The musicians get a good training. They are taken into the Bands at an earlier age than into any other section of the Army. When they are trained, it is easy for them to get employment outside. It is the policy, in so far as it is possible, to send the Bands around to certain places. A number of seaside and other places have been chosen for visitation this coming summer.

That reminds me also of the suggestion about marching our Army up and down the town displaying them and having them do guard duties, and so on. Some people say that one of the difficulties in keeping young men in the Army is that there may be too much of this. Deputy Tully said that all this marching is quite barbarous. There are opposing opinions on the amount of military duties that ought to be imposed on soldiers. Personally, I think we have to strike as reasonable a compromise as possible. If we largely eliminate the usual features of army life, then it will cease to be an army. There is a minimum of discipline that everybody will agree must be observed. I can assure Deputies that we are doing everything as quickly as we can to make the living conditions as comfortable as possible. I mentioned a number of matters in my opening statement. I will not refer further to them but they are constantly in mind.

In regard to houses I do not accept that the local authority in an area in which there is a military station has no obligation for the housing of soldiers. Nevertheless we do the best we can to help and, as I said in my opening statement, we have built in recent years over 160 houses and 20 will be built this year. I must say that, generally speaking, the local authorities are not averse from giving houses to the military, even though they may press us to build more.

I was not terribly pleased with one Deputy's suggestion about the noncommissioned officers who achieved commissioned rank at the end of last year. Quite gratuitously, in my opinion, he suggested that these newly-promoted officers might be looked upon as second-class officers. That is a most un-called-for remark and if it were true, it would be a reflection not on the men promoted but rather on those who held any such view. I deprecate the suggestion very much.

I do deal with the Organisation of National ex-Servicemen, of which, I understand, Deputy Tully, who made the remark, is an officer. There are matters, however, touching the Army which are not appropriate for discussion with this organisation.

I cannot understand why Deputies have continued to repeat that the Army failed to help in the recent bad weather. The allegation was made by two or three Deputies and perhaps I might be permitted to quote for the House a letter received by the officer commanding at Clonmel from the chief agricultural officer in Waterford:

I have pleasure in transmitting to you a resolution of thanks passed by my committee at their recent meeting. The committee in passing this resolution pay a tribute to you and to the officers and troops concerned from Kickham Barracks for the prompt response made to the call for assistance to the farming people in the Nire Valley during the period of the snow blizzard there. It is felt that the committee are not only speaking for themselves but for the people of the Nire Valley who greatly value the relief given to them in the work of the troops there.

We had a communication in similar terms from the Dublin County Council in relation to their area. It is very difficult to understand why Deputies keep on saying that the Army failed in this respect.

Mr. Dillon:

They would not be allowed until you were made let them go out and help.

Mr. Bartley:

We had a question from one Deputy in relation to help for a particular place. I answered the question on the information available in my Department, but what we were not aware of was that the military were actually helping the people in that particular place at the time the Deputy sent his telegram and wrote his letter, and the Deputy did not know it. The fact is that once the go-ahead was given by the Department to the military, they went out and did the job.

It seems strange to me that we should be asked to ignore the local authority which is always regarded as the authority for dealing with these natural disasters, that we should bypass them and act on the phone message or telegram of everybody who chooses to communicate with us in that way. We would be sending off detachments of troops to Kerry, Connemara or Donegal to find that, in fact, the local authority was already adequately dealing with the situation.

I want to go back to the charge about the delay in refuting the Congo allegations and to say that if it was so hard for us to have the truth of what was happening here in the next county of Wicklow accepted, it can be realised how difficult it was to handle a similar problem 6,000 miles away.

General MacEoin:

There is no resemblance between the two.

Mr. Bartley:

Here the Army was engaged on this work while Deputies who made representations did not know that it was being done.

General MacEoin:

I hope the Clonmel officer will not be surcharged for acting without the Minister's consent.

Mr. Bartley:

That is a shabby remark.

General MacEoin:

No.

Mr. Bartley:

The military were given authority and acted on it.

General MacEoin:

The Minister has just said the Army moved the moment he gave them the all-clear.

Mr. Bartley:

The Army moved, once they were given the initial authority.

General MacEoin:

From the Minister?

Mr. Bartley:

As soon as they got a request from the local authority, they went out immediately.

General MacEoin:

The Minister gave them the all-clear before they went.

Mr. Bartley:

We had to start the operations.

General MacEoin:

On the other hand, the Minister read a letter to us from the administrative officer in Waterford to the officer in the Kickham Barracks in Clonmel. Had he the Minister's all-clear before he went?

Mr. Bartley:

He had the initial authority which was given to act on requests received from the local authority. When a local authority made a request, it was granted immediately, wherever we had the troops available.

General MacEoin:

Is it not usual that that authority is inherent in the local Army authorities, that if there is an emergency, the officer concerned can use his own discretion and obtain approval afterwards?

Mr. Bartley:

Not alone did they have the authority, but they had an order to go out on a request received from the local authority.

A large number of matters were dealt with in this Estimate and I could not hope to go into every one of them in detail. I think I have dealt with the principal ones. The amount of money is large but I think, in view of the introductory statement and, in fact, on the basis of the speeches made by the Deputies, it is reasonable to assume the Dáil is satisfied that the money is being well spent.

Vote put and agreed to.