Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Feb 1966

Vol. 220 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Defence.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,609,300 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence, including certain Services Administered by that Office; for the Pay and Expenses of the Defence Forces; and for payment of a Grant-in-Aid.

When introducing the Estimate for Defence for 1965-1966 on 2nd March, 1965, my predecessor said that if the Cyprus operation should continue into 1965-1966—the then current United Nations mandate was due to expire on 26th March, 1965—additional money would be required for the payment of the allowances associated with overseas service, and that that would also be the case when revised pay scales came into operation for the Defence Forces. There was no provision for these two matters in the Estimate for 1965-1966, so he feared that a substantial Supplementary Estimate would be necessary later in the year.

It is this Supplementary Estimate which I am now introducing, and it is for a sum of £1,609,300. It is attributable mainly to the increases in pay and allowances about which my predecessor spoke, as well as to other increases that have come about since; to the expenses of the Cyprus operation, which has continued, and to an increase in the strength of serving personnel beyond what was provided for in the main Estimate. It would have had to be much greater were it not that substantial savings are being effected in a number of subheads and that appropriations-in-aid are also expected to exceed the original provision.

If I run through the subheads briefly, it may be of assistance to Deputies. The additional sum of £50,000 odd required under Subhead A—Departmental Salaries—is necessitated by salary increases granted for certain Civil Service grades which had not been settled when the main Estimate was prepared. Under Subhead B—Pay of the Permanent Defence Force—an additional sum of £1,687,000 is required. Somewhat more than £1,000,000 of this relates to the pay increases to which I have referred already and to further increases in the pay scales of non-commissioned officers and privates which came into effect last August in connection with a rank and occupation re-classification scheme. There is a sum of £605,000 odd in respect of Cyprus allowances up to 26th March next, when the present mandate expires, and a further £37,000 caused by the fact that, throughout the year, the strength of non-commissioned officers and privates has been running somewhat higher than the 7,000 for which the main Estimate made provision.

There is provision for an additional sum of £198,000 under Subhead C— Allowances of the Permanent Defence Force. Most of this relates to increased marriage allowance and children's allowances associated with the pay increases. A sum of almost £18,000 is required to cover two increases in ration allowance that have occurred during the present financial year and increases in subsistence allowances.

The increase of £97,400 under Subhead D—Pay and Allowances of the Reserve Defence Force—is attributable to the increases in pay and allowances which were granted to members of the Reserve at the same rates as to the Permanent Defence Force. There are small increases in Subheads E and I, but I do not think that I need delay over these. Part III of the Estimate indicates the reason for the increases. Neither is it necessary to comment upon the small increases in Subheads R and V, which again are explained in Part III.

In Subhead X—Incidental Expenses, there is provision for a sum of £19,000 odd to enable ex-gratia refunds to be made to certain health authorities. The circumstances are that, some years ago, our military hospitals were approved by the Minister for Health under section 25 of the Health Act, 1953. By reason of this, my Department was enabled on application to the various health authorities concerned, to be paid a certain daily sum for every eligible patient in a military hospital. One health authority objected to the basis of payment, and after a good deal of consideration, a new system has been worked out with retrospective effect. This will involve refunds to a number of health authorities, and hence the necessity for the sum now sought.

As publicly announced towards the end of November last, the Government decided that a special grant of £10,000 should be made available to the Irish Red Cross Society with a view to enabling the Society to relieve exceptional cases of personal distress due to flooding and storm damage arising from weather conditions during the present winter. The necessary provision is now made in Subhead BB.

It will be seen that expectations by way of appropriations-in-aid are now substantially greater than they were when the main Estimate was being prepared. They result from additional revenue from lands and premises, receipts in respect of the services of personnel in the making of the "Blue Max" film, and receipts from the United Nations in respect of stores losses and certain administrative expenses. These last-mentioned anticipated receipts do not include any refunds of allowances. As Deputies are already aware, the United Nations has accepted responsibility for the refund of overseas and per diem allowances paid to troops serving in Cyprus from 27th June last onwards, but it is not anticipated that any payment under this head will be received until the next financial year.

I do not think that there is any more I need say at this stage. I shall do my best, when concluding, to deal with any points that Deputies may raise and to answer any questions they may ask.

(Cavan): The introduction of this Supplementary Estimate affords the House an opportunity of discussing defence policy in general, and the activities of the Department of Defence and the Army. However, I do not propose to avail of this opportunity of going into these matters in any great detail, with the possible exception of the recent treatment meted out to the FCA, with which I will deal later. It it, however, essential that the serving soldiers in the Army should be treated in a manner which will leave them happy and contented. It also follows that when Army personnel are retired, they should be treated well and that when serving, they may expect fair treatment on retirement.

I understand that it is a fact that in November, 1961, a large increase was granted to the officers and men serving in the Permanent Army. Those who were serving then and those who were retired after November, 1961, got the benefit of that large increase but Army personnel who had retired prior to that did not get the benefit of that increase. It has been the policy of this Party to advocate that pensions should keep pace, so to speak, with the salaries being paid to retired officers' successors in the offices from which they have retired. We think that is necessary in order to keep in line with the increases in the cost of living, but that has not happened in this case. The result is that there are very considerable discrepancies in the pensions being paid to officers who retired, for example, subsequent to 1961 and those who retired prior to that year. I understand that it is a fact that a person in the same grade, an officer holding the same rank, who retired immediately after 1961, is as much as £112 per year better off than an officer holding exactly the same rank who retired shortly before. I do not think that is right. I think the man who retired shortly before 1961 should be treated as his fellow officer who retired after the increase which was granted in 1961.

There appears to be a policy in the Army at the moment to reduce expenditure and to cut down the Estimates. I realise there is a shortage of money—one would want to be living in the moon not to realise that—but, at the same time, it is a mistake to save money at the expense of breaking faith with young men who have joined the Army on the undertaking that they would make it a career. I understand that the age limit for joining the Defence Forces is 18 years but young men who have their parents' or guardians' consent are accepted between the ages of 17 and 18 years, are allowed to continue on and, if they are satisfactory, are accepted as full-time soldiers. Many of them make a career of the Army. During the year 1965, a considerable number of such men joined the Army with the consent of their parents or guardians.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be dealing with the general defence policy of the Army. The only matter which can be dealt with is the item for which money is being provided in this Estimate.

There is nothing in the Estimate about retired pay or pensions.

The general policy of the Army is not under discussion; it is only the item for which money is provided in the White Paper which may be discussed.

Could the Deputy refer to the failure to find money for other objects because it is being spent on this?

That is a particular question. The Deputy may deal only with what is in the Estimate before the House.

(Cavan): I understood this Supplementary Estimate was wide enough to afford a short discussion, in a general way, on policy.

No; the Deputy may discuss only the item for which we are voting money. The Defence Estimate will come on later.

(Cavan): I fully appreciate that the main Estimate will come on later and that will give us an opportunity of discussing everything and anything. I did not intend to try to cover the entire field in detail but there were one or two points I did want to make. I shall conclude on this particular topic by saying that quite a number of these men who were accepted in the Army under 18 were thrown out within the last year, having served a few months, without any valid reason. That is not in the interests of recruiting in general. It discourages young men from joining the Army. It is a policy that should not be pursued.

I do not know whether it is possible to discuss the FCA under this particular heading, but I think it is. The principal point I wish to make is in relation to the FCA. There is great disquiet, unrest and dissatisfaction in the FCA.

Is the FCA included in this Supplementary Estimate?

The Reserve is included and the FCA is portion of the Reserve.

What the Deputy wishes to refer to is, I believe, something relevant to next year rather than this year and, under this, only this year falls for discussion.

(Cavan): I understand there is provision made in this Supplementary Estimate for the payment of increases to civil servants and surely civil servants have got something to do with the FCA.

They are not encouraged to join.

(Cavan): Surely they have something to do with the administration of the FCA. If I am not permitted to discuss the Reserve on this Supplementary Estimate I have very little more to say but, with respect, I consider this an opportune time to ventilate a very burning topic.

It may be burning, but is it relevant? My difficulty is, is it relevant beyond 31st March?

May I raise a point of order? There is a sum of money voted here for the Reserve. Surely the FCA form part of that Reserve and surely, therefore, we are entitled to discuss the FCA. There is also a sum of money for the Permanent Forces and we are entitled to discuss those as well. If we cannot discuss that, then we can discuss nothing.

There are very fine marginal differences.

Would you not agree that the FCA are part of the Reserve Forces of this country?

We are dealing with the period ended 31st March.

The FCA are training all the time. They may be called up tomorrow. They may want the money then.

It is not a question of whether or not they will be called up or for what purpose. It is a question of what we will provide the money for.

If there is a revolution, they will be called up and it is for that we are providing the money.

We are providing the money to meet expenditure.

(Cavan): Money is being provided for the Reserve Forces.

Up to 31st March, and that is all.

(Cavan): Up to 31st March and, because that money is being provided, I say, with the greatest respect, that I am entitled to discuss the policy of the Department towards the Reserve Forces, of which the FCA form part.

No. The Deputy may not discuss the policy of the Department. He may discuss the amount of money being allocated. Policy falls for discussion on the main Estimate. I am not anxious to limit the Deputy. I am anxious to give the Deputy the greatest possible latitude, but I should be infringing the rules of order and the rules of procedure were I to allow all that to be discussed.

(Cavan): Far be it from me to wish to upset the rules or procedure——

I appreciate that.

(Cavan):——but surely I can discuss the expenditure of the money provided for the Reserve Forces and, if I cannot make that point, that these Reserve Forces are going to be treated in a certain way in the not too distant future, then it is a positive waste of time voting this money. In order to make that point, I shall have to discuss certain official announcements that have been made regarding the Reserve Forces. With the greatest respect, I say the point I wish to make is in order: if the Reserve Forces, of which the FCA are part, are not going to be treated better in the future, then it is a positive waste of time spending this money and it should not be voted. I bow to the ruling of the Chair, but I submit that, seeing that is the case I intend to make, it is in order.

The FCA was established in 1940 as the LDF. It was then a purely locally based reserve force. In 1946 it became the FCA, or the Second Line Reserve, and, as I understand it, it may be mobilised at any time and sent for service in any part of the country. I understand there are about 20,000 active members and, on paper, the force might be as many as 30,000. It is a very worthwhile unit of the Reserve Forces because it is comprised of voluntary part-time soldiers suited to the type of service, in my opinion, that might be expected of them. They do a good deal of training for which they do not receive any remuneration. Up to this they had been given a fortnight's intensive training every year. I shall deal now with the ordinary private. The private was given a gratuity of £6 and £5 per week pay during the training period. A goodly number availed of this fortnight's training. It was beneficial. It fitted them to serve as a reserve force.

It was not very easy to train the FCA properly in local halls without proper facilities, and so they did an intensive course of training for a fortnight once a year, which did them a lot of good. Furthermore, they enjoyed that training. They regarded it as a holiday, although during that holiday, they had to do this intensive course of training. That is why I say that the voting of this money, in so far as it will be spent on the FCA between now and the end of the year, is a waste of money. There will be wholesale resignations from the force because of the change in Government policy towards the force. The fortnight's training is to be reduced to one week and the already inadequate gratuity of £6 per week is to be reduced to £2. That is the proposal. I do not know what grounds could be put forward for it, other than the saving of money, but in my opinion, it is a rather miserable way of going about saving money. There are many ways by which money could be saved other than by reducing this paltry gratuity of £6 a year to one-third of that amount, and, at the same time, reducing the period of training by one half.

The point I am making is that the FCA is either a worthwhile unit of the Defence Forces or it is not. If it is a worthwhile unit of the Defence Forces, as I believe it is, then it should be treated properly. It should be treated in a reasonable manner, and it certainly should not be treated less favourably than it is being treated at the moment. If it is not a worthwhile unit of the Defence Forces, it should be disbanded honourably, and not starved out as the Department propose to do at the present time. That is the case I am making, and it is as simple as that.

It is a well-known fact that the uniforms supplied to the FCA are quite unsuitable, quite unattractive, drab and uninteresting, and not calculated to encourage young men to come into the force. I should like the Minister to say whether in fact we have entered into certain commitments with the United Nations Organisation to keep our Defence Forces up to a certain figure and, if so, whether the strength of the FCA is taken into account in arriving at that figure because, if it is, that would appear to be another reason for being serious about the force.

The First Line Reserve were threatened with having no training this year either. At least, those rumours were going around, whether or not they were well founded. The people in the FCA think that because there were more powerful influences at the disposal of the First Line Reserve, they got the threat of having their training discontinued this year scotched. They also believe that the First Line were called up as usual because whether they were, or were not, their gratuity would have to be paid at the end of the year, whereas in the case of the FCA, if they were not called up for training for the two weeks, they simply did not get the gratuity. The Department have gone further than that because they have changed both the period of training and the amount of the gratuity.

All down the years the FCA has afforded an opportunity in rural Ireland for young men to serve their country on a part-time basis in the Defence Forces. This is an organisation which, thanks be to goodness, has always been completely non-political, although it is voluntary and part-time. That is something we can all be proud of. Politics has never entered into the activities of the FCA in any way. Even at this stage the Minister can undo this foolishness by affording an opportunity to the FCA this year again to go ahead with their annual training on terms at least as favourable as the terms in previous years. If he does not do that, he should tell the FCA exactly where they stand, whether he wants to continue the force as it is, or whether he does not. If he does not, these men can spend their spare hours in the service of the country in Civil Defence, in the Red Cross, or in any of the many other voluntary organisations. When the Minister is replying, I should like him to deal in particular with the questions I have raised about the FCA.

This is the third occasion on which Army matters have come before the House for debate this year. Therefore I do not intend to go into any great detail about Army matters in general. About a year ago, the Minister for Finance referred to the Army groups in this House and said we are worse than the Freemasons. I am proud of the fact that we try to protect our former comrades, and try to make fair criticism of the Department of Defence. The Minister and his predecessors have appreciated that and therefore I am sure that anything I may say will not be taken by the Minister on a personal basis.

I am rather surprised at the limitation on this debate because a very substantial amount of money is involved. If it were simply a matter of a few thousand pounds, or a few hundreds of thousands of pounds, I could understand it, but the sum concerned is £1,609,300, which is no small beer, even, in the Department of Defence. The subheadings under which this money is being given show that it covers the Office of the Minister for Defence, and salaries, wages and allowances. That covers practically everything in defence. It also covers pay of the Permanent Defence Forces, the allowances of the Permanent Defence Forces, the pay and allowances of the Reserve Defence Forces and so forth. The pay of the Permanent Defence Forces has been increased considerably and at the present time, though it is not what we should like it to be, it is moving in the right direction. Even though the Minister refers to some increases in allowances this year, it is not the number of increases but the amount of the increases that counts. The amount of money given to serving soldiers living out of barracks is absolutely ridiculous. It would not buy a lunch; as a matter of fact, it would not buy half a lunch for any Member of this House. It is ridiculous to expect serving soldiers to live on the amount they get when living out of barracks.

The question of our commitments in Cyprus was mentioned by the Minister. I should like to know where we are going in this respect. I understood that while we had to take part in UN policing of trouble spots, we would not be asked to maintain our share. I do not think there is anybody in this country who would say we have not done our fair share. We have done far more than our fair share. The Minister says we shall get a refund of the money and the Minister for External Affairs made a similar statement several months ago. It appears that this will not be made available in this financial year. All right; if it comes it will be very welcome, but I feel that as far as Cyprus is concerned, the Government should make up their minds whether we are to continue our forces there indefinitely. I do not believe we should. Having done more than our share, we should decide that we cannot continue to supply a force out there. A token force may be all right but we are doing far more.

I know that a number of soldiers serving in Cyprus and those who have served in the Congo like to get some service abroad. It gives them an opportunity of seeing the world, something to interest them in the Army, but I do not think that should be taken as an excuse for keeping them indefinitely in Cyprus or elsewhere. We should attempt to make the Army at home attractive enough without having to resort to gimmicks like this in order to keep serving soldiers interested.

As far as the strength of the Army is concerned, I expressed surprise last year when I found the strength was so great—that it was over the complement required. I noticed recently that an attempt has been made to reduce the number. I do not think waist measurements or things like that are the proper way to reduce the Army personnel. If we have got too many, it may be necessary to stop recruiting and the normal shrinkage from retirement should reduce the Army to the proper size without going to the extreme of taking somebody to the doctor, saying he was one or two stone overweight and consequently deciding he was no longer fit for Army service.

The FCA are the Second Line Reserve. I believe the Government must make up their minds either that they want them or that they do not. If they want the FCA as a well-trained second line of defence, they should treat them properly. I know quite a number of young men, and some not so young, throughout the country who have been giving a lot of their free time and a tremendous amount of effort to try to keep the standard of the FCA up to what it should be. I know also that the wastage in the FCA is far too high. There must be a line drawn somewhere and the Minister would be well advised to carry out a survey to find out why it is happening and make an attempt to prevent it happening. I believe the FCA, even at reduced size, would be a far more effective group if they were kept at the one strength over a period of years. The system of having men coming into the force, staying for a short time, being issued with uniforms, attending a few parades and taking no interest, is doing an immense amount of harm and it is most unfair to the force as a whole.

It must be most disheartening to the training officers who are attempting to build an Army out of a group, some of whom show very little interest. Let us face the fact that if the Department of Defence are to keep the FCA, they must attempt to make the FCA as efficient as possible, as attractive as possible. Do not let us start cutting down on a couple of weeks' training each year. This has become accepted as annual holidays for many of those who go into camps for a couple of weeks each year. Instead of resorting to that, membership should be confined to people really interested in the force, people who are prepared to stay in it. Leave out the man who blows in and blows out and who does no good. Everybody is not cut out to be a soldier. Numerous people who don uniforms find before long that the last thing they want is to be a soldier and such people should be told politely, or maybe not so politely, that they should get out.

While we must make available the required amount of money to keep our defence services going, I believe I have mentioned the matters which require immediate attention. As far as the First Line Reserve of Officers are concerned, here again the Minister might very well take the trouble to separate the efficient ones from the inefficient. We all know people who became Army officers during the Emergency, from 1939 to 1945, and that some of them are having an extremely difficult time getting around, yet they are still Reserve officers who report annually for training. God help us if we ever need some of them in a war. It would be sensible to keep only the efficient Reserve officers as is done in the Army itself where men are kept only as long as they are able to do their job. If that were done in the Reserve, we would have a more efficient Army and less trouble.

I commented here a few months ago that I noticed a tendency among ordinary civilians during a period of stress or emergency to think that the Army is wonderful; but when the danger is over, some people do not wish to be associated with the Army. People in dancehalls do not wish soldiers in uniform to be admitted and unfortunately many cafés adopt a similar attitude. They should remember that the soldier in peacetime is in training for wartime duties. If they did so, they would give far more consideration to the serving soldier than they do at the moment in this country.

I expressed the hope earlier in the year that if a Supplementary Estimate for this Department were needed, it would be used to bring about the improvements mentioned during the debate on the original Estimate. I am glad to support any Supplementary Estimate the object of which is to bring about reliefs and permit increases in allowances to serving personnel and to members of the Reserve. In this Supplementary Estimate we are making provision for a number of increases. I should like to say to the Minister at this stage that harmony between the regular Army and the Reserve and the FCA is essential. I served in a voluntary and in a professional capacity. I understand how the member of the FCA feels at the moment. I feel disgusted about this situation. This shabby treatment is something that probably is not of the Minister's making. I believe it is the dictate of somebody in the Civil Service. I do not think any man with an interest in the Army would think of such a degrading scheme for any man who is prepared to give voluntary service to the nation.

The scope of this debate is very limited but I should like to cover one or two items. Allowances to the Reserve have been mentioned. Reserve grants were sought here some time ago. They have not been included and the position is deplorable. I am sorry the Minister does not ask for more money so as to increase the pay to Reserve personnel. While a sum of £79,400 has been set aside for pay allowances of the Reserve forces, it is not enough. If the Minister had brought forward a much larger Supplementary Estimate to cover some of the increases that were suggested and that were justifiable, he would have had the goodwill of Members of this House because, as was mentioned, a Reserve member in 1927 had more money than a Reserve member is getting in 1966 and surely that is something that needs examination.

There is a sum of £198,000 for allowances for the Permanent Defence Forces by way of increased marriage allowances and children's allowances. There, also, I think much more could be done. If the Minister had asked for more money, I am sure all Parties would have supported his request for an even greater increase.

I want to mention the early retiring age of the officers of the Permanent Defence Forces. This is a matter to which the Minister should give attention and he should not allow himself to be bluffed and misled by other people. It is deplorable that a person has to retire at 54 or 56 years of age to be thrown on the labour market after having served the nation faithfully for 20 or 30 years. The officer of today is quite different from the officer of some years back. Our Army is now mechanised. The same degree of physical fitness is not required now as was required at one time but our men have experience and to throw them on the scrapheap at 54 or 56 years of age is deplorable. I am sure every Party in the House would support the Minister in a request for any amount of money to alleviate this particular type of distress.

Many other items could be covered and probably will be covered before the debate concludes. When the Estimates for the coming year are introduced, I am quite sure that, unless the Minister has something special to offer, the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Defence will be lively.

Once again, I would add my voice to what has already been said in connection with the FCA and the Reserve. I appeal to the Minister not to allow this shabby treatment to be meted out to these men: they are worthy of more than that. I believe that the advisers of this type of hatchet-work should be ignored. I know that the Minister is a man of outstanding responsibility. If he further examines this matter, I feel sure he will cast aside the present plans, if they exist, and will do justice to the FCA, the Reserve and the Regular Army.

This Supplementary Estimate for £1.6 million is just another indication to the House of the dwindling value of money which is due to the overall policy of the Government to which the Minister belongs. In his opening address, the Minister said he is anxious to save money. It seems to me that he is going the wrong way about it. We have a Permanent Defence Force of some 7,000 troops, officers and men, and a Reserve, which is the FCA, of 20,000 men. These 20,000 men, to my mind, constitute a cheap reserve for the nation to fall back on in a time of emergency.

The policy of the Minister, as far as one can read it from what one has seen in the newspapers, is to reduce the time service of the Defence Force, and therefore greatly to reduce its efficiency, and very likely to reduce its overall personnel. It is necessary for any Minister for Defence to have sufficient troops or trained personnel at his disposal so that he may bring into effect a larger army in a time of emergency. In my view, an entirely wrong policy is being adopted here. We are asked to vote money for the purpose of stabilising the defence budget as it exists but, in actual fact, to economise as well. The policy the Minister is now adopting means that he will probably be back again to this House very soon after the main Estimate for more money if he finds he has no Reserve personnel.

There is also the question of the security of the State. Does the Minister believe that, if he does not get the Reserve forces, if he does not get the recruits in the light of halving the fortnight to one week for training, he will have sufficient military personnel in the country to meet any emergency we may have to face in the light of the Permanent Force which numbers 7,000? On top of that, we have at the moment a certain number of troops serving overseas. The Minister mentioned Cyprus. I am not quite sure if we have troops other than in Cyprus: perhaps he will indicate how many troops we have in Cyprus and how long they are likely to remain there? Furthermore, as far as I know the position, if we send serving personnel overseas on behalf of the United Nations, the Government who send them pays them the ordinary rates of pay and any extra charges, such as overseas service money, transport, and so on, come out of the United Nations fund.

The Minister, in this Supplementary Estimate, is looking for more money. True enough, he says that money is due to us by the United Nations but he has not made it quite clear what the United Nations have paid and what we are paying.

The special allowance.

In this administrative policy which the Minister is adopting in relation to the Army, what will the position be in the event of a further demand for troops? Are we in a position to meet a further demand, with the money and the troops at our disposal and the policy the Minister is carrying out generally? If there is a fracas in any part of the world, it is always to Ireland that they come to look for troops, and that is to our credit. We have never tried to subjugate anybody else and our overseas personnel have behaved with dignity and distinction wherever they have been. If he gets no recruits, is the Minister in a position to satisfy another demand to send troops to other places? Quite recently, it very nearly did come, if things had not quietened down in Nigeria. I am perfectly certain Ireland would have been the first place that would have been looked to for troops because we have associations with that country and a good name there through the distinguished service our missionaries have given.

I am glad to see the special grant to Red Cross funds, though I think the Government could have been a little bit more generous in that matter. I believe that the money transferred to the Red Cross is immediately transferred overseas to relieve the famine in India and, in fact, the famine conditions which are on the increase in very many parts of the world. The Minister spoke about saving. If he succeeds in saving, which I very much doubt he will be able to do, I suggest that he give a bigger contribution to the Red Cross so that they may be enabled to carry on this necessary work in relation to the relief of famine conditions.

I do not think we should allow this opportunity to pass without at least making some comment on the reorganisation scheme applicable to the FCA. In view of the service and the application shown by the FCA, it would be too bad to let this Estimate pass without comment. In general, up to now, the image of the FCA is not very good. That is brought about by a number of factors. One of the factors, indeed, is the general appearance and dress. I am informed that the personnel of the FCA are issued with only one uniform and, having regard to the various duties which the men are called upon to perform, that is too bad at this stage. They have to attend not merely the annual training period but also week-end parades. They also have to take part in ceremonial parades and different other activities. Therefore, regardless of the elements, the least they could expect is to be issued with at least a fatigue suit and an extra pair of boots.

The general picture of the FCA, to my mind, is poor. It is poor because of the general dress. We all subscribe to the view that the members of the FCA respond to training. Those men are what may be described as part-time soldiers. They give their time and their ability without regular pay or reward. They are called up each year for a period of 14 days' training. The experts, or the alleged experts, in Parkgate Street—I assume they are well behind the lines—have drawn up a scheme to reduce the period of training to seven days. As an ex-Army man, I would be in order in submitting to this House that one could not, with the best will in the world, train a soldier in seven days. In fact, if one were to take men to a week-end camp, the camp would not be properly set up within a period of seven days. Therefore, one would be in order in submitting that this is a waste of public money instead of being a help. The defence of this country is not merely involved but also the general morale of the FCA

It might be submitted, at this point, that the men in charge in Parkgate Street should stand up for the part-time soldiers and ensure they would get a better deal. It will be generally admitted that there is, in fact, a duplication of services between the FCA and the local authorities when it comes to matters of defence. It could be further submitted that not only might the personnel of the FCA be more properly engaged in local defence but that certain members of that unit should be permitted to take over some of the exercises which the local authorities are now deemed to be performing.

The men of the FCA are men with a certain background and training. If we are not prepared to push them into the limelight and keep them there, then we will not be able to call upon them in time of need. Does anyone think for a moment that any young man at this stage, will respond to a call for seven days' training and merely be given his usual pay and a fee of £2 at the end? Rather, I should have thought that the period of training would be extended, that, in fact, not merely 14 days but 21 days, or, indeed, a month, would be stipulated and that not merely would a grant of £6 be paid at the end of the period of training but double that amount. If we are to keep a unit, such as the FCA, in this country at all, we are certainly not going about our business in the right way by so drastically interfering with the terms of service of that particular unit.

I referred in general to the poor picture and the poor image presented by the FCA. What will it be like in two years' time? We will lose personnel wholesale because any young fellow in the country at the present time could be far better engaged, even in a part-time activity. Indeed, for that matter, he could earn real money rather than spend a few weekends and an annual fortnight for no return, no reward.

I want to bring home to the Minister the desirability of not merely dressing the troops properly but, in general, presenting to the country and to the public a better image of the FCA. Indeed, I may be at fault myself, as an ex-Army man, in this matter. I am sure many of my colleagues on all sides of the House will agree that we in this House are fairly fully occupied but if we want to promote a better relationship between the public and the FCA, then we should take a more active interest in the affairs of the FCA. In the last analysis, if we were unfortunate enough to have to call on this unit, then we would recognise its worth but we are not going about making the unit a very worthy force.

I referred to the fact that one would not be able to establish camp in seven days, never mind to set up house, to issue equipment, to fall in the troops, to exercise them, to give them a run through small arms drill and even to take them out on the range. There is time and money involved in this unit. One can waste time and waste money by being too penurious. That is what could be said and inferred by any member of the Defence Force regarding the scheme which emanated from Parkgate Street. I have a suspicion that it did not come from Army officers conversant with the facts but from Merrion Street. It is time the claws of Merrion Street were clipped in regard to defence and now is the time to do it when a vital matter like the training, equipping and general presentation of the FCA is involved.

I do not propose to extend the debate but I shall pitch into it at a later stage when I brief myself properly on the various items. I shall go through the subheads item by item until we see the worth of this halfbaked scheme which has just issued.

In dealing with a Supplementary Estimate, we recognise that it is not always possible to keep within the rules of order and some Deputies have gone outside what is provided for in the Estimate. Because of that, I shall have to make some effort to reply to their points as well as deal with the general points raised in the debate. I do not object to the ruling of the Chair and I make no adverse criticism of any Deputy who went beyond what is provided for in what we are asking the House to vote because I realise it is not easy to keep within the rules of order on a matter like this.

Deputy Fitzpatrick raised the question of retired pay for officers and men who retired prior to November, 1961. Retired pay, as the Deputy knows, is related to the pay at the time of retirement and therefore a person who retires after a pay increase has been granted gets a higher rate of retired pay or pension than a person of the same rank and service who retired before the pay increase. This is common to all State services and is not peculiar to the Army. From time to time those low pensions based on earlier pay rates are increased, usually as a result of Budget arrangements. I cannot improve on that situation. Whatever increases may come will come as a result of the budgetary situation as it emerges each year.

The question of the FCA was raised by practically every Deputy who spoke and we had the history of the foundation of the FCA from Deputy Fitzpatrick. The FCA is a voluntary organisation, part of the Defence Forces of the State, the Second Line Reserve, and it is very valuable to the State. It is a force that the Government certainly want to see maintained. I, for one, think that the FCA is a force we should have: it is the only method by which this State, with its small population and limited resources, can provide a worthwhile supplement to the Permanent Defence Forces. I would like, and so would the Government, to increase the strength of the Permanent Defence Forces and bring them up to the standard at which we could with certainty say that, in the event of any emergency, we could fully depend upon them to render a good account of themselves, whether the emergency arose out of world events or otherwise. The same applies to the FCA, but the Minister and the Department and the Army heads must fit the pattern of our Defence Forces to the amount of money made available by this House in the Estimates each year on behalf of the people.

We cannot afford a very expensive defence force. We have to tax the people to provide the funds to pay the Defence Forces, maintain and equip them and pay the appropriate grants and emoluments to the first and second lines of the Reserve.

Alongside the FCA, we have the Civil Defence Force which is a purely voluntary service, rendered without any pay or reward. Some Deputies suggested that if the FCA were not wanted, they could spend their time with the Civil Defence force, or the Red Cross or some other organisation of this kind. These are purely voluntary organisations in which no payment is expected and in which the people render the voluntary service so essential to the wellbeing of the country.

The decision was taken to call the FCA for one week only. There is a question down by Deputy Cosgrave for answer tomorrow as to what is the amount saved by this. I think I shall wait until tomorrow to answer. If the Deputy were here, I would ask his permission to answer it now. Every item in the Estimate for the Defence Forces was scrutinised by the officers of the Department and by myself to see where we could make savings in the 1966-67 Estimate so as to bring it into line with the budgetary situation when the budget comes to be finally fixed in a short time.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Surely the Minister will agree that a gratuity of 40/-a year is an insult.

Many things may be regarded as insults. It could be said that even the gratuities payable to the First Line Reserve are an insult. We must do the best we can in the circumstances in which we find ourselves this year and deal with the situation confronting us and the country.

There was no decision taken not to call out the First Line Reserve. We certainly looked at the matter and I decided that we would call the First Line Reserve this year. It is true that the First Line Reserve was not called out some years ago, in 1949, I think. I do not know what the reasons were for not doing so at that time. The decision has been taken not to call the FCA for two weeks, but for one, this year and that has been done for economy reasons. We shall not be able to make a real comparison between the various heads in the Estimates for the Defence Forces as to where saving is being when published in the Book of Esti-effected until we see the main Estimate mates. Then people will be in a better position to judge whether the decision was a justifiable one or not.

I think I have dealt fairly fully with the question of the calling-up of the FCA. The same of course applies to An Slua Muiri. They will be called up for one week also. The decision to call the two components up for one week instead of two does not involve any new principle because the regulations provide for seven days' training as well as 14.

Either Deputy Fitzpatrick or Deputy Esmonde asked if we had entered into any commitments with the United Nations to keep our Defence Forces up to a certain figure. We have not entered into any such commitment, either as to the Permanent or the Reserve force.

Deputy Tully raised the question of the Cyprus operation and wished to know if it has been decided to continue this operation. That is a decision for the Government to make. The present mandate expires in March next and no decision has yet been taken as to whether we will continue or replace the battalion at present serving in Cyprus or not. In answer to Deputy Esmonde, there are in Cyprus at the moment 45 officers and 475 other ranks, making a total of 520. There are 12 officers serving with the United Nations as Observers in Kashmir and ten officers with the United Nations as Supervisors in the Lebanon.

The question of uniforms was also raised but this is a matter more for the main Estimate. In 1964 a new style uniform was approved for the Permanent Defence Forces and also for the FCA. The clothing provided for the FCA consists of a blouse, trousers, overcoat, leggings and boots and only differs from the Defence Forces uniform in regard to the blouse. I do not think at this stage that there will be any further change in the uniform for the FCA. In my estimation, the uniform looks well and nobody need be ashamed of the material, the cut or the make of the uniform. The men whom I have seen wearing it look fairly well and are smart and well-trained. The men in the FCA do not depend on the week's or fortnight's annual training as they are being trained every time they attend a parade. There is a good deal in what Deputy Tully said in regard to those who join for a short time and then leave. I would much prefer to see continuous attendance by members and have the FCA made into an efficient and effective force, even if it had to be reduced in numbers.

The question of soldiers who are under age was also raised. This is something which gives trouble to the Army authorities and myself. It is true, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, that they can get clearance from their parents or guardians and join before they are 18, but if they are sent overseas on service and if anything happens to them, it can create difficulties. We would prefer to have soldiers coming in at 18 rather than under 18.

The ration allowance paid to soldiers living out of barracks was raised by Deputy Tully who considered that it was not sufficient. You could not deal with this matter in isolation. You would have to consider it in relation to all the other elements which go to make up a soldier's emoluments. There is quite a sizeable list of other allowances which a soldier gets, apart from the ration allowance, and one would have to take the whole thing into consideration.

This Supplementary Estimate provides for an increase in pay to the Permanent Defence Forces of £1,687,000. This increase is over and above the amount already provided for in relation to 1965-66. The increase will have to be carried into next year also and that is one of the problems with which the Minister for Defence was confronted in the preparation of the 1966-67 Estimate. He had to look at the whole Estimate. He had to ensure that the money was provided to pay the Permanent Defence Force and keep them provisioned. He also had to see where effective economies could be made that would not, for the time being, interfere with the maintenance of a defence force of a standard capable of carrying out efficiently the functions for which the Defence Forces were established.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn