Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1966

Vol. 222 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Defence.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £10,802,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, 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.

The Estimate for Defence for 1966-1967 is for a net sum of £10,802,000 which is £361,300 in excess of the amount originally voted for 1965-1966. Taking into account, however, the additional sum of £1,609,300 voted in February, there is a net decrease of £1,248,000.

With the Estimate for Defence, we are also considering the Estimate for Army Pensions, which is for a net sum of £2,576,000. This exceeds by £198,870 the sum originally voted for 1965-1966, but the sum of £126,731 has been transferred from the Vote for Increases in Pensions to meet the cost of the 1965 Budgetary increases, so that the actual increase over the 1965-1966 figure is £72,139.

In accordance with custom, I should like to review briefly the happenings of the past year before dealing with the Estimate for Defence itself.

During that year, Ireland continued to contribute contingents to the United Nations Force in Cyprus. Since the Force was established at the end of March, 1964, six units and Headquarters staff elements of a total strength of 3,243 officers and men have completed tours of duty in Cyprus, while the 6th Infantry Group and a staff element having a total strength of 523 all ranks is at present serving with the Force.

The mission of our troops is arduous and demanding both in time and patience. All reports indicate, however, that they are doing a good job. Impartiality in their dealings with the two communities in Cyprus has earned them the trust of both and the gratitude of the United Nations. In his Report to the Security Council, dated the 10th March, 1966 the Secretary-General said—

The discipline, understanding and bearing of the officers and men of all contingents of the United Nations Force have continued to be of a high order, reflecting great credit on the Contingent Commanders and their staffs and on the armed forces of the contributing countries.

Deputies may like to hear as well what was said by the late General K. S. Thimayya, UN Commander in Cyprus, on the occasion of the departure of the 42nd Infantry Battalion from Cyprus:—

Not the least of the many services rendered by the Irish to the United Nations Force has been the particular cheerfulness, allied to a delightful sense of humour, with which you have tackled every task assigned to you. The departing 42nd Infantry Battalion, its predecessors, the 40th and 41st Infantry Battalions and the 3rd and 4th Groups have each in turn set high standards of performance and devotion to duty which will long be remembered by those in UNFICYP who have been lucky enough to serve alongside the Irish Contingent.

It has been a pleasure and a privilege for me as Force Commander to have had the Irish Contingent serving under my command and Ireland has every right to be proud of the magnificent contribution made by her successive Contingents towards the restoration of peace in Cyprus. Congratulations and thanks on a job thoroughly well done.

We can all take pride in the fact that Irish troops have made and continue to make a worthwhile contribution towards the easing of tension in Cyprus.

While the Irish contingents in Cyprus have not suffered any casualties as a result of military operations, I am sorry to say that three non-commissioned officers died there, one from natural causes and the other two as a result of injuries sustained in traffic accidents. Deputies will join with me in renewing sympathy to the bereaved families of these men.

Irish officers are also included in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine, to which we have been supplying officers for the past seven or eight years, and to which ten officers are now attached. Ireland was among a number of countries which responded to the request of the United Nations to send officers to act as military observers in supervising the cease-fire between India and Pakistan, and 12 of our officers took up duty in the mission area last September. The mission has now come to an end, and the officers have returned home.

I should also like to mention that the Secretary-General honoured this country last year by inviting Lieut.-General Seán MacEoin, Chief of Staff, to act as co-Chairman on a United Nations mission surveying the activities of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East.

Again I wish to record appreciation of the generosity of many individuals and commercial firms who continue to provide comforts for Irish personnel who serve overseas. The annual repetition of this tribute to the organisers of the work and to those who provide the comforts in no way affects its sincerity.

The financial arrangements governing the supply of Irish contingents to the United Nations Force in Cyprus have been indicated previously to the House by the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs. The position briefly is that, for the period from March, 1964, when Irish participation commenced, up to the 26th June, 1965, the Secretary-General has undertaken to reimburse, from voluntary contributions to the United Nations Force in Cyprus, the Government's extra and extraordinary expenses with the exception of overseas and per diem allowances payable to the troops. The Secretary-General has, however, assured the Government that he will use his best endeavours towards the reimbursement, for this period, of the allowances mentioned.

For the period from and including the 27th June, 1965, onwards, the Secretary-General has undertaken to reimburse, again from voluntary contributions, all extra and extraordinary expenses incurred by the Government.

As reimbursement of all expenses will be made from voluntary contributions to the Cyprus Force and, as these contributions to date fall short of the amount required to cover the entire expenses of the Force, it cannot be said with certainty that all our expenses will be reimbursed at an early date. However, the Minister for External Affairs is keeping in constant touch with the Secretary-General on this question, as all extra and extraordinary expenses incurred by the Government are regarded by us as a debt due to us by the United Nations.

Up to the present, claims have been presented to the United Nations for a total, in round figures, amounting to £889,380 consisting of allowances £827,765 and other expenditure £61,615. Of the amount for allowances, a sum of £656,055 represents the cost of allowances up to and including 26th June, 1965. I am pleased to let the House know that the United Nations has paid approximately £231,855 on foot of our claims and almost all of this has been reimbursed during the past two months. The amount outstanding largely represents overseas and per diem allowances up to and including the 26th June, 1965. Having regard to the assurance given by the Secretary-General prior to the recent rotation of the 5th and 6th Infantry Groups we expect that further payments will be made during the present financial year.

The Vote for 1965-1966 contemplated an average strength of 7,000 non-commissioned officers and privates throughout the financial year. For some months before the end of 1965, however, the actual strength was more than that figure, due, no doubt, to the substantial pay increases. It was found necessary, therefore, in December to confine recruiting temporarily to the Naval Service and the 1st (Irish-speaking) Battalion, both of which need additional personnel badly. The average strength proposed for 1966-1967 is 7,250 non-commissioned officers and privates.

The concentration on recruitment for the Naval Service has had some degree of success, but the position is still not satisfactory. For some considerable time it has been possible to keep only one of the three corvettes on fishery patrol duty due to a shortage of key personnel to man the vessels. In connection, however, with the fishery dispute, in January, 1966, at Dunmore East, it was decided, as a special measure, to send a second corvette to the area for a period of ten days. This was done only by taking personnel temporarily from other normal duties to man the second corvette and it was possible to maintain this position for a short period only.

It is regretted that all the vacancies for apprentices could not be filled last year. Only 35 of the 55 vacancies at the Army Apprentice School at Naas were filled. The position was better in the Air Corps, where 48 of the 50 vacancies were filled. When one considers the excellent training obtainable through those schemes and the opportunities in subsequent civilian life to which they provide an opening, it is surprising that there should be any unfilled vacancies. I would urge parents and teachers to consider seriously the opportunities which these schemes provide.

During 1965, three riders and seven horses of the Equitation School formed part of a mixed military/ civilian team representing Ireland at international horse shows at Nice and Rome. Two riders and four horses of the Equitation School formed part of a mixed military/civilian team for the London and Dublin international horse shows. An all-Army team comprising three riders and six horses attended the North American Shows at Harrisburg, New York and Toronto. Teams from the Equitation School also competed at 21 provincial shows and 24 gymkhanas during that year. Successes in international competitions included 6 first, 9 second and 7 third places.

An Army Equitation Team will attend the international shows at Barcelona and Lucerne in June, 1966, and either an all-Army team or a mixed (military/civilian) team will attend the shows at Harrisburg, New York and Toronto in October/November, 1966. Army riders and horses will also be made available to form mixed teams to compete at the London and Dublin horse shows in July and August, 1966.

The scheme for the training by the Air Corps of pilots for Aer Lingus is continuing at Gormanston Camp, the fourth class having commenced training last January. The scheme for the training of fishermen at the Naval Base, Haulbowline, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is also continuing.

The Civil Defence Organisation has continued to attract new recruits, and the figures furnished by the local authorities in respect of 1965 show a consistent upward trend. This reflects great credit on all those concerned with the development of the organisation. It is evident that Civil Defence has been accepted as a truly national organisation whose membership is comprised of men and women drawn from all age groups and walks of life. I should like to take the opportunity to thank those members of the Oireachtas and of local authorities who are encouraging the development of Civil Defence.

I should mention that the Civil Defence Organisation, in co-operation with the Voluntary Aid Societies and other bodies, continued during the past year to make a much appreciated contribution to the relief of those who have suffered from the effects of natural disasters, e.g. floods and fires. In a word, the organisation is now firmly established and growing in efficiency.

Deputies are aware that the Civil Defence booklet "Survival in a Nuclear War—Advice on Protection in the Home and on the Farm" was distributed to householders throughout the country. This booklet is a basic factor in our Civil Defence preparations. I would urge everyone, and especially householders, to re-read it from time to time and to ensure that it does not get lost or mislaid. It is intended as a long-term provision that will be essential as long as the danger of nuclear war remains.

In regard to training, a considerable increase has taken place in the number of active training centres throughout the country. There are now over 320 such centres. The number of competitions, exercises, demonstrations and week-end training camps held over the last year also represents a considerable increase over the previous year.

The instruction of the staffs of the various Government Departments in Civil Defence has been making steady progress and the training of instructors for local authorities, the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána at the Civil Defence School has also been progressing satisfactorily.

The Irish Red Cross Society continued with its excellent work in the relief of suffering and the succour of the less fortunate. Deputies are aware that the Government made available to the Society a special grant of £10,000 to enable it to undertake the relief of exceptional cases of personal distress due to flooding and storm damage arising from bad weather conditions during last winter. The Society willingly undertook responsibility for this necessary relief work.

At the request of the Government, the Society took responsibility for the organisation of the country's Freedom from Hunger Campaign in 1961. This work continued until the establishment last November, of Gorta, which is now the official body for organising such campaigns. Undoubtedly the continuing work on the Campaign placed a strain on the Society but I think it well to record that the target by 1965— £150,000—was in fact exceeded before the organisation of the campaign was transferred to Gorta.

During the last financial year, relief amounting to over £6,300 has been given by the Society to distressed areas abroad. Included was approximately £3,100 for the relief of famine in India and £1,900 for relief after the recent earthquake in Greece.

The need for a more suitable and spacious headquarters for the Society had been apparent for some time past and it was met recently when the Society went into occupation of new headquarters premises in Merrion Square, Dublin, purchased and made available by the Government, I should like to congratulate and thank the Society and its members for all their work during the past year.

Turning to the Estimate itself, I invite the attention of Deputies to two particular features—on the one hand, the very heavy increases in the pay subheads and, on the other, the very substantial decreases in the works and stores subheads. This is a clear indication of the position in which I found myself in the preparation of the Estimate. Like other Ministers, I had, because of the financial stringency, to go beyond the ordinary requirements of economy. In an Estimate like that for Defence, there is very little room for absorbing major cuts without serious and immediate repercussions in some directions. Even in an ordinary year, the pay and allowances in cash and kind of the Permanent Defence Force together with the remuneration of civilian staffs, take approximately 77 per cent of the Vote. These are inescapable costs which in the present Estimate account for 85 per cent of the total. There are, of course, other costs which cannot be avoided such as the maintenance of barracks and equipment and the provision of lighting and heating.

It certainly was no pleasure to me to have to curtail the annual training of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and An Slua Mhuirí for even one year, but it was unavoidable in the circumstances. I wish to place on record my own and the Government's appreciation of the excellent service being rendered by these two valuable components of the Defence Forces.

Many desirable — even essential— works and projects have had to be abandoned this year but I hope that it may be possible to go ahead with them next year and to resume full Reserve training. In this connection, I may say that in deciding on the economies to be effected I had the benefit of the views and recommendations of my Departmental civil and military advisers.

A word about the organisation of the Department of Defence may not be out of place here. In addition to the normal Civil Service structure, the Department includes the Branches of the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster-General. The heads of these Branches are each directly responsible to the Minister for the performance of the duties assigned to them. They, as well as the Secretary of the Department, have the right to direct access to the Minister and they are at all times available, individually or jointly, to assist and advise the Minister. Having explained the organisational set-up I want to make it quite clear that the decisions on important questions are taken by the Minister and by the Minister alone.

As I said at the outset, the Estimate for Army Pensions for 1966-67 exceeds by almost £200,000 the amount originally voted for 1965-66 and by somewhat more than £72,000 the original 1965-66 Vote as increased to meet the cost of the 1965 Budgetary increases in pensions and allowances. I do not think that there is a great deal that I need say about the Estimate itself, which follows the usual pattern. Recipients of pensions relating to the 1916-1923 period are, inevitably, decreasing in number with the passage of time, although I should point out that the number in receipt of special allowances continues to increase and, as regards these allowances, there is no indication that the peak is yet in sight. Recipients of retired pay and pensions in respect of post-1923 and current service in the Defence Forces are, of course, also increasing in number.

There are a few general matters about which I should like to say something, because they keep cropping up in the course of every debate on pensions. We had them recently when the House was discussing the motion put down by Deputies Kyne and Tierney, and again when we were dealing with the Supplementary Estimate for Defence. My predecessors have tried frequently to put these matters in proper perspective, as I did in the course of the two debates that I have mentioned. Perhaps, however, I could return to them once more.

In the first place I should like to say something about special allowances, and especially about two aspects of the special allowance scheme that keep coming up—the means test and the fact that some of the allowances are small. Special allowances are not a form of social welfare benefit or of social assistance. If they were, the Department of Social Welfare would be dealing with the scheme. Neither is a special allowance a reward for service in the way that a military service pension is. These allowances were introduced in 1943 in a very simple and restricted way. It had come to notice that, through age and ill-health, some 1916 survivors had fallen on hard times. It was regarded as wrong that this should be so, and the special allowance was devised to improve their lot. It was not until some years afterwards that the scheme was extended to military service pensioners generally and, later on again, to Medal holders.

Like the non-contributory old age pension scheme, the special allowance scheme was devised, with certain items of means being fully assessed, others only partly assessed and others again not assessed at all. A system such as this operates particularly to the benefit of the person with means which can be ignored. I may say that, in the beginning, the means test for special allowance purposes was much more severe than it has now become.

Five years ago, the provision for special allowances constituted about 25 per cent of the total Vote for pensions; for 1966-67 it is almost 30 per cent. I gave figures recently in reply to a question showing how the cost has increased in recent years. I do not claim that the allowances are princely, but they certainly are not as miserable as some try to make out. I do not know if it is realised that a person can have a non-contributory old age pension of £2. 7. 6. a week and as well a special allowance of £2. 5s. a week, or a contributory old age pension of £3 a week and a special allowance of £1. 13s. a week, assuming in each case no other assessable means. Some small allowances are inevitable under a means test but, as it happens, the average special allowance is £84 per year.

Lastly, I should like to say something about Medals. To be eligible for the award of the Service (1917-1921) Medal with Bar, a person must either hold a military service certificate under the Military Service Pensions Acts, entitling him to a pension, or satisfy the Minister for Defence that, had he applied under these Acts, his service was such as would have merited a pension. For the (1917-1921) Medal without Bar, what has to be established is continuous membership of the IRA or kindred organisation during the three months which ended on the 11th July, 1921.

Under a decision of the Government in 1957, after it had come to light that some people had got the Medal without Bar to which they were not entitled, a new system of investigation of applications was introduced which involved the consultation of the surviving officers—battalion and company or equivalent— of the unit to which the applicant claimed to have belonged, and examination of records, including especially the Unit Rolls furnished by Brigade Committees to the Referee in connection with the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934. I may say that the Rolls are not the deciding factor. A person whose application is verified by the appropriate officers is awarded the Medal even if his or her name is not on the Roll. Nevertheless, the Rolls are very important. They are generally available for IRA units, but unfortunately they are not available for the majority of areas in respect of Cumann na mBan or Fianna Éireann.

Since 1957, all applications for the Medal without Bar have been investigated in the manner which I have described and, where considered necessary, the entitlement of persons awarded the Medal under previous systems of investigation has been reinvestigated under that system when they apply for a special allowance. Where officers are no longer available, Volunteer pensioners of the Company or equivalent unit are asked to assist.

Having described the system of investigation, I wish to comment upon a current tendency for persons to wait until they are nearing the age of 70 years and then to apply for the first time for a Medal with a view to qualifying for a special allowance. Deputies may be interested to know that my Department received 664 "first-time" applications in 1961, 634 in 1962, 809 in 1963, 767 in 1964, 705 in 1965 and more than 200 in the first three months of this year. The officers were, in the main, older than the rank and file. Many of them have died or are incapacitated and unable to reply to our enquiries. A person who was in his teens in 1921 will not reach the age of seventy for some years to come. People who delay too long in applying for a Medal to which they feel entitled may well fail to get it for the simple reason that, no officers or volunteer pensioners of the unit being left, the Department cannot investigate the application; there will be nobody of standing left to consult. Already we are having such cases. I would not wish to bring back a final closing date for applications such as operated in the past, but I would hope that what I am now saying would get some publicity because, if people do leave it too late and their applications fail for want of verification, there will be no use in their blaming the Minister for Defence or the Department of Defence.

Mr. Cosgrave

Before dealing with a few general points on the Estimate, I should like to pay a tribute to the Army for the efficiency and general commendable manner in which they carried out the various duties assigned to them during the past year. In particular, I think the House and the people generally appreciate the manner in which the various commemoration ceremonies were carried out and the high standard of efficiency and courtesy shown by all ranks in carrying out these duties, more especially within the limits of the numbers of troops involved in the various ceremonies and the relatively limited equipment available to them.

I should also like to join in the expression of satisfaction at the manner in which Army units serving with the United Nations Forces in Cyprus carried out their duties. It has brought forth commendation not merely from the commanders to whom the Minister has referred but also from other observers who were impressed by the manner in which the members of the Defence Forces undertook their duties there.

The recent economies in the Defence Vote were, in my view, badly conceived and the fact that that is so was realised subsequently by the Minister for Defence and the Government when certain changes were made. The decision to call up the FCA for a week's training was a bad decision. I know that, as the Minister has said, if economies have to be made, each Minister in each Department has to make a contribution. But the FCA is a volunteer force. It is, possibly, the cheapest type of defence force that any country could get. The morale and general spirit of the members of the FCA has always been high and, indeed, the fact that so many people come forward voluntarily to serve in that force indicates the good spirit in the country and in the community generally. Therefore, the decision to curtail training to a week had a bad effect on morale just as the decision in respect of the Reserve of Officers had a bad effect.

As a result of criticism and general dissatisfaction and because of the effects it had had on morale, some alteration was made in that decision. If the Reserve of Officers is to be maintained, there should be no interference with their contract of service or conditions of service during the period of that service.

The decision which was taken in respect of the FCA was a bad decision. If the Minister is hard up or the Government are hard up and have to make economies, these economies should be made in some other direction, possibly even in respect of the purchase of equipment. Some of the equipment could be done without and the purchase of new equipment could be postponed. A minimum of equipment is adequate for training purposes. In the case of the individual, you are dealing with a human being and the effect of any decision on morale and on the force in general may be bad. This force is a voluntary force and, as I have said, is possibly the cheapest unit of a defence force, not merely in this country, but in any other country that I know of.

The discipline and training which members of the FCA have got is the type of training and discipline which we badly need and which should be encouraged in the country. We have not, as many other countries have, a period of military training. We have never adopted that policy. With the exception of the emergency period, when large numbers joined the Army or the other units such as the FCA or the LDF, we have never had any form of national military training or discipline associated with military training which other countries have had and which is generally recognised as a form of training which proves of benefit to the individual, not merely for military purposes but in after life, and for the part individuals can play as citizens.

We have in the FCA a force of volunteers who are prepared to devote a considerable portion of their leisure time to military work and this involves not merely the availability of the personnel concerned for use as a component part of the Defence Forces, but also ensures that a great many people get the benefit of a course of training, the advantages of coming together as individuals in the community, prepared to play their part and devote their leisure time, or portion of it, for the purpose of having themselves trained and disciplined for use as a unit of the Army. All this means that the advantages of a military training is made available to them and for them on the very minimum terms, in respect of costs, which could be expected.

For that reason the decision to curtail the period of training caused great disappointment and dismay among members of the FCA, to the detriment of their morale. Indeed, the effect on the morale of members of the Permanent Defence Forces was also quite considerable. In that connection I note from the Minister's speech that the total strength of Army units is something slightly in excess of 7,000. It was 7,000 last year and it is anticipated that it will be 7,250 this year. That has been the approximate strength over a number of recent years. It may be slightly above what it was for some years but is it not time to revise the peacetime establishment laid down after the war? There was a White Paper published which set out the proposed peacetime establishment at 12,000 or 12,500. That figure has never been reached and there is now a deliberate decision that it will not be reached. In fact, recruits who attempted to join last year, and indeed some serving personnel, found that the standard tests applied to them, both in regard to health and to education, were much more rigorous than previously.

We should either decide on a figure and adhere to it or admit that we have abandoned the figure previously proposed. There is no advantage whatever in carrying on with the make-believe that we are hoping to reach a peacetime establishment of 12,500 when we know we are not trying to do it and when in fact it is quite unlikely to be reached.

I should like to support what the Minister said in connection with the Army Apprentice School. I was very interested in that school during the short period when I had contact with the Department of Defence. The training given there, and also in the Air Corps Apprentice School, is of the very highest standard and many young soldiers who have served in that school have as a result obtained very good positions outside. The circumstances in which that school was established were to a considerable extent due to the experience which a number of Army personnel had in regard to particular Army corps in which specialised training was given. The then Quartermaster-General and I had a number of discussions on the question of his experience during his period as Director of the Supply and Transport Corps, in which a number of Army personnel are trained as fitters and mechanics and many of whom, after leaving the Army, are able to get good positions because of specialised technical knowledge. As a result, it was decided to establish the Army Apprentice School to ensure that a much wider category would get training of a specialised and detailed type and thus be enabled not only to secure promotion in specially trained corps within the Defence Forces but subsequently in outside employment, before they became too old to get outside employment.

One of the criticisms often levelled at Army personnel in the past was that while they had inculcated into them the discipline and so forth of Army life, they had no training for a particular type of employment and that when a person retired, he was beyond the age at which it was generally possible for him to acquire that knowledge. The Apprentice School in Naas, and the Air Corps School, provide a type and system of training which makes it possible for a man to secure promotion within the Defence Forces and also enables him, or should enable him, to get a satisfactory type of employment after he leaves the Army.

One matter which has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction among retired Army personnel is this question of pensions. It is true to say in this regard that in respect both of pay and of pensions the Army is in a very different position from other State servants such as civil servants or employees in other categories of State employment. In almost every other case, if not in every other case, the personnel concerned have staff organisations to argue their case and fight their position. We are familiar with that in regard to Civil Service claims, applications before arbitration boards and at conciliation level and other bodies who have responsibility for dealing with pay and emoluments. The success of the claims generally depends on the skill, ability and persistence with which the organisation represents the various categories of State servants for whom they appear.

Because of the structure of the Defence Forces, and the discipline involved, the only person who can argue the case for them is the Minister for Defence before his colleagues in the Government, or in representations made to the Department of Finance. That is an obvious weakness. It has been shown time and again and more especially in recent times when very substantial increases in pay and emoluments were awarded to civil servants and no comparable increases awarded to Army personnel.

It is true some rises have been given but the matter of pensions is one that requires very sympathetic consideration and some practical decision taken in respect of it. It is true that this also applies to retired civil servants, but some of these retired personnel have organisations to fight for them. There is one organisation, however, that have argued the case and done all they can to advocate the interests of Army personnel, particularly retired personnel, and that is ONE. With the exception of that body—they have certainly done all they can within the limits of their resources to focus attention on this matter — there is no organisation charged with the responsibility and having the power as other organisations have in respect of other State categories.

In the past the principle of pensions being based on pay and retirement was generally satisfactory. That principle was conceived many years ago and applied before the last war and between the two wars. Even in the few cases in which pensions were available before that, it applied reasonably satisfactorily because the value of money was constant and prices generally remained, with occasional variations, relatively constant. Since the war, the situation has changed radically and altered very much to the detriment of retired personnel. While we often talk of our concern for Christian values and so on, this is a sphere of activity in which a small practical demonstration would be far more valuable than any expressions of our sysmpathy or adherence to a Christian approach, a generally satisfactory approach or even a charitable approach to the interests of those concerned.

The position is that since the war every pay increase meant in respect of those who retired or benefited from it a serious worsening of the position of their colleagues, and friends who retired at an earlier date. The situation has been accentuated by recent pay increases. On 1st February, 1964 the pensions of all those who retired on that date or who would retire subsequent to it were very substantially increased. If we compare the rates of pension payable to those who retired five or six years previously, the newer rate of pension shows an upward variation of some 60 to 70 per cent. Even in the case of those who retired two and a half years before the date, there is a differential of approximately 50 per cent.

The fact is that some junior officers —for the moment I am dealing only with officers; I shall deal with NCOs and men later—who retired subsequent to that date have pensions substantially greater than senior officers who retired three years prior to them. That situation arises because of the basis on which pensions are calculated. As I said earlier and in other debates, this is not peculiar or exclusive to Army personnel. It also applies in respect of civil servants. But I think it is even more severe in the case of Army personnel.

The position in a number of European countries is that post-war experience has resulted in a system being introduced in which pensions are increased automatically or on a semi-automatic basis on the basis of rises in the cost of living similar to the pay and emolument rises given to serving personnel. Of course, one of the arguments against that system is that it would involve a very substantial increase in the charge in respect of pensions if it were introduced in one go. I think people would be satisfied if a genuine attempt were made over a period, phased over a few years, to bring the older pensions up to the level of pensions payable in respect of personnel who retired on the basis of present day pay and emoluments.

It is true some small increases were granted to pensioners who retired prior to Ist February, but these increases were low compared with the increases applicable to those who retired subsequent to that date. The actual increases were five per cent with effect from 1st October, 1964, and a further four per cent from 1st August, 1965. Despite these two increases, the disparity between the groups I have mentioned—those who retired since February, 1964 and those who retired prior to it—amounts to about 50 per cent. It is obvious that the rise in the cost of living affects all pensioners. While those who retired later have, because of their age and so on, a better prospect of getting employment, the longer people are retired—of course, some of them are fortunate enough to get employment—it is natural that because of age and in some cases infirmity, their prospects of obtaining outside employment are much less. They find themselves in the very difficult position that in most cases they are gone beyond the age and the physical and mental capacity at which they can do a job and they are likely, therefore, to be no longer employable in any outside occupation. Therefore, they have the disadvantage of being, in the main, unemployed and unemployable in outside occupations and also having to live on lower rates of pension than their colleagues who occupied precisely the same positions, who held the same rank but who merely because they retired at a later date, have got a higher rate of pension. That situation requires to be altered.

In connection with the NCOs and men, there is a very strong case for giving a gratuity. As far as I know, there is no gratuity in respect of NCOs and men who have long service. It is true some of the NCOs and men can serve for somewhat longer periods that may apply in the case of officers, but the fact is they do not get any gratuity. There is another disadvantage. I believe that one of the unsatisfactory parts of the whole Army pensions scheme is that dealing with widows' pensions. The rates were increased in 1964 but they are still extraordinarily low, and the whole approach to widows' pensions has been unsatisfactory. These categories we are talking about have no one to argue their case but the Minister. Other categories in the same service have organisations to fight for them. In this instance, with the exception of the ONE, there is no organisation to argue their case. The present pensions payable in respect of widows of Army personnel are very low.

One of the matters that affects the attitude to Army life is that of automatic promotion. Some years ago certain changes were made and promotion is automatic in the case of certain categories. However, if senior officers are retained for long periods in senior posts at relatively young ages, it naturally means that those who come after them have less prospect of promotion. A certain number of personnel may get outside employment, take their pensions and go at an earlier age, but, on the assumption that the majority of those who are in the Army serve until they reach retiring age as at present laid down, then the prospects of promotion are not very good. I have had cases of captains coming to me who have no prospect of promotion before retiring at 53 or 54.

The criticism has been made that relative to the number of NCOs and men, the number of officers is probably larger than elsewhere but in regard to certain ranks it is proved from experience of the units serving abroad that we are one of the most under-ranked armies in Europe. Of about 50 company commanders and adjutants who served with the forces in the Congo, all held the rank of commandant, but here similar appointments are held by the rank of captain. On certain occasions when the United Nations military units sought officers to fill certain positions, it was requested that they be of commandant rank, although similar ranks here were held by captains.

This matter should receive some consideration for these reasons: if officers retire as they are obliged to retire under the age limit, the prospect of outside employment in, say, their middle 50s, is much more restricted. Some of them are fortunate enough to get employment; many of them are not, and have to try to eke out a living on the low pension which is payable at that age. It would have been far wiser, as I argued here on previous occasions, to have a relatively small Army and pay it well than to have this illusory figure of a peacetime defence strength which was never reached, which never could be reached and in respect of which now conscious action has been taken to ensure it will not be reached.

In that connection, it might be worth examining whether the Civil Service personnel associated with the Department of Defence is necessary at its present strength or if it is fully gainfully employed with the actual strength of the Defence Forces. I believe the numbers on the civil side are somewhat large. The Minister's colleague, the then Minister for Finance, announced here some years ago with a great flourish that it was proposed to review and reduce the number of civil servants. In fact the reverse has happened; the numbers all over have increased. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Civil Service can be reduced except in one way: when people retire, do not fill the posts. It causes unrest and dismay to suggest that people be retired or dispensed with in some other way. I have always felt a great number of part-time civil servants should be made full-time. If it is found that the numbers formerly assigned to a particular section of a Department are not necessary, then the number should be reduced by not filling the vacancies. I should like the Minister to look into that aspect of the matter.

The position in regard to pensions generally is one that requires to be sympathetically considered with a view to revising them upwards and phasing them out over a number of years so that those who retire at an earlier age will not find that after a lapse of a few years, maybe only two years, their position is very seriously worsened vis-à-vis their colleagues who quite fortuitously, because they happened to be two or three years younger, retired later. I have known cases where a difference of six months in retirement dates, July and November, has meant a difference of £2 to £4 per week in the amount of pension, merely because those concerned retired prior to the operative date. That is quite unfair and inequitable and a matter against which the Government as a whole as distinct from the Minister for Finance, should set their face and endeavour to correct by phasing out pensions over a period.

Mr. James Tully

Like Deputy Cosgrave, I think I could not make a better start to my contribution to this debate than by paying tribute to to the behaviour and bearing of the Irish troops, both here and on service abroad. It was particularly noticeable during the recent commemoration here in Dublin. One thing that did not surprise me but pleased me considerably was the way in which the people who are not very popular with Army personnel, the military police, carried out their duties. They were an example to those responsible for stewarding functions, showing how stewarding should properly be done. The other personnel, particularly the Cadets, the officers, NCOs and men, who took part in all the functions did so in such a way as to gain nothing but the respect of the people who saw them or understood in fact what they were doing.

So far as the people who served abroad are concerned, we are glad to know they are thought so highly of abroad, and particularly by those in control of them out in Cyprus.

The Minister is aware that I and my colleagues have expressed the view from the Labour benches that unless the United Nations is prepared to pay or refund the money which is being expended on the tour in Cyprus, we should not continue to supply troops there. We believe the fact that we have done more than our share should be recognised and realised by the United Nations and by all those concerned. The fact that they have half-promised that they will refund the money is a little help, but I think a very definite guarantee should have been obtained before we supplied any battalion to the United Nations forces. I say this because of the financial stringency in operation in this country. I think nobody could blame us if we said that in view of the situation, we were not prepared to spend money, which, in fact, we cannot afford and which other nations, apparently, do not want to expend, in order to keep the peace there.

I am not decrying the efforts of the troops who have gone out there to keep the peace. As I have just said, I have the greatest respect for them. I still believe that the Minister for External Affairs, in co-operation with the Minister for Defence, should insist on a definite guarantee before we agree to continue supplying troops to Cyprus for an indefinite period. We should not allow any organisation, even the United Nations, to put us in the position that a few days before the troops are due to be changed, we are asked to give a snap decision on this matter.

It was announced in this House that unless such a guarantee were given, the troops would not be sent back. Subsequently, it was announced outside the House that because of what I would call half a guarantee, the decision had been changed. I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister for Defence because I know it must be a source of worry for him as well as for others concerned with it. It is a matter about which we feel strongly and I should like to have more information on it when the Minister is replying.

With reference to their period in Cyprus and the tour of duty of the last group, I understand that during the entire period they were under canvas. Some people are under the impression that Cyprus is an island in the sun all the year round. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some effort should have been made by the United Nations or some representations should have been made by the Army authorities here to ensure that our troops would have at least a little comfort when out there because I believe the conditions were anything but what they should be during the winter period. This is not a complaint made by people who served there but it is a genuine complaint, and I think the Minister might have inquiries made if they have to remain another winter in Cyprus—I hope they will not.

With reference to the question of the pay and conditions of Army personnel, I know that over the past few years a big improvement in pay has been put into operation. I should like to ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is well known that when a general pay increase takes place in this country, or in any other country, those who do not get a pay increase suffer as a result of the effect of the general pay increase. This is particularly true with regard to pensioners or people on a fixed income and it is true also of Army personnel. If everybody else in the country gets £1 per week and the Army personnel do not get that increase, they are £1 per week worse off than before the increase was granted. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. I know he is finding it extremely difficult to get the necessary £ s. d. to carry on. We should face up to this and face up to it now.

The living out allowances, the CRA as we call it, is, as I always thought, scandalous. How the Army authorities expect those who are living out to exist on the amount of the continuous ration allowance is a mystery to me. The amount paid per diem is much less than half of what it will cost anybody in this House for a simple lunch in any middle class hotel in Dublin. This is something which must be attended to quickly.

With reference to the question of pensions, here again we find an extraordinary situation. We find that, first of all, there is no pension at all being paid to an NCO or man unless he has 15 years' service and is discharged on grounds of age or disability. A minimum of 21 years' service is required by a non-commissioned officer or private who is discharged on grounds other than disability or age. I do not know of any other pension scheme operating in this country where somebody who has had, say, 14 years' service, goes in in perfect health and during the period of service contracts some sort of illness or disease cannot get a pension because he has not the minimum of 15 years' service. It is ridiculous. It is something to which the Minister should direct his attention and he should attempt to fall into line with civilian schemes with regard to pensions.

So far as the pension itself is concerned, it can only be given in the normal way if a man has 21 years' service. The pension for sergeant major with 21 years' service is £267. 4. 7. per annum and it comes right down. The battalion quartermaster sergeant gets £238. 11. 0., company sergeant, £220. 19. 1., company quartermaster sergeant, £203. 7. 1., sergeant, £184. 9. 1., corporal, £162. 5. 10., private, £134. 18. 4., or 51/9 per week after 21 years' service. I do not know whether this is considered by the people who are responsible for setting up the pension scheme and operating it as adequate compensation for anybody who has, first of all, served 21 years in the Army and, secondly, has reached an age at which unless he is very lucky, he will not be able to obtain any other type of employment and in very many cases will finish up on the labour exchange for the rest of his life.

I do not know if the Army authorities have given the necessary attention to this or not, but this is the situation. If a man decides to stay on—and the Army authorities feel they can use him and he is fit, not too fat—for another year, or years up to a maximum of ten years, he gets 1/- per year. If he stays an extra ten years, he gets an extra 10/-. This magnificent sum then becomes 61/9 for a man with 31 years' service. If he, or one of those people to whom I have referred is married, he will get an extra 23/9, or £61.18.4 per annum. He gets no gratuity of any kind.

If we go to the other end of the scale, retired pay is given to officers when they retire on completion of 20 years' service. Starting off with a lieutenant, he gets £541 16s, if he is single, and the same if he is married. after 20 years service; a captain, £637 minimum and £665 maximum; a commandant, £637 minimum, £785 4s maximum if he is single and £637 minimum and £800 16s maximum if he is married; a lieutenant-colonel, £847 16s minimum and £910 12s maximum if he is single and a colonel, £993 minimum and £1,059 4s maximum. Then to go to the married end of it, the lieutenant can go only to £541 16s but, in addition, he gets a maximum gratuity of £990 10s; the maximum retired pay for a captain is £665, if he is married, plus a gratuity of £1,360; a commandant can get a maximum of £800 16s and a gratuity of £1,386; a lieutenant-colonel a maximum of £957 per year, plus a gratuity of £1,732 10s and a colonel £1,065 12s, plus a gratuity of £1,998. A major-general can get a maximum retired pay of £1,431 18s plus a maximum gratuity of £2,664 and a lieutenant-general £1,600 plus a gratuity of £3,168.

Maybe my approach to this is all wrong but for the life of me I cannot see why a soldier who serves 31 years and who is married can get only 61/9d per week, with an addition of 23/9d for his wife, while the lieutenant-general can get almost £2,000 per year, plus a gratuity of over £3,000. What makes this look even more ridiculous is the fact that, for some extraordinary reason, the Army over the years has become a little top-heavy. The proportion of officers to NCOs and men in the Irish Army is something around one to seven. I am not suggesting we should get hold of all the officers, or a portion of them, and throw them out but I am suggesting that we should not continue to build up a group of officers, particularly in view of the fact that in addition to that, we have a Reserve of Officers from which we are supposed to draw in emergencies and have a very small number of NCOs and men. I agree with what Deputy Cosgrave said a few minutes ago that we should possibly have a look at the situation and it might be a better idea to have a smaller Army with better conditions and better pay.

Talking about the Reserve reminds me of something brought to my attention a few times over the past few years. It is that while the serving personnel have got to be up to a certain standard before they are allowed to remain in the Army, it does not seem to apply to the Reserve of Officers. Perhaps the Minister would let me know if the people who go in for training in the Reserve of Officers are in fact or would, if necessary, be fit to take the field. It has been pointed out to me that a number of them, through no fault of their own, have reached the position where they are no longer able and certainly are not people who would inspire confidence in the six or seven men and NCOs for whom they would be responsible if ever an emergency occurred, even in training.

There is another matter to which the Minister might possibly turn his attention. I am told that at the present time, particularly in the use of modern weapons and modern warfare, officers in the Curragh are trained entirely through the medium of Irish. When those officers go to where there is training of the Reserve people being carried out, there is absolutely no possibility whatever of one-tenth of the information being understood by the unfortunate men who when they were got during the emergency here were carrying out the duties but cannot understand the way in which it is being put across now. This is something I have heard and I should like the Minister to confirm or deny it in his reply.

There is another aspect of this which, again, may or may not be correct. It is that when our troops were in Cyprus, it was found that the United Nations troops there had, by general agreement, been using the English language for the purpose of communicating and for commands and our troops were lost because they insisted on using Irish words of command. You yourself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are aware that on occasions when abroad, we find it a good idea to use whatever little Irish we have particularly when foreigners are around if they persist in using their own language in conversation with us, but I think this is carrying it a little too far. If there is a general agreement that a certain language be used, it is wrong that we should be different. Again, I hope it will not last too long.

I have the old comment I have made here again and again and which a number of my colleagues on both sides of the House have made also. It is on this question of uniform. A little improvement has been made in the uniform, not very much. Have we not yet got rid of the last of the bales of "bull's wool"—at least it is the nearest thing to it I have ever seen? We were given the excuse here a few years ago that because of the big supply of this in store, the improvement in uniform considered desirable could not be made until this supply was finally used up. I would ask the Minister has it not yet been utilised and, if it has not, would he not make arrangements to dump it somewhere and try to dress our soldiers and FCA in something a little more suitable. The same thing applies to footwear. The footwear is worse now than it was previously and some effort should be made to improve it. Trying to colour brown boots black does not make them one bit more comfortable than they were. Something reasonable should be done about this.

One other point about the modern Army we have here: is it not considered desirable to supply them with some modern weapons? I know that those who were abroad and who were associated with the United Nations have returned with modern weapons. It is like children playing with neighbours' children and coming back home with toys better than their own. Whether our Army is to be big or small, it should be supplied with modern weapons. I know some of the Army have modern weapons but there are still far too many using, or attempting to use for drilling and training, the old type of armaments that went out of use before the last world war. The Minister will appreciate that I am not making these comments for the purpose of being contentious. I am making them because I believe they should be made. I should like him to give his attention to that matter.

The FCA has received a lot of attention recently. I believe that we should keep in the FCA only those men who are genuinely interested in being members of the FCA for 52 weeks of the year. I have no use for the people who join the FCA, disappear after a few weeks, and then turn up again for the annual training. The Minister may say this is not happening, but if he checks, he will find that it is happening. There are officers who do not like to go to a training camp with the half a dozen men who are there for the whole year, but who feel honoured when 40 or 50 members who have not been seen since the previous annual training turn up and start training again.

If there is a shortage of money, the money which is available should operate in favour of those who are genuinely interested, and they should get their two weeks'annual holidays in the training camp. The wastage in the FCA is far too high. There are far too many men who join up, stay for a few weeks, and then go out again. The result is that the State is at the loss of the cost of the equipment and everything else. The FCA could be a very useful force and could do excellent work. If we are not going to keep the Army up to full strength, the FCA is the only defence we will have, and should be treated properly. Members should get their two weeks' training and two weeks' pay, instead of one week's training. It is assumed that with one week's training only, rations will be saved. Since members of the FCA are adults, they should be treated as adults and as responsible people.

It would have been much better if the mess which occurred recently had not received the glare of publicity which it did get. I know the Minister says that he takes responsibility and that he makes the major decisions. I should hate to think that a colleague of mine made one of those major decisions, that is, the one which attempted to impose military discipline on a group of civilians. I am glad that eventually the Army authorities did not make a bigger mess by punishing someone who expressed a point of view which he believed in, and which many more people would have expressed if they were asked the same question. I do not say this to embarrass the Minister but because it is something which the people in the country are saying. It needs to be said.

On the question of medals, extraordinary things have been said and done. There is still the question of whether people who have left the services are entitled to be paid the same rate of pension as those who are leaving now. Some time ago the Minister for Finance made a statement to the House when he was introducing a measure, if I remember rightly, to bring the pensions of retired civil servants, and the Army, to the 1961 level. He said this was a step in that direction, and that he hoped it would be possible eventually to grant parity. Those may not be his exact words but that is what we understood him to mean. I was shocked to find that that did not happen, and apparently it is being completely disowned by his successor and there is no intention of doing any such thing. The case made by Deputy Cosgrave that these people are entitled to party should be considered. If the Minister for Defence starts the ball rolling, he will get credit for it from many people.

With regard to pensions for people who were involved in the fight for freedom, there seems to have been some muddled thinking. If a person applies for a special allowance, he asks for it only because he is unable to live without it. I know the Minister has talked about people not applying for medals or allowances until it is too late, but the Minister is as well aware as I am that there are many people who took part in the fight for freedom who did not want to ask anything of the State as long as they could paddle their own canoe. It is not good enough to tell those people that if they had applied a few years ago, it would have been all right, but that it is too late now because the man who could have certified is dead.

The Minister is aware of the extraordinary situation in his own county in the Athboy area. Members of Cumann na mBan who applied for medals were refused because the rolls could not be found. Subsequently the rolls were found when someone else applied and a medal was awarded to someone else. That is not the Minister's fault. I know he is as anxious as I am to ensure that these people are treated fairly, but the rolls are either there or they are not. If they are there, they should be used to support any claim and not just one claim.

Mr. Hilliard

They were not supplied in most parts of the country for Cumann na mBan.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is aware that the one I am talking about could not be found at first, but subsequently turned up.

Mr. Hilliard

It was submitted at that time.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister will forgive me for saying it was submitted before that. We were informed that it was not there but it was subsequently found when someone else applied. However, I am not quarrelling about that. I know the Minister is as anxious as I am to see justice done in those cases. It is too bad that there are still so many people who were involved in the fight for freedom who are unable to get medals or assistance because of the fact that the necessary proof cannot be produced. I know of a company battalion officer who said: "Mr. So-and-So was not at the required time a member of the company." It was subsequently proved that the person who certified that he was not in the line of defence was not with the person concerned or did not know anything at all about the particular company. That injustice continues to occur. Again, it is something which the Department of Defence just cannot wave a wand over and remedy by using the system which they are operating. I hope they are not operating the system of writing to certain individuals asking for verification. Very often the verification does not come back because the person written to is dead or has left the district. I feel that that system of checking is the wrong one. If it has not already been dropped, it should be dropped.

I had a case some time ago which I brought to the Minister's notice— it was recently renewed—of a man who has a medal but has not got a bar. The reason he did not get it was that it was alleged he was too young to be involved in the particular incident in which he claimed to have taken part. His brother was shot in the incident and I am quite sure the man would not have applied if he had not been involved. He has got evidence enough to prove he was in fact involved but apparently somebody else said he was not. That statement has been accepted by the Department as being correct. Again, I would ask, in fairness to the person concerned— the man I refer to is named Hogan— that this matter should be reinvestigated because I believe this man has not been treated fairly. He does not want a pension. He just wants justice. It is a very little thing to ask from the State for a man like him.

The Minister will forgive me if I run from one thing to another but those are just things on which I took notes. I want to refer to the apprentices and to the situation in which only 35 were accepted for 55 vacancies. The Minister should know that more than 55 people applied and that the reason only 35 were appointed was the fact that the test applied was too stringent. As a matter of fact, one of the items on which a number of the people who applied for apprenticeships were turned down was eyesight. While I admit that for such people good eyesight is an essential qualification, it is unfair that so many should be turned down because of eyesight, particularly in view of the fact that even in this House so many of us have to wear spectacles to carry on our day-to-day work. I do not see why those people should have been rejected while there are still 20 vacancies which have not been filled. That is very unfair and if the candidates, as I understand it, were qualified in every other way, this is one matter which the Minister should look into.

I know good standards should apply in this matter. It is only right that they should. I also believe that the standard in the Army should be high. I do not believe that we should accept every Tom, Dick and Harry but in this particular case there was a definite need for those people. They were passed and, as I say, in a number of cases the reason they were rejected was the fact that they were wearing spectacles. That regulation should be relaxed.

I notice that in the Estimates for Public Services a lot of very interesting information is given. One of the things I notice is that the cost of wages, salaries and allowances for the Minister and his Civil Service staff is roughly one-tenth the cost of the Permanent Defence Force pay. Maybe there is a moral in that somewhere but it misses me for the time being. I notice that the amount for married quarters is the same as last year. In view of the substantial increase in costs to soldiers this year, I wonder why that is so? I also notice that no new works are proposed this year. Does that mean that we are closing down on any new type of houses for soldiers or are we going to do anything at all on that line this year? I notice that payments for enlistments are down from £3,000 to £500. If we are to have any more enlistments, where does the £500 come in? Are we still going to look for recruits for the First Battalion? I wonder where this £500 comes in.

Again, in this Jubilee Year, I am surprised to notice that the cost of the provision of medals and certificates for the survivors of the Fight for Freedom has gone down from £5,125 to £2,525. That seems extraordinary. I thought it would be the other way around. I thought we would have a big rush this year from people looking for medals to show they had been involved in the Fight for Freedom. There is one thing which rather amuses me, and that is, that the figure for civilian occupations is the same as last year, £5. I hope the Minister will not have to train too many people with that £5 because he might flood the labour market.

There is one thing I have already mentioned to the Minister. I have had correspondence with him very recently about it and I would like to remind him about it now. This matter is a scandal and the longer it is allowed to go on the greater scandal it will be. I refer to a man named Joe Mathews who lives outside Gormanston Camp. He has a labourer's cottage and because he cannot pay the charge asked for he is without electricity. He was quoted a bi-mensal charge of over £12. He could not pay this and the matter was deferred for some time. There were a number of people living around the camp on the other side who also had no electricity for the same reason. It was stated that there was a danger to aircraft. Last year those people got electricity but Mr. Mathews was not included. I inquired from the Army authorities about this matter and they said that if he would pay £65 they would give him a connection straight from the camp. He was not in a position to pay the charge—I am not sure whether it was £65 or £85—and so he did not get the electricity. I then contacted the ESB and asked why in view of the fact that the other people had got supply and when it could be brought from the camp to this man's cottage, it was not given to him. They said that the Army authorities were not prepared to relax their regulations and it would still have to be done underground.

I asked the Army authorities about this and they told me that the ESB were not prepared to meet certain regulations and therefore Mr. Mathews could not get the connection. I know this is only an individual case but surely something should be done about this definite case of injustice? I do not know why the Army authorities cannot decide to give a connection to this man from their own military policeman's quarters, only 45 yards away from Mr. Mathews' house. He does not want electricity for nothing. He will pay the ESB for it. However, it seems ridiculous that the Army authorities should, by some kind of regulation, place him in a position in which he cannot enjoy the simple amenities his neighbours enjoy. Would the Minister please give the matter his attention because if he does not, nothing will be done about it?

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the FCA and I should like to comment on one reference of his. He said the FCA were the cheapest form of defence. I think he meant the most economical because there is nothing cheap about the FCA. They are a fine body of men who should get much better treatment.

At this point I wish to refer to the Army Equitation Team. I am glad they have been doing so well. I discussed the matter with the Minister some time ago and suggested it might be possible that a person who had been in the team many years ago and who had a great record and a great name and was prepared to offer his services for training, might be accepted. I now renew the request and ask the Minister to look into the matter again. Perhaps some of the objections made then may not be made now. It is unfortunate that people who have had such experience and who are prepared to offer their services to the State should be turned down for perhaps a very simple reason. I am told—I do not know very much about these things—that the training is the most important thing here where the material, the horses and the riders are already in existence.

Last year and the year before I commented on the Civil Defence organisation and said I thought the organisation was not all the Estimate claimed it to be. From experience I know that during the year a very big effort was made to improve the situation but it is still true, I am afraid, that the Civil Defence organisation is not anything like what it is claimed to be in the Estimate. These voluntary organisations generally look good on paper and are built up as public occasions require. I am sorry an effort is not being made to pin them down to do the job they are supposed to be doing. Of course, it is difficult when dealing with voluntary organisations, but the Minister would be well advised to tighten up on the Civil Defence organisation because I believe a lot of money is being wasted on an organisation which would not stand up to pressure, if pressure were applied.

I hasten to add that I am not criticising the people who are attempting to run the organisation, but I honestly believe that here, as in the FCA, we have far too many people who are prepared to join a new organisation and who disappear as soon as there is need for their help. The Minister and the Department would be well advised to ensure that even if the Civil Defence organisation has to be cut down considerably in actual live bodies, it would be much better to have a smaller organisation, closely-knit and efficient, than one which claims to be just that but which in effect is only a paper organisation, there to catch the eye at parades.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to add my congratulations to those who participated in the recent celebrations. Their standing is very high in the public eye. It was one of the few occasions on which we have been given an opportunity in recent times to assess the quality of the Army personnel. I am in almost complete agreement with what Deputies Cosgrave and Tully have said in this respect.

This is a Department whose functions and administration we should examine in great detail. The time has come when it must be examined in its entirety. Up to now much of the thought in this respect has been on the lines of 1922, back to the time of the occupation forces. Barracks and other amenities have been utilised during the years and the Army has been guided from two sources—the Civil Service and an insular bloc of high-ranking officers in GHQ. Which of those groups has been responsible for stagnating the whole effort or impeding progress we should try to analyse and examine.

The Book of Estimates provides for 547 civil servants. I suggest that is a luxury we cannot afford to control this Department. I do not think there is need for that number of civil servants. There is no doubt many of them have given excellent service but many of the problems they deal with are ordinary day-to-day matters which could be dealt with by the Army itself. The Army Lands Section has 19 persons, Establishment has 141, the General Section has 17, the Civil Defence Branch has 73 and there are no fewer than 231 in the Finance Branch. In addition, we have civil servants in the Army Pensions Board.

I believe the time has come when we must take a realistic view of the situation in relation to this type of staffing, which is costing half a million pounds. Much of this work could be and should be done by the military personnel. Work such as examining pay sheets and petrol and oil requisitions has already been done in great detail before being passed on to the Civil Service section for final examination. As well, I suggest a search could be made among serving personnel to do this work. We could provide staff for it by increasing the retiring age limit of officers. At the moment there is early retirement at the age of 56 years. This is too early because at that stage most of those officers, all of whom have been moving around the country from town to town during their service, have finally been posted where they have made their homes. At that stage they are endeavouring to buy their homes and educate their children. At 56 years they are thrown out while at the same time a certain group of officers can serve until they are 60. So also can the civil servants.

I submit it is wrong that any section should be treated in that manner after service to the nation. The age limit should be increased and many of those men, after such service, are well fitted to do most of the work now being done by civil servants. They have a better understanding of the problems and their advice in many directions would be well worth having. I do not suggest that such personnel should at once staff these positions. It could be done gradually. The important thing is that a move be made in that direction. At the moment many of these officers, thrown out at the age of 56, have to work as taxi drivers and many of the NCOs and men wind up as petrol pump attendants. It is a callous way to treat men who have given such service to the nation.

The Minister will have to do some comprehensive thinking to rectify this particular situation. Very often officers, through necessity, compete with NCOs and men for menial jobs in some of the barrack services. It is not medals these men want. I appeal again to the Minister to examine the situation of the early retiring age for officers. It is a scandal that this practice should have gone on for so long. Representations have been ineffective because people in high places insulate themselves in such fashion as to prevent any possible interference with their jobs resulting from the abolition of this early retiring age for officers.

Deputy Tully has covered the position fairly well in relation to the NCOs and men but there are a number of matters to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. Last year I suggested that an additional seven days leave should be granted to NCOs and men. Civil servants, industrial workers and others now have a five-day week and shorter working hours. The soldier still works a sevenday week and a 24-hour day. That situation has been further aggravated by the withdrawal of Army personnel for service abroad because more work devolves on those left at home. So bad is the situation that men are meeting themselves coming off guard duty. The Minister will have to examine this matter in the light of present-day circumstances. Officers get 42 days leave and they are not concerned about men who only get 14 days. The civil servant has a five-day week and fewer hours to punch in. It is no use asking these for advice. The unfortunate men have no one to defend them or make representations on their behalf. I warn the Minister that there are ways of getting leave; the men will be compelled to resort to practices that existed in the past. The Minister should give this whole matter his immediate attention.

There are many things affecting NCOs and men requiring rectification. I have had correspondence with the Minister in relation to some of them. Take the education of the children of these men. An officer who has his child educated in secondary school and university gets an allowance for the child until the child is 21; the allowance in the case of the NCO and private is terminated when the child reaches 16. Apparently NCOs and privates are not supposed to educate their children to secondary school and university standard. That is a diabolical situation. On the last occasion when I raised this matter, I was told that if a child goes to work at 14, the father gets the allowance until he is 16. The fact that some do not bother about educating their children is no reason at all for penalising those who make the sacrifice. These should not be victimised. Why should a man, anxious to educate his children, not have the same rights as those in other sections of the Defence Forces who are better off? NCOs and privates are entitled to consideration and they should get it. If a man wants to educate his child to university level, he should be assisted by the State.

Deputy Tully and Deputy Cosgrave dealt with gratuities. I want to add my voice to theirs. Officers get gratuities. What does the NCO and the private get? He gets pre-discharge leave —a sop. If an NCO or a private takes up a job in some of the Government services on leaving the Army, he loses his pre-discharge leave and his annual leave. If an officer takes up a job, he gets his gratuity and he can start work right away. Pre-discharge leave was intended for resettlement purposes. That was the idea behind it originally, that a man would get a period during which to settle in to civilian life and find gainful employment. It is only reasonable that he should have some income during that resettlement period because the Department of Defence does absolutely nothing to assist a man to find employment outside.

A man does not get his pre-discharge leave if he takes up a job in barracks. If he goes to CIE, he does get it. I think the description of this leave should be changed. It should be called resettlement leave, or something like that. The title should be altered right away. The alternative is to give the man a gratuity. That would be the honourable thing to do. Then he could settle himself. Only a few jobs become available from time to time in barracks. If an NCO or private applies for a job, he will be told he cannot get it because he is living in married quarters. He may know the job thoroughly. He may have been doing it for ten or 15 years. The officer may want him in his civilian capacity, but because he is living in married quarters, he will not get the job. He should be given time to find alternative accommodation. Many have failed to get jobs because of living in married quarters. The really extraordinary thing is that these men are living in married quarters because they were transferred. Nevertheless they are debarred from these jobs because, through no fault of their own, they are living in married quarters.

Perhaps there is some good reason for all this but I do not think men should be debarred from positions simply because they live in married quarters. Resettlement is very important. It is completely neglected. What resettlement is there? None whatsoever. A man who has spent 20 or 30 years in the Army will find it very difficult to obtain employment outside and there is absolutely no assistance or guidance provided for him. He is just thrown on the vicious labour market where it is the survival of the fittest. We must bear in mind that these men have given 20 or 30 years' service. I believe the Department of Defence should set up an advisory service to help personnel, after they take on for the last 12 years or so, in regard to the housing situation, the grants and loans that are available in relation to the purchase of houses, and so on. Some of them, at the end of their period of service, would be able to obtain employment in barracks and elsewhere. I believe these people should be advised right along the lines. There should be aids by way of education and assistance to give a man some craft or skill in addition to what he has. Whether we train him as a driver or in some other sector, it would surely give him some advantage over the ordinary labourer when he goes out on the labour market. He is entitled to that. The Department of Defence have a duty to these men to advise and train them so that they will not enter the labour market with no aids or skills whatsoever other than being able to find a job as a petrol pump attendant, and so on. That is all that many of these men are fit for after 20 or more years' service.

The time has come when we should have a director of technology who would assess the situation. He should develop the resources that are available and there are many resources available whereby men can be trained in one way or another. During the war years, the entire of Kickham Barracks at Clonmel was built by Army personnel and it is one of the best barracks we have at the moment. The draughtsmen, engineers, plasterers, carpenters, bricklayers and labourers were all Army personnel. I believe we can build and should build structures that are needed, whether as additional married quarters or otherwise, if we have the personnel. If we build only two or three structures a year, at least it would be a step in the right direction. We would be building at reduced cost to the nation and producing something that would be of advantage to our Army personnel who, at the moment, are either looking for quarters or for accommodation which it is most difficult to get from time to time. I believe we have sound personnel in the Army who could undertake this job of director of technology and assess the situation throughout the entire Army service to find out the adaptability and suitability of men for training in the various sectors. The time is coming when this must be done. We cannot afford any longer to turn men out on the labour market as they have been turned out in the past since the Army was founded.

The question of married quarters is another laugh. The married quarters we have are out of date and the situation is such that you can hear people in the next room frying eggs. We have heard much talk about the provision of additional electrical points in these quarters, but, in my view, the quarters should be demolished, certainly those at Arbour Hill and Cabra. People should not have to live in them any more. The time has come when such people should be able to live outside the walls. I believe there is a duty to provide these amenities and that they must be built. I am quite sure that if a corporation official saw the types of quarters we ask people to go into, he would condemn half of them. Some of the ones I was in would not stand a chance. The time has come when this particular aspect must be examined.

If we can set up within the Army service a pool of labour that will produce anything up to a dozen houses per year, then at least something will be achieved to bring about a situation whereby they will have at their disposal houses for a dozen families. We have had experience of young soldiers paying £3 a week, and more, for accommodation in this city and it is not unusual that the wife has to be sent back to live with her mother while the soldier will go back into barracks because he cannot get into married quarters, while, at the same time, married quarters are occupied by personnel who are not entitled to be there. We have civil servants living in married quarters in this city while young soldiers are seeking rooms throughout the city and, as we all know, there are to be found in this city landlords who are as demanding as one could find anywhere and who will take the last half-penny from those unfortunate individuals who are serving the nation.

The Minister should look into this question. I have sympathy for those who are there and who reach pensionable age. In the past, they were told the corporation would probably house them. That is now a laugh also. They are entitled to be housed but there must be five or six children in the family. They will not get a house if they have only one or two children. At that late stage in a man's life, his family has in all probability grown up and left him, some to work elsewhere and some to get married. Only his wife and himself remain and they must face the situation of being thrown out and of having to secure a room in the city.

Such a man should be advised of the position at an early stage so that he can provide for the future and we should treat him with sympathy and understanding.

We should correct the situation whereby people with good jobs are living in married quarters where they have no right to live. I know of one man who sold his house and went back to live in married quarters with his sister. I am quite sure the Department are aware of that fact. It is essential that new married quarters be provided and that the old stuff which we have be demolished. Where new quarters have been provided such as in McKee Barracks and elsewhere, an excellent job has been done. I hope it is not the end of the line with this type of production and that we shall have more of it in the future, certainly in Dublin.

I come now to the question of barracks. I do not know how many people here have been in the military barracks in this city or in this country. I have been in quite a number of them. The situation in Dublin is that we have a string of barracks right around the city. They may have been of strategic importance to an occupying power but the position now is that they are of no importance to us apart from the fact that a fellow gets cold in the big long wide rooms, some of which have stone floors, where 20, 30 or 40 men have to strip and keep their clothes. The time has come to examine the whole situation.

The construction of new barracks such as Clancy Barracks and the one in Clonmel is a "must". If we dispose of some of the property we have in the city—property that is costing the Department far too much to maintain— it will be a very wise step. Just consider the amount of turf and coal that goes into the fireplaces there and that gives no heat but just goes up the chimney while the man in the bed gets cold. He will go to the pub or somewhere in the city because he cannot get any heat in the barracks, even though there is plenty of turf and other fuel available.

We must examine what is required for a man in present-day conditions. In the past, when they may have been forced into the Army for economic or other reasons, they may have been satisfied with the conditions but nowadays every one of them comes from a good home and they demand the ordinary comforts, not possibly to the same degree as they would have with their mother. Nevertheless, they are entitled to reasonable comfort in the barrack rooms and we have not reasonable comfort in some of these dark rooms we possess. I was in Kilmainham Jail during the Easter celebrations and I would rather sleep in some of the cells there because they are far brighter than some of the barracks in the city. Many of these barracks are unused or unwanted. The Minister must consider disposing of most of them and producing something more in accordance with present-day needs and future requirements. Whether these will be large buildings or small buildings that will allow for gradual extension is something I do not know, but I know it is necessary to do away with these gloomy survivals we have now.

Deputy Tully spoke in some detail about the Apprenticeship School at Naas. Boys who go into this school get the finest possible training and it has turned out some excellent young men but what happens then is that we have industrial pirates seeking the names and addresses of these highly-trained personnel and offering them the inducement of paying the amount required to buy them out of the Army. This is an appalling situation. The money has to be repaid out of wages over three or four years and these men are tied for that period, except that they have got what is called their "liberty" from the Army.

The Apprenticeship School is an excellent institution; we should appreciate it and develop it. We should bring about a situation in which it will be more difficult for a person to buy his release from the Forces after he has acquired a degree of training and skill in that school. The procedure is lax at present. If the money were higher, fewer of these pirates from one or two adjoining counties would appear. If the Minister examines the matter, he will find quite a considerable number of these men have bought themselves out after getting a substantial amount of training. The State should get value for money expended on these people, while at the same time every opportunity should be given, after the completion of training, to develop further their skill and talents.

That is not the position at present. They are often sent chopping sticks or doing some other menial work. They are never set to do the work it was anticipated they would be doing when they were training. That is because of the situation in various barracks and I would ask the Minister to examine this and try to ensure that these young men are not impeded by the civilian staffs who may feel their own jobs would be in jeopardy if these young men were given the work they should be doing. I want these young men to get a fair crack of the whip and not to become demoralised. Because of the high skill and training they have acquired, they become depressed and despondent if they cannot do the work for which they are fitted.

When a matter is raised, it takes about 12 months to get a reply from the Minister. Last year I raised the matter of officers' orderlies because I thought this degrading situation should change and that the post of officer's orderly in married quarters should be abolished. We are told the orderly may refuse but if they do not do as they are told, they get into serious difficulty. I know officers' orderlies in married quarters who have been asked to wash napkins, scrup floors, clean cars, wash delph and do all sorts of menial work. They cannot tell their officers, especially if these are high-ranking, that they will not do that work.

I know of one case that happened when I was serving in Clonmel. The officer's wife and the officer came in one night and found the maid in the company of a private soldier. That officer was a colonel and the whole town was put on stand-to for a whole week. That was not the officer's doing; it was the work of the "second in command". She told him what to do.

The same thing would apply here. Once an orderly falls foul of an officer's wife in married quarters, he finds himself transferred to a very undesirable situation. I ask the Minister to abolish these posts.

Mr. Hilliard

The officers should have no wives.

Mr. Dowling

I could understand that if the officer found a private soldier with his own wife, he would put the town on stand-to but not when it was his maid. I think the officers should be able to polish their own Sam Brownes and that we should withdraw orderlies from married quarters. That is no place for a man in any case.

I am sure there could be a considerable saving if a uniform allowance were given because it would induce the men to keep their uniforms well and dress in a proper manner. We would have no shabby soldiers parading the streets. We do not see many of them in uniform nowadays. When the uniform becomes dirty, they rub it into the ground and go to the quarter-master for a change. Nowadays they do not want to look after the uniform and keep it clean, whereas in other days a uniform might last 15 or 20 years. The result is that now we must carry large stocks and have a good deal of accountancy, keeping civil servants going and quartermasters going and also keeping suppliers going. I believe a small cash settlement could deal with the situation if the men kept their uniforms in reasonable condition. We pay such an allowance to the officers and to nurses and they are able to keep their uniforms. Only the NCOs and the men, with the exception of the sergeant-major, do not get the allowance. If the officers can look after the uniforms properly, surely the NCOs and privates could do so if there were this inducement that I suggest. I believe it would save the Minister a considerable amount of money, time and material.

Some time ago a survey of civilian staff was carried out. In all the barracks in Dublin, and I suppose elsewhere, we have civilian staff. A request was made for income tax based on the PAYE system instead of the present system. Circulars were issued. I am informed that the vast majority of the personnel who received the circulars were in favour of PAYE. The Minister got other information. I know from the people in Cathal Brugha Barracks, Collins Barracks and Baldonnel that very few of the people there opted for the present system. PAYE was the system they opted for. I do not know what figures the Minister got or who gave them to him but they were wrong. I would ask the Minister to carry out an independent survey among the personnel employed in the various barracks so that the situation may be assessed. This matter has been a source of complaint for quite a period and I would ask the Minister to take a very keen interest in it and to find out what the facts are and who is misleading him in this connection.

The question of enlistment awards has been raised. Deputy Tully has mentioned that only £500 is provided this year. That might indicate a decline in the number of recruits. In my view, these enlistment awards should be abolished. A young man may be enticed into the Army and after many months is accepted and finds himself in a unit. He is asked who brought him into the Army and may reply: "I came in myself." The man who has claimed to have brought him in is held up to ridicule on the ground that he has been trying to make a few pounds out of young fellows joining the Army. On the other hand, recruits may be told to say that somebody brought them in and they split the difference. Many men have been degraded. They may have acted responsibly in inducing young men to join the Army and at a later stage the recruit may have forgotten his name and say offhandedly, when questioned, that he came in of his own accord, thus causing embarrassment to the person who had brought him in. The provision has been reduced from £3,500, but, in my opinion, it should be eliminated.

The next item to which I wish to refer is engineers' stores. There is an amount of equipment in the various stores. Most of the equipment goes out of date and deteriorates rapidly. Equipment may be left in hangars or yards or engineers' stores for a considerable period and may become obsolete and unwanted by the Army, whereas other State Departments may be acquiring equipment of the same nature. Any equipment we have should be kept in use, even if only for one or two hours a day. A considerable amount of saving could be effected by having this machinery in operation, even if it means making it available on loan to other Departments. The machinery should be kept in operation, whether by civilians or Army personnel. Machinery purchased for State services should not be saved up or retained by the Army when it could be used elsewhere. It is well known that many Departments have to hire equipment that may be standing by in Army stores. This matter should be examined.

There was a force here at one time called the Volunteer Force. Unlike every other section of the Defence Forces, this force had no special recognition. It has been suggested that the Volunteer Force, that gave service during a difficult period, the approach of the second World War, should get some type of recognition by way of medal specially cast. I am in sympathy with that line of thought. All other sections have had recognition by way of medals and the Volunteer Force should be similarly recognised. It is a very small amount of recognition. We know that that force gave excellent service. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter.

The Minister was not here earlier while I had some things to say about two groups. I shall go over it again in case the Minister might not get the message. One was in regard to the 547 civil servants. We could do without most of them and they could be replaced by Army personnel and the work carried out by them could be transferred to other Departments. I have nothing to say in regard to their efficiency or integrity or the manner in which they worked, but it is work proper to the Army and there are persons doing this work who were never in an Army barracks but who can tell you that a man should get 12 ounces of bread a day.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy said all this before and should not repeat it.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister was not here at that time.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot convenience the Minister to the extent of repeating everything when he comes in.

Mr. Dowling

I was concluding and I wanted to give him the message in case he might not get it. I shall not detain the House any longer. The Minister has been most reasonable in dealing with the many problems I and other Deputies have placed before him. He has given them adequate consideration. I want to thank him for his assistance to me in the many matters I have brought to his notice in relation to the resettlement of personnel and the problems that have arisen on their initiation into civilian life.

There is one item in the Estimate which I should like to have explained. It is the item, "Grants to Essential Undertakers" under Civil Defence. Are these funeral undertakers or what type of undertakers are they?

I would ask the Minister to consider all the points I have raised and the excellent points raised by Deputy Tully and Deputy Cosgrave.

Mr. O'Hara

I join with the Minister in praising our various Army units, the FCA and so forth. I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid by the Minister and by the Leader of our Party, Deputy Cosgrave, and by Deputy Tully and others. Well-deserved tributes have been paid to those great and gallant men who not alone have served in their own country but have gone to far-away places with strange sounding names, Cyprus and so on, where they have earned not only the praise of the Minister and Members of this House, but the praise and respect of very distinguished persons in the United Nations and foreign Armies. In my opinion, they have done much good and have brought a lot of respect and honour to their native country. I am happy, therefore, to join in the well-deserved tributes that have been paid. Some Deputies have gone into a lot of detail in connection with this matter, Deputies who are more competent and experienced to deal with these things than I am with my limited service in the FCA. I could not hope to speak with the same knowledge as the last Deputy, about life in the different units in Dublin, Athlone, Clonmel and the other places mentioned, as a permanent member of the Defence Forces.

I should like to join with the Leader of our Party in saying that I was disappointed over the curtailing of the FCA training period to one week. It was not a correct decision. I appreciate that the Government are trying to economise this year because money is scarce in the various Departments, but they should not have tried to economise in this regard. The amount involved was rather small and this is a voluntary force. It is generally accepted that a voluntary force in any walk of life is usually more efficient and usually more interested in its work than the people who are paid for their work. It is a great sign of sincerity that people will volunteer and give of their time, sometimes valuable time, to drill and so forth. To think that they should be, so to speak, belittled, is not very encouraging. I was invited to a function in Swinford some time ago which was organised by the local FCA sergeant and Army Officers, and I was honoured to be present, but it was about that time that the announcement about curtailing the training period was made and it threw an air of gloom over the proceedings. There was a feeling of resentment and of disappointment and members of the FCA felt that their work was not being appreciated. I should like the Minister to correct that situation as soon as possible.

The majority of the FCA are young people who have left the national school for some years, or secondary school, and are employed in different ways with some spare time to devote to this work and they are patriotic and enthusiastic enough to do it. I think the Minister should consider going into the schools and having his Army sergeants and officers in the various areas try to encourage boys in school to do some drill, say, on Saturdays, or in their spare time. It might be possible to organise something on that basis. It is very hard to beat the beneficial effect of imparting a knowledge of drill to the youth in their school going years. Even foot drill would be an advantage. In my young days we did foot drill, thanks to the enthusiasm of the teacher and I felt that it was a help to us. Certainly when we joined the FCA we found that to be true.

Reference is made in the Minister's speech to disability benefit and to other pensions. There is some dissatisfaction in this regard but it is not widespread. However, there is a type of individual for whom I have a lot of sympathy, that is, the person who gave service in 1916 but who never applied for a pension. I know of a particular case and only in recent times did this man come to me. He is a man of the highest integrity and honour who never applied for a pension. Indeed, he was reluctant to approach me now, but the years have passed and he is not now able to work as well as he did in previous years and his standard of living has reduced. He was never a man for free money and never looked for any credit from the State in the form of a medal or anything else. There are a few such people in the country and some of them would rather starve than apply for anything of this nature.

I would appeal to the Minister to look again at some of these cases. It would not cost very much. The fact that these men let this matter go for so long without seeking anything is very much to their credit. They did not want to put their hands out for anything. What they did they did voluntarily and were glad to do it and they were glad to risk their lives in defence of the country. They should not be forgotten. The man about whom I have spoken told me that on the instructions of the officers the records at the time were destroyed. The men were being rounded up and it was considered good policy to destroy the records so that lives would not be lost. I would ask the Minister sympathetically to consider that type of case, particularly when he has the word of dependable people, retired Army officers and Old IRA who can give their word that these people did give this valuable service.

One other matter to which I want to refer is to the training of fishermen at the naval base at Haulbowline— whatever way you pronounce it; there seem to be different pronunciations for it and I suppose Deputy Corry's is correct. I am surprised at the Minister's brief reference to what I regard as such an important matter. He says "The scheme for the training of fishermen at the Naval Base at Haulbowline, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, is also continuing". I am disappointed that he did not develop that point further. It is rather extraordinary that in an island country such as ours the fishing industry has not been developed to a greater extent. There is an awful lot of leeway to be made up in that regard. It would be a means of correcting our adverse balance of trade. I imagine the people in the maritime counties would be interested in this scheme, if it were brought to their notice. However, I am not quite sure what is the best way of doing that. It may be possible to bring it to their notice through the schools, the clergy or other organisations.

We do not seem to have made such progress with the Army School of Equitation as a country such as this should have made. Again, I am afraid it is a question of this branch of the Department not receiving the necessary funds. Our teams take part in horse shows in various parts of the world and it is disappointing to have so many failures recorded on the television and radio. However, to those who have been successful in the past and those who have tried but have been unsuccessful I should like to pay a compliment. We are proud of them, whether they win or not, and no doubt they were very good ambassadors for our country. The money should be made available to enable them bring further credit to Ireland.

Mr. Booth

I regret that I did not hear the contribution of Deputy Cosgrave but I gather it was one with which most of the subsequent speakers found themselves in agreement. I would like to support what I heard from Deputy Tully and Deputy Dowling. They made very worthwhile contributions. I will try not to repeat what they have said except in matters of detail. I certainly support all that has been said by those who have spoken before.

I should like to start by discussing the question of Army strength generally. In Subhead B of the Estimate, a total strength is provided for of 13,209 all ranks. This of course is largely an illusion because provision is also made for deductions for numbers being below strength. I am absolutely convinced that even if the Defence Forces were fully up to establishment strength, they would still be far too low. But I am very concerned that such a large provision has been made for numbers being below strength during this current year. As far as I can see, we are providing for officers being ten per cent below strength and other ranks being 20 per cent at least, if not more.

In order to keep an army in any sort of fighting condition, you need to have certain troops which are always available for training or for action. In actual fact with the present Army strength, the number available for active service or even for training is far too low. I was very disappointed that there was a cessation of recruiting. Recruiting actually stopped and new entries were refused. This was at a time when the Army was at last getting a type of recruit really suitable. In previous years the Army had to make do with a number of men who to a certain extent were misfits, men who did not fit into ordinary civilian employment. But during this last year there was a very noticeable change which was reflected in a great lifting of Army morale generally because the new recruits coming in were really good stuff. That trend had only begun to manifest itself when recruiting was stopped altogether. I sympathise with the Minister and the Government in the present position where economies have to be made. At the same time, I do not feel that was a worthwhile economy at all. We have got to provide for the establishment strength being completed and held at that figure of 13,200 at the very least. I think we could do it and it would be well worth while to do it.

The Army has become more attractive but it could be made much more attractive still. I would refer to the question of quarters as other Deputies have done, but I would particularly refer to the question of uniforms. The uniform is still completely unsatisfactory and the design is unhygienic. It is not a good parade dress and it is certainly not a good combat dress. The boots are good for marching only but they are not combat boots. The whole conception of trousers, short leggings and heavy boots is outdated and should be drastically reviewed. The material for the uniform is abominable. It always was described as "bulls' wool" and it always will be so long as the present design is maintained. It is unserviceable; it wears badly; it is very easily soiled and very hard to clean. The idea of having men wear a high-necked tunic is to me abominable. It is time we got away from that and had everyone wear a tunic which allows a shirt with collar attached to be worn underneath so that it can be used between the man's neck and the collar of his tunic to the benefit of his health and, to be perfectly frank, to the benefit of the uniform as well. The back of the collar of a soldier's tunic is usually a horrible sight and that is not a reflection on him. I would hope that the uniforms would be entirely redesigned to be made serviceable, smart and comfortable and that the material to be used would be of a far higher order than that used at present.

We must face it that the main duty of the Army at present is in respect of United Nations duties overseas. Granted it has certain ceremonial duties and routine maintenance jobs to do at home. It is an essential part of government to have an armed force available in moments of crisis. But such moments of crisis do not normally arise. On the other hand, it is obvious to everyone that we must accept almost indefinitely further demands from the United Nations for the service of Irish troops in various critical sectors abroad. The Army has never been organised to provide such units. Each unit has been put together on a piecemeal basis, and the way in which these units have been recruited has caused the maximum of discontent. How these units have operated under such difficult conditions with such wonderful success would be a mystery to me, if I did not know that the Army is probably the only branch of Government service which is not only asked as a matter of routine to do the impossible but manages to achieve it as well.

All other nations who contribute to United Nations forces either have already set up complete units for such work or are considering doing so. There are many conservative people in high places who say that such reorganisation of our forces would present almost unmentionable difficulties. If you ask any senior man in Government service to make a change in organisation, he will almost invariably say that it is either undesirable or impossible, or both. It is because people, as they grow older, more senior, become more and more conservative. The Minister should not ask his civilian or military advisers in the Department of Defence whether they consider this a reasonable suggestion. I hope he will convince himself that it is essential that we should have separate units specially set up and specially trained for United Nations duties, and, having convinced himself, I hope he will simply issue the order that such units shall be formed. If he does, knowing the Army as I do, I can say it will be done quickly and efficiently and without any question of resentment. But if he asks whether it should be done, the answer will inevitably be in the negative.

Such units should be mixed units of infantry and supporting troops which would include cavalry, armoured cars, signals, engineers, and so on, and should be formed something along the lines of the flying columns which were organised at times during the period of the last emergency. They would be composite units which could, at least, get to know each other so that when troops went abroad, the commanding officers would know the officers, NCOs and men and be known by them. Without that esprit de corps, we are sending our troops abroad under the most horrible conditions, not only horrible but entirely unnecessary.

Our troops have gained a wonderful reputation for themselves in the Congo, Cyprus, the Middle East and even up in the Himalayas on observer duty in the recent emergency there. However, the service they have given has received scant recognition. Every other army which is taking part in such duties has rewarded troops who have distinguished themselves in action by the award of medals for gallantry. This is something to which I have referred before. During all the Army's service abroad only one medal for gallantry has been awarded and that award was a posthumous one. I raised this matter with the Minister's predecessor, who assured me that the matter had been placed in the hands of an advisory body of officers and he was prepared only to follow their advice. I have established to my own satisfaction that those who advised the Minister's predecessor were armchair soldiers who had no active service experience whatsoever, and that to me is intolerable. I also know that officers commanding units on United Nations duty have put in repeatedly recommendations for awards of medals for gallantry to those serving under them and that those recommendations have been absolutely ignored by men who have no conception of what active service in foreign lands entails.

It is an insult to the men who have served overseas with such distinction that any Minister should say: "I cannot believe that more than one man has ever carried out an act of gallantry beyond the normal course of duty". If anyone said that to me, I would stuff it down his throat because I know it is untrue. I am not in favour of issuing medals ad lib. In other armies what they say is: “There will be so many awards for gallantry for this action. Give them out as you think best”, whether they are justified or not. I do not think we should cheapen such awards. However, we should not place our men in the position in which we have placed them, where they have had to act in conditions of great difficulty and great danger and where on many occasions they have acted with the most outstanding bravery, and we say: “You are lucky to have got home”, and the only fellow who got a medal is already dead and buried. I hope the Minister will set up an advisory body of officers who have served abroad to advise him again on this question of the issue of medals for gallantry. I am convinced that such medals have been well deserved and, even at this late stage, should be awarded.

Deputy Dowling has referred to the question of there being too many barracks in occupation, and I should like to support that with all the emphasis I can command. Not only have we too many barracks but practically all of them are entirely uneconomic. The cost of their maintenance is appalling, even in the matter of fuel to which Deputy Dowling referred. There is also the cost of ordinary maintenance work. Under Subhead S, it is provided that ordinary repairs, renewals and maintenance will cost £135,959. We are not getting value for that money and in most cases we are just throwing money down the drain, trying to repair and maintain barracks which have long since outlived their usefulness.

In many cases these barracks are huge, not fully occupied and involve an enormous wastage of space. I do not know the country barracks as well as the city ones, but for the number of troops we have quartered in Dublin, we could get rid of two barracks, at least, without creating any overcrowding problem in the remaining ones. I think Griffith Barracks should be gone long ago. It is largely occupied by the Labour Court and the Dublin Health Authority. Unfortunately, at the same time, it is used as a store for some FCA units. So there is a mixumgatherum population there but it still requires guarding by military police and still require maintenance. It is one of the most appalling barracks I have ever lived in. Cathal Brugha Barracks is very little better, if at all, and Collins Barracks, I agree, is somewhere below Kilmainham Jail. The walls are of enormous thickness and are almost invariably streaming with water. How paint sticks on to the rotten woodwork I do not know, and heating is nearly impossible.

I know it is difficult at this time to provide capital sums for the building of new barracks but I believe we should dispose of at least two, and preferably three, barracks in the city of Dublin alone — Griffith Barracks, Cathal Brugha Barracks and Collins Barracks. Clancy Barracks is almost unused as far as living accommodation is concerned. It is a beautifully constructed barracks with living accommodation and with hardly anybody living in it, whereas there are some poor unfortunate fellows living in Cathal Brugha and Collins Barracks. McKee Barracks is a magnificent bit of architecture but not good for living in and very wasteful of space. There is a certain romantic attachment to it for various reasons but it is an uneconomic unit — utterly uneconomic. That is why we have to spend such an enormous amount of money on solid fuel and electricity and we get very little if any value for it.

I gather from Deputy Dowling, who has more experience of the country areas, that the same can be said of many other barracks around the country. We have far too many; they are uneconomic, too expensive to run and, in some cases, almost impossible to live in. Having too many barracks we have too many routine duties—guard duties, stand-to duties, fatigue duties and so on, so much so that I would hope the Minister would do a spot check on any infantry battalion or the daily parade state of a full company of any of the corps and services to see how many men are actually on training on any one day. I think he would be horrified. There is virtually no military training being carried out by Regular Army units because there are no men available for it. They are all engaged on routine duties, or maintenance. We have got so bogged down with the conservative approach that I am afraid from the military side nobody seems to appreciate that far too many things are carried on simply because they have always been carried on.

A case in point is the military guard on Leinster House. Nobody, if he looks at the situation for a moment, can possibly say that the Army guard is anything more than a waste of time and money. I am not sure what the actual strength of the guard is. I am sure it is not a military secret because they turn up every morning—an officer, two NCOs and possibly 12 men. It is not only that officer, two NCOs and 12 men but this comes up on a 24-hour basis. At least three sets of the guard have to be provided, three officers, six NCOs and 36 men and they do nothing else but sit outside in a guardroom which is a death trap. I do not know who put the guardroom there but it is placed in a position that if there were any attack on Leinster House, one rifleman from any of the adjoining houses could make it impossible for the guard ever to leave the guardroom. They would be mown down just as the Sherwood Foresters were in the battle of Mount Street Bridge. There was the same conservative GHQ approach which resulted in heavy casualties on that particular occasion. That is what would happen if there were an attack on Leinster House. If anyone wants, he can go and check it for himself. One could not get in or out of that guardroom without being shot down. It is a stupid place to have it and it is stupid to have ordinary infantry men with rifles, even FN automatic rifles, doing a job like that. If we require something more than the defence supplied by the Garda, it should be left in the hands of the military police armed, as they are in this case, with revolvers and small sub-machine guns. They should not be quartered out there. They should always defend from the centre outwards and not from the edge as they are doing at the moment.

I personally cannot see any point in having an armed guard at all because if you want to get in, you can do it perfectly easily. Why have a military policeman on the Kildare Street side and only an usher on the Merrion Street side is a mystery to me. I hope I am not giving away a vital military secret but if you want to come in, you have only to walk past one usher at Merrion Street. All he can do is say: "Yes, where are you going?" but at that stage, if you are determined, you are right through into the main hall. If we need a military policeman with a sub-machine gun standing at the Kildare Street gate, we need the same at the Merrion Street side.

Mr. James Tully

It is quieter on that side.

Mr. Booth

Yes, until somebody gets the hang of the idea. The guard is certainly no use at Kildare Street because you could rush him in no time. He is a sitting duck and should not be placed in that position at all. If you want to have armed troops, they should be held back under cover, firing outwards, and not sitting out on the edge asking for trouble. I would hope the military guard would be withdrawn altogether and, if not, they should at least be made effective. It is the carrying out of those stupid duties, which any soldier knows are stupid, that breaks a man's heart and makes him chuck the whole thing and get out.

I am very glad that the question of the retiring age for officers has been raised and I should like to give it full support. It is unreasonable that officers should have to retire so early in life, and it is wasteful. Once an officer discovers that his chances of further promotion are slight he does not wait for his retiring age but he pulls out before it, in which case we have not got value for the money we have put into his training in previous years. I think we should extend the retiring age and encourage officers to stay on the full period. If NCOs and men can stay on to 60 years and even more I cannot see why officers should be retired at 50 or 55.

I have another point which I make repeatedly, and which I will continue to make until somebody does something about it. It is the question of promotions on the Reserve. I know there has been some promotion on the Reserve of Officers but I have a horrible suspicion that that will not happen again. Certainly there has been no promotion of private soldiers to NCO rank or promotions amongst NCOs on the First Line Reserve. There are steady promotions in the FCA both for officers and NCOs and in the ranks up to NCO. There is no reason why the Regular Army Reserve, the First Line Reserve, should be treated with what appears to be contempt, and it always has been so. It is time that it should be either taken seriously or abolished and I would hope it would not be abolished. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to have another look at the First Line Reserve in particular and see whether it could not be arranged that officers, NCOs and men be considered for promotion at least on the same basis as applies in the FCA. I am glad to support the plea made for gratuities to other ranks. I am all in favour of the gratuities already payable to officers but I do not see why it should be confined to them. I would ask the Minister very seriously to consider what can be done in that regard.

For many years a number of us have been pleading for the purchase of helicopters. We have them; they have been used for some time now and have done extremely well. They have performed rescue operations in carrying casualties from the scenes of accidents to special hospitals. They have also been trained for air-sea rescue. I do not think they have been used for this purpose so far but it is quite obvious they are absolutely essential. I do not see any special reference in the Appropriations-in-Aid to any payments made in respect of services carried out, for local authorities, by helicopters in the transport of casualties to hospital. I presume there is something but it may be under the heading of Miscellaneous Receipts. Anyway I hope the Army does not have to carry the full brunt of the operation of these helicopters which are being used for ordinary civilian purposes.

It is an inappropriate year, I suppose, to discuss the question of new craft for the Naval Service. At the same time, the maintenance of the vessels we have, even at the reduced figure for this year, is far too high—£27,642 compared with a figure of £60,380 for the previous year. To be perfectly frank, I do not believe that estimate. I do not believe it would be possible to maintain our vessels for anything like £27,000. We have three corvettes, of which only one can normally put to sea. Yet, with the amazing way in which the defence forces operate, a near miracle emerged in a moment of crisis and two corvettes put to sea. How they got the crew or how they managed it nobody will ever know but in one short period of 24 hours the Naval Service, by an enormous improvisation and probably by scraping up the cooks, the secretaries, the barbers, the orderlies and everybody else they could get, two corvettes put to sea to try and sort out an awkward fishery problem. But it could not have lasted. We should face up to the fact that only one corvette is available. One of the three is entirely unserviceable. It should be scrapped, all its equipment removed and sold as scrap. At least we would get something for it and we would not have to pay somebody something for looking after it. We should probably get rid of two at least. If we got rid of the three we would not have a substitute yet.

Mr. James Tully

What would we do with the spare parts of the other two?

Mr. Booth

I can imagine the officials in the Finance Section trying to work that one out. Even running one and using the spare parts out of the other two to keep that one going still might not be economic. We might weather that for a year but only on condition that we got some proper craft as soon as possible. I know new craft are expensive. They are called corvettes but they bear no resemblance whatsoever to our present corvettes. They are not unlike motor torpedo boats in size, slightly larger, although the maintenance would be negligible compared with that of the present ships and for which the fuel costs would be very small. They would be craft for which we would have no difficulty in getting crews. The crews would be smaller but by reason of the fact that they would be operating ships designed for a proper purpose, men would be only too anxious to get on them. At the moment I do not see why anybody joins the naval service at all. The ships are appalling, the living conditions are at least as bad, if not worse than, those in some of the barracks about which I have already spoken and are of no use for the job they are required to do. Occasionally, owing to the captain of some foreign offending ship falling asleep on the job, the corvette may catch him inside territorial waters, but if the captain of a foreign trawler wishes to fish inside our territorial waters, he can do so with complete freedom and get away with it because our craft cannot even catch up with him.

I know the new craft would be very expensive. I also believe these can be purchased on extended credit terms and that some of the manufacturers are only too anxious to extend credit to people wishing to purchase such craft. They are specialised vessels exactly suitable for the work we want and I think we should buy them as quickly as we can and use any credit facilities which may be offered to us. Even if we do that and we can make something of this service, I still do not regard it as a naval service at all. It should be much more a coastguard service and to call it a naval service is just silly.

I would plead again this year, as I did last year, for the institution of a proper system of coastwatching. It is intolerable that there are no coastguards at all and that when ordinary ships using our coastal waters, even pleasure craft, get into extreme difficulties and need the assistance of a lifeboat or helicopter, we rely entirely on some member of the public by chance looking out to see and spotting something going wrong. We should have a proper coastwatching service. It should be linked up with what we now call the Naval Service, and the reserves would come into the same picture. If we had a service organised along those lines, with small but much more efficient craft, and proper coastwatching facilities, we would be improving our whole situation very drastically indeed.

I am far from happy about the FCA organisation which we have. As Deputy Dowling said, we are fooling ourselves in many ways in this regard. In Subhead D on page 154 of the Estimates, there is provision for pay, grants, allowances, etc., in respect of 22,000 men in the FCA. The total provision is £289,000—say £290,000—and yet we have to deduct from that figure in respect of non-attendance at annual training, a sum of £77,000, which means we are fooling ourselves, first of all, that we ever had 22,000 men in the FCA, and secondly, that it is any use having them when such a high proportion will not turn out for annual training. Weekly parades in drill halls at night are no use. They are a waste of time almost completely. The only thing which is worth having is a full, consecutive period of training. We are pumping money down the drain here, too.

We are making provision for an enormous expenditure of £211,000 for the FCA in respect of pay, grants, allowances and travelling, and I do not think we are getting our money's worth. There is a small dedicated minority in the FCA of officers, NCOs, and men, who report very regularly, and who are the backbone of the whole Force, but it is a small minority, and there is a large number of men who have FCA uniforms, who give no value for money, and who are not available for training or any duties, and in respect of whose activities we pay a tremendous amount of money. We pay for NCOs' and officers' training, and for quartermasters, but we do not get value for the money. The British Army have found this also in respect of their Territorial Force, and they are re-organising the whole Army reserves for that reason.

It is time we had a good hard look at the FCA. I do not want to say anything which might discourage those men of all ranks who are giving very devoted service but I think they would be the first to agree that there is a tremendous waste of public money, and that a real tightening up would be to the advantage of everyone. I should prefer to see provision for a force of 8,000 or 10,000 men whom we knew we could rely on, who would turn up for annual training and would be available in any question of an emergency. We must never allow ourselves to be fooled by this mythical figure of 22,000 men. They never were so many, and there never will be.

The same applies to Civil Defence. I believe the whole organisation of Civil Defence is wrong. We are asking the local authorities to take over this job, and there is no one less qualified to do this job than the average official of the local authorities. I believe Civil Defence is the wrong title. In the first place, it is a passive title which means very little. Recruiting propaganda is mainly directed towards getting people to join an organisation which would help, in the event of nuclear warfare, in rescue and welfare operations. Rightly or wrongly, people do not believe such a situation is likely to happen. Civil Defence is not an organisation which carries out this job at all. It is an organisation which carries out emergency rescue work and does it extremely well in cases of mountain rescue, flooding, and so on. There have been numerous cases of small-scale accidents and disasters of one sort or another in which the Civil Defence personnel have given invaluable service, but the service which they have given does not come under the heading of "Civil Defence".

This should be an Army organisation and it should be re-titled something along the lines of "Emergency Rescue Service". It should be tied in with the coastal service, coast watching, air-sea rescue and so on. We need mountain rescue teams. There was the unfortunate accident on the slopes of Carrantuohill recently. There are frequent cases of people getting into trouble even in the Wicklow mountains. Nothing could be better than having an active group of men and women, well trained, arduously trained, in such rescue operations.

My experience has always been that if you offer young people a job with a challenge in it, they will jump at it, but if you say: "Will you come to a weekly parade and sit around and do little pretend exercises as to how we will organise welfare, facilities in the event of nuclear attack", they will not get their teeth into it. If you say: "We will now proceed in our vehicles out to Enniskerry and have a simulated rescue of a man on the rocks halfway up the Powerscourt waterfall", you are giving the young men and women an opportunity to do a bit of pretty exciting rock climbing, giving them hard stuff to do, and they are only too anxious to do difficult and exciting things.

I should love to see Civil Defence transformed completely into an emergency rescue force composed of men and women well qualified in all forms of rescue, including rescue from fire, water, flooding, mountains and rock climbing, qualified in handling flood conditions and so on. In that job you would have to go out for training and get thoroughly wet and cold and have a certain amount of danger. If we produced that challenge, I know we would get the volunteers for it, and there would be jobs for all to do. Civil Defence as it stands is a waste of public funds and we are not getting the value we should. I should like to see it put under Army control and not local authority control. The local authorities are not keen enough and not convinced enough, and I am sorry to say that in many cases they are producing completely inaccurate returns of the activities carried out under this heading, and of the numbers of men and women actively engaged in it.

In general, I should like to pay tribute to the Army because they have carried out another year of excellent service. How they managed to produce so many men for the various commemoration ceremonies I do not know. They produced them and their steadiness and smartness on parade were absolutely beyond criticism. The fact remains that it is not the main job of the Army. The main thing, of which we should be proud, is the fact that the Secretary of the United Nations had to plead with us at all costs almost, to supply more troops for Cyprus because they are invaluable there. I do not think we realise what a tremendous job those lads are doing out there. Those who do are very proud of them indeed.

It is a comparatively easy job to smarten up for a ceremonial parade but a ceremonial parade is not an easy thing to do. The way in which the recent ceremonial parade was carried out was beyond reproach. I hope we will give more recognition to those men. They are doing a very remarkable job for the country. We should make sure that we give them the tools to do a good job even better. We should give them good living accommodation to make their lives more bearable than it is at the moment. I am sorry to have spoken so critically but I know the Minister is prepared to suffer the criticism which is offered. I certainly feel that he is one of the best Ministers we have had. I am sorry to add to his worries at such a time but I am sure he will take the criticism in the spirit in which it was offered.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I notice that in his opening speech introducing this Estimate the Minister devoted only a few lines to the Naval Service. It was swept aside with the usual remarks that he is unable to procure the necessary recruits although the situation is improving. I take it the principal function of our Naval Service is to protect our fisheries. I would like to digress for a moment and draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is perhaps in the world today more interest than ever before in fisheries and fishery protection as a result of the growing world shortage of food. Only recently when experts were discussing this matter, they said that one of the greatest needs of our time was that the fisheries should be protected against heavy in-roads by poaching trawlers and so on. We have a very large harvest of fish on our doorsteps which has been poached and is continuing to be poached as a result of the fact that we are entirely unable, with the impedimenta placed at the disposal of the Minister, to protect our fisheries. I realise the fact that there is a considerable shortage of money. The reason for that shortage is quite obvious but I shall not go into it here. The Minister can say that he is sympathetic towards doing something for the protection of our fisheries but that he cannot do anything about it because of lack of funds.

Our corvettes should be sold and more up-to-date craft purchased. Two of the corvettes could have been sold at a reasonable price to an American state not so long ago and it would then have been possible to have bought more suitable craft for the protection of our fisheries. Our present craft are out of date. They are no use at all for fishery protection. I know this did not happen during the present Minister's term of office—it was during the term of office of his predecessor—but those craft could have been sold and more suitable craft bought for our fisheries protection. We would then have got the personnel to man the new craft because the recruits would have come along and would have joined the Naval Service. It is very hard to get recruits when they know the type of craft which we have.

I have referred to this matter before but I have no hesitation in referring to it again. If the Minister goes down and looks at our corvettes out at sea— he need not go on board at all—he will see the type they are. He will then know that they are incapable of doing a good job for the protection of our fisheries. There are many other Governments, such as the Royal Malaysian Government, which have come into existence long since we got native government but which have brought up-to-date craft for the protection of their thriving fishing industries. The Minister should be able to go to the Finance Department and ask them for authority to sell those useless, outdated and outmoded corvettes and buy something more suitable.

The position at the moment is that those three corvettes, apart from being useless for their job, are out of reach to the extent that they cannot be manned. At the present moment we could not man more than two of them in any emergency. The Minister must be tired of hearing criticism of the Naval Service and of being asked to do something about it. I have no doubt he inherited the situation but as a Minister I am sure he could go to his colleagues and ask them to do something about this. This matter has not been raised by one or two Deputies. It has been raised by Deputies on all sides of the House. I hope that when the Minister comes to re-examine the position, as I hope he will, he will do something more than what he has done this year. There is nothing in his speech beyond the one short paragraph which makes it absolutely crystal clear that there is no intention of doing anything for the next 12 months. It is quite possible that the bottom will have fallen out of the three corvettes before then and we will have nothing at all. It is lucky we do not have to take part in any naval operation with other nations because we would be the laughing stock of the world. I doubt if we would be able to keep up with any craft at all in any modern naval service in the world.

I now want to turn to the FCA. The personnel in the FCA are a body of men who are giving voluntary service to the country. They are loyal citizens of this State and they give their service without remuneration. They gave a fortnight's service every year but this has now been cut down to one week. They go away from their homes and their place of employment during their term of training. They provide a free army for the Minister and for the Government. That is literally what it boils down to. They put us in the position that we were able to play our part in the United Nations. We were able to send our serving troops abroad where they have served with honour. There are likely to be further claims on our limited personnel but for reasons which are beyond me, the training time of the FCA has been cut down this year. I gather there is a saving in that of something like £20,000. Those who join the FCA receive an excellent training. It is particularly good for the young men of this country today. It is a very fine force altogether. There is no question about that.

The FCA provide the personnel for ceremonial parades. This was particularly evident in the recent 1916 celebrations throughout rural Ireland. The Minister could look into this matter of the training. It is not yet too late to change. The training time will not be finished for some time yet and surely the Government could extend the period of training to a fortnight? We could find £550,000 to give an increase of pay to the Garda Síochána. Surely we could find a few hundred pounds to give a fortnight's training to those voluntary recruits who are giving a lot to the State and asking nothing in return? Fianna Fáil, I regret to say, have done very many stupid things in their day but this is one that takes the biscuit for stupidity.

I wish to refer briefly to the special relief fund—that is not the actual name of it, of course—that is available for the Old IRA. It is a sine qua non that if they are to obtain this grant, they must have the medal. The Minister said that many of those men do not apply for this benefit until they are nearly 70 years old. A necessary qualification for the grant is that they be totally incapacitated. Quite a number of such men do not become incapacitated until they are nearly 70 years. This situation has been going back over a long number of years.

First of all, they must have got the medal. One writes for a medal for those men in the autumn of their lives —men who are well entitled to it— and one is told it is being investigated. Then one is told there is insufficient evidence that they saw action in the face of the enemy. The reason for that lack of evidence, of course, is that the officer, in 90 per cent of the cases, is dead and buried. If I were an IRA man, which I am not, and I went back in an endeavour to procure this evidence, from whom am I to get it? The officer is dead and buried.

The Minister today said it will go before a tribunal. There, the result is the same: there is not sufficient evidence to show that the claimant has seen action in the face of the enemy. How will he prove it now? I read into the Minister's speech that he thinks they should have claimed this long ago. The fact is they did not claim medals long ago because they were not looking for the special allowance for the simple reason that they were fit and sound at the time. When the suffering, the rheumatism, aches and pains which they earned on the hillsides in their youth, getting wet to the skin—any medical officer will tell the Minister this—come to them they are too late to prove that they saw service in the face of the enemy.

They do not get the medal or the allowance either because there is not sufficient evidence or because they are outside the date within which they should have applied. Surely it is time we stopped paying lip service to those who fought for their country on the hillsides and the mountains? Surely it is time we stopped passing meaningless Bills here? Any Deputy will tell you it is the same every time. I have been 14 or 15 years in Dáil Éireann and during that time I have made application on behalf of many constituents and I have known one solitary person to get the allowance. It is time a different look was taken at it. Ninety per cent of those men have not long to live. The others may live only for a year or so. The Minister should consider that and arrange some method where the evidence is not actually present, to make a fairer assessment so that somebody in this country who has suffered in the past for the country will get what he is entitled to.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

I appreciate, as I know the Army does, the tributes paid to it recently outside the House and more especially those paid here today. I personally very much appreciate the goodwill in which the Army is held by Deputies. As Minister for Defence I shall endeavour as far as I possibly can to maintain that goodwill. The points made in the speeches of the various Deputies cover such a wide range of subjects that it would be difficult for me to deal in a general, connected way with them all. As far as the strength of the Army is concerned, I admit that it is not as much as we would wish it to be. I admit that 7,250 NCOs and men, plus the officers the Estimates makes provision for, is not a sufficient strength to take on all the tasks that the Army could be confronted with under active service conditions but I should like to point out to the Deputies who have raised this matter that the strength of the Army is conditioned by the amount of money made available to the Minister for Defence for pay and allowances, for the provision of equipment and the necessary paraphernalia that go to make up a modern force.

Whatever amount of money the State is capable of providing, whatever amount of money the State is willing to provide will, I think, be usefully allocated by any Minister for Defence now or in the future to enable the military authorities to maintain an efficient and effective force. It is not a very happy situation for a country when it has to depend on too small an Army in the event of emergency conditions. Nevertheless, small countries such as ours are forced by their circumstances to do with the military forces they can afford to maintain.

The situation in relation to our Defence Forces is that we have two reserve lines of defence. The first line is composed of retired officers and men and I should like to say in passing that in relation to calling up the first line for training, only one decision was taken in this regard this year. Deputy Cosgrave seemed to think that a second decision was taken. I wish to state that the decision was a clear cut one to call up the first line. It may have been a delayed decision, but nevertheless no other decision was taken.

The FCA was mentioned by several Deputies. The effective strength of the FCA is about 18,000 all ranks. The establishment is mentioned in the Book of Estimates at 22,000. Of the 18,000, about 10,000 come up for training each year in camp. The decision to call the FCA for only one week's training this year was taken by me after consultation with my military and civil advisers. Personally, I am not at all satisfied with even two weeks' training for the FCA. I do not believe one can train soldiers fully by a weekly attendance at parades and two weeks in training camp. In so far as the Government, the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence are concerned, they have, since the establishment of this force, endeavoured to give the members of the FCA the benefit of the best training by our Army instructors and personnel.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.