I move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1925.—REPORT.
This Bill has had a rapid passage, without any criticism at all. I do not want to begin criticism of the Bill, but I think that in view of the fact that the Bill is intended to continue the present situation with a view to allowing the Ministry to prepare, with probably more care, a permanent Bill, it would be well to say a word in regard to the mind of the Ministry in preparing this Bill. There was a resolution before the House for a couple of days recently, and it received a good deal of publicity, but not a great deal of discussion took place in regard to it. Nevertheless, there was a definite suggestion made, and quite a distinct and very important principle was involved in the motion. The Ministry did not think it worth while to make any contribution to that discussion. I do not think that that is quite fair to Deputies in the Dáil who have given consideration to matters of very great importance and almost supreme importance; that is to say, the composition and the system of organisation of the Defence Forces. I suggest that it is very necessary that the Ministry, in the first place, and the Dáil afterwards, should have in mind very clearly, or at least as clearly as circumstances would allow, what purpose the Defence Forces, the army particularly, is intended to serve, and what are the possibilities to be prepared for in organising the army.
It is quite clear that with modern developments and the different forms of armaments, this nation cannot make preparation to defend itself in every possible manner against every kind of attack which might be foreseen. For instance, you might conceive it possible that Ireland would be attacked and would be more likely to be attacked by naval forces than by any other. Are we to prepare for such a possibility? Obviously, I think, it is out of the question that we could repel a naval attack by a counter naval attack. If that was in the mind of the Ministry, the possibility that we would have to consider in any permanent defence force measure would be the relations between, shall I say, a torpedo submarine defence and military land defence. Then, of course, we have the possibility of an air attack. Are we to prepare definitely for meeting that possibility? Are we to think rather of the possibility of chemical warfare, and are we to make preparation to defend the country against that kind of attack? Or are we to assume that the main attack would be in the nature of economic attack rather than an attack by armaments?
These are considerations that I suggest will have to be taken into account and I think that the mind of the Government ought to be indicated as to what kind of attack they are preparing to meet in the preparation of any Defence Forces Bill of a permanent character; whether it is intended that the Army of the future shall be organised primarily to meet an external foe or whether it is to be more in the nature of what I shall call a national guard to meet internal trouble. If the latter is the more likely contingency then the obvious scheme of defence would be of a different nature than if the presumption underlying the system to be made permanent was that we ought to prepare for attack by an external foe. I think it is opportune in discussing this Bill, even at this stage, more especially in view of the failure to get the mind of the Ministry on the resolution before the House moved by Deputy Figgis, that we should make this comment and possibly that even now we might hear from the Minister responsible for defence what he, and the Executive Council as a whole, are thinking of when preparing a permanent measure to deal with the Defence Force of the country.
I imagine the Ministry would be very wise to consider the developments that have taken place in Scandinavian countries, and the trend of thought there, and the action taken there as a consequence of that line of thought, and whether a standing army of the kind that is contemplated by this present Bill to be a temporary army should not be abandoned and whether one should not think of a small national guard that I spoke of or something in the way of a militia reserve, or if not spoken of in that term, at least of a reserve volunteer force and not a standing army. I make these comments because I think it is due to the Dáil and the country that we should hear from the Government something at least of what they are thinking about when they are preparing a permanent Defence Forces Bill. I do not ask them to give any outline in detail of what that Bill is to contain, but I do ask them to tell us whether in continuing the present system for one year they are contemplating a complete change in the system of the organisation of the Defence Forces.
I would like to join my voice with Deputy Johnson in the request he has made. If we are preparing some kind of definite scheme for what we will call an Army that will cost a certain amount of money I think it is due, even when we are continuing a temporary provision Bill, that we should have some indication put before us of exactly what definite needs and purpose such an Army will serve, and therefore on what direct benefit and gain any expenditure of that money will be employed. I take it the Minister would agree, and I take it we would all agree, if we are to have an Army that we are not going to have one for merely decorative purposes. Even if any country desired to have a defence force for decorative purposes, which I very much doubt, we, at least, are not in the position to afford that luxury, pressed as we are by the present economic and financial outlook. Therefore I think it ought to be indicated, on behalf of the Executive Council, by the Minister for Defence, and I think this is a very appropriate occasion for doing so, what actual purpose that Army will serve. I agree that all external attacks—there may be some who will disagree with the assertion in that strong form, but I put it in that strong form—may be neglected in considering a defence force in this country. We are not in the position, and are not likely to get into the position, of being able to defend ourselves in the manner of warfare that will be adopted in the future. If that is the proposal and if that is the purpose that the Army is to serve, we at least ought to have that indicated, and we ought to take thought and care to see that measures of defence are adopted that would be better adapted to that particular type of defence than those we see before us at the moment. I refer to the extension of warfare in the future, as it seems quite clear that it will be conducted in the future mainly by way of the air and by means of chemical destruction.
Deputy Johnson drew attention to the fact that in other countries, in Denmark, for example, where they have no internal difficulties to face and no possibility of civil war to encounter, they have dispensed with the army altogether. I would like to mention that I had an opportunity of speaking to a citizen of Denmark in regard to that matter. He put forward the novel argument, and a very striking argument, that the decision to dispense with the army in Denmark was taken as a measure of defence: not as dispensing with defence, but as a procurance of defence, because, said he, the only countries that are likely to be attacked in future warfare from the air are countries in which an army is likely to be found. Therefore by removing the army from our country we have put ourselves in a better way inasmuch as we are less likely to be attacked in the future through the air. That is a very striking point of view, and I put out, therefore, all possibility of defence from outside our shores. I do not think there is any prospect of that or any possibility of that. There is, unfortunately, a certain fear that there may be internal dangers to guard against. Ministers have assured us frequently that these internal dangers are not likely to recur, but they might quite easily and fairly argue that if there is a small chance of their recurrence, that small chance has to be protected against. If that is to be the argument, then I suggest that we ought to know that, and we ought to be informed that the army we are having in this country is an army that will be, as Deputy Johnson has accurately described it, more in the way of a national guard than a national army properly so designated.
That, I think, will bring in another element that ought to be considered by this House. Some of us have been thinking for some time that a good deal of the expenditure on the army in the past might be justly treated as non-recurrent or foundation expenditure. The principle is being more or less generally accepted that a great deal of the expenditure incurred in the army of the past is of a foundational kind, is non-recurrent and, therefore, should be funded. If we accept the point of view that defence of this country from any possible assailants outside is not likely to occur in the future, then what we should confess is that all expenditure under this Bill would have to be considered as expenditure of that particular kind. If that is to be the point of view put forward, it ought to be put forward in order that the country might know if we are continuing the National Defence Forces, the expenditure on which will be between three and four millions. All that money, if it is to be expended, is being expended not for fear of outside foes but as protection against inside ones, and, therefore, that expenditure is one the responsibility for which must be laid at the door of those who have brought that particular danger against which it is necessary to defend ourselves. That, I think, would help the country towards determining the responsibility that is to be incurred. I think the Minister should also take this opportunity to acquaint the Dáil as to what the expenditure for the current year is likely to be. If I am correctly informed, I believe there will be a surrender of about half a million. The army, at the moment, is costing us three and a half million pounds. In the passage of a Bill such as this, the Minister might also indicate what he considers to be the amount of money which the Executive Council judges desirable should be the normal expenditure. Then the country should be in a position to form an accurate outline of what is to be faced in the future under the expenditure on this head.
It was not my fault on the last occasion when Deputy Figgis's motion was before the House that I did not reply to the Deputy. What I wanted to say I wanted to say to the Deputy's face and not behind his back. I always like to tell a man what I think of him to his face. I was going to ask the Dáil to reject that mischievous motion unanimously, but the Dáil did so without my asking them. The motion, in my opinion, would cause a great deal of discontent in the army if it were carried and it would not be to the betterment of the army, no matter what the future of the army is. The Deputy put forward a novel scheme on that occasion for the purpose of being able to say, I suppose, ten or fifteen years hence, if he lives that long: "I told you such a thing was going to happen, and I want to have it on record that I was the author of it." Whether the Deputy meant that the militia he proposed in the scheme was to be known and immortalised in his name, I do not know. I am further at a loss to know whether he meant that we were to have a system of conscription because he based his whole argument on Canada, where every man from 18 to 60 is liable for conscription.
I specifically stated the contrary.
I have not the documents here. In Canada such is the case. I am not concerned with what happens abroad. I am only concerned with what is happening here at home, and what is for the good of the country alone. I am satisfied at the present time that we want an army, but I am not going to say to the House that that army should cost an abnormal amount of money. The Deputy is not right even in the figure he has given to-day of half a million. I am not in a position to tell the House what the estimate for the current financial year is going to be, but the scheme the Deputy was putting forward will cost as much money and will not relieve the income tax payers. If he thinks the army is not here at the present moment to defend all the people, even the income tax payers, he is making a great mistake. Were it not for the army in the past couple of years, there would be very little income tax paid in this country, and were it not for the army the houses could not be built that the Deputy says may be built by the saving he anticipates on the national militia. I do not know whether he intended that the militia should be of the class they were when the British Government were here, feeders for the British Army, or of the type of the North Corks, the South Downs, or the Gallant Louths. I am sure no one here would like to go back to that again. These gallant corps have been immortalised by poets, and perhaps we will have some poet, now that the spring is here, immortalising the Deputy and his militia so that in future people will recognise that, at any rate, he was of a martial turn of mind.
As far as Deputy Johnson's remarks are concerned, I do not think the Executive Council proposes the establishment of a navy. I am afraid that if we proposed to establish a navy, instead of saving two millions on the militia, we would be going into an expenditure of ten or fifteen millions more. I do not think the country can afford that at the present time. The army cost an enormous sum of money in the past, but we are in a position now to bring that down to a normal sum. The non-recurrent expenditure this year will give work to people in the country building barracks and places destroyed in order to house our army properly, whether it is a small or a large army. Those expenses will not be recurrent, and the cost will be brought to a nominal sum which this country can afford to pay. Deputy Johnson also wanted to know if we were going to establish an air force. We have the nucleus of an air force, and it is intended to keep that nucleus.
Can the Minister say, is it the nucleus of an air force with a view of repelling invasion from the air? After all, the nucleus must be a nucleus of something. What is the structure to form itself round that nucleus likely to be?
My intention as Minister would be to have this country, as far as it is possible within the limits of the country, able to defend itself against any attack, no matter from what source it comes, whether from within or without. The chemical war that has been spoken of, I do not know anything about, except what I have been told by Deputy Figgis, that in five years we will not want any army or navy, as everything will be directed from London or Berlin by wireless, and that by that time we will all be in a nice position, and be able to live quite happily at home. I do not think there is anything further that I want to say, as an opportunity for discussion will be afforded the Dáil when the Estimates come up to decide as to what the army should be. I can safely say to the country and to the Dáil that the expenditure will not be as great as in the past. I can foresee, after another 12 months, when the rebuilding of barracks consequent on their destruction is completed the Army Vote being brought to a figure that this country can afford to pay.
Again I ask the Minister if he will, in view of his position as Minister for Defence for the Saorstát, and responsible for the defence of the Saorstát, between now and the presentation of the Estimates, endeavour to make himself acquainted with the most recent modern developments in what is called the art of war. The Minister confesses that he has not thought about and has no knowledge of the developments in regard to chemical warfare, or defence against chemical attack. I think I may suggest without presumption, that it is absolutely imperative for him as Minister responsible for the defence of the country to make himself acquainted with such developments. Every other country deeming itself capable of defending its interests by war-like methods is finding out that this is the one arm which is going to prevail in future war, but the Minister confesses that he has not thought about and knows nothing about it.
I can assure the Deputy that I know very little about chemicals, and if I told the Dáil anything else, I do not think I would be believed. If it is any consolation to the Deputy, I will think the matter over between now and the presentation of the Estimates, but I do not think I will be much wiser or make the Dáil much wiser. If it is necessary for the defence of the country, I am sure the Dáil will vote money, say a couple of millions, so that we may have plenty of chemicals to meet anything that comes from outside.
Question put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage fixed for Tuesday, March 10th.