I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. There is nothing new in it; it comes formally before the House every year. For the information of the House I shall give approximately the figures of the Army. There is something in the neighbourhood of 5,300 men in the Standing Army; about 500 officers. There are about 4,100 men in the A Reserve, about 3,600 men in the B Reserve and about 900 men in the volunteer branches of the Army.
Public Business. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
Order for Second Reading read.
A few months ago an organisation representing 89 per cent. of the regular officers serving in the Army and 79 per cent. of the retired officers declared that since 1924 over £14,000,000 has been voted for the defence purposes of Saorstát Eireann. That statement said: "There is not, and there has never been, any considered policy with regard to the Army such as would be calculated to make an adequate return to the taxpayer for his money." Further, this statement declared "that it is doubtful whether it (the Army) is capable of acting in any circumstances as a useful instrument of national defence." That summarises our criticism of the Army for many years. We believe that the taxpayers of this country—of the Twenty-Six Counties of this country— are not getting an adequate return for the moneys that have been spent on the Army. The incomes of the people who have to pay for the Army have gone down considerably in the last year, and yet the Estimates show that the expenditure on the Army has gone up.
Apart from the question of cash, we are not doubtful of "whether the Army is capable of acting in any circumstances as a useful instrument of national defence." We believe that it is not capable of being used as a useful instrument of national defence, seeing that it is dependent altogether for its supplies upon England. We are wasting money on it. Unfortunately also we are wasting the lives of a lot of young men who could be much more usefully employed. The Army is providing a certain amount of employment for a large number of men. But we believe that there is very much more useful work for them to do. Depending as they are upon England for their supplies, it is a humiliating position for any officer in the Army, for anybody who has any sort of a national outlook, to be in that position, and we think that an end should be put to this system. We have, on several occasions, appealed to the Minister for Defence to make some arrangements whereby the Army could be self-contained in the matter of munitions. The Minister for Defence has never dealt with that, and we would like to know why he has not. Until he does, we believe that it is a waste of public money to spend one and a-half millions on the Army.
I do not wish to touch on administrative matters that could be more properly raised on the Army Vote. I do wish to say that the Minister and the Government are treating this House and the country generally in an extraordinary manner in regard to the Principal Act. I quite remember the circumstances under which a great mass of Army law, under which the Army has been administered at present, was put through this House in 1922 or 1923. The Act under which the Army is administered at the present time, and which we are asked to renew here once more for the seventh or eighth time, is a very comprehensive measure, consisting of several hundred sections. Not one of these sections was ever debated in this House. After all, this is the Parliament that is supposed to be responsible for these Army measures, and it is open to criticism for anything that may be faulty in the measure. It is open to criticism for anything that is found to be faulty or deficient in any way in our legislation.
For several years past the Government spokesmen came along here to the House and said: "We are not quite ready with the new Army Bill which we are to introduce." That position has been abandoned by the present Minister. He comes quite casually to the House and says: "We want this Act renewed for another year," and gives no justification whatever for taking up that attitude. I suggest that is not a right way to treat this House and to treat the country. The House should be given an opportunity of producing an Army Act in circumstances different from 1922 or 1923 or whenever that voluminous Act was passed. That Act was passed with a definite promise and a definite understanding given to the House that it was to be purely a temporary measure that would be examined and debated section by section inside a very short time. That was the undertaking, promise, or pledge given to the House. It has never been redeemed, and I protest in the strongest way I possibly can protest against the cavalier manner in which the Government is treating the House and the country about Army legislation.
I repeat that there was a distinct understanding and pledge given at the time this measure was put through which has never been redeemed. The Minister has now got to this stage when he does not make any excuse for it. I would not object if the Act were passed through this House and passed as an Act should be passed with all the consideration that should be given to it. But that was not the case. Then it is proposed to have it renewed each year in this fashion. Under the present circumstances the method which has been adopted is worthy of the condemnation of the House, and as a protest I will vote against the measure.
I would like to say a few words in support of those given utterance to by Deputy Aiken. A statement appeared over the name of a number of ex-officers of the Army, including a Deputy of this House, which constituted a very severe criticism of the Government's policy in respect of the Army. I think some attempt to reply to that criticism should be made by the Minister before the Dáil is asked to pass this Bill. I am surprised that Deputy McKeon has not seen fit to take part in this discussion. I do not think he has usually been affected by cold feet, but his silence on this occasion would seem to indicate that he is not prepared to repeat here the statements for which he took responsibility in the Press. Those statements were of a serious nature. Very serious allegations concerning the Government's administration of the Army were made, and Deputies would be negligent of their duty if they did not take them into account, now that this particular opportunity for doing so is afforded them. The queries to which I would like the Minister to give an answer— and they are taken from this document to which I have referred—are:—
(1) There is not and has never been any considered policy with regard to the Army, such as would be calculated to make an adequate return to the taxpayer for his money.
(2) While the existing force is well disciplined and trained in an elementary fashion, its organisation and the system upon which it is administered are so defective that it is doubtful whether it is capable of acting in any circumstances as a useful instrument of National Defence.
That is a statement endorsed in this House by the Minister for Agriculture.
(3) No attempt has been made by the authorities to consider or put into operation any plan by which its effectiveness could be improved in the future. On the contrary, there has been nothing but arbitrary and capricious dealing with every matter of importance as it arose.
(4) Large sums of public money have been spent on the professional and technical training of officers, numbers of whom are sent abroad from time to time for this purpose. No practical steps have been taken to make proper use of the knowledge thus acquired.
(5) Considerable sums have been expended on the equipment of Special Corps by the provision of guns, aircraft, and other military material but no attempt has been made to coordinate the organisation and training of these Corps as elements of a properly organised Defence Force.
(6) Flagrantly illegal attempts have been made to interfere with the impartiality of Officers serving on courts-martial and bound by Oath to administer justice.
(7) The ordinary methods of preserving discipline observed in all Armies have been largely set aside and a series of petty restrictions have been imposed calculated only to create dissatisfaction and quite valueless from a disciplinary point of view.
These are definite criticisms of the Government's policy in relation to the administration of the Army. They were published in a document issued by an organisation which said it could speak on behalf of 89 per cent. of the serving regular officers and 79 per cent. of the retired officers. It is signed, amongst others, by three Deputies of this House, only one of whom is present. Deputy McKeon signed the document, which concludes with this paragraph:—
The Executive Council is prepared to substantiate all or any of the foregoing statements in detail.
I may say that Deputy McKeon was chairman at the time. I want the Minister to tell us whether these officers were asked to do so, and whether they have done so. I now ask Deputy McKeon if he has done so, or if he is prepared to do so. I do not think the Dáil would be justified in passing this Bill in view of the fact that this document was published by this Association, and no reply to the criticisms of the Army contained in it has been published by the Government. It is true that the immediate effect of the publication of the document appears to have been the winding-up of the Association, following a communication from the Minister for Defence that it was no longer approved of by him. We are not concerned with that matter now, but we are concerned with the statement affecting the efficiency of the Army as a defence force, made upon excellent authority and that must be answered before the Dáil can be satisfied that that statement is without foundation.
Deputies Aiken and Lemass have stated that a document was issued on behalf of an organisation representing 80 per cent. odd of officers in the Army and 79 per cent. odd of retired officers, or something like that. No statement representing any section of officers has been issued. No statement was published on behalf of any Army organisation. An unofficial document may be published over signatures, but that does not imply any agreement, beyond the signatories, with the document. The statement the Deputies referred to had no authority whatsoever.
It was not made on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Officers' Association. There is no such thing as an Executive Committee of that Association. The Deputy seemed to think that the effect of the publication was to wind up that organisation, and he seemed to imply or to understand that it was wound up by my action. The Association was wound up without any action on my part. It was wound up by the officers of the Army who had been members of that Association. The Deputy quoted this unofficial document about the organisation of the Army and so on. Obviously, the people in a position to speak authoritatively about organisation in the Army and its discipline and so on are pre-eminently the members of the standing Army. No member of the standing Army was associated with the document the Deputy refers to.
The Deputy quoted a statement which seemed to imply that I had sought to defeat the ends of justice in the Army by interfering with courts-martial. That is a thing I have never done. I have never, in any way, interfered with the procedure at a courtmartial. I am not prepared to enter the lists with newspapers or otherwise in an argument on unofficial matters. I am perfectly satisfied that the discipline, the organisation and the effectiveness of the Army have improved steadily from year to year. I am completely satisfied with the discipline of the Army, and I am completely satisfied with the general progress of the Army. I think anybody who knows the details of the work of the Army will know that the statement the Deputy made, and the document he quoted from, are contrary to facts. That is all I have to say on those matters.
Deputy O'Connell complained about the method of debate on the original Army Act. That Act was passed by the Dáil and, although I quite agree that at some period we must have a different Bill, I think the Deputy's arguments should really have been based upon some point to the effect that either the present Act contains clauses which are detrimental or that it lacks certain powers which should be there, the absence of which militates against the effective control of the Army or the effective working of the Army. So far as my experience goes, the Army is, as I have explained, developing rapidly. Personally, I think that as we have a temporary Act it is just as well to postpone a permanent measure until we have as much experience as possible. The whole form of the Army during the last three years has been completely changed. We have not had any long experience, and I have stated here, quite frankly, that the new developments that I have brought about during the last three or four years are developments about which I have refused to make any prophecies, because they are purely experimental. I may say that so far as I can judge from my experience, I am more than satisfied that the developments have been much more successful than in my most sanguine moments I anticipated. The Dáil passed the original Act. It may not have had very adequate discussion—I do not remember the circumstances as well as Deputy O'Connell does—but the Dáil passed the Act. I do not want in any way to appear to take an unfair advantage of the generosity of the Dáil at the time, but I would be loath to suggest that the Dáil had done an irresponsible act. I can quite understand that they passed an Act which later experience might have found to be unsuitable, but so far this has not been found so.
Mr. O'Connell
But there was a definite undertaking on the part of the Minister that there would be an opportunity given to examine the measure critically inside twelve months. The Minister knows that surely?
That was a very unwise promise, I must say. The Deputy realises that to have brought in a permanent Act at that time when the whole circumstances of the country and the Army were abnormal, to say the least of it, would have been unwise. Then again, we lacked the experience that we have gained in the meantime. I think that the Deputy and all of us are to be congratulated that a permanent Act was not then brought in, because if it had been it was practically certain that it would have to be amended.
Is not this in fact what happened—that a Bill was introduced as temporary and it has really proved to be a permanent measure.
The Deputy can hardly say that, seeing that annually we have had to bring a Bill similar to this one before the Dáil. It may be possible for a Deputy to get up here and say that certain desirable things were unattainable by virtue of the form of the present Act. I am very far from saying that the present Act is a perfect piece of draughtsmanship.
Mr. O'Connell
We cannot amend it under this form of legislation.
No, but I think it is quite conceivable that the Deputy may have definite proposals that he could bring forward for the purpose of debate so as to enable the Army to be administered more satisfactorily and to be controlled to the satisfaction and the safety of the people of the country. So far, my experience is that whatever defects it may have, they have not interfered with it in any way, and personally I would deprecate any attempt to hasten the bringing in of a permanent Bill, especially during a period of transition. Personally, I would like to have as much experience as possible of the new form of Army, which new form is not by any means complete yet, before I would commit the country to a permanent Bill. From the point of view of this House having complete control, I myself am not an enthusiast for too great control on the part of the Dáil in the administration of things, but, if I were, I would think that this position whereby we have annually to bring this before the Dáil would be better than having a permanent Bill, though personally I agree that it is desirable that a permanent Bill should be brought in on some future occasion. I have not seen any case made, and my experience does not justify me in believing, that it would be for the benefit of the Army or the country at the moment to bring in a permanent Bill. When I bring in a permanent Bill I want to have the Army, approximately in its ultimate form, as elastic as possible. I regret that the circumstances of 1923 put the Dáil in the position of passing a Bill which it had not adequately considered. I would think it much more regrettable if later experience had proved that the Bill had been so unworkable as to cause the Army to be developed or maintained in an undesirable form.
I might prophesy that a permanent Bill would be brought in within a certain time but I am loath to go beyond my own knowledge. If I had seen the Army in a permanent form with all its branches and elements completely developed I should then certainly be in a position to promise that, but I think it is better to leave these things unpromised rather than to break a promise hereafter. Deputies seem to complain that whereas many promises have been made prior to my time I have ceased to make these promises. I do not think that Deputies have been any worse off by any lack of promise on my part. I think it would be undesirable at present to bring in a Bill which would necessarily have to be subject to considerable revision after a year or two when we had experience of what our needs were.
Deputy Aiken complained that the Army was not self-contained, meaning that we were not able to produce here the material which the Army needs. I do not know that we shall be ever in that position. At present we are examining, largely from the point of view of economy, the possibility of producing certain things to meet our requirements, but at present I cannot say what the result of that examination will be. I think that the raw materials for military action are not likely to be produced here completely for a considerable time. We may within the next year or two develop the manufacture of raw materials instead of importing raw materials. We are not confined to any one market. We are naturally buying where we get the stuff we want of a satisfactory quality and at the cheapest rates. We are not any more bound to buy from England than from America or Japan. In so far as we are buying from one place more than another it is a question of the suitability of the stuff for our needs.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
The Minister says he heard no complaint. To put a concrete case before him, suppose I want to change the incidence of unemployment insurance within the Army, how am I to get an opportunity of raising it? The men do not get insurance when they leave the Army and suppose I want to change the incidence of insurance within the Army, what opportunity will I get of raising the matter?
It is not the Army Bill that is the trouble there. It is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Mr. Hogan
That should be provided within the administration of the Army. Their contributions should be made from their pay in the Army and the whole incidence of this insurance should be changed.
It is not the Army Act that prevents that being done.
Mr. Hogan
The Minister knows it is.
Question put. The Dáil divided; Tá, 69; Níl, 52.
Tá
|
Alton, Ernest Henry.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Brennan, Michael.Brodrick, Seán.Byrne, John Joseph.Carey, Edmund.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Connolly, Michael P.Cosgrave, William T.Craig, Sir James.Crowley, James.Daly, John.Davis, Michael.De Loughrey, Peter.Doherty, Eugene.Dolan, James N.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Dwyer, James.Egan, Barry M.Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.Finlay, Thomas A.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Haslett, Alexander.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John. |
Henry, Mark.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Jordan, Michael.Kelly, Patrick Michael.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James E.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Hanlon, John F.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Reilly, John J.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reynolds, Patrick.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.Vaughan, Daniel.White, John.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George. |
Níl
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Anthony, Richard.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel. Clancy, Patrick.Colbert, James.Colohan, Hugh.Corkery, Dan.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Tadhg.Davin, William.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Fogarty, Andrew.French, Seán.Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen. |
Brady, Seán.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carney, Frank.Carty, Frank.Cassidy, Archie J. Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kent, William R.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Maguire, Ben.MacEntee, Seán.Moore, Séamus.Mullins, Thomas.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Leary, William.O'Reilly, Matthew.Ryan, James.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).Smith, Patrick.Tubridy, John.Ward, Francis C. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, March 26th.
Will the Minister state if there is any reason for the urgency of the measure?
The Deputy knows that the Bill has to be through the Dáil and the Seanad by 31st March. It is not as though it were a Bill with many clauses. It is purely a Second Reading Bill.
There is at least a week taken off before 31st March owing to the proximity of Easter.