When the adjournment was moved last night a case had been made to show how unfair the Government and the Minister for Defence have been to a certain number of officers and non-commissioned officers in the Army. I will not labour that case, but there are a few points to which I wish to draw the special attention of the House. Firstly, this is another of the Army Acts and it represents the 14th broken promise of the Government. For years the Government and Fianna Fáil Deputies demanded and insisted that there should be a permanent Army Act. On the records of this House there is ample evidence to show that the Minister for Defence, or a Minister for Defence, several times promised that a permanent Army Act would be introduced. He went so far as to say on one particular occasion that the draftsmen had completed the measure. Yet here we are still in the same position as we were in 1943 and 1945.
Reference was made by some Deputies here yesterday to the fact that the annual Army Act is a continuation of the British system under which, of course, it was unlawful for His Majesty to maintain an army in any one year without the consent of Parliament. Therefore, an annual Army Act must be introduced. A Deputy also referred to the fact that we had adopted the monarchial system in relation to the control of the Army, but that it is exercised by the head of a republican form of government. When the Minister addressed the House I expected from him a clarification of the whole situation as far as the Army was concerned in this country, but again he simply pushed that question on one side and, mind you, went so far as to say that on certain matters, on the grounds that it was a purely administrative function, there was no obligation on him or the Government to consult the supreme authority in this country, to wit, Parliament. That means that the Minister, and the Government of which he is member, have no regard whatever for the wishes or the will of the supreme authority, namely, the Parliament of this country. I shall be glad if the Minister will say what are the intentions of the Government in relation to the permanent Army Act, so that we may for all time settle this question and so that it will not have to be referred to every time the annual Act comes up.
I am struck by the fact that during the emergency every officer and non-commissioned officer was retained in the Army as efficient and that the Government and the Minister left them there to lead troops in the event of hostilities in this country. The only ground that would justify that step by the Government and by the Minister was that these men were efficient. It meant that they were efficient for war and that they would be efficient in our hour of necessity. Then, when the necessity has passed we are told, in effect, that they are inefficient for peace. Of course that is the most inconsistent statement that has ever been made by any Government. The Minister tells us that this development was inevitable and that, of course, these officers were in an invidious position. It would be much better if the Minister tackled the problem straightforwardly and said: "Listen, boys, once the danger is over we do not want you and out you go." Of course, that would not be diplomatic. The promise is now made that further legislation will be introduced to add five years to their service. Of course that is a step that should have been taken long before this question arose so that when these officers were going out they would know the conditions under which they were being discharged. It is true that there are some people who, I suppose, are not as efficient as they should be but the Government should not throw these men on the roadside as so much waste. Some sense of responsibility and some sense of justice should be shown by the Government towards officers and non-commissioned officers who rendered faithful service during the emergency.
The Minister also tells us that there were 142 non-commissioned officers not suitable for their rank. Is it not an astonishing situation that it is when the emergency has passed and the danger is over that fact is ascertained? Surely that must have been clear to those who were commanding these men before now. Why were they not found unsuitable during the emergency? No action was taken during that period and the decision was evidently come to to wait until the emergency had passed and these non-commissioned officers were no longer required, to make this statement.
The Minister says that the defence policy of the Army is the defence of the territorial integrity of the country. He went further and said that it was the sole responsibility of the Government. Of course that is only partially true. The defence of this country, as was shown during the emergency, is not the responsibility of any one section because, if a war takes place, it is not only the Government but practically all of the citizens who will have to fight. It has been made clear for some years past, and it is clear now, that any future war will be a wholesale war, a total war. Having regard to that fact, some such scheme as was adopted during the emergency should be instituted by the Government. There should be a defence conference composed of representatives of all Parties in the State, so that no matter what happens, the defence of this country will be conducted according to a united policy, as it is in every other great country, so that, no matter what happens, that policy will be continued. As we are, the Government here hedges and tells us that they have no responsibility to consult us or anybody else, although the people of the country have to pay and the young men have to fight for it.
The way to get real solidarity behind the Government and the Army of this country is by taking the people well into your confidence. I admit that the first important point as regards the defence policy of this country is that relating to the defence of the national territory. I hope the day is approaching when the national territory will be the whole island. On that I would like to ask the Minister and the Government, or perhaps the Minister for External Affairs, to tell us what were the arrangements during the recent emergency for the defence of our national territory. Was there any liaison or any contact made with the forces that were occupying part of our national territory, and how far was the Taoiseach's phrase given effect to—to make the combined forces as effective as possible? I should like to know if there was any step taken in that direction, because then we would be in a much better position to know how much money should be spent on our Defence Force and how efficient it could be made.
I do not agree, of course, with everything that was said here by Deputies last evening. It was asserted that a land army is a thing of the past. It is a well-known fact, that no matter what mechanised form of weapons you may have or what atomic energy you may have or what explosive power you may have, all that these can do is keep on blasting, but it will still take the foot slogger to go in and occupy a position. Therefore, the infantry man is still required, and he must be trained in all the arts and crafts of warfare as he is at present. The number we are retaining is small. I think it is small, although my colleagues think it is too big. I should rather see that number well organised and contented, so that when an emergency arose it could immediately extend itself, as it did in the last emergency, and be in a position to put a fairly effective force in the field. I believe that is possible. I should like to have heard the Minister tell us what are the plans for the higher training of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the next two years, five years or ten years. I should also like to hear him tell us if any liaison, or even friendly arrangements, had been made with any other State or country.
Now, the expenditure is heavy. I feel that it is worth it if we get the service that we should get for it. I am not at all disturbed over the weight of £4,000,000, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 being spent on defence if we get efficient service for that money. I say that because it is very important that it should be well established everywhere that we had a force capable of doing something and of extending itself in a very rapid way.
As regards the demobilisation of these officers, I am sorry that the Minister and the Government have taken that step without consulting the former Defence Conference. It could have done that, and it could have explained to that conference, even though it is no longer in being, the reasons why. I agree with the Minister when he says that it would not, perhaps, be in the interests of these men to say why they were being dispensed with, but yet, on the other hand, he told us that they were efficient. Now, there is something being concealed, so that the position is really worse by implication. He has left these officers in a worse position than if he had put all the facts before the House. Therefore, I say that he is prejudicing them to a very great extent by saying something half-way and not saying it completely.
It is strange that a number of these men are being pushed out this year, the 25th anniversary of the formation of the National Army. I would like to be satisfied that there are no personal animosities between the Government and some of these officers who are going out because of things in the past. I do assert here, and I am glad to pay tribute to this fact, that there has never been politics in the Army during those 25 years. It would be a pity if, at this time, anything that would give the semblance of politics would be introduced into the Army or alternatively in the conduct of the Government towards the Army. They have served faithfully and well, and I am sure will serve faithfully and well in the future, but in order to have that for a certainty it is essential that the Government would show them that they have a real just Government to deal with, one that will treat them decently and generously, and that they will not be thrown overboard once the emergency has passed. I say that because, if an emergency comes on us again, it would not be humanly possible to expect that we would get men to come in and trust, blindly, to a Government that had broken its promises in the way this present Government has done in the past.
I do not want to cover the ground that has already been covered by other speakers. I do, however, subscribe to the view that this step is a serious matter. I agree with Deputy Dillon that the morale of the Army is the most important factor in the efficiency of an Army and I ask the Minister and the Government in the first place to establish or re-establish that confidence that there should be between an Army and its Government and its people and secondly, that if because of financial stringency or other reasons the reductions have to take place, these reductions or reversions or demobilisations will be done in the most generous way possible. And there is only one way in which that can really be done, and that is when the officers, non-commissioned officers, or men who go out of the service are left in a position of independence— financial independence—in a position to support themselves and their wives and families in a decent way and that they will not be left as mendicants of the State begging or looking for something. If the Government takes that step, then indeed the morale of the Army will be high. It will have confidence in the people; it will have something to fight for and if necessary something to die for, but from the way that the Government has handled the situation I would not like to have the responsibility of going into action with a number of the men because the danger would be that at the crucial moment the case might be made that we had a country that was not worth serving or not worth fighting for. I hope that is a day I will never see but by the conduct of the Government it is a day that could very easily arise.