Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 14 Feb 1947

Vol. 104 No. 8

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 1:—

In the table to the section to delete reference No. 5, column 2, and to substitute therefor the reference "Maor or (in English), Major."

The Minister's reasons on the Second Stage of this Bill for altering the rank of "major" to that of "lieutenant-colonel" were rather unconvincing. By this change, we shall get out of step with, I think, every other army. It is proposed to abolish the rank of "major" and to substitute that of "lieutenant-colonel." In all other armies, so far as I know, there is usually a rank between that of "major" and that of "colonel." But in other armies, there is no rank between that of "captain" and that of "major," with the possible exception of the French army. As I said on Second Stage, in almost every case in the French army, the rank of "commandant" is regarded more as an appointment than as a rank. The use of the rank of "commandant" in the French army is, I understand, now much less frequent than it was formerly. When officers of our Army are engaged on courses abroad, it will be incongruous to have no rank of "major" and to have the rank of "commandant."

I appreciate that there may be sentimental reasons for retaining the rank of "commandant". But they are no greater in the case of that rank than in the case of numerous other ranks which obtained in the pre-Truce I.R.A. These ranks have since been changed. There were ranks of "commandant", "colonel", "commandant-general", and "brigadier-general" in the pre-Truce days. All these ranks have been altered. Almost since the inception of the Defence Forces, these ranks have been abolished, with the exception of the rank of "commandant". We are now proposing to get out of line with every other army by abolishing the rank of "major". If the Minister considers it desirable to introduce the rank of "lieutenant-colonel", he should not do so at the expense of the rank of "major". If necessary, it should be introduced as an additional rank. When our officers meet officers of other armies on special courses or in competitions, they will look very foolish if we carry out the change proposed in the Bill.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I am not accepting the amendment. It would have been desirable to have the rank of "commandant" changed to that of "major" but a sentimental appeal attaches to the rank of "commandant". Most of the leaders of Easter Week held the rank of commandant and were executed in that rank. A large number of men who fought for the independence of this country, in the struggle which is past, held that rank and it was regarded almost as the outstanding rank in that struggle. It is the equal of the rank of major in other armies. The rank of lieutenant-colonel now brings us into line with all the other armies. In other words, when in future a captain meets a captain he knows he is meeting an officer of equal rank; a major of a foreign army meeting a commandant of our Army will now realise for the first time that he is meeting an officer of equal rank; and the lieutenant-colonel meeting a lieutenant-colonel will be meeting an officer of equal rank.

Heretofore, that was not the position. Our major who, in fact, was the equal of a lieutenant-colonel, was being regarded naturally by the majors of the army he was meeting as being of only equal rank with themselves, whereas he was a rank higher. The difficulty in the future will be that the only rank which will not have the same title is that of commandant, but it will be made very clear. It will be clear that an Irish captain is equal to a foreign captain and our commandant is the equal of the major of the other armies, and the lieutenant-colonel rank brings us on the same level with other armies. I do not think there is anything very serious about the amendment. I do not think the Deputy is really serious about it. I think the Deputy is just taking up the line that he opposed it on the Second Reading and continues to oppose it.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is no very vital principle involved, but it is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that, when majors of other armies in future meet commandants, they know they are meeting a person of the same rank. How could anyone suggest that, when there is a rank of major in every single army, including the French army? It is childish.

Mr. Traynor

Because there will be no rank of major in this Army.

Mr. Cosgrave

He will not know then whether it is a commandant or a lieutenant-colonel. There is a rank between that of major and colonel in every other army. In all armies, except the French, there is no rank between captain and major. There may be sentimental reasons for retaining the rank of commandant, but it is ridiculous. This proposal was originally put up in the Army to change the rank of commandant. When that was not accepted by the Government they should not be making a laughing stock of themselves now.

Mr. Traynor

How do you know what was put up in the Army?

Mr. Cosgrave

I know very well what was put up.

Mr. Traynor

How does the Deputy know?

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister would like to know.

Mr. Traynor

I see. I will not accept the amendment.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"— put and declared carried.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 2:—

In column (2) of the table to the section, to delete the words "Ceathrú-Sháirsint Catha" and substitute the words "Ceathrú-Sháirsint Cathláin."

This is merely a question of bringing the spelling into line with the new Irish spelling.

General Mulcahy

Have we got the opinion of the school of higher learning on this?

Mr. Traynor

Do not make me laugh.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment agreed to?

General Mulcahy

I would like to ask whose advice we have got with regard to the new spelling?

Mr. Traynor

The Translation Department, of course.

General Mulcahy

Of the Dáil?

Mr. Traynor

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, Schedule and Title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

General Mulcahy

I would like to speak on this stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy realises that on the Fifth Stage he is confined to what is in the Bill.

General Mulcahy

I take it that what is in the Bill is an Army.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can discuss what is in the measure, but we cannot have a Second Stage discussion, about amendments and other things.

Mr. Cosgrave

On a point of order, does this Bill not extend for a further year the Defence Forces and, that being so, is it not permissible to discuss the framework and other matters connected with the Defence Forces?

An Ceann Comhairle

Not to repeat a Second Stage debate.

Mr. Cosgrave

I submit to you that it is quite in order to discuss the Defence Forces.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy knows the practice of 20 years. On the Fifth Stage of the Bill you discuss what is actually in the text of the Bill. On the Second Stage one may discuss much wider matters.

Mr. Cosgrave

I submit that what is in this Bill is the continuation of the Defence Forces and, that being so, the House is entitled to discuss the Defence Forces, while at the same time refraining from repeating what was said on the Second Stage. I submit that the House is fully entitled, under the Standing Orders and under the procedure, to discuss what is in a measure and that this particular measure deals with the Defence Forces.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the Second Stage you are entitled to discuss what you think should be in the measure, what other policy should be followed. On the Fifth Stage you discuss what actually is in a measure.

General Mulcahy

If I wish to oppose this measure on the Fifth Stage, arising out of the information we have got here, am I entitled to give reasons why we should not pass this Bill, and in the development of that go into the fact that we have been told that, although the Government want an Army larger than we have at the present time, they have no policy for equipping it and do not intend to have a policy for equipping it until they make up their minds on certain other things? I have no intention of developing unreasonably a discussion of this matter. I have no desire to force the House into a division against the Army Bill, but if I were to take seriously some of the proposals and some of the information given to us on this measure, I would feel in duty bound to oppose the Bill. I would ask whether, in discussing this matter, I cannot discuss some of the matters that arose, which show that, in the first place, the Government unnecessarily want a largely increased Army and, though they want it, they have no plans and no policy for equipping it. We have been advised from the Government Benches that it is unreasonable and surprising that we want to discuss these things and it is said we ought to keep our mouths shut.

An Ceann Comhairle

In other words, the Deputy wants to reply to a Second Stage debate.

General Mulcahy

No.

Mr. Traynor

In the very near future, I will be introducing a Supplementary Estimate, in which there are items which will provide all the opportunities the Deputy will require for discussing the question of equipping and policy, if he so desires. I do not think there is any foundation for the statement that the Government has no policy in regard to equipment—or for some of the other suggestions made by the Deputy. If he wants to talk about equipment, I feel that the place to do so fully would be on the Supplementary Estimate, which will be before the Dáil in the very near future.

General Mulcahy

There are some things I want to say on this matter, and if I were deliberately opposing this measure on the Fifth Stage, arising out of the information or the facts disclosed to us on the Second Stage, I take it I would be entitled to traverse some of that ground.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy understands clearly what has been the practice, that, on the Fifth Stage, Deputies are confined to what is in the Bill, and, on the Second Stage, to what they think should be in the measure and to general policy. Debate would be interminable if it were possible on the Fifth Stage to repeat everything said on the Second Stage. Business would be impossible if we could have the Second Stage debate resumed on the Fifth Stage.

General Mulcahy

The House has been put in a very difficult position by the manner in which the Minister and some members of the Government Party have discussed this matter. I appreciate the point the Minister makes that we will have a Supplementary Estimate for the Army—I think it is on the Order Paper now—and will have the Army Estimate in about a month or so. I have no desire in any way to stretch the range of my discussion on this measure outside the limits of order, but I want to suggest to the Minister that he is driving us into the position of opposing the Bill for an Army at all if he faces the House in the spirit and in the way in which he has faced it on this occasion. Take one point, General Sir William Slim, who commanded the British 14th Army in Burma, in the middle of last year, dealt with the circumstances of war from his particular point of view and said:—

"War means all the activities of the nation, economic, scientific, industrial, financial and political, as well as martial."

On behalf of two countries in which we are closely interested, New Zealand and Australia, following a discussion of defence planning generally for themselves and other members of the British Commonwealth the statement is made that no more than the British Government can Dominion Governments examine their defence needs without asking themselves how soon and how far economic recovery will enable them to bear the expense of satisfactory defence plans, and that so far, the meetings have made it clear that Australia and New Zealand are prepared to bear a considerably larger share of defence expenditure than in the past, provided that these other common aims, full employment and a secure standard of living, are not endangered.

Briefly, the Minister tells the House that, for 100 officers he had in 1939, he now has 194, but he is not satisfied with that—he wants 236; and for every 100 men he had in 1939, he now has 134, and he wants 198. That is, if you like, a reduction from what he declared to us in November last he wanted, and he will reduce that more if we are not driven, as Deputy de Valera would drive us, into the position in which we are to be told that these matters are not for discussion here. They are matters for discussion here as, in the first place, our economic strength is the real source of our defensive strength, and if our defence machinery is to be used, is the attitude to be taken up that, so far as the ordinary people of the country are concerned, theirs is not to reason why, theirs but to do and die—neither they nor their representatives are to be allowed to discuss either policy or any other matter connected with defence?

Deputy de Valera said that, from the point of view of how we were to organise ourselves in the future and how we were to equip ourselves in the future, what he wanted to do was to look back and see what would happen, that time was necessary for doing that, that we could not possibly make up our mind on how we were going to equip ourselves to-day, and because we could not do so, we could not make up our minds on how we were to organise ourselves. We do not know how we are to organise, if we do not know how we are to equip ourselves, and if we are to stand absolutely aside, as the Minister suggests, from any other nation in the world which has been in the practice and which has the power of assisting us in getting our equipment for war and helping us in our defence, we are imbeciles to be organising an Army, as the Minister said, two and a half times as large and to be paying for it to-day when all the great war-makers in the world are sitting down in conference to see whether they cannot bring about peace and the avoidance of war.

Surely the men who made and commanded our Army during the past difficult six years should be trusted to regard and to examine the situation for us, and we ought not to be asked to accept the word of the Government that they have considered representations from our military experts and that they are satisfied these military experts want these provisions and want them in circumstances in which we are not to examine how these men are to be trained, equipped and organised.

Mr. Traynor

The question of equipment is one which I would say is solely for military experts to decide. I do not think that Deputy de Valera at any time suggested that discussion of defence problems should be prevented in this House.

General Mulcahy

Indeed he did, repeatedly.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think he suggested that there should be any curtailment of discussion on defence problems. He made reference to the fact that discussion of certain aspects of defence problems in the House was not desirable, but what I want to say in respect of what Deputy Mulcahy has just stated is this—I cannot say exactly when I gave the information, but it was some time ago—that I told the House in very plain language that we had withdrawn all contracts for equipment, wherever we had placed them, and the reason why the contracts were withdrawn was that we did not want to have unloaded on to ourselves equipment which had perhaps become redundant or which was not up to the standard we would require in the future. Our great desire was that whatever money we had to expend on warlike stores should be spent on the most up-to-date possible type of equipment.

The Army authorities who were examining the matter, in discussing the question with me, felt that there was going to be a very great advance in the matter of future equipment and that it was highly desirable that we should withdraw these orders, await developments and make our decisions in the light of these developments. We did that and since that, with the exception of the purchase of the naval vessels and some flying equipment, which is very necessary for the training of our pilots, we have not purchased anything in the nature of warlike stores. I think that was a good policy. I do not think that we erred in taking that decision.

I have not at any time, to my knowledge anyhow, attempted to prevent discussion on the question of equipment or on the question of defence policy. In fact, I went to the trouble of making a very detailed statement on defence policy. But, as I said in my concluding statement on the Second Stage of the Bill, I have a suspicion that Deputy Mulcahy is mixing up two different problems—the problem of external relations and the problem of defence. In reply to a question which he asked, I told the Deputy that we had no discussion with any other nation in regard to our defence policy and that was merely a statement of fact. I take it that that does not mean that we could not have such discussions, if they were deemed necessary. If they were deemed necessary, these discussions would not be a matter for decision by me; they would be a matter for decision by the Government. The fact that Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues can discuss defence policy on this Bill, as they did in the fullest possible manner, refutes the Deputy's own statement that they are being prevented from discussing defence.

General Mulcahy

I am commenting on the surprise expressed that we dared to do it.

Mr. Traynor

Who made that statement?

General Mulcahy

Deputy Major de Valera.

Mr. Traynor

I think the Deputy is putting a rather strained interpretation on the Deputy's statement.

General Mulcahy

I am putting the ordinary English dictionary meaning of his words.

Mr. Traynor

However, I am assuring Deputy Mulcahy and other Deputies, but I am sure the assurance is hardly needed, because I think most of the Deputies during the debate went very much further even than some members of the Opposition would think desirable. Some of the statements made were of a character that should not be made in a Parliamentary debate. I am only mentioning that to show that, far from attempting to curtail debate on the question of defence, we have, in fact, encouraged it.

General Mulcahy

The Minister says I am associating external affairs with Army policy. There is no use in discussing the Army here as a museum piece. When we discuss the Army here, we discuss an Army which has to be equipped with the assistance of the outside world, which has to be trained with the experience of the outside world, and which is only wanted here because of the outside world.

Mr. Traynor

The Army is as fully equipped to-day as it was during the emergency when the Deputy was giving the fullest possible support he could give to the policy of the Army in relation to the defence of the nation. It is just as well equipped now as it was then. What I did say in the course of my reply is that we are withdrawing orders in order that we may, if the necessity should arise, purchase much more up-to-date equipment. I think that is what the Deputy wants. Is it not?

General Mulcahy

I want to know why an Army of the size which the Minister is planning for is to be maintained. In relation to that question, you are up against organisation and equipment and the whole position in the world to-day, and that will have to be discussed thoroughly, because the numbers and the cost of the Army spoken of here are such that the matter requires the fullest possible examination in every detail. The Minister should not saddle the people belonging to other Parties, who were members of the Defence Conference, with approving completely of everything done during that particular time.

Question put and agreed to.