Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1948—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

I move that this Bill be read a Second Time. As the House is aware, this Bill is required to continue in force the existing temporary Acts which authorise the maintenance of the Defence Forces. The existing Acts expire on 31st March, 1948. It is, therefore, a matter of urgency that the Bill should go through by the 31st. I would be extremely grateful, therefore, if Deputies would co-operate in giving all stages of the Bill to-day.

My predecessor did intend to introduce some amendments this year. Those amendments were under active consideration and the investigations were interrupted. It is probable that in the course of the year the amendments will be taken up and we may have an amending Bill. I suppose that at this early date Deputies would not expect a full or anything like a comprehensive statement from me regarding Army affairs generally. I would be anxious to give that at the earliest possible moment, but if I attempted to make such a statement now I would be doing so without full knowledge and without full investigation of the position. I would ask Deputies to allow me to postpone such a statement until the Estimates.

All I can say is that I found the Army a very, very highly efficient force. Great credit is due to the General Staff, to the officers and to other ranks and no little credit is due to my predecessors. The Estimates are a voluminous document. They are being very fully gone into with a view to effecting any possible economy that will not interfere with the efficiency of the machine. That work is only in progress at the moment and I would ask the House not to press for a statement that might only be misleading in so far as investigations are not complete.

Mr. Traynor

I should just like to make one correction in the Minister's statement. For a number of years it has been the custom to bring in this temporary Bill. The Minister and members of the Opposition during those years pressed, perhaps rightly, for the introduction of a permanent Act with as little delay as possible. The Minister, no doubt, will find, or perhaps has found, that there is on the stocks, so to speak, a permanent Act, almost in its entirety. Perhaps I would be correct in saying that it was actually introduced by my predecessor. Much as I would have liked to have brought in that permanent Act the difficulty of doing so was increased by reason of the emergency. During that very strenuous period it was found necessary from time to time to make alterations that made it impossible to bring in a permanent Act that would not have become a thing of shreds and patches in a very short time. This is where I want to make the correction: I always felt that this particular continuing Bill should have been brought into the House without appendages of one kind or another because it seemed to me the authority for the continuance of the Army was a thing that should have been above controversy. Unfortunately during these rather strenuous times, the General Staff, feeling that they wanted some measure of this kind through urgently, strongly advocated the introduction of a continuing Bill to secure these amendments. This year I deliberately insisted that the various amendments should not be linked up with this Bill, in other words that we should now make that start which I have been advocating, by which we could bring in this Bill in such a manner that it could be passed through this House in all its stages at one sitting. If it is not possible in the course of the year to have the permanent Act completed, I would strongly urge on the Minister that he should adopt that method because I am sure he shares with me the viewpoint that the maintenance of the Army is something that should be kept outside controversy altogether. In view of the Minister's expressed intention to make a statement at a later stage and his desire that there should not be on this particular Bill any controversy now, I have no objection to the Bill going through in its present form.

Captain Cowan

I should like to say just a few words on this Bill. Twentyfive years ago the original Temporary Provisions Act was introduced and, every year since, explanations such as have been made here to-day by the Minister or by the former Minister have been made with regard to the Bill. I agree with Deputy Traynor that there is an absolute necessity, not so much perhaps for a permanent Act, but an absolute necessity for a complete overhaul of the present Act. That Act has been in operation for 25 years and it has been found to be unsuitable. It is no wonder that it has been found unsuitable, because in 1923, when the necessity arose to bring in some Bill to control the Defence Forces, what happened was that the draft of the British Army Act was taken and simply amended to meet the purposes of our Army here. Certain words were deleted and certain others inserted. While the British Act might have been suitable for the British Empire, the Act introduced here in 1923 was not suitable at all for our Defence Forces. Its origin was bad. Why it has been retained so long by several Ministers, why this annual excuse that the matter is being considered and that a permanent Act would be introduced in a short time— why all that should have continued for a quarter of a century I cannot understand.

In the Defence Forces we have a permanent force and we have reserves of different kinds. Forces of these types were never visualised at the time the original Act was introduced. Nobody knows better than the present Minister how inadequate a Temporary Provisions Bill is to deal with problems that arise from day to day. One of the things most essential for the welfare of an army is the removal of causes of complaint and proper provision for the investigation of such complaints as arise from time to time. We find in this old Act, that has now to be extended, provisions that give no opportunity whatsoever to an officer or a soldier to have any reasonable grievance remedied. Under the Act, before a soldier can have a cause of complaint investigated, it must be against his superior officer—either his captain or his commanding officer. If an injustice should be done to him by the branch dealing with finance, dealing with his allowances or his pay, such matters cannot be dealt with under the section dealing with the redress of grievances.

I appreciate the Minister's position and I realise that the Minister would be anxious to introduce a new Act governing the Defence Forces at an early date. I am quite prepared to agree that the Minister should have that opportunity for consideration, but I would ask him to introduce this Bill as soon as possible, if it is ready, and I accept what Deputy Traynor says about its being ready. I know from my own personal knowledge that the draft was ready 20 years ago. It should, therefore, not entail a tremendous lot of work on the part of the Minister, his legal advisers or the draftsmen to bring before us a Bill that we can examine critically and constructively. I am very anxious that I should have an opportunity of contributing to the improvement of a Bill governing our Defence Forces. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to take note of the demand there is for a revision of the Temporary Provisions Act so that he might at an early date give this House an opportunity of putting the Defence Forces under the control of an Act modelled for this country and prepared in accordance with the necessities and demands of this country.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

If the Minister particularly wants all the stages of the Bill as it is, I suppose we shall have to defer to his wishes, but I had hoped that he might leave the Committee Stage over until next week because I wanted to impress upon him the urgency of a certain amendment to the code. I believe that it has now become an urgent matter that the Army should provide either a cottage or a flat for every ex-soldier on the day he is demobilised. In the married quarters in Arbour Hill, and in other barracks throughout the country I am sure—I have personal knowledge of the conditions in Arbour Hill—there are very many men who are no longer in the Army. When they were demobilised, they found it impossible to get living accommodation outside. This is a matter which has been brought up on very many occasions in recent years at the Dublin Corporation, both at the housing committee and at council meetings. Under the present Housing Acts the Dublin Corporation regretfully finds itself in the position that it cannot house these men. The result is that these older men are compelled to remain in the existing married quarters which should really be utilised by the younger men. I have in mind one particular military policeman stationed in the City of Dublin who has to cycle in every morning—hail, rain or snow— from his quarters in Curragh Camp.

An Ceann Comhairle

As this is merely a continuing Bill, I would suggest that the Deputy should raise the particular matter on the Estimate. It would be very difficult for the Minister to be fully acquainted now with the types of individual cases the Deputy has mentioned.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I understand that one is permitted to raise only matters of administration on the Estimate. I want to raise this matter now because amending legislation is required and I think this is the opportune time to bring it to the notice of the Minister. I submit that amending legislation is required. That is why I mention it to the Minister now and that is why I want to impress on him the urgency of the matter so that if and when the main Bill comes along provision will be made under it for those soldiers who have given a lifetime of service to the Statein order that they will not find themselves thrown upon the streets without any roof to cover themselves, their wives and their children.

Mr. Connolly

The Minister has asked for co-operation in regard to this continuing Bill. I think, however, the time is now opportune to review the entire question of the Army. It is kind of the Minister to pay compliments to the highly efficient force we have. I am sure we all agree with him in that opinion. That is just in the nature of a general bouquet but I do not know how deeply the Minister has considered this question of efficiency or its relative meaning as applicable to modern warfare. The General Staff may be competent and efficient in its own way and credit may be due to his predecessor in that regard. The present time is considered to be one of the most momentous from the point of view of any army in any part of the world. Deputy Eamon de Valera thinks that war is inevitable. Not all of us may agree with him in that. Whether it is or whether it is not I would think that, now that we have a new Dáil, the time is opportune to discuss whether we have the proper type of Army for this country. We have gone on for 25 or 30 years with a certain type of Army. That Army has functioned in its own way. It has never, of course, participated in any major conflict, for which we are all duly grateful. If we are to do our duty properly in this House we must consider whether the Army that we have now is the correct type of Army for the future. Have we taken sufficient cognisance of all facets of scientific modern warfare? Is our conception of an army still based upon Napoleonic precepts or upon the ideas of Frederick the Great? Could the Army as at present constituted repel an invader on our shores. I take that to be the primary function of an army. There is little hope I would think of our building up a Festung Eireann any more than Hitler succeeded in building up a Festung Europa. I do not think it would be within our compass to repel from our shores a modernly equipped army. That being so, we should turn our minds to examining the type of instrument we could use in order to inflict the heaviest possible damage upon an invader and in order to make invasion so costly as to nullify its effects.

I would submit to the Minister that before introducing a permanent Act he should consider all the underlying principles. He should act with caution before committing us to a type of army which may not prove suitable under modern conditions. We have now an Army based on barracks, forts, strong points and outposts. It might be very difficult to maintain these against an invader such as Europe has known in its most recent war. I submit that permanent buildings and particular points of concentration are both outmoded and out-of-date. We have not got the industrial equipment behind us to maintain such positions against aerial attack. We merely invite the destruction of our forces by setting up such originating points. From the experience of Europe and from the lessons taught us by the resistance movements in Europe, I would think that what we require now is a nation armed rather than an army. We want to have the greatest possible number of men and women capable of using arms. If that is to be the function of the Army in the future, no useful purpose will be served in maintaining the present Army under the present Act in its present form. I do not urge this from the point of view of economy, because I have no means of knowing whether the type of army I envisage might not be more costly than the type we have at present. On the other hand, it might effect a great economy. But I am not interested in that. I am interested only in having in existence the most efficient instrument we can have for the money we expend on it. It is quite true that some of the specialised services in the Armywhatever tank corps we have, the artillery and the flying services— require a different type of handling from the infantry. They are expendable in case of operations, and that is about all we can say about them. We could not maintain the air forces. They would have to be dispersed as soon as possible, and, if this is the strategy that would be employed by the General Staff, where then lies the necessity for maintaining the huge barracks and the huge depots that we have in this country?

I ask the Minister, instead of having these stationary targets, to consider whether it would not be possible to decentralise the whole idea of the Army; to have the Local Defence Force and the local forms of action that we had during the emergency expanded to a degree that will enable us to dispense altogether with the type of standing Army which we know at present. In other words, to make it possible to train the manhood and the womanhood of the country, at the ages at which they are most effective, for short periods of service so as to enable them to carry on operations, if they are ever required, in conjunction with the small nucleus which would be directive. This appears to me to be an opportune moment and I would ask the Minister, before introducing any permanent Act, to have whatever consultation he can have with experts in the matter of modern warfare and investigate the whole question as to whether the principle of the Army as at present existent should not be changed, perhaps on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to draw the attention of the Taoiseach to a problem which has been raised for us by the speech we have just heard. In introducing the Bill, the Minister asked that he should not be pressed to make a statement on general Army matters and that, if such a statement was desired, it should be postponed until the annual Estimates. We regarded that as a reasonable request and Deputy Traynor, who spoke for this Party, addressed himself only to matters of formal procedure in relation to the Bill. Subsequently, a Government Deputy has spoken at some length upon the question of general defence policy and, conceivably, an impression might be created that the failure of Deputies on this side of the House to deal with the issues of general defence policy while a Government Deputy had done so might create the impression that we had no observations to make in that regard.

We are very anxious that we should have a debate on general defence policy. We think it is desirable that it should not be delayed, particularly because of some statements which have appeared in the Press, but we have agreed readily to the suggestion that the debate should not take place now. It is clearly unfair to us if, having met the Minister's request in introducing the Bill and raised no question of general policy, Deputies on the Government side are then to raise such questions in a manner which could conceivably be controversial. I think that when a request of that kind is made by a Minister it should be accompanied by the understanding that compliance with it by Opposition Deputies involves compliance with it by Government Deputies also.

The Taoiseach

I think nobody will be under any illusion or delusion as to the attitude of the chief Opposition Party in this House. We appreciate the spirit of accommodation in which Deputy Lemass and Deputy Traynor met the Minister's request. At the same time, we are not in a position and do not intend to hamper any Deputy's right to discuss any matter that he wishes in the course of a debate. The Minister made his statement to all the Deputies and I think I cannot do anything more than leave the matter to the discretion of each individual Deputy.

Mr. Lemass

We shall know in future how a request for co-operation is to be met.

The Taoiseach

I do not understand Deputy Lemass's remark that he knows how in future requests for co-operation are to be met. The Minister made the statement perfectly clearly and we appreciated how the Deputy and his Party met it. We cannot gag any Deputy, as we said we would never gag any Deputy in this House when speaking in any way he wishes.

Major de Valera

I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but the remarks of the last Deputy and the attitude adopted more or less force me to reply. I hasten to assure the Minister, however, through you, Sir, that this Party believes that he should get all stages of this Bill to-day, because it is necessary, in order to keep the wheels turning in his Department, that this Bill should be passed and put into law and that the Vote on Account which follows should be got through. I have no intention of dealing in detail with the points raised by the last speaker but, as he has made certain observations, I think it well that we should place on record here and now certain objections to what he said. The objections to which I wish to refer are briefly these: that in his statement he has insinuated that the Army is based on huge barracks and huge depots and in that insinuation he has implied that there is unnecessary wastage and extravagance in the maintenance of the Army. From my personal experience and from what I know of the Army— and I think I can talk with a certain amount of actual knowledge—I think I can tell the Deputy that, if that is his idea, he is mistaken; that actually for an Army of the size, and particularly for the Army which would be required for this country, the accommodation available both for troops and stores, to say the least of it, is inadequate and there is no extravagance existing in that way.

Mr. Connolly

Who said there was?

Major de Valera

The implication was there.

Mr. Connolly

In your mind.

Major de Valera

If the words conveyed a fair implication and if I took that implication, I am entitled to record the contradiction.

Mr. Connolly

I had no idea of wastage.

Major de Valera

If the Deputy is making it clear that that was not his intention and that he accepts the situation as it is, that there is no wastage or extravagance in the matter, I am only too happy to accept his word. But any implication that reorganisation on that basis is required by the wiping out of depôts or barracks must go by the board as well, if that is the position. With regard to the functions of the Army in wartime or in peacetime, I do not think this is a suitable stage for a debate on that matter as we shall have an opportunity on the Minister's Estimates. This is merely a Bill to continue the legal basis of the Defence Forces, the provisions for the maintenance of the Army in this country and for discipline and military law within that Army. The continuance of these provisions are clearly necessary in any event and it is only delaying the House, when the Bill is merely a continuing Bill, to go into that matter any further. The Minister is entitled to have his Bill in this case, and to have it quickly, and I think we should give it to him quickly. If there were amendments or some changes in this Bill, the situation would be otherwise.

With regard to the problem of training the manpower of this country for war, generally speaking it does not arise under this Bill at all. It is a question of defence policy which preferably could be, as Deputy Lemass suggested, dealt with separately, and any further remarks we have to make on that would perhaps be better kept for that stage. I shall therefore content myself with saying, as Deputy Lemass said, that there are a number of points in regard to defence policy that at a suitable opportunity we can discuss. There are numbers of us on these benches who have things to say about general defence policy and, if we do not say them here this evening, that is not to be taken as acquiescence on our part with the views of Deputy Connolly or anybody else who may go beyond the limits which the Minister himself proposed.

Dr. O'Higgins

I should like to express my appreciation of the action of the acting Leader of the Opposition and members of his Party in facilitating this particular measure going through with the minimum amount of delay. As Deputy de Valera said, the position is that we would have no legal authority for an Army on April 1st if this Bill, or some such measure, did not go through all stages in this House and the Seanad before March 31st.

There seems to be general agreement from all quarters of the House—and I have expressed the view myself when in a different position on a few occasions—that at the earliest possible moment we should have a permanent Army Bill. I think that is desired by all. Deputy Traynor told me there was such a Bill practically complete in draft in the Department. I am sure that his statement is correct and I am relieved to hear it, but I must confess that to date I have not got as far as reading it. That is the reason why this measure is brought in this form. The only thing I can do to balance this particular Bill is not to go even one inch towards discussing any of the points raised.

There is just one matter that was raised by Deputy Connolly and it will remove any anxiety from his mind and reassure our people if I mention that, even though our Army has not been actively engaged in hostilities, we have had the benefit of the experience of other countries. Our General Staff has continually got the benefit for its officers of training in the most up-to-date military establishments in the world. They have got the advice of experts up-to-date in regard to the moulding, formation, equipment and training of our Army. Within the limits of our manpower and our finances, we are as well equipped and as up-to-date as any Army in the world of a similar size and for a similar population.

Agreed: That the remaining stages be taken to-day.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration, and passed.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1948