I move the Second Reading of this Bill. In doing so I would suggest that the general discussion on Army strength, Army policy and Army organisation, might be more appropriately taken in conjunction with the Estimate but if there is any desire on the part of the House, or of any Deputies, to discuss such matters arising out of or in connection with this Bill, of course that is within their right and I have no objection. In dealing with the Second Reading, if such matters are raised I propose not to raise them myself but to deal with them in reply to the debate. I think however there is one matter which has appeared to a very great extent in the newspapers and on which it is important to clarify the position in introducing the Bill. There have been a number of Press references of one kind or another in different newspapers giving a peculiar prominence to inter-Army courtesies which I believe are normal, beneficial and should be encouraged. There is no new departure in the way of policy in regard to officers from other armies visiting our Army or officers from our Army visiting other armies. There is nothing new. That has been the procedure that has been followed by two previous Governments. It is the normal procedure with armies representative of friendly countries but, on account of the late war and of the amount of public attention attracted by any suggestions of postwar alliances, these normal courtesies have been featured to such an extent as to give rise to doubt, suspicion and, even, to a certain amount of anxiety.
I think Deputies opposite, and Deputies all round, would understand that it is in the best interests of the nation and the world as a whole, to have, so far as it is humanly possible, the friendliest feeling existing between the officers and men in different armies. In that connection, I can only assure the House that the statement made by the Taoiseach was made without any reservation and that there is nothing indicative in such inter-Army courtesies of anything sinister, nothing indicative of any back-scene arrangement or alliance of any kind, whether between two or more than two countries. Deputies opposite have heard time and again from two Governments that the matter of engaging in any such alliance is unthinkable and impossible for a divided partitioned country whether in peace or in war. The position of dual command—even, possibly, rival commands—in a little island of this kind, is just next door to impossible. An adequate defence plan for a small island divided in two is nearly militarily impossible and greater responsibility, greater risks or anything else are just inconceivable as long as this country is and remains a divided country. I introduced those particular observations just in case they might be raised from elsewhere in perfectly good faith. I wanted to give that assurance in advance as clearly and as emphatically as it is possible to do so.
On the introduction of this Bill,—it is, of course, an annual Bill, a Temporary Defence Forces Bill—it would be reasonable that questions should be put as to what the position is regarding the permanent Defence Forces Bill. The work on that Bill is proceeding. It is a very detailed and a fairly comprehensive measure. It is our intention to introduce it at the very earliest possible date. It has not reached the degree of finality yet, even to bring it before the Government as a whole. I very much fear that it will not be complete and ready for the House in time to obviate the necessity of having this Bill as a carrying-on Bill up to 1950. Consequently, I am introducing this Bill. The Bill itself is a very short one. I think the White Paper that was circulated with the Bill made clear the reason for and the meaning of the different amendments and additions that are contained in this Bill. They are very few in number and perhaps there is only one that may call for anything in the nature of criticism or detailed explanation. That is the particular section which alters the penalties to be imposed on deserters as defined in the Emergency Order of some years ago and subsequently incorporated in the Temporary Defence Force Act of 1946. There were in the original Order a number of penalties imposed on deserters; loss of pay, loss of gratuity, forfeiture of pension, the normal military penalties of imprisonment or otherwise and a further disqualification from any employment directly or indirectly paid for out of State funds for a period of seven years. I am proposing to the House that we keep all those penalties and disqualifications with the exception of the latter disqualification. I am recommending to the House that, when keeping all the normal military penalties—forfeiture of gratuity, forfeiture of pension and of pay and the discharge sheet that states clearly the reason of discharge—they waive disqualification from employment for a period of seven years.
My reasons for asking the House to agree to that amendment are many and, I think, sound. Firstly, when the original Order was brought in imposing all these penalties on deserters, I think that both the Minister and the Deputies in the House were concerned with the fact that certain men with the colours had deserted and gone to give service elsewhere. I do not think any of us were aware of the full legal consequences of that particular Order when it was put into operation. When legal opinion was taken on the matter, it was found that the particular Order not only applied to what you may call straightforward deserters but it also applied to men who were on the reserve, not called up but who had not left any address and who went to work on turf bogs or elsewhere without leaving an address. While they were elsewhere, they were called up, but did not get the call and, consequently, did not respond to it. The result is that all those men are at the moment, according to the law, unemployable, and will remain unemployable for the next four years. In practice and in good faith and without knowing their legal category, a great number of such men have been taken into employment of a semi-State kind under local authorities, working on the roads, on the bogs or working under such other organisations as receive part of their funds from public funds. When, recently, I circulated a list of all such people to different local authorities, it was ascertained that a number of men here and there up and down the country, hardworking men, who were giving good service, whether on the roads or in some other capacity, must be turned out of work promptly if the full law, as it stands, is applied. I am asking the Dáil to keep all the remaining penalties and disqualifications, but to waive the particular one that brands these men as unemployable for the next four years. There may be a certain amount of balancing to be done about such a recommendation. I think, however, that most Deputies, on the whole, will consider that the recommendation is a reasonable one.
There is another amendment dealing with the period of service where a man, having completed his full service, reattests. At the moment, he has the right to reattest and the Army authorities have the right to take him. However, when he has reattested, and when he has been taken he must be released from service at any time he gives three months' notice. That creates an unstable position in an Army. Any day you may receive a a great number of requests giving three months' notice and those men must be released on doing so. It is proposed by an amendment in this Bill that once a man reattests for a period of two years if he wants to get out within the period of two years on compassionate grounds, humanitarian grounds or any other grounds that will be dealt with in the normal administrative way.
Deputies know that, apart from an emergency situation when there are very sound and very real reasons for retaining a man with the colours, if a man has a good case on compassionate grounds to be released, the ordinary administrative machine always takes a reasonable and humane view of such applications. In the ordinary course of events, the man would be released. I think Deputies sitting on the opposite benches will realise that, if you have an Army to a great extent built up on the basis that any man that gives three months' notice must be released, that is not either militarily or administratively sound.
There is a proposal here in another section with regard to the reserve of officers—that, on application, the Minister can attach them to any particular branch of the reserve. At the moment, if an officer is a reserve officer in one reserve branch and if he applies to be transferred to another, and the general staff and the Minister want to transfer him to another, there is no legal power to do so. He must be retired first and reattested. The underlying idea of this amendment is to give the right, on application, subject to a recommendation of the general staff, for the transfer of an officer from one portion of the reserve to another.
Part III of the Bill deals with the power to make bye-laws governing transport and traffic within certain military areas. That arises out of the necessity for an extension of the aerodrome at Baldonnel. It is necessary, in the interests of public safety, after due notice and after consultation with the Department of Local Government, that the Department of Defence should have the right to close up certain roadways during certain operations. If such authority is given by the Dáil, that particular power will only be exercised when it must be exercised in the interests of public safety, and will be exercised in such a way as to cause the very minimum degree of inconvenience to the general public.
