Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1960

Vol. 185 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In subsection (2) to delete paragraph (c).

(Deputy Dr. Browne).

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It must be quite obvious to the Minister by now, in view of the long discussion that has taken place on this amendment, that there is considerable disquiet in the House about paragraph (c) of Section 2. I accept the fact that the Government must be in a position to take sudden and decisive action but as has been pointed out by other Deputies, any action that would be taken in this sphere will be political action. Therefore, the Minister must have the power but I suggest that paragraph (c) is badly drafted. The Minister will not be losing face in any way and he will be meeting the wishes of quite a few Deputies if he takes another look at the section. It is possible under this section that the entire Irish Army could be sent to the Congo independent of any political discussion whatever.

It has been pointed out by several speakers here, even by speakers in my own Party, that no Minister in his senses would ever take action like that. That may be so but our duty here as legislators is to see that proper legislation is passed and that legislation is binding on anybody who comes after us here. I do not know exactly —I am not a draftsman myself—how the Minister would meet the situation. I do not believe that paragraph (c) should be deleted altogether as the amendment suggests. Paragraph (c) is essential but some safeguard should be inserted. Some power in the hands of the Government is necessary but I do not think they should be allowed such wide powers entirely independent of political control. The Minister suggests that this matter can be dealt with by a motion in Dáil Éireann. He knows perfectly well that that is not possible because by the time that motion came before us the whole political situation in the Congo, which is what we are concerned with here, could be entirely and dramatically changed.

I do not know what has been agreed to among the Whips in regard to this Bill as to whether it is to go through in its entirely. I do not know if it is possible to postpone discussion on the section so that the Minister would have time to consider it again with his advisers. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister because I believe the Taoiseach has directed him to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. I agree that this Bill is essential, that it should be passed as quickly as possible but there is no use in our pounding through legislation and the Minister trying to pound through legislation when obviously there is a considerable volume of opinion against paragraph (c) as it stands. If this paragraph stands it means that the Minister or the Government can send any number of troops to the Congo or anywhere else without any reference to Dáil Éireann.

I support any actions the Government are taking to fulfil their obligations as a member of the United Nations, but I am opposing these powers being given without any political control. It is all right for Dáil Éireann as a whole to take those decisions and I think we should defend our right to do that. I should not vote for the amendment which is for the deletion of the section as a whole but I would ask the Minister to try to meet the wishes of quite a few Deputies by taking another look at this.

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

The Committee divided: Tá, 87; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, James.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fanning. John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• O'Toole, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick J.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

• Browne, Noel C.
• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Everett, James.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McQuillan, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl; Deputies Browne and McQuillan.

Question declared carried.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1) (b), line 13, to delete "whether before or on or".

We suggest that these words should be deleted because we would like those men in the Defence Forces who volunteered for service in the Congo after July, when the Defence (Amendment) (No. 1) Bill was introduced and whose application for service was accepted by the Minister or by an officer authorised by him, as laid down in the Bill to have an opportunity to reconsider their attitude. We believe that the changes proposed in this Bill are of such a radical and fundamental nature, retaining the service of any volunteer overseas for an unlimited period, that he should be given an opportunity to reconsider his decision to volunteer.

Secondly, we think it is desirable simply from the point of view of the great change that has taken place in his status as a member of the Defence Forces. Thirdly, we think it is desirable because the situation in the Congo is completely different from what it was when our men went out in July. They are facing a situation of possible civil war with all the associated terrible consequences. They are now in a position to assess the situation there from the first-hand experience which their colleagues have had in the Congo and they might like to reconsider the whole matter.

As I said earlier, the Taoiseach has assessed the position in one way in July. He has assessed the position in a completely different way now. I am not criticising him for that at all. He has a perfect right to do that and, indeed, has a responsibility to do it. But, just as he exercised that right, all the ordinary members of the Defence Forces should be given an opportunity to decide as from the date of the passing of this Bill whether they wish to be held to their offer of voluntary service abroad and wish to go abroad. They may decide to go, even in spite of the apparently deteriorating situation and the possibility of civil war and in the knowledge that they are now rather inadequately, and probably completely inadequately equipped for the possibilities of jungle warfare or bush warfare or they may, for their own personal reasons or for domestic reasons, family reasons, decide that in all the circumstances they would prefer not to go abroad and would prefer to stay at home and discharge their responsibilities in the ordinary way as members of the Defence Forces.

There is another consideration. These men have a right to assess not only the military position there and to come to a decision in regard to it but they have a right to assess the political changes which have taken place in the Congo. They were asked to go forward in the first instance as a United Nations force whose purpose was to hand back the Congo, or to see that the Congo was handed back, to the Congolese people as rapidly as possible and because of that opportunity to help the Congolese people they may have felt that they would like to go out and make their contribution.

The Minister may not agree with me, most Deputies may not agree with me, but very radical political changes also have taken place in the Congo and there may be members of the Defence Forces who share my view that the Defence Forces are being used for purposes for which they were not originally intended—the possible partitioning of the Congo and the other matters to which I referred on a number of occasions concerning the Government, the Parliament, the Premier, and so on—and they may for political reasons be anxious to change their minds and reconsider the decision and go out or not go out, as the case may be.

The Taoiseach has made it clear that there is no shortage of volunteers for the new force, that he will have no difficulty, that the recruiting campaign has been most successful and that he believes the possibility of going to the Congo has shown itself to be an added incentive to recruitment. He is the best man to decide about that. He may have the figures, and I hope we will get them from him next year, as to what the increase in recruitment has been as a result of the incentive of going to the Congo. But, in the present situation we feel it would be better that any man who volunteered for one particular purpose and who believes that that purpose either militarily or politically has now changed, should be given an opportunity of considering the position again and, if he wants to go, let him go, let him volunteer again, let the officer in the ordinary form accept on behalf of the Minister and then carry through in the ordinary way, as suggested by the Minister. But, the right to change his mind in the altered circumstances of the legislation, the military situation and the political situation should now be accorded to every member of the Defence Forces.

Mr. K. Boland

I had made it perfectly clear, I thought, during the Second Reading debate that there was no question of any personnel who volunteered to go to the Congo last July being held to that offer, that the battalion which is now being put in readiness was based entirely on a call for volunteers that was made within the past week or so, and that all personnel who are being assembled for that battalion are new volunteers, that there is no question of holding anybody to an offer made last July.

I thought I had made that perfectly clear and I think it is regrettable that Deputy Browne should insist or pretend to believe that the opposite is the case—that some of those people may in fact be unwilling to go but that we are holding them to an offer which they made under different circumstances on the last occasion. I agree that the tragic incident which occurred in the meantime has changed the circumstances this time but there is no question of holding a person to an offer made as far back as July last.

I cannot accept this amendment because we need those words in the Bill. We need the word "before" in order to ensure that we will have the authority to keep the troops already serving in the Congo there and who have volunteered for a period expiring on the 25th January next. The legislation under which the present contingent is in the country will be repealed when this permanent legislation is passed and in order to keep the status quo it is essential that “before” should be retained in this section.

Mr. McQuillan

Is it only the men in the Congo who volunteered originally who have been referred to here? A man who volunteered say in the last three weeks, prior to the passing of this Bill, will not be held liable?

Mr. K. Boland

The people who have volunteered for the new battalion now being got in readiness have volunteered under new circumstances and they will not be allowed to go back on it.

General MacEoin

The Minister will not go to them to ask them if they are sorry?

Mr. K. Boland

There would be no point in that. That would be the same as suggesting to them they should change their minds. I cannot see what objection Deputies have to the retention of the word "on", the other point on which the amendment is based.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Minister prepared to reconsider the word "before"?

Mr. K. Boland

Certainly not. I want to have authority for the contingent already in the Congo to remain there, and also to have authority to send out the men who have volunteered within the last week or two. There is no question of holding them to offers made in the past under the July Act.

Dr. Browne

That Act still stands until this one extinguishes it.

Mr. K. Boland

Yes. I merely want to cover the short period that remains between the date on which this Act becomes law and the 25th January next.

Mr. McQuillan

Back to what date exactly does this "before" refer to as far as the volunteers are concerned?

Mr. K. Boland

I do not know the exact date but I know it is not more than a fortnight ago.

Mr. McQuillan

Is it not essential to have that date?

Mr. K. Boland

The word "before" refers to last July but it applies only to personnel who are already serving in the Congo. The personnel who are being assembled for the new battalion are all new volunteers—all people who volunteered for this new battalion. Some of them may also have volunteered to go with the original battalions but were not called upon. Their selection on this occasion is not based on any offer made at that time. It is based on completely new offers of their services for the new battalion now being got ready.

Mr. Norton

I think it is clear the Minister must keep the word "before" in this Bill; otherwise, he will be in difficulties with the people in the Congo. What I would like to get from him is this: I understand that when the 32nd Battalion had been despatched, there were still a substantial number of volunteers and they were drafted into the 33rd Battalion which subsequently went to the Congo. After that, there may have been a residue who were not assigned to either of those two battalions. A lot of things have happened in the Congo in the meantime and the idea that it was a grand adventure has been dispelled by the happenings since the first two battalions were despatched. I take it from what the Minister said that anybody who volunteered in July or August and who was not accepted will not be held to his old offer of service——

Mr. K. Boland

That is correct.

Mr. Norton

——that in fact only those will be sent to the Congo who volunteered in the last week or two with their eyes wide open to the new situation. In that case, only those who had volunteered in the last week or two will be sent?

Mr. K. Boland

Even those who have volunteered for this new battalion will not be asked to sign their undertaking until after the Bill has been passed.

Mr. McQuillan

If that had been made clear at the beginning it would have been perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister say at this stage how many volunteers are available if a further contingent is sent to the Congo?

Mr. K. Boland

At least three for every one we want.

Mr. Norton

Is that on the basis of replacement in whole?

Mr. K. Boland

We are proposing to send only one battalion.

General MacEoin

I think the Minister's statement on the matter is quite clear. It is imperative that he should have authority to keep the existing troops in the Congo after this Bill has been passed. If he did not have this clause in the Bill, he would not have that power. I am aware that there is still a spirit of adventure prompting the troops who are volunteering for the Congo. They are not disheartened in any way. Their morale is high and I should not like that it would go out from this House that there was any lowering of morale among the troops because of what happened.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to make it quite clear that this amendment was not put down for the purpose of suggesting, as Deputy MacEoin did, that there was an idea the morale of the Army had gone down. There is no question about that. The Minister has covered the point completely when he states that, insofar as signing for service with the new battalion is concerned, the volunteers will not be asked to do so until this measure becomes law. Every man is now in the position that his eyes are opened. I have not the slightest doubt that many will go in a spirit of adventure. Apart from that, there are many very sensible, reasonable men who would like to know for certain that they will not be used for the purpose of partitioning the Congo.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 3:

Before section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other enactment the maximum period of service of personnel despatched for service outside the State for the purposes of this Act shall not exceed six months on any one period of such service."

We have asked for the insertion of this new section because we think a six-month period is the maximum desirable. I do not suggest that our men would not stay there as long as they were asked or expected to stay, but I think we should alternate our troops. When we have an opportunity of switching battalions and interchanging forces we should not ask our men to serve for any longer period in the terribly demanding, onerous and strenuous conditions under which they are now operating in the Congo. If the Minister is not prepared to accept six months but is prepared to make his own limitation, we would be agreeable to considering that. Six months was the period accepted by the House in July. We think it is the desirable period. The main thing is that some limitation should be placed on the length of stay abroad by our troops undertaking difficult police duties and possibly having to live under military conditions at some stage.

Mr. McQuillan

understood to-day that the Taoiseach was to make an announcement at 8 o'clock this evening in connection with the Order of Business.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Taoiseach, I take it.

Mr. McQuillan

He was to make a statement in connection with the Order of Business tomorrow. The only way in which many Deputies will know what the Order of Business is will be if the Taoiseach comes into the House and makes an announcement. He said to-day he would inform the House at 8 o'clock. That is on the record.

Mr. K. Boland

We made it clear to the United Nations that the maximum period during which our troops would serve in the Congo would be six months. We consider that is a reasonable period taking everything into account. This Bill is not for the Congo alone. It is for any future situation that may arise. The circumstances in the future may be different. From the point of view of climate and conditions generally, the duties to be performed, we are satisfied that six months is more than enough to ask our troops to serve in the Congo. We made that quite clear to the United Nations. We are of that opinion still and we do not intend any of our troops to remain there for longer than six months. Circumstances, however, in any particular situation will obviously have to determine the frequency with which troops should be replaced. It is obvious there could be situations in which it would be no hardship for troops to remain for a longer period. A period of twelve months might not be excessively long in a particular area provided the normal leave, and so forth, was available to our troops. We cannot determine in advance that six months should be the maximum period for every situation that may arise in the future. It is reasonable to ask that this should be left flexible. It is obvious the Government would take the circumstances in every case into account and make the necessary stipulation before sending any contingent to help the United Nations.

Mr. Norton

Can we take it that, so far as this new battalion is concerned, it will not be required to serve in the Congo for longer than six months?

Mr. K. Boland

That is correct.

Mr. Norton

Has the Minister any information as to the maximum period during which other white troops are required to serve in the Congo? How do we stand in relation to other countries which have sent contingents of white troops? I understand the Belgians did not leave white troops there for as long as six months. Technicians stayed there in permanent employment. Has the Minister any information on that matter?

Mr. K. Boland

I have no definite information, but I understand six months is the usual period in relation to United Nations Forces.

Mr. Norton

How long will the Norwegians stay there?

Mr. K. Boland

I do not know. I think it is six months. As far as I know, six months is the period in regard to all troops. So far as our troops are concerned six months does not seem to be too much, as the Taoiseach stated on the Second Reading of the Bill. We have had reports from the Chief of Staff, who has just come back from the Congo, that the troops are in very good heart; they have been working under difficult conditions and under considerable strain, but their morale is excellent; they are in good heart and in good condition.

Mr. Norton

Good heart is, of course, a characteristic of the Irish soldier everywhere and has won renown for him on the battlefields of the World. My information is that there is tremendous enthusiasm about getting home from the Congo. A correspondent of some standing says that he is looking forward to getting home soon; he wants to get out of "this living hell". That is the description in this letter I have here. Having some knowledge of the territory I can sympathise with his point of view and I am anxious that we should not put our people into the position of being constrained by exigency to stay there longer. They have been sent there to act as a police force. In the event of war they will have no business there. War is no part of their function.

There are 97 other countries in association with the United Nations Organisation and we are entitled to ask that they should discharge their obligations. We ought not to be given either an undue proportion or a disproportion of responsibility in relation to other countries. Neither should our people get the rough end of the stick acting as police in troublesome areas like the Congo. I hope that the Minister will not be diverted by pleas of urgency to decide that our troops should stay there longer than those of other countries. There are a whole lot of people who have not gone near the place at all.

Dr. Browne

Deputy Norton has raised a very interesting point in his quotation of the title of the Bill and the police character of the force going out. I wonder if that can be verified by the Minister. Part II of the requirements of the United Nations is that they have military assistance which may be necessary to the government of the Congo. Is there any difference between police work and military assistance? Apropos of the amendment, in view of the Minister's undertaking that this six month period applies to soldiers serving in the Congo, and that it is the maximum period which they will be called on to serve, we withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 4.

Mr. K. Boland

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 45, after "serve" to insert", or continue to serve,".

This is purely a drafting amendment to bring the wording into line with that used in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the same subsection.

Mr. Norton

Was this amendment circulated?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It appears on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in practically all the other Sections where reference is made to personnel, the word "member" is used but in Section 4, line 51, the word "man" is used instead of the word "member". I raised this point on the Second Reading debate and I say that in introducing legislation likely to be permanent and which deals with the future, it should be borne in mind that we might be sending personnel abroad which would not consist of men. We might be sending nurses or ambulance drivers abroad in conjunction with the Army.

Mr. K. Boland

This section deals with the rights which members of the Defence Forces have during normal peace time with regard to their retention in a particular corps. Those rights are curtailed during periods of emergency and it is obviously necessary to curtail them in respect of a period of service with the. United Nations Force abroad.

Mr. Norton

Look at Section 3 (1) (a) (1) which says an "officer of the Permanent Defence Force". Underneath that you get another category of "a man of the Defence Force". By that I take it we mean a member of the Defence Forces who is not an officer. In Section 4 another category is introduced, a member of the Permanent Defence Force. Are these synonymous terms or is the man something other than an officer? There are three categories and I am trying to identify them.

Mr. K. Boland

That is the position. A member means an officer, non-commissioned officer and soldier. The man is a non-commissioned officer or private soldier.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister will remember that I also raised this point on Second Reading when I mentioned the case of a man born years ago in India of Irish parents who was unable to enter the United States of America because he was on the Indian quota. I see in this section where the births are to be registered. In the event of personnel having children born to them in Africa, will it be possible to have such babies born in Africa registered here at home as being born of Irish parents? I have already mentioned the case of a man 75 years of age who was unable to join his family in America because he was born in India.

Mr. K. Boland

That matter could not be covered in a Bill like this, which provides for the registration of births and deaths in those circumstances. That would come under the Citizenship Act.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I was only suggesting that the Minister should consider the point and see if anything could be done about it.

Mr. K. Boland

I shall undertake to have the matter investigated but I doubt if it could be covered in this Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

What is the position under Section 6 if a member gets married abroad? What is the position with regard to his offspring? How would the child be registered in such a case?

Mr. K. Boland

No provision is being made here in regard to that matter. I understand that very complicated legislation would be required in that respect. If such a situation did arise, we would have to face up to it.

Mr. McQuillan

It is quite possible.

General MacEoin

Is it not true that any person either of whose parents was born in the State is deemed to be a natural born citizen?

Mr. K. Boland

Speaking as a layman, that is what I thought.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

My point is a different one. There is an immigration quota for each country, and the immigration quota for India into the United States is very small.

General MacEoin

Had he not the right to register as an Irishman?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This man was registered as an Irish citizen but he could not get into the United States because he was born in India.

Mr. K. Boland

That is United States law. We could do nothing about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Mr. Norton

I hope we are not taking the Report Stage now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Report Stage?

Mr. Norton

I want to move an amendment on the Report Stage. May I do it tomorrow morning?

Mr. K. Boland

Yes.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It could be moved now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to move the amendment now the matter can be disposed of.

The Taoiseach

Before the Deputy does so, may I make an announcement?