I move:
Section 2.— To delete the words "or reinforce" in line 46.
On an amendment moved on the Committee Stage to Section 2 subsection (2) (c) it was sought to delete the section. The purpose of the subsection was to empower the Minister to send on service outside the country a contingent of troops if that contingent was intended to replace, in whole or in part, or reinforce a contingent of the Permanent Defence Forces serving outside the State as part of that international United Nations Force and consisting of more than 12 members of the Permanent Defence Force.
I want to avoid as far as possible going over all the ground that has been covered in the Committee Stage discussion on the section. I said then that, so far as I was concerned, I was prepared to agree that, having entered into the commitment to send troops to the Congo, we should continue to honour that if circumstances remained in any way comparable to those in which we first entered into the commitment. I would not, for example, see any special reason why if every other country pulled its troops out of the Congo we should leave Irish troops to provide a blood bath. However, on the assumption that the circumstances would be comparable to those in which the contingent was sent in the first instance, and provided the Government were satisfied that nationally and internationally our continued participation in the policing of the Congo was justified, I was again willing to allow the replacement of those who were sent out so that they could be relieved for home duties and so that we could fulfil our obligations to those who went out, as well as to the United Nations.
In this section, however, there is power taken to reinforce the troops which are out there and, in that connection, while the Dáil was sitting there might be two battalions of Irish troops in the Congo and, by the time we came back after the Christmas Recess, there might be four or five battalions of Irish troops in the Congo without Parliament having had an opportunity of considering the matter. So long as Parliament is allowed to consider the matter, Parliament by a majority can take any decision it likes. I do not question that. Nevertheless, I take the view, and I think my parliamentary responsibilities compel me to take the view, that if having in the first instance agreed to a Bill which provides for the sending of two battalions of troops to the Congo, my support of its passage is used, or misused, as the case may be, to send three more battalions, then I am morally bound to take some steps to prevent an undesirable situation such as that arising.
The Minister said to-day that this section was necessary because, when you got out to the Congo, you might discover that you were missing a signalman or a driver and, therefore, you needed some reinforcements. However, I do not think we should give the Government — this Government or any Government — a Bill which empowers them to send out one contingent, in the first instance, followed perhaps by two contingents, not to reinforce the first but to increase its strength by 100 per cent., 200 per cent. or 300 per cent.
If circumstances arise in which there is a call for reinforcements in the Congo the question ought to be discussed in the Dáil and the Minister ought to say: "There is a change in the whole situation. We originally intended to send two battalions but we now discover, for reasons with which we will acquaint the House, that more than two are necessary. We think five are necessary. As this is a wide departure from the decision taken in the first instance we think the Dáil should be told about it and we want authority to send"— four, five, or six battalions, as the case may be. Parliament want to get a chance of looking at that situation. It is not just a question of counting heads, but of an entirely new political situation in the Congo. The Dáil ought to get a chance of evaluating circumstances of that kind and of saying what it wishes the Government to do.
My amendment would not prevent the Government from replacing, in whole or part, the troops sent there. Having relieved them and brought them home, we could say to the Government: "You cannot reinforce the troops you originally sent there unless you come to the Dáil and ask for the necessary authority to do that." After all, as I have said, these troops are not taking a position of Custer's Last Stand. According to the Bill, they are there as police officers. We are entitled to say to the people who want our police officers: "We are willing to give you a certain number but beyond that we cannot go without coming to our own Parliament." In the long run this Parliament is the custodian of the interests of the nation.
I think the Government could quite easily accept, in detail or in principle, that it will not send troops to the Congo or elsewhere in excess of the number sent in the first instance without coming back to the Dáil and getting the necessary authority. If the Dáil, in its wisdom, thinks the situation is such as would necessitate giving the Government authority to send additional troops its good sense would prevail on an occasion like that as it always has prevailed. In the meantime the Government should be held to consulting Parliament so that the Parliament would have an opportunity of evaluating the whole situation afresh and in the light of what we should do in relation to others and in relation to the general circumstances.
