The question arises as to whether our Defence Forces are of such a character that they could be evolved into forces which could play a part in a defence community in tion to contingency planning an imme-Europe. This is not, perhaps, in reladiate issue but presumably this is something which should be considered.
Another question arises, and I phrase this differently from the way I phrased what I have said hitherto. The things I have spoken about hitherto are things which seem to me to be appropriate aims and objectives for our Defence Forces. What I speak about now does not seem to be such an objective. There is a question which has been raised by some voices from the Government benches as to whether our Defence Forces should be used not for purposes of defence but for other purposes across the Border. This question has raised itself in two ways. One issue upon which we have had, perhaps, a measure of clarification, if not complete clarification, has been that of using them at some point to end Partition; that is, by an act of aggression the Six Counties would be seized and held by a new form of conquest by our armed forces. That is a question upon which there seems to have been, rather reluctantly from some Ministers, clarification, suggesting that this is not, in fact, an objective of Government policy or the policy of particular Ministers.
There is a second issue as to whether in the event of a situation arising similar to that in Northern Ireland last August our Defence Forces should be used to intervene in order to protect part of the population in Northern Ireland. This is a separate issue on which we have had a clear statement from a Government Minister—which has never been withdrawn but which has been frequently repeated despite the apparently contrary view of the head of the Government—that our Defence Forces should, in certain circumstances, be used in this way. This is a matter on which we need clarification. I can think of no better person than the Minister for Defence of whom to ask a question of this kind—whether this is an object of contingency planning, whether he shares the view of another member of the Government that this is a proper function of the Defence Forces and whether he views the force as being required for that purpose? This is certainly the policy of some members of how many because on that issue we have had different views from different people but, as a number appear neutral on this matter, we do not know the weight of opinion in the Cabinet.
We are entitled to raise the question here as to whether the Minister visualises our Army having this function of intervention. If he does, he should state the circumstances; are we confined to intervening as part of a UN force, at the instance of the British authorities or on our own independent initiative? We should be told the opinion of both factions in the Government on this matter. I do not think this is a proper function for our Defence Forces, to intervene outside the boundaries of the State as constituted, save as part of a UN force or with the consent of the particular country concerned. This is true of Northern Ireland as it is true elsewhere but the matter should be clarified.
Given however that our Defence Forces have the functions I first specified, and leaving out this matter which I have just mentioned as one I would hope the Government and the Minister would deem inappropriate, are our Defence Forces as at present constituted appropriate for these aims? Assuming that the Defence Forces have the function of providing a cadre to be expanded in time of emergency or war, even if they have an internal security function, given that they have a function to serve as peace-keeping forces in the UN and that they may develop in some way to play their part in a European community, are our forces appropriate?
Am I correct in assuming that these are the objectives of our Defence Forces and, if not, will the Minister please state what are the objectives? If these are the objectives can the Minister say whether the Defence Forces, as at present equipped and manned, are able to secure these objectives and if not, what conclusions have the Government drawn? A debate on this subject should deal with these fundamentals as well as with the accidentals like show jumping and fishery protection and the accidentals of the long-haired students which were raised on both sides of the House. From what little knowledge I have it is clear to me that our forces lack either the strength or the arms to fulfil adequately some of these functions but if we are not clear of what the Army's own view is in regard to their resources it makes the debate difficult. In opening the debate the Minister should have spoken in broad terms about our defence policy rather than leave it to be raised during the debate.
There are one or two points I wish to make. First, regarding the question of fishery protection, I am not entirely convinced that this is a function of the Defence Forces. Given that the resources of the Defence Forces are extraordinarily limited, there is a conflict between the interests of the Defence Forces qua Defence Forces as regards the type of naval equipment they require and the interests of fishery protection. Deputy Esmonde made this point in his speech. If the Defence Forces are to provide even a nucleus of an ultimate naval defence force with trained people they must have vessels of a genuine naval character on which to train. In his intervention the Minister suggested that the type of vessel mentioned would cost £6 million. This may explain why we have not got such a vessel. Given that the cost of the smaller units required for this kind of training function is so great and that the resources allocated to our Defence Forces are so small, it is inevitable that, given the choice between adequate fishery protection and fulfilling their basic function of providing training for a cadre of naval officers, the Defence Forces should tend to favour vessels of a kind which are costly to the point where we cannot have many of them and whose design may not be related to the needs of fishery protection.
From what I have heard recently it appears some thought is being given to buying one vessel for the naval service which might provide adequate means of training people. However, one, two, or three such vessels are totally inadequate for fishery protection work. In dealing with this question of protection the Government acts as if we did not live on an island with an extensive coastline. It is impossible for a small number of vessels to protect our coastline and this fact is well known to the fishermen of other countries and with the extension of our fishing limits the area is even greater.
The needs of fishery protection would best be met by having a number of vessels located around the coast. They need not be very fast because the vessels they would be chasing would not be very fast; they need not be powerfully armed because one machine gun would deter most fishermen from trying to get away and they need not be very big because a vessel large enough to carry a man and a machine gun is all that is needed. This is what we need for fishery protection work but what we need for naval training is quite different. For this purpose we would need perhaps a frigate or a corvette. I am not an expert on this matter so I do not know how many would be required.
These two functions are totally distinct and it is understandable, if regrettable, that our Defence Forces, forced to choose between those two functions, should choose what they consider most important in fulfilling their primary purpose. It is because the Government have allocated the function of fishery protection to the Defence Forces and have not provided them with adequate resources that we are now faced with inadequacies in our fishery protection work. The opinion, of experts in the industry is that we should have vessels situated at perhaps five points around our coast. These vessels might not be much more than fishing vessels themselves—perhaps with slightly faster engines—with a crew of half-a-dozen, including local people who would know the area and who would be readily available. This might best be done perhaps under the auspices of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara with a few naval officers lent by the Defence Forces. Perhaps it could be done by the Defence Forces but past experience has shown us that this need has not been met. My experience of administration suggests that where one has administrative structures in which there are pressures against meeting a need because of another need appearing more relevant, it is best to transfer a particular function to another administrative area rather than to wait hopefully year after year and decade after decade for the function to be performed within the administrative area in which it is mislocated. The Minister should reconsider the position. Perhaps it is not the function of the Minister to consider whether or not this is something that should be carried out in his Department, but the Government should consider it and I sincerely hope they will.
Within the Department itself there are problems of administration which have been highlighted by the Devlin Report. Some of the comments are very striking. One of the things that struck me in particular is the reference in paragraph 23.1.4 to a council of defence "to aid and counsel the Minister on all matters in relation to the business of the Department of Defence on which the Minister may consult the Council". That council consists of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, the secretary of the department, the chief of staff, the adjutant-general and the quartermaster-general. The report goes on:
The Secretary of the Department is also the Secretary of the Council of Defence. We understand that meetings, in fact, occur only infrequently.
One notes in regard to this particular body that three of the five people are, in fact, members of the Defence Forces, one is a politician and one is a civil servant. Now the report says that commission understands that meetings, in fact, occur only infrequently. I wonder why they occur infrequently. Is it, perhaps, that the Department of Defence does not like the idea of the Minister being advised by a body on which three of the people concerned are professional military people, putting him in the position in which the advice offered to him is no longer offered to him through the Department of Defence? If that is not the reason, could we be told the reason why this body does, in fact, meet only infrequently? Surely it is the kind of body we ought to have. It could fulfil a useful function. It was established under the Act of 1954 and we would like to know why, in fact, it is not operating.
The report's recommendations are quite simple and to the point. The council of defence should meet regularly. It should be the means whereby the members of the council have both the collective duty of advising the Minister on matters relevant to the Department of Defence and the individual responsibility of carrying out the resulting decisions within their own spheres. That makes very clear how our defence affairs should be run and how, indeed, they are run in other countries where they are not quite so much in the grip of the civilian side as is our Department of Defence. I recognise that, if one did some historical research, one might find the reason for this type of civilian control and why the Minister is not advised by such a body, even if it is there to advise him. We might find that the reason why we have this tradition of keeping the Army at arm's length and channelling advice through civilian advisers may well lie in our own history and I may well be told by the Minister that this originated at the time when my father was Minister for Defence and when he had the task of bringing the Army fully under control so that, when the time came for a democratic change of government, the people whom we had defeated a few years earlier would not attempt to intervene in this democratic process. There may also have been a problem of extravagance, and so on, in the ordering of supplies carried over from the Civil War period. I recognise that. It may be that this goes back to the `Twenties and the early' Thirties, but the time has now come to have a more modern and normal system of administration and I should like the Minister's views on this recommendation of the Devlin Report.
The other striking feature is the duplication of functions between the military and the civilian side of the Defence Forces. In paragraph 23.3.1 the report says:
The administrative procedures of the Department of Defence are based on a rigorous interpretation of the requirements of civilian control, and of financial supervision by the civil side of the Department. This has resulted in a dual structure, consisting of a Secretariat and a General Headquarters, in which there is extensive duplication of function.
The duplication of function is perhaps most extensive in the areas of procurement, contract administration, and stores accounting and auditing.
Efficiency would be enhanced if this dual structure were eliminated, while adequate provisions were made to provide for supervision of financial estimates and expenditures. The recommendations in the next section of this chapter provide for a merging of the military and civilian functions in a new executive unit for supply.
These are rather strong statements about duplication of function and the Minister should, I think, tell us what his views are on this. Here we have had an investigation carried out by an expert group, with the help of consultants from abroad, consultants whose employment caused some controversy, some of it unnecessary, I think, and we have had this report based on these domestic and external studies and those responsible for the report have found this serious defect in the Department, this extensive duplication of function which is having a bad effect on efficiency. The report states that efficiency would be enhanced if the dual structure were eliminated and the proposal is that these functions should be merged.
I hope the Minister will not hide, as other Ministers have attempted to do, behind the statement that the report is being considered by the Government and is, therefore, sub judice. We have had this experience in a number of cases. I do not think this position should be sustained. I can quite understand that the Government are making up their minds on the crucial basic positions, the establishment of a public service department and the creation of a branch in each Department with responsibility for policy, separated to some degree from the executive units. This is a basic issue. There are also basic issues of recruitment policy and the Government are quite properly making up their minds on this and, perhaps, in the Budget Statement they will give us some indications of Government policy. I do not expect the Minister to anticipate but, in cases where criticisms are made of a Department and its methods of operation, the Minister has an obligation to answer criticisms made here and to indicate whether he is looking into them, with a view to effecting changes, or whether he is entirely satisfied with the present position. I hope the Minister will say something about that when he comes to reply.
There are two other matters in relation to which I should like to support the advice expressed by both sides of the House. One relates to pensions for the widows of Old IRA. The absence of these seems to me to be a particularly unfortunate omission from our system of pensions and I urge that something be done about it. Of its nature it could not be very costly at this stage. Secondly, I support what has been said about arrangements to resettle members of the Defence Forces on retirement. Our provisions are at the moment inadequate. We are not as well organised as they are in other countries. The members of our Defence Forces are owed the same debt of gratitude for their services as are the members of defence forces in other countries and we have the same obligation as other countries to look after our Defence Forces. I hope the Minister will tackle this problem immediately in conjunction with the Department of Labour. Now that we have a Department of Labour actively involved in this question of resettlement and retraining it should be easy to tackle this matter and I hope that this time next year we will hear of genuine progress made in this particular direction.
