Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1929

Vol. 11 No. 7

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1929—SECOND STAGE.

Question proposed: That this Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. ROBINSON

I am tempted to suggest that the sub-title of this Bill should be "Hardy Annual." From year to year, Senators are regaled with these little Bills as if they were rare and refreshing fruit. In reality they are hardy old plants that for the last five or six years have been sapping the vitality of the country. There have been a good many millions of money expended during that period. Year after year, they contain the suggestion that they are merely small Bills of a temporary nature and that permanent legislation will be introduced later. This Bill contains a similar suggestion. Last year the Minister, like his predecessors, announced that the Bill was of a temporary nature.

I suggest that permanent legislation be introduced. Now that the Minister is dealing with the re-organisation of the Army, I ask him whether he is in the position to give a definite statement as to whether he will introduce legislation of a permanent nature this year. As things are, we must oppose Bills dealing with the Army until it is reduced and placed on a basis which is economic as far as the country is concerned.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know how many Senators know what they are asked to re-enact. This is an Act containing 246 sections and 8 schedules. It deals with the government of the Defence Forces of the State. It gives the Executive Council authority to set up a Defence Force. It contains provisions whereby discipline in those forces can be maintained. It gives a great deal of authority to the Defence Forces over the average citizen in matters such as billeting, requisitioning horses and cars, and arranging the allowances that would be paid for such requisition; the rights of the officer over the soldier, and the rights of the soldier and the duties of the soldier, especially the duties. That Bill was introduced in 1923, and no single section of it has had any consideration by the Dáil or the Seanad. There has been a certain amount of Second Reading discussion in the Dáil, but there was no Second Reading or Third Reading discussion, and no Final Stage discussion in the Seanad. The whole 246 sections and 8 schedules passed without one minute's discussion. That Act has been re-enacted year after year, and each year there was a promise that within the next twelve months a permanent Act would be introduced. We are still waiting for the permanent Act. On the occasion of the 1923 Bill certain views were expressed in the Dáil hoping that

"The scheme of organisation, the scheme of administration, the various grades of commissioned rank from General downwards will not be taken as establishing any vested interests for those officers of higher rank in case a future Dáil decides upon a different scheme of organisation."

When this was then being discussed the Minister for Defence at that time said he was going to introduce a permanent measure which could be fully discussed within six months of that date. The objection was raised that the passage of the Bill in a temporary form might be said to be giving the higher officer a certain amount of right in his position which would entitle him to a certain amount of remuneration or payment in the case of a change in the scheme of organisation. The Minister for Defence at the time made these remarks:—

"I thought I made it clear that all commissions held at the present time are temporary commissions, and that all commissions that would be held under the present Act would be temporary commissions also.... The present holders of either high or low ranks in the Army do not hold them as vested interests of any kind."

The general impression he gave us was that they were temporary commissions, and that the pay they received, or would receive under future regulations, would be in the nature of remuneration for loss of time in the service they were giving, and would not entitle them to anything in the way of vested rights. We are familiar enough with the fact that within the last year or two there has been a considerable amount of compensation—I think that is the correct word to use—paid to officers who had been induced to retire by the offer of compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the Oireachtas has been living under the assurance that these were temporary commissions, and that there was no right or authority under the Act to appoint officers to anything but temporary commissions, and therefore, there were no vested interests of any kind being created. It is important to know that this Act which is supposed to be temporary entitles the Army authorities to enlist a soldier for twenty-one years, and there is frequent reference to twelve years' service. The section regarding the billeting and victualling of soldiers seems to be copied from antiquated legislation that does not fit in with the requirements of the country. There are references to a constable. I do not know who is the equivalent of a constable in the Gárda Síochána, whether it is the Guard himself or the Superintendent, but the constable has certain rights and powers under this Act which we are asked to re-enact. There are certain provisions regarding apprentices, and a whole series of provisions that are very doubtful as to their fitness to our conditions, but they have been re-enacted year after year. They have never had any discussion or consideration by the Dáil or Seanad. Senator Connolly has just spoken, urging that there should be permanent legislation, and that we should know exactly where we stand in regard to a permanent scheme of organisation. There was a good deal of discussion in the early stages when the Bill was being first examined as to the desirability of providing for a standing Army at all, and I think that if a section of the community which was represented by the spokesmen who made these proposals were still of the same mind there would be no standing Army. The position may have changed, The section of the community which, as I said then, put forward those views may have revised their judgement and may prefer to retain the present system, but the opportunity for discussing that matter has never yet been given. I think the Minister in charge ought to state for the assurance of the Seanad what is his view of the present position and of the future, how soon that future will be provided for, and what is the present state of the organisation of the Army.

I want to come to a matter a little more abstract and perhaps a matter of more permanent importance. What we are providing for in this Bill is intended to implement the Constitution. It is provided in Article 46 of the Constitution that:—

"The Oireachtas has the exclusive right to regulate the raising and maintaining of such armed forces as are mentioned in the Scheduled Treaty in the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann), and every such force shall be subject to the control of the Oireachtas."

That is as definite as anything could be. I am anxious to know from the Minister whether every such openly armed forces in the territory of the Irish Free State are subject to the control of the Oireachtas. "The Oireachtas has the exclusive right to regulate the raising and maintaining of such armed forces as are mentioned in the Scheduled Treaty——" The armed forces mentioned in the Scheduled Treaty are in paragraph 8. I will leave out the question of coastal defence for the moment. In paragraph 8 of the Treaty it is provided:

"With a view to securing the observance of the principle of international limitation of armaments, if the Government of the Irish Free State establishes and maintains a military defence force, the establishments thereof shall not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain."

That is one reference in the Scheduled Treaty to armed forces. There is this reference to coastal defence:

"Until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty's Imperial Forces."

Then there is this reference:

"The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial forces: (a) in time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex;" and "(b) in time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence."

There are references to armed forces in Article 46 of the Constitution. It may be pointed out that the Annex referred to in the Treaty does not specifically deal with armed forces at all. "Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties." It is not necessary for a man or a group of men to take care of maintenance defences, and there is no reference in any of these paragraphs dealing with defence to armed forces, but even if there were, Article 46 provides that "every such force shall be subject to the control of the Oireachtas." I want to know where and in what way the armed forces which are in British uniform at Berehaven, Lough Swilly and places around the coast, are subject to the control of the Oireachtas, and are raised and maintained by the Oireachtas. I do not believe that the Oireachtas has any control whatever over those armed forces. It seems to me to be a distinct departure from the requirements of the Constitution that there should be any armed forces within the Free State which are not raised and maintained by the Oireachtas and subject to the control of the Oireachtas. If the Minister has not already given consideration to that matter it is one which I hope he will immediately take into account. If he thinks it does not require consideration perhaps he can give his answer immediately. I do not press for an immediate answer, but I would ask that if the rights which are secured to the Free State under the Constitution are being violated or abrogated in any way, he should insist that those rights shall be maintained, and that all armed forces within the Free State, whether called British care and maintenance parties or not, should be brought under the control of the Oireachtas.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald)

Both Senators who have spoken have referred to the absence of a permanent Act. Last year in introducing this Bill I did say in the other House that a permanent Bill would be introduced at the end of the period of that Bill, but immediately I entered upon a very comprehensive scheme of re-organisation, and as I progressed with it, it became apparent to me that it would not be of any advantage to the Army or the State to commit ourselves to a permanent Act based on an Army which was at the moment in a state of flux. That organisation has gone ahead up to this day, and my experience of entering into unwarranted optimistic prophecy naturally deters me from going out of my way to give any promise the fulfilment of which I am not able completely to guarantee. We introduced a temporary Army Act in 1923, and the very temporariness of that Act has brought the whole Army up for discussion, not merely on Estimates, but on the re-introduction of this Bill, and so far as lack of consideration by the Oireachtas is concerned I think the temporary nature of this Bill has brought it more than usually into the power of the Oireachtas to discuss and, by discussion, to control the Army.

Senator Johnson says that it is a very long Bill. It is a long Bill, and it is a very complicated Bill. Its length and complication, and the whole complicated system necessary in dealing with armed forces, for they need more rigid discipline and control than ordinary citizens, is one of the factors making for the postponement of a permanent Bill. I wish to tell Senator Johnson quite frankly that I regard the Army as a permanent institution. I regard the officers at present in the Army as having some security of tenure, and it is on those postulations that I work. Senator Johnson referred to the position of the Government regarding billeting and the requisitioning of cars. Everybody knows that in the Army you have to take into account abnormal times as well as normal. You have more or less to trust the Minister in control of the Army not wantonly to go about billeting or requisitioning cars. I think it would be hard for anybody to point to a case of billeting or requisitioning of cars since normal conditions of social order have been established. Such special rights have to be incorporated in the Act having regard to abnormal circumstances, but I think that during my time in office, and I think I can say that of my predecessors, these powers have not been applied in normal conditions. In abnormal conditions, when the existence of the State is dependent on the operations of the Army, the Army must be given all the power it needs to sustain the State.

Senator Johnson spoke of vested interests in the Army, and he seemed to question the need of a standing Army. I must say again quite frankly that I regard an Army as impossible in this country without a standing Army. I regard the Army in this State as a permanent institution. As far as this Bill is concerned the Seanad is only committing itself to the 31st January of next year, but there will be further legislation to continue the Army after that date, as I consider it one of the necessary institutions of the State. I was not sure of what Senator Johnson said when he spoke of the control of the Oireachtas over armed forces. I thought he was referring to certain illegal organisations in the State. This, of course, goes outside my sphere as Minister for Defence, but as far as the Constitution is concerned the Schedule to it is an integral part of the Constitution. We know there are certain places in which there are care and maintenance parties, and these places are armed. I do not want to speak ex cathedra on a matter which is outside my province on this Bill, but it does seem to me, to give an ad hoc legal interpretation of a document, that if you had in a document that which is a very integral part of the Constitution, men occupying fortified armed places, that that does cover the existence of those armed men. If those men march out from those places bearing arms they only do that in so far as we permit them to do it. There is no inherent right in their position to enable them to march across the country as armed men.

We know that there was a dastardly attack by criminals on some of these men at Cobh some years ago, and anyone who cares anything for our national reputation will feel that there is some justification for those men taking precautions against similar things happening in the future. But so far as these places are concerned, when the document read out by Senator Johnson was drawn up, these places were armed places, and the men who occupy these places can be declared to be armed men, for if a man is standing in front of a marine gun he is armed equally with the man who carries a rifle. The Treaty provided for the temporary holding of armed places by men, and therefore it is implied these men are there armed. When they march out and carry arms they do so only in so far as we permit them to do so. In the actual position there is no actual breach of the Constitution, and the Constitution includes the Schedule to the Treaty. Naturally nobody has more reason to regret that this is a temporary Bill than I have. I am anxious that there should be a permanent measure as soon as possible, if only that the vested interests of the men in the Army may be more clearly established. I have sufficient reliance on both Houses of the Oireachtas to believe those men have that security of tenure independent of a permanent measure which I intend to bring in, but I have to consider what the best interests of the State and the Army demand. I do not feel at this moment that I would be in a position to bring in a permanent measure adverting to every possible need of the Army in the future and indicating the organisation which is most suitable for the Army.

Most Senators know that during last year we reduced considerably the standing Army making it the framework, which was to be filled in by other organisations such as the A and B reserves, and the Volunteer reserves. We have progressed in that direction with extraordinary speed. I feel I have done that, and that nobody could expect me to do more. Senator Robinson, and anybody with any intelligence who knows the realities of administering an organisation like the Army or a Department of State, anybody who adverts to the difficulties there, must recognise that the movement in that direction has been as complete as could humanly speaking possibly be done within the period. I hope to bring in a permanent Act as soon as possible. I do not want to be pressed beyond that, for having promised that when the other Bill was introduced over a year ago I found when it came to the Estimates that it would not be possible for me having regard to the interest of the Army to proceed with it, and I had to get up and say that the promise I made could not be fulfilled. I do not like promising when I am not completely certain of being able to fulfil the promise. All I say is that by passing this Bill the Seanad provides for next year, and either during that time or at the end of it we will have to produce a permanent Act, or will have to come back again to the Seanad, when the Seanad will again have the opportunity of considering the whole Army question. It seems to me that the lack of a permanent Act has added to and not taken from the powers of the Oireachtas over the Army.

Question put and agreed to.