I should like to inform Senators that I am looking for the remaining Stages of this Bill to-day.
Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.
Before we enter on the Committee Stage, I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give me a date. He said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill: "Senator Fitzgerald would appear to think that these things never happened in his time. They did happen in his time. Mountjoy Jail, a fortification stronger than the Magazine itself, was raided in a manner just as leisurely, and every single person in whom the people who raided that fort or bastille, or whatever you like to call it, were interested, they took out of that prison." I should like to know the date of the incident to which the Minister is referring.
I could not give you the exact date.
Or the year?
It was about the year 1927, or some period like that. It has passed into the realms of history. You could easily find it out. It is not a difficult matter. It is a fact that Mountjoy Prison was raided and every political prisoner was released.
I think the general understanding is that when we make a statement we are able to give the reference.
My reference is the historical fact that it took place.
The matter of the year was rather vital.
I think it was about 1926 or 1927, but I could not be certain. It is not so difficult to find it out. It can be found out very easily.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know whether I am in order in asking the Minister a question on this section. There is a good deal of misapprehension through ignorance in this country as to the status of officers. My experience, hitherto, always has been that no officer is entitled to ask for a court-martial on his conduct, and that he can only have a court of inquiry on his conduct in other countries by permission of the Minister for Defence. Might I ask the Minister, for the general information of the people, whether the regulations in this country are as I have suggested?
That is whether an officer is entitled to a court-martial or not?
Whether he is entitled to a court-martial or a court of inquiry if his conduct is impugned in any way.
That rests entirely in the hands of the Minister.
He is not entitled to it by law?
As far as I am aware, no.
"By law", the Senator means under the D.F.R.?
Yes, under Defence Force Regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
It is in the natural order of things that an Opposition when debating any matters are, if you like, at a certain disadvantage. Senator McEllin last week, speaking in reference to the Taoiseach's power to deal with Ministers, said that the Minister was more brainy than I am. I am not exactly agreeing with that, but, if it amounts to anything, I quite agree that the Minister has more sources of information at his disposal. The caretaker of the British Museum Library has enormous means of knowing almost everything, but I am afraid that he does not avail himself of the opportunity thus afforded him. While the Minister feels, as he says, bound by certain conclusions that may be arrived at, the Minister may bring out certain information not hitherto known showing a thing in a completely different light. Senator McEllin talks about my slashing at the Government, but I was guilty of nothing of the sort. I quite realise that a representative of the Government closely in touch with the relevant facts may be able to throw a light on an incident which would completely vitiate the criticisms put forward.
In regard to this matter, it does not matter what I said. One can really judge by the defence put up. I think, looking over the debate of last week, that the condemnation of the present control of the Army comes from the defence put up for it. I shall take one or two things mentioned in the debate. I do not know how far Senator McEllin can be considered a representative of the Government but he seems to misrepresent practically everything. He says that I went on the line of slashing the Government because some ammunition was stolen and that I said that Ministers were solely responsible. I think the other Senator—"cúpla focal a rá agam", Senator Healy—also suggested that I based everything I said about the Army on the fact that there had been a raid on the Magazine Fort. I did nothing of the sort. What I said last week I stated practically in all its details a month or two before the Magazine Fort was raided. The significance in relation to what I did say of the Magazine Fort raid was that it came along, perhaps I should not say as a most unfortunate proof, because a single item does not prove anything, but rather as a confirmation or as giving greater stress to what I had stated. I had stated a month or two before the Magazine Fort raid took place that I understood that the general discipline of the Army had disimproved. What Senator McEllin said did not advert to the case I made, or to the facts which I cited, one of which was the infiltration into the Army of Reservists. The Minister said that I did not know what I was talking about as a reservist was no longer able to resign on giving seven days' notice. I am quite aware of that but what I do not understand is why a higher standard of discipline should be expected from men who could resign on seven days' notice. Remember that was Ministerial policy. That was not the independent policy of any individual officer or of any individual section. It was general Governmental policy.
These reservists were formed, and it is in the natural order of things that when men—and the Minister admitted this—can resign on seven days' notice, we cannot expect that the same discipline will apply as in the case of men attested for a number of years, where you are guaranteed their services after they have been properly trained. These men were suddenly brought into the Army, and the Minister agrees that, in certain cases, they were actually infiltrated into existing formations. Apart from that, when you have men who have been in an organisation under relaxed discipline in the same barracks with men who have a more rigid and more perfect discipline, it is very hard to maintain that perfect discipline of men who have been trained for it with other men who have not had that discipline demanded of them. The Minister even agreed as far as the Magazine Fort was concerned. The Magazine Fort affair was, strictly speaking, irrelevant. It was merely a horrible example which turned up after I had spoken, to give some force to what I had said.
Senator McEllin suggested that, when I was Minister for Defence, I would have had to refer to officials in any matter of detail. There is an element of truth in that, but I must say that the general criticism of my regime in Defence was that I butted in far too much, and was too much in control of details. The Minister came along rather heavily and suggested that I was advancing into the sere and yellow stage. He said that, according to me, a Utopia existed when I was in full control of the Army, and that it had never existed since. I suggested nothing of the sort. Quite obviously, when I was Minister for Defence, I sent inspection staffs down the country and these staffs reported to me. Very often their reports indicated a great lack of perfection. My argument was that at a time when the Army cost £1,170,000 there was a certain degree of discipline, but one did not sit back and say: "That is perfect. There is nothing more to be done." To begin with, discipline does not just stay where it is. It has to be maintained. The Minister said that that was the strain of what I had to say. It was nothing of the sort.
The Senator is not implying that that does not occur still?
No, I quite agree that it occurs still, but it does not occur enough, as I think has been illustrated. I think it was the general control of the Army which tended to bring about the decay in discipline. I am not criticising the bringing in of these men when you had them as separate formations, as it might have been desirable at that time, but you should not suddenly bring these men in, as the Government seemed to do, in panic at the same time as they began digging up Mountjoy Square, with this sudden mobilisation which, to my mind, was doing harm to the Army and costing an enormous amount of the taxpayer's money.
The Minister said that a Volunteer in the early days had the right to resign, if he so desired, and that they had found certain weaknesses in the operation of that regulation. I think that was foreseeable, and I am not blaming him for the fact that there were weaknesses. What I am criticising is the fact that these men were suddenly brought in and infiltrated into existing formations when commonsense says that the effect would be a general disimprovement in the Army. I do not believe that we got any strengthening of the Army in numbers or general quality, and the bringing in of those men put enormous additional cost on this country. The effect of bringing them in, as I have maintained already —and no attempt has been made to deal with the case I made—merely diminished the aptness and suitability of the Army. That was the case I made and, if that was so, it does appear to me that officers in the Army, working under Ministerial control, have to accept the Ministerial policy, and that that Ministerial policy was the root cause of the disimprovement in the Army.
That was the case I made, and no attempt whatever was made to meet it. The Minister tried to reply by saying that this infiltration did not take place in every case. I was dealing with the Army at a given time, costing a certain amount and having a certain degree of perfection or imperfection, and comparing that with the Army at a later stage, costing an enormously larger sum, and having, as I think, a lesser degree of perfection and a greater degree of imperfection, and that seems to me to be rather a crime against the people of this country.
I submit, Sir, that we listened to this speech on the last occasion.
And the time before.
I say that it is a speech intended for the foreign Press, and that the Senator has no right to criticise the young force being recruited by the Government.
I know that a great many of the Senators on the other side seem to think that Parliamentary institutions in this country should be abolished, and I am not saying that I am against that. I am not saying that I do not think there is a lot to be said for it, but so long as the Constitution and the Government of this country maintain the order we have at present —the Fianna Fáil Senators have not themselves the power of completely abolishing the institutions in this country—I am acting under the Parliamentary procedure permitted in this country, and even if what I say gets under the skin of a Fianna Fáil partisan now and again, it is one of the things that they have to suffer. But do not take me as upholding the order which we have here at present. While it is here, however, we must work it.
In regard to the Magazine Fort affair, coming more than a month after the statement I made here, there was a case of infiltration, and there it was demonstrated that there was a lack of discipline, and the Minister did receive from me a warning of that situation a long time before that. He then comes along to justify the raid on the Magazine by the statement that when I was in charge, Mountjoy Prison was raided. My direct association with Mountjoy was merely to be an inmate there. It was never actually under my charge, but nevertheless I recognise that every Minister has joint responsibility with every other Minister. The Minister is unable to give me the date, and it makes it rather difficult to deal with it; but I do not think it happened while I was Minister for Defence. The Minister could have done much better. He could have referred to the fact that in October, 1922, the prisoners in Mountjoy had guns and land mines, that they murdered two of the officers in Mountjoy, and that one of them was shot. He could possibly show that the Army to-day has quite a number of virtues which were not so pre-eminent in it in 1922.
I quite agree, but the situation then was quite different. We had to put an army together very hurriedly to fight a rebellion in this country and the Minister inherited from us an Army not by any means perfect, an Army which was possibly costing a little more than it should cost, but the whole movement of the cost of which was towards reduction, and an Army whose discipline was not absolutely spotless; but one would expect that, with the intervening years, as the Army got further away from its rather chaotic beginnings, the movement would have been towards improvement.
The Minister, as I say, could have done much better by going back to 1922, and I could help him there in a very considerable criticism. There had been an advance, however, in economy, an advance in discipline and an advance in efficiency from 1922 to 1932. In 1932 the present Government took charge. I would not feel quite so qualified to criticise if, instead of reducing the cost of the Army as they inherited it, and as I think would have happened if they had not come into power, they had failed to decrease the cost or even increased it, even up to about £1,500,000—because there might be times, one year more than another, when war-like stores had to be purchased—I would not feel so qualified to criticise, as I say, if there had been any increase in the efficiency and the discipline of the Army. My argument is that the cost of the Army has gone up and that its efficiency and discipline have gone down. In 1927—I think the Minister is probably wrong in his year, because it certainly was not until after September, 1927, when I took charge of the Army, and my memory is pretty good—if the Army were in charge at Mountjoy when that incident happened and I were the Minister, there would be an inquiry, court-martial, and so on, which I would have been quite aware of. The cost of the Army in 1927 was a lot more than the figure I gave of £170,000, but from 1927 to 1932 the cost of the Army diminished while the discipline and effectiveness of the Army increased.
Now, it is a tremendous asset for anybody to be able to think clearly, but it would seem that nobody can discuss things intelligently with the people opposite, because they have not the intelligence to see the value of things. The Minister says that he does not think I had any more dictatorial power than he has. Well, the Minister has been only a short time in charge of the Army, and I shall not criticise him. I admit I did use the powers that I had and used them to the maximum to which they could be used in the circumstances of the time, but then we have Senator McEllin, with that sort of "yahoo-ism" which is so painful and so painfully common in this country, saying that we were occupied at that time with attending garden parties and wearing top-hats. Now, that is the sort of dope that is put out by yahoos for yahoos. According to the Senator, we were preoccupied most of the time with wearing top-hats and attending garden parties and so on. Very well, that is what the Senator says, but in the spare time that we had between those preoccupations we were able to build up an Army from nothing and to train it, equip it and make it efficient. It cost a lot of money but, wherever we could economise in the people's interests, we did so.
At any rate we built up that Army and had it in good condition when the present Government took over office. The Minister himself admits that they inherited from us a well-trained, loyal and efficient Army, but a lot of ignorant yahoos now say that we went around during that period doing nothing but attending garden parties and wearing top-hats.
Apparently the members of the Government Party have some sort of idea now of dodging the wearing of top-hats where the Irish people could see them. At any rate, however, when the Government came into office they had that machine there ready to their hands, but what did they do with it? They multiplied the cost of the Army by five or thereabouts, and at the same time they disimproved the Army. Yet, when one gets up here and makes a reasoned case—in answer to which, I quite admit, there might be some new light thrown by the Government which might completely negative the criticism put forward, and we recognise that— what sort of reply do we get? We get a most ignorant reply which dodges every point that has been made and which practically confirms even the arguments that were put forward. That is done both by Fianna Fáil Senators and by the Minister himself.
In 1931 we introduced a Bill, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said a month or so ago in the Seanad, which was necessary then. As a result of that Bill, from the time of its introduction until we went out of office, there was not a whimper out of the I.R.A. When the new Government came into power, almost their very first act was to let out the blackguards who were in jail—to let out the enemies of this country and the enemies of the people of this country. I think that, as a result of that appallingly bad policy of the Government—of course, I cannot prove that it was the direct result of it —a number of unfortunate people have been murdered in this country. From the time that we took these special powers until this Government took over office there was not a whimper out of the I.R.A., but they were taking the line completely of trying to save themselves. Then, however, the present Government came along and allowed these people out of jail and things went from bad to worse. They did not go from bad to worse in a straight line, but whenever the I.R.A. got more active than usual the Government took a certain line, and then the I.R.A. knew that they would only have to lie quiet for a time until the Government would say: "Everything is peaceful now", and then they could get going again.
At any rate, that was the position when we handed over in 1932. I heard people saying at the time of the 1932 election that the result of the election might mean a civil war, but I assured these people that that would not be so, because at that time we had a disciplined force and had abolished the anarchy of early 1922 and 1923, and that if anybody wanted to bring about civil war in this country we had a disciplined and well-trained force to deal with such people.
May I suggest to the Senator that, if he were to confine his remarks to the existing situation in the Army, instead of referring to these matters of the past, which have really no bearing on the present situation of the Army, it would make more for the amenities of debate. I think the Senator should confine his remarks to the present situation.
I entirely agree, Sir, but if I may respectfully suggest it, I say that these remarks should be directed to the person who introduced them. If a person thinks he is going to flummox me by a reference to the past, I am prepared to answer him— always subject to your ruling, Sir. That is all I have to say. I have said certain things on this matter, but I suggest that the Minister's speech last week and the speeches of certain Senators on that side prove a much worse case against the Army than anything I could say.
Appropriately enough, we have come to the consideration of this Bill from a discussion of the Fire Brigades Bill. I used the word "appropriately" because, just as the Fire Brigades Bill had for its purpose the provision of protection of the lives and property of the citizens of this country, so this Defence Forces Bill has for its purpose the provision of a well-trained, well-armed, well-disciplined, loyal and efficient armed force to protect the citizens of this country, to protect their lives, their liberty and their neutrality, which they have declared and which is the greatest proof of their liberty, against the danger of being involved in the conflagration which has spread over so many countries. It must be remembered that the war is very near to us, and much nearer us than Senator Fitzgerald would seem to think, since six of our counties are occupied by the forces of one belligerent. Therefore it is necessary for us to have a well-trained, well-equipped, disciplined and loyal Army, and it is because this Bill provides for that, that it is the subject of such intense interest at this particular moment.
For that reason we come to the discussion of this Bill with a grave sense of responsibility, but that responsibility does not only derive from this realisation of the dangers to our country that are inherent in the present condition of world affairs. It ought to arise, and it should arise every year, when we are discussing this Bill, from a realisation of our duties— duties to the Army and duties that we assumed, tacitly at least, when we accepted the honour of membership of the Seanad. I would remind Senators that, under Article 15 of the Constitution, the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas—Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann—and no military or armed forces other than the military or armed forces raised and maintained by the Oireachtas shall be raised and maintained for any purpose whatsoever. From the point of view of our responsibility that is a very important thing, and we ought to study it and take its lessons to heart.
Hear, hear.
In this Bill we are exercising, therefore, the powers and responsibility assigned to us by the people of Ireland, and that fact ought to be present in our minds when we are now asked to face it; and we ought to remember that the Army which it provides is an Army for which we are directly responsible and that we should be touchy about its good name, that we should be concerned about its honour, that we should not allow ill-considered criticism to be passed upon it without resentment. We ought to regard these things with care and conviction.
Hear, hear.
In this connection, I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to the young officers of the Volunteers who recently got commissions. That tribute was paid by Senator Quirke and by some other Senators. I am particularly interested in that, as a great many of these young officers, I am proud to say, belong to the Regiment of Pearse, which is largely recruited from the young men of the Universities. I speak, therefore, I am sure, with the same mind as every University representative in this House when I say that we are proud of that tribute, and that we are proud to see the close connection between the University and the Army. We have very great regard for both of them. As a representative of the National University, and speaking, I am sure, for the sister University of Dublin, I would like to say that we are very proud of these young men and very grateful to those who, in a critical hour of the nation's history, came forward in a sense of patriotism to give their services.
In speaking of that I would like to mention a point which I have very much at heart. Everybody recognises that the gallant fight made by the Finns was largely due to the high standard of education in that country. I am afraid we all have to admit that, compared with them and with other countries, our standard of education is very low. I see in the Army, a great instrument for good; we have educational facilities in the Army, and I would like that the Minister should pay particular attention to that as the best thing we could have in this country is well trained young men, men with character, men with discipline, men who are well trained, who are good, hard-working young men. In the Army, if it is properly directed—and I am sure that it is—those men will get the chance to develop themselves, and they will come out of the Army better Irishmen, better citizens and better men.
The Senator who has just spoken has protested against anyone regarding this country as being safely remote from this war. I think she is justified in what she said; she might even have gone a little further, and instead of saying that six of our counties are occupied by the forces of one of the belligerents, she might have said that the Six Counties were themselves a belligerent, and that the forces there belonged to that belligerent as much as to any part of the Empire with which they are associated. She might also have said that we are, in a military sense, especially in a naval sense, almost at the mercy—in fact, as much at the mercy as one nation can be at the mercy of another—of one of the belligerents and that we depend upon their goodwill for the obtaining of the supplies we need for our daily life.
Ní fíor é sin.
We depend upon the bravery of their sailors for getting those supplies to us, and we are in a situation that, if their prosperity and their financial system crash, our prosperity and our financial system crashes also. Therefore, it would be very foolish for any of us to consider this country as unconcerned in the conflict going on, even if we assume that there are no questions of right and wrong to be considered, that there are no ideals involved. What caused me to rise for one moment was not in order to say that, but to say something else.
I share very keenly the annoyance expressed by Senator Fitzgerald at the kind of boorish insult which was sprung at his head the other day by Senator McEllin, on the subject of top hats and garden parties. I hope to heaven that we will be able to keep as far away from that sort of thing as we can from the reminiscences of 1921-1922. I do feel that there is a certain amount of justification for the irritation that has been felt by some Senators at the sweeping attacks which have been made on the discipline of our Army, attacks which have been unsupported by evidence.
I said that it was a disimprovement when it cost more.
It is a sweeping attack to say that the efficiency and discipline of the Army have deteriorated. That may be true; I do not know. I do not think that the raid on the Phoenix Park arsenal is, of itself, a proof of that. I do not think things like that should be said unless they are supported by very definite and convincing evidence, and no such evidence has been offered, in my hearing at any rate.
It is regrettable that we should have to fall back on repetition of the debate on this measure on the last occasion, in order to provide political propaganda for the Opposition. That is what it amounts to. On the last day we had speeches made here which had a very bad effect on the country and which were badly received. They did not deceive anybody; the average thinking citizen knew well that the speeches of the Opposition on the last day were designed for one purpose —that of trying to create unrest and doubt in the minds of the people as to the actual position. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of Senator Fitzgerald's speech, but I heard enough of it to know what he was driving at. He said: "That was the position when we handed over." We are asked to believe that, when the Fine Gael—or the Cumann na nGaedheal, as they were then—Government handed over, everything was going like clockwork in the Army.
Nothing of the sort.
Nothing of the sort. I accept his apology. At any rate, he said that the Army has deteriorated since the Fianna Fáil Government came into power, and suggests that, if Fine Gael had remained in power during that period, everything would still be all right. He tried to put up, as proof of his theory, that because the Magazine Fort raid was really possible, everything was wrong, and that no such thing could happen during their time at all. I am not trying to minimise the seriousness of that raid, but I say that similar things have happened in every Army and, in fact, more serious things have happened during the regime of the previous Government. As I say, I do not want to minimise the thing at all—it was very serious and it was very regrettable, and it is something which every responsible person in the country should deplore—but when the previous Government were in office and when they were on a war footing, similar things happened all over the country. I myself was responsible for one incident—I am sure Senator Fitzgerald will remember it—on the borders of Kilkenny and Tipperary, where I was able to walk up personally and capture three of the enemy posts. By an enemy post I mean one that was under the authority of the previous Government.
I could make a much better case than you can about that period, but that is irrelevant.
I do not see that it is irrelevant at all. The Senator says nothing of the kind could have happened if they were in power.
Nothing of the sort.
That is the suggestion, that it is only because Fianna Fáil have come into power that everything has gone to the devil. That is the suggestion, but the fact remains that, when the Army was largely on a war footing and when they knew that the first town had been captured, two other towns could still be captured in the same night.
On a point of order, did I not understand the Chair as ruling that it was undesirable to go into these old stories?
Acting Chairman
As a matter of fact, it would be very desirable if Senators would cease questioning each other across the House. If any questions are put, they should be put through the Chair. This habit of cross-questioning each other across the House is to be deprecated, and does not add at all to the dignity of the House.
If, Sir, you are addressing those remarks to me, I must apologise, but may I suggest that the Senator not only said that he did not hear what I said, but that everything he said indicates that he is talking about something that I did not say.
Senator MacDermot suggests that it would be desirable if we did not discuss the period of 1922 or the period of the Civil War. I am sure it would suit a lot of people if that were never again discussed, but as long as I am able to talk it will be discussed. All I say is the sooner the members of the Opposition accept the offer of the Taoiseach to set up a commission to inquire into the causes leading up to the Civil War, the sooner we will have settled conditions in this country. As long as that situation remains in doubt—there is no doubt in my mind, and there is no doubt in the minds of the majority of the people —Senator Hayes laughs—arguments will be needed to convince.
May I make a point of order? I am merely laughing at the extravagant irrelevancy of the Senator. I suggest, Sir, that you made a ruling which Senator Fitzgerald immediately obeyed, and that Senator Quirke is not only disobeying it, but is travelling miles outside the ordinary rules of order.
I am quite prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair, but I still hold that I am quite in order, because of the fact that it has been suggested that a different situation has arisen and a different atmosphere has been created in the Army since Fianna Fáil took over office. I say that is not so, and I am pointing out as proof of that fact that certain things happened during the previous Administration. I am glad to see that Senator Hayes and Senator Fitzgerald can take their past responsibilities so lightly, but it is a relief at any rate to find that Senator Desmond Fitzgerald and Senator MacDermot can at least agree on one or two things. Perhaps if they were to get together and agree to ask for this commission, to inquire into the causes of the Civil War, it would have the desired results.
I think there is much more harmony between Senator Quirke and Senator MacDermot.
Ba mhaith liom fhaghail amach an bhfuil sé in ordú racht ghaire mar sin bheith ar siubhal?
Acting Chairman
Níl, gan dabht. May I suggest that for the future this discussion be confined to the Army as at present, and to suggestions made for the improvement of the Army, and so on?
The Bill is quite obviously necessary if we are to maintain our present position, and if we are to maintain the very important position of neutrality. In my opinion, the most recent declaration of our independence was the declaration of our neutrality. I hold that any statement made which would be detrimental to that neutrality is at the same time detrimental to our independence. On the last day we were here we had considerable evidence of what has been done by the young volunteer officers, and, I think, rather than discourage these men in the work which they have taken on they should be encouraged in every possible way. There is no question about the attitude of the country in regard to neutrality, and I believe that we here, as Senators, should do everything we possibly can to maintain neutrality rather than take the opposite line. We had very unfortunate speeches made in public not very long ago. I have one of them before me, but I do not think it is necessary to read it. Senator Fitzgerald might like me to read it, but Senator MacDermot might not. The fact is, in any case, that our neutrality is the most important thing at the moment, and I think it is our duty as Senators to show the example in that way, and do everything we possibly can to make our Army as efficient as it possibly can be made, and to give the young Volunteers every encouragement to do their work as the country expects them to do it, and as they have been doing it.
I have very little to say on this matter. This is a Bill to renew a temporary measure in the absence of a permanent measure for the Army. Complaint used to be made in the other House that there was great delay in the production of a permanent measure. I think some complaint was made also in this House to the same effect. But, as we all change our minds a little, may I confess that I have changed my mind on this matter? It seems to me, from the point of view of a Senator and the Seanad, that the introduction of this continuing measure every year is a much better thing than the introduction of a permanent Act, because this particular measure gives us an opportunity which we would not otherwise get every year of discussing, if we choose to discuss it, the Army. The Army Estimate, of course, gives that opportunity in the Dáil, but the Estimates are not submitted to us except in the form of a Central Fund Bill which, I suppose, we will have to-morrow.
An Army is certainly essential to us, and I agree entirely that we should be proud of it and, for my part, I have always been proud of the national Army and have always had friends in it. I have never run it down in any degree, and I will not imitate those who have spoken before me by raking up any old sores. But some people are very recent converts in their admiration of the national Army, very recent converts indeed, and nothing is more disgusting—although it is relevant— than the smug unctuousness of the people who get up to praise the Army in 1940 when a very short time ago they were calling them the "Green and Tans." So much for that.
Our neutrality has been brought into this debate. I do not think the Army and our neutrality are very much connected. They are about as little connected as our neutrality and our so-called new Constitution. Our neutrality derived from certain measures taken over a period of years to vindicate our status and to make it clear, as was made clear as long ago as 1925, that in the case of Great Britain being at war, this country—the Irish Free State, or whatever you like to call it now—had the right to maintain its neutrality. Whoever gets the credit— I do not think it matters very much— it is a very important fact that we can declare our neutrality, and we ought to take such steps as may be open to us to remain neutral. I have always praised the Army, as I say, but I am not prepared to praise the Army in the way in which Senator McEllin praised it—by running down the Guards. That is a pretty poor method of praising one institution of the State. I agree we ought to learn that you cannot run any State on the basis of any Party attacking the institutions of State. The fact that the institutions of State have survived and that the Army has survived is of great credit when one considers how much criticism they have had to meet from time to time.
There is a very considerable difference between a state of war—whether it is a civil war or otherwise—and a state of peace. We are passing here an Army Act; we are giving the Minister continuing scope and authority. Under that Army Act the Minister has certain powers, and he also has certain obligations. He is empowered, for example, to make a number of defence regulations, and having made those defence regulations, the members of the Forces, officers and men, are bound by them, and so is the Minister. It appears that quite recently—and I think this is relevant, because the Seanad has no other opportunity of discussing these matters—drastic action has been taken against certain commissioned members of the Army without all the requirements of the defence regulations being operated. That, I think, is very undesirable. I quite understand that discipline is necessary in an Army, and that drastic action may be necessary at times, but whatever action has to be taken should be taken within the law and within the regulations. Anything that is done outside of that is very reprehensible indeed, and apt to create very bad feeling that there is much better treatment, for example, for Ministers than for officers and soldiers.
When this war broke out, the Minister who had been in charge of the Army was removed from it. He was made a Minister without Portfolio. He was not put on half-pay. He was considered, in a particular situation, to be incompetent to run the Army. He has become Minister without Portfolio, and special legislation was introduced in the other House and here in order to regularise the payment to him of a salary for the doing of nothing in particular. He has not been placed upon half pay. His responsibility for a particular situation has not, I presume, been investigated, or, if it has been investigated, there have been no results. So we have the spectacle of officers dismissed and of officers retired on half pay, and the Minister who is considered unfit to run the Army is put into a position where he has no portfolio, as head of no recognised Department of State. He is in receipt of a salary of £1,700 a year, plus a car, driver and petrol which in 1937 cost £625. Now, seeing that a better car has been obtained for Ministers and that petrol is dearer, his car would cost at least £800. Having been found incompetent to run the Army and having been removed from office, this Minister is still costing the State £2,500, and has no function to perform for practical purposes. That is different from the treatment meted out summarily, without going over all the conditions of the Act and the regulations made out under the Act, to certain officers of the Army. I content myself with that.
Through you, Sir, might I ask Senator Hayes a question? He said in his speech that we had the right, previous to the passing of the Constitution, to remain neutral in case Britain ever became implicated in war. I should like to ask Senator Hayes, through you, if he suggests that we could remain neutral with the forces of another country in possession of our ports?
I can answer that. I should like to go into the whole history of it, but I am afraid I would not be allowed.
I am afraid we cannot go into it now.
That was rather elephantine humour on my part.
Acting Chairman
The question of neutrality is not immediately relevant on this Bill.
But the answer to the Senator's question was in the affirmative.
Mr. Hayes
Certainly.
I only desire to say, by way of supplementing the remarks I have already made on this Bill, that I cannot entirely agree with Senator Hayes on the question of what might be called a constitution for the Army. I think, considering that we have been an independent nation for nearly 20 years, it is high time there should be a written constitution for the Army. Any points that require to be raised can always be brought forward in either House on the motion for the Adjournment or every year on the Estimates. I do not think a yearly discussion of this type on the Army, a discussion on various officers and men, really serves any good purpose from the point of view of Army discipline, loyalty, or the division of Army officers from political matters. It gives the politician many opportunities of raising particular cases and bringing before the public several which it is undesirable they should know. Elsewhere there is a written book of what I would call Army regulations which you can buy at any booksellers and the general public are made fully aware of the conditions under which officers and men join, and serve in the Army. I think the general public in this country are very ignorant on that subject, and it would be most advisable if some publication were made available which people generally would be able to look up and see, when anything such as these recent occurrences arose, what was the actual law in the matter. When an amendment is required to that Book of Regulations, it is published under the signature of the Minister, after discussion with his council, in the shape of an Army order, and it is added to the volume already published. I think the suggestions which I have made and which are most essential to the maintenance of discipline in the Army, should have the attention of the Government at the earliest possible moment.
Ni raibh fúm labhairt ar an dtairgsint seo acht ar leigheamh dom de'n tuairisg oifigiul, chonnaiceas gur tarraingeadh m'ainm isteach. Ar an ábhair sin, ba mhaith liom cupla poinnte a chur os comhair an tSeanaid anois.
On this question I would not have risen to speak at all were it not that I noticed in the Official Reports of the Debates that my name was mentioned when this question of the Army was under discussion on the last day. Senator Fitzgerald, because I said that we ought to look for money and spend money on the Army, and ought to take every step we possibly could to ensure national defence and national security, in a way implied that I stand for inefficiency. I should like just to assure Senator Fitzgerald that if there is one thing for which I do not stand, it is inefficiency in a man, in a machine or in an organisation if it is at all avoidable. We are at one on that. I assure him that I do not believe for one moment in bolstering up inefficiency in the Army or anywhere else. If I felt there was inefficiency in the Army, I would be as severe in criticising the Minister as he himself would be. The trouble has arisen over the fact that the Government has demanded extra money in connection with the Army. I am not a military expert, but it seems to me that, in the state of emergency that has arisen, more men, more machines and more equipment of every kind are needed. We have a very long coastline and many important points throughout the country that have to be protected, bridges and so forth. That certainly calls for a big increase in the personnel of the Army and for extra equipment. Senator Fitzgerald says that high expenditure does not necessarily imply an efficient Army. That is quite true, but at the same time I fail to see how without spending money on the Army we would put it into a position to defend all the points that need to be defended. I do not see how it can be done without extra men and money.
A lot of criticism has been made of the Volunteer section of the Army. The only thing I can say about that is that whether or not I was right in doing so, I went so far as to inquire among a few officers—to be quite precise, two officers—as to the position of the Volunteer forces. These men agreed that there were certain difficulties in connection with the Volunteers. Firstly, you cannot expect the system to be as tight, as rigid, or perhaps as efficient, in a short time as in an army which is composed practically of hand picked men. But as far as these officers are concerned, on the general question of discipline and the quality of the men and so on, they have no complaint to make. There are isolated cases of difficulties, but on the whole they say that the Volunteer Army comes up to the mark. That is the only thing I have to say. It is the general opinion, I think throughout the country, that this particular branch of the Army does not deserve all the hard things or anything like all the hard things, that have been said about it in recent times here. In regard to the Army itself, shortly after Christmas when we met here, Senator Fitzgerald gave us an account of the conditions in the Army.
Long before Christmas.
I pay great attention to anything the Senator says about the Army, because he had a long connection with it and great experience of it. Anything he says about the Army should be listened to, and the same applies to the Minister for Defence. He is in a position to get information, to form opinions and anything he says must be listened to with great respect. At that time, I felt very uneasy about the position in the Army because the picture painted by Senator Fitzgerald was not a very happy one and, when I was speaking on that occasion, I suggested that some assurance should be given to the public in regard to the position in the Army and as to its loyalty, discipline and so on. At that time, the Taoiseach himself spoke on the matter and gave an assurance that there was nothing to worry about in that respect, that the Government was assured of the loyalty of the Army and that its efficiency— I do not know whether he used these very words, but the implication was there—was all we might expect. Here again, in the last few days, statements have been made, just as they were made before Christmas, the effect of which is to make people uneasy. From the few inquiries I have made, I am satisfied that there is no need for uneasiness and, in view of the statements made, I should like the Minister to give us an assurance—he will give it in good faith—that there is no need to worry as to the discipline, quality, effectiveness and loyalty of the Army.
There was one point raised by Senator Concannon which has to do with the Regiment of Pearse. I am sure that everything she said with regard to the loyalty of these men and their willingness to come forward to serve the country is well deserved, but there is just this I should like to say: that regiment bears a very honoured name and I, for one, should like to see these men, every one of them, bearing themselves more in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the man whose name the regiment bears. In a word, I should like to see that regiment more Irish than it is. I do not question their loyalty to the State, their bravery, or their willingness to make sacrifices, but I am certainly not satisfied that, as they stand, they are worthy of the name which their regiment bears.
I do not know whether Senator Fitzgerald is aware that he possesses, in a very large degree, the power of incitement.
I do not want to use it.
I have often felt like violently assaulting the Senator after his speeches, but I have sufficient willpower and self-discipline always to prevent anything of the kind happening. The Senator, however, certainly deserved the rebuke he received from his colleague, Senator Hayes. The only thing I regret having to say is that following that, Senator Hayes himself became scurrilously personal in respect of another Minister.
Mr. Hayes
On a point of order, is it in order to describe a statement about a Minister's public functions as scurrilous? I attacked the Minister in his public capacity, and in no other way.
I say, with all due respect to Senator Hayes' remark, that for Senator Hayes to stand up in this Assembly, which is a responsible Assembly, and to tell this Assembly and the people of the country through it, that Mr. Aiken, Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, and former Minister for Defence, was removed from office because of incompetency is a scurrilous statement, because there is no truth in it. The Senator must know as well as I do that there is no man in this State, either in this Government, or in the former Government, who has done as much for the nation as that Minister.
Question.
Of course, the Senator would question anything.
Because the Minister said that we knew it.
I know that the Senator would question anything stated by any Minister of this Government, or any Deputy or Senator representing the Government. I do not expect it to be otherwise.
I only objected to the Minister's saying that we knew a thing when I do not know it.
It is a well-known fact that Mr. Frank Aiken not only did excellent work in the Army, of which the Army itself would give evidence, and, I think, would proudly give evidence, but he did it outside the Army. He did magnificent work in respect of the development of turf fuel and many other things. The Senator can smile sarcastically, and it would be foolish of me to expect the Senator to believe these things, but they are, nevertheless, facts. The Senator was somewhat perturbed because I mentioned Mountjoy Prison. I merely mentioned it in passing. I merely desired to show that a raid on the Magazine could happen and that a raid on a place like Mountjoy Prison could just as easily happen. I stated that, in my opinion, Mountjoy Prison was a fortification much stronger and much more difficult to secure entry into than even the Magazine Fort, but all I desired to point out was that what could be done in the régime of one Government could equally happen during the régime of another. That is the only reason I mentioned it. It is a historical fact. I did not come in here armed with the date, because I did not expect it would be necessary to deal with the matter at all, but the Senator appeared to think that such a thing would have been absolutely impossible during the lifetime of the Government of which he was a member.
The Senator seems to think that there is something seriously and radically wrong with the infiltration of Volunteers into the Army. I suggest there is not. For instance, the Senator would not suggest for a moment that these Volunteers should not fight shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues of the regular Army, if there were a war. He would not think it wrong that these men should man gaps of danger and fight side by side. He does not suggest for one moment, I am sure, that the raising of the 250,000 young recruits every three or four months in England and their infiltration into the Expeditionary Force, is wrong. I do not think it is wrong at all, and while I do feel that as far as it would be possible, for the Volunteers' own sakes, they should be trained as a separate unit and used as a separate unit, if that were possible, but only in the defence of the nation, I do seriously say to the Senator that infiltration means nothing from the point of view of weakening the Army. I do not think there is anything more that I have to say. I regret very much that the Senator took the line he did in respect of attempting to draw in the period of the civil war and so on. That is a period that I, personally, would like to forget, and I am sure that the Senator himself would be anxious to forget it.
It was your friend over there who brought it in.
Yes, but Senator Fitzgerald jumped in very quickly to take advantage of it, and seemed like a man who was gloating at the opportunity given him to take advantage of it. I suggest that, as a responsible Senator and as a man who has had the responsibility of Government himself, he at least ought to give an example to his colleagues and to the country in general in trying to forget that unhappy period, because it was an unhappy period. If it came to participating in a debate on 1922 and the happenings of that time, I suppose I could be just as dirty as the Senator.
Oh, much more.
I do not intend to do so, however, but as I said already the Senator has a power of incitement that he does not appear to know he possesses. The fact is that he does possess it, and for that reason I suggest that he should restrain himself. For instance, with regard to his talk about the Army, I suggest, Sir, that if that sort of thing were to be said often enough and to be continually dinned into the ears of the men in the Army, the men of the Army will begin, possibly, to think that they are what the Senator describes them as being, and probably will begin to believe that the Army is as inefficient as the Senator would like everybody to believe it is. We have only to say such things long enough, and then possibly something might happen. I appeal to this House, as I appealed in the other House, that it is time that we should forget that. I never called the National Army "green-and-tans" and I doubt if any of my colleagues, who represent the Government, ever called them "green-and-tans".
Oh!
The Senator can wag his head.
I listened to it being said in the Dáil debates.
I can say this, at any rate, that when the present Government took over the Army they took it over as it was, and I defy the Senator or any other Senator to show where we made a single change in the Army. If we had taken it over in the spirit in which the Senator seems to think we did, we would have cleared out officers, bag and baggage, but we did not do so because we had sufficient trust in these men as Irishmen to carry on their duties in the Army, and the men who are carrying on the Army and its responsibilities to-day are the men who carried on in the Senator's time. That is the spirit in which this Government is trying to face the situation here. We are endeavouring, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, to reunite all sections of the people, and I think that when members of this House can show that they at least can be united in the decencies of debate we will go a long way towards reuniting the people in regard to the things we should be doing for this nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."