Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Mar 1946

Vol. 31 No. 13

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1946—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The Minister for Defence is slightly indisposed and I am taking this Bill for him. The Bill is the annual Bill to maintain the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts in force. This year it is somewhat longer than usual but the various sections have been fully explained in the memorandum which has been circulated already. They include provisions which are already contained in certain Emergency Powers Orders and which are now incorporated in this Bill because their continued operation will be necessary when the Emergency Powers Acts expire.

The first of the Emergency Powers Orders in question is the No. 362 Order of 1945 which relates to desertion or absence without leave during the emergency period and the provisions of which are repeated in Section 13 of the Bill. Other Emergency Powers Orders incorporated are the No. 285 Order of 1943, relating to solicitors' apprentices, which is now repeated in Section 14 of the Bill at the request of the Incorporated Law Society and the No. 17 Order of 1939, contained in Section 21, which relates to the wearing of foreign military uniforms in the State and the provisions of which are in accordance with general international practice. In addition, it has been thought desirable to retain the provisions of the Emergency Powers (Service Textile Articles) Order, 1943, in so far as it relates to uniform and equipment of the Defence Forces. The necessary provision is made in Section 18 of the Bill.

Other sections consolidate and amplify existing provisions in the Defence Forces Acts. These are Section 10, relative to relinquishment of commissions by officers of the reserve; Section 11 which deals with the effective dates of appointment, dismissal, resignation and retirement of officers and Section 19, which makes the unauthorised use of Defence Forces medals and decorations an offence. The establishment of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil as a component of the reserve necessitates the provisions now being made in Sections 4, 5 and 15. Section 9 preserves the right to reinstatement in their former civilian employment, for reserve and emergency personnel who recently undertook new reserve engagements. Sections 16 and 17 provide against the improper wearing of the uniform of the Defence Forces. The remaining sections of the Bill, the majority of which are of an administrative nature, call for no particular comment.

The memory which this Bill calls up to me is that of Deputy Frank Aiken demanding a consolidated Army Bill instead of these annual Bills and the memory of Deputy Frank Aiken being told that he should not be so doleful, that the country had a great future despite the money owed to Britain. The worst of Ministers is that, the more they change, the more they remain the same. Senator Douglas remarked that the Minister for Finance to-day might, so far as his speech was concerned, be the Minister for Finance at any period from 1922. The voice was the voice of Frank but the words were the words of—I do not know exactly whom. But they were the same words and the general point of view was the same.

This is the annual Defence Forces Bill, which has been substantially amended. May I say that we regret the absence of the Minister for Defence through illness. This Bill would give an opportunity, if one so desired, to raise the whole question of the post-war Army and of post-war armaments, and the peculiar position with regard to the ratio of officers to men. But we did agree that we would finish this Bill to-day. The Minister, having been here all day yesterday, need not, I think, now that he is doing duty for the Minister for Defence, be engaged in a long debate on this topic. The Bill is a dreadful example of legislation by reference. There are references to Section 157 of the Principal Act, Section 208 of the Principal Act, and so on, so that you must have this Bill, the Principal Act and the Act of 1940 beside you to understand the provisions. Again, this Bill is urgent. All stages must be taken to-day, so that the President will have five days to sign it and the Dáil will not have to pass a special resolution. It was introduced in the Dáil on 28th February, 1946. It does not seem to be a Bill which required great delay. However, it was not brought in until then. It is brought before us to-day and we are asked to pass it, and I am afraid we will.

Again, the same thing applies to all Ministers, so far as I have known them from the beginning. They have a Bill; it is an important Bill and an urgent Bill, and it must be passed; there is great hurry about it. I yield to that and make what I am afraid is not a very sound excuse—that next year the same Bill must be passed again. What we shall have next year will be a Bill to renew this and all the other Bills, with further references to this Bill and all the other Bills. Another temporary Bill, it will be introduced in February, and become extraordinarily urgent about the 21st or 22nd March. In all the circumstances, we might as well let this Bill pass. I agree that it must be passed, from many points of view, before 31st March. As to the details, I do not propose to say anything about them. But the Bill must get a Second Reading.

I want to deal with only one point. At the same time, I endorse everything that Senator Hayes has said. This is a dreadful example of legislation by reference. I do hope that, by this time next year, there will be some type of consolidating measure which will be intelligible without having in front of one an enormous expanse of table entirely covered by Army Acts. I want to refer to the question of the L.D.F. and to appeal to the Minister to consider again the refusal at an earlier stage to permit members of that force, particularly members in the country areas, to keep their overcoats. I entirely appreciate the point of view of the Minister for Defence that it would be very undesirable to have kept anything in the nature of a uniform that might cause confusion. That is a matter which could be got over quite easily and this would, I think, be a small gesture to those who served in the force from the early days.

I am afraid the announcement of the new scheme by the Department was left much too long. However, that is past history. I sincerely hope that, even at the stage at which it was introduced, the new force will have a successful future and that it will be possible to get into it now, when starting out, those who fell away after the danger to the country from invasion had, obviously, passed and who were not aware at that time of any proposals by the Department to make the force permanent. In spite of the delay that took place, I sincerely hope it will be possible to get those people back and to have the L.D.F. as live and virile a force as it was. It was a live and virile force and one which, perhaps more than any other factor, served to mould public opinion in the right way in the years 1940-41.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I agree with the statement by Senator Hayes and Senator Sweetman as to the undesirability of legislating by way of reference. If Senator Hayes would take steps by way of motion to place the onus on a Minister to circulate the relevant Acts when introducing a Bill including reference, I would support him.

You would want a special department of the Post Office to carry the Acts around.

Mr. O'Reilly

That would be one way of ensuring that legislation by reference would not be practised as it practised. A question has been raised as to whether the uniforms or part of the uniforms should be given to ex-members of the L.D.F. I happen to have been a member of the L.D.F. and it was part of my function to prevent the misuse of uniforms. I took the view that it was not in the best interests of the force or of the nation that members of the force should be allowed to wear uniforms making roads or drains or working on bogs because the uniform of the State, just like the flag of the country, has a particular significance. No member of the House would like to see the flag of the country pulled down and walked on.

When a certain incident happened in this city there was a spontaneous outburst on the part of the people because of the fact that the people considered that those who took part in that incident, probably not knowing what they were doing, showed disrespect to the flag. I am not referring to that now in any spirit of controversy, but I do take the view that if people wear the uniform other than in the manner and on the occasions upon which it is supposed to be worn, they are doing the same thing—showing disrespect to the uniform. I always tried to impress on the men with whom I was associated that it was not exactly a question of what the uniform was made from but what the uniform stood for. I think that the Minister and the State should have found some way of paying tribute to the men who served in the L.D.F. from 1941 to 1945 other than by quibbling over the issue of an overcoat or some other garment because I claim that the men who served in the L.D.F. went into that organisation of their own free will to serve the country, You might say that it was a voluntary organisation, organised by the people themselves and it proved a great success.

It will be remembered that in earlier years when a volunteer force was supposed to be organised by the Government, it was not such a success but the people themselves made a success of the Local Defence Force when danger threatened the country. I think that some recognition should be given to the people who gave that service. I agree that there are many people who would like to preserve their uniforms because of their sentimental value but I do not think it right that ex-members of the force should be allowed to wear overcoats or other parts of the uniform at their every day work round the country. There has been some suggestion that the overcoats should be dyed but I think there should be some other way of paying tribute to the members of the Local Defence Force than by issuing overcoats to them or quibbling about the matter.

As one who played a small part in organising the L.D.F. and the L.S.F., I should like to impress on the Minister that preference should be given, in the filling of any posts in the gift of the Government, to the young men who joined the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. I know that in my own district there was some small organised opposition to prevent young men from joining these forces. I do not know what was at the back of the heads of the people who opposed the movements, but I told the people who did not join up that, as far as I was concerned, I would not give them a recommendation in future for any position for which they might require a recommendation. I think it should be made clear that people who did not respond to the national call will be treated on a different footing from those who did. Such people should be made to realise that they have certain duties to perform and that, if they do not discharge these duties, when the time comes to fill public positions they will be put on a black list. The people who opposed the L.D.F. in my district were not members of Fine Gael. I think I might say that a good proportion of them were backing either Fianna Fáil, Labour or other Parties in the previous elections, but that is not the reason I object to giving them positions. I object because of their attitude to the people who joined up and because of the way they sneered at those who were trying to organise the force at the time.

I agree with Senator Counihan that no position or recommendations for positions should be given to those who sneered at the establishment of the L.D.F. I had a good deal to do with the establishment of the L.D.F. in Galway myself. I was a staff officer there and I have every respect for the men who joined. I should like to see them getting a preference but the fact should also be borne in mind that there were other people who joined up at a time of greater danger and I should not like such people to be lost sight of in order to benefit ex-members of the L.D.F. Very often a certain preference was given to members of the L.D.F. in filling positions in various Departments of the Government and there is a danger of overlooking the old I.R.A. men. I know that in certain places ex-I.R.A men are forgotten and positions are given to members of the L.D.F. I think that should not happen.

Of course we all agree that those who joined the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. should get a reasonable preference in any employment that is offered. I also agree with the statement made by Senator O'Dea in regard to the old I.R.A., but nobody has mentioned, so far as I know, the big number of men who joined the Army. Members of the L.D.F. and L.S.F. had an opportunity of holding on to their positions and carrying on their ordinary work but those who joined the Army had to give up their positions.

But they were paid.

Those who joined the Army separated themselves from their families and their employment altogether four or five years ago. It is true, as Senator Counihan has stated, that they were paid but they received only just sufficient to keep themselves and their dependents going. Most members of the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. on the other hand were able to retain their positions. No doubt they gave very good service in their spare time but those who joined the Army divorced themselves from their employment and their families. I think that they really should get first preference over all sections who rose to the occasion when called upon.

A number of Senators have said that some recognition should be given to members of the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. for the magnificent work they did during the emergency. I think the Government have officially on many occasions given expression to the nation's gratitude for the work done by the young men in the Army, in the L.D.F., the L.S.F., the Red Cross and the other emergency services. I think we have a right to be proud of the way our people of all parties co-operated in increasing the numbers in the Army, and in the formation and manning of the auxiliary services during the war. The Government has decided and I think it was published by the Minister for Defence in a White Paper many months ago that certain preferences would be given for ex-soldiers of the Army and for members of the voluntary services when it is a question of competitive examination for entering into the public services.

You have an extension of years which is very much higher when a man joins the Army whole-time than it is for the voluntary services, but I think that is only natural and just. The men who really made the greatest sacrifice —while I am not trying to minimise the sacrifice of those who gave up their time to the voluntary services—were the men who joined the regular Army and cut themselves off from their careers completely to devote their whole time to national defence. Added years have been given to members of the Army and the voluntary services but the voluntary services are given added years when it is a question of competition and they are also given special preference in marks per year of service. I cannot recall exactly what they are and I have not the details by me but there is that preference of raising the age limit where an ex-soldier or ex-L.D.F. man might be caught, and also additional marks.

The question of giving ex-members of the L.D.F. their greatcoats or other portions of their uniform has been raised. I am informed that has been examined by the Department of Defence and the Minister. I do not know what the final decision will be but I hope that no matter what decision is taken, the wearing of the uniform will be safeguarded and that any regulation pattern garment will not be worn except when a man is soldiering. One of the forms of recognition of the service of the gratitude of the nation to the young men who came forward is the issue of medals for all who served in the Army or emergency services. The regulations governing those medals will be published any of these days.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Next stage?

Agreed to take Committee Stage now.

Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

I think there is a matter in Section 18 which I cannot quite follow. The Minister very rightly has provision in virtue of which any article of uniform cannot be dyed except under permit from the Minister. It appears to me that this section raises another point. Suppose that there is an old worn service textile article such as an Army shirt, it appears that that cannot be dyed by a subsequent purchaser. The first purchaser would have a permit but a subsequent one would not have it. Suppose that a shirt is sold to merchant A. He deals with it under his permit and disposes of it to merchant B, who has no permit to dye it. It is a small point which might be considered when, we hope, the consolidating Bill comes up next year.

Section 18 agreed to.
Sections 19 to 23, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Schedule put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported without amendment.

Acting-Chairman

Next stage?

Fourth Stage to be taken now; agreed.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage to be taken now; agreed.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.50 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share