Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Thursday, 6 Mar 1952

SECTION 13.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 13 :—

To delete sub-section (4).

We have already discussed something relating to this on the previous amendment. In the organisation of the Department of Defence, the Minister is the head and he has his principal military officers, each of whom is head of a particular branch, the Chief of Staff being head of the branch of the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General being head of the branch of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General being head of the branch of the Quartermaster-General. Each of these three officers is independent and is responsible direct to the Minister and the Minister co-ordinates. That is his duty. He assigns them such duties as he may wish and generally he controls the administration of the Department in that way. In comparatively recent years an idea grew of giving to the Chief of Staff the co-ordination of certain business, interfering to some extent with the independence—when I say " independence " I mean independence subject to the Minister—of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General. I can see no reason for that at all.

To vest in the Chief of Staff such powers is to lead to confusion. It checks the Chief of Staff. It does interfere with his duties, which are duties of a very important nature. A Quartermaster-General or an Adjutant-General may object to that type of interference from a person who, in fact, under the administration, is not the boss. I put down the amendment to delete that sub-section because I think it is unnecessary, and it is difficult to visualise the sort of co-ordination that is envisaged in the sub-section. I would certainly very much like to hear the Minister explain the sort of co-ordination that is proposed or envisaged or is likely to take place or may take place under that sub-section.

Mr. Traynor

It is more or less correct to say that the powers of the Chief of Staff are more or less those of the other principal military officers, but it would not be correct to say that he is not, in fact, regarded as the boss, to use the word used by the Deputy. Custom perhaps more than anything else has built him into the position in which he is regarded in that capacity, that he is regarded as being, in fact, responsible in the main for the welfare of the Army, for the co-ordination of the various services, and for the general preparedness for war. I think that all these powers were given to him under Section 8 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which is now being repealed, and because of its repeal we are utilising this occasion to put it here. As far as I am concerned, it would be wrong entirely not to have this particular power, this right of the Chief of Staff of access to all military departments, including the Adjutant-General's and the Quartermaster-General's, to see that the general preparedness for war for which he is responsible is as effective as it could be. For that reason, it is highly desirable that he should act in a co-ordinating capacity.

Chairman

If I might mention some little experience in this, the function of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General and the Chief of Staff were in former days easily kept distinct in peacetime and the effect that the Minister is talking about was supplied by the Commander-in-Chief in wartime. There was good constitutional reason for maintaining the independence of these officers. However, in modern times, planning, which Deputy Cowan omitted to mention in his list of duties, necessitated some co-ordination. The Chief of Staff is responsible for the planning staff, and you cannot plan without going very much into detail on both the Quartermaster's and the Adjutant-General's angle. In fact, on any planning staff there would have to be representatives of these two main functions. If you are going to get anywhere, you simply have to have some co-ordination and that co-ordination must be done by an expert. If those powers of co-ordination were not there, it would be necessary to appoint another officer to co-ordinate the whole lot and that would necessitate an Inspector-General with specific powers. That seems to be completely unnecessary in peacetime and there is a very good basic reason, if the Army is to make any preparation for the purpose for which it is there, that some one expert military officer would be there to co-ordinate. It is obviously a job for the Chief of Staff. Actually, the duties of an Inspector-General would not be quite that. Apart from the fact that the custom has grown up that the Chief of Staff is regarded as head of the Army for all ordinary purposes, he has been treated and it is natural that he would be treated as head of the Army. One cannot expect the Minister or any Minister to come down and be his own Commander-in-Chief in detail as regards planning and methods of that sort.

I merely make this point because I have had some intimate knowledge as a member of the Plans and Operations staff of how far the Chief of Staff's duties necessarily encroach, if you like to use that word, on the statutory functions or the peacetime functions of the other principal officers.

The essential point in the constitutional safeguard is this, that the other principal officers have direct access to the Minister and that, on a last analysis, they can stand on their own authority and responsibility but that is in no way defeated by giving the Chief of Staff the co-ordinating power that is being supplied in this sub-section.

General MacEoin

In peacetime the Minister does require somebody to co-ordinate the various parts of the Council of Defence. It is not possible for the Minister to carry out all the duties, including co-ordination. If he had not power to delegate this authority to the Chief of Staff, it would be incumbent on the Government and the Minister to appoint an Inspector-General who would co-ordinate. Therefore, I feel the Minister should have this power. I think it is essential.

Mr. T. Brennan

As an ordinary lay man, may I ask how did the position of Chief of Staff arise ? Does not the very word ‘ chief ' carry with it some power ?

Captain Cowan

I am glad that this discussion has arisen because I think it is important, and would be important from the point of view of the Army, but I should be very sorry that any view should go out from here or should be expressed by anybody that the Chief of Staff is the head of the Army. I want to make it perfectly clear that he is not, and it is important that that should be so. The Chairman has referred very properly to the constitutional safeguards. One thing which we in this country, on the basis of the democratic idea we hold, do not agree with is the setting up of an army with the head of the army a military man, and there was, in fact, some objection to a military man being Minister for Defence at one time. However that may be, the Chief of Staff, as the Chairman has said, is chief of the staff that deals with training, organisation and planning. He is not chief of the Army Staff, but chief of that particular staff. The Adjutant-General is head, then, or another administrative branch which deals with discipline, recruiting and so on and the Quartermaster-General is head of the branch that deals with food, ammunition, stores and so on.

Mr. T. Brennan

May I ask who presides at a meeting of the army officers ?

Captain Cowan

Naturally, if there was a meeting of these three the Chief of Staff would preside, because he is senior in rank, but where the whole organisation sits in the Council of Defence the Minister presides and is head, and these are his three principal advisers.

Mr. T. Brennan

I was leaving the Minister out.

Chairman

If you had a case where a supreme commander was appointed the Chief of Staff, as Chief of Staff, would have co-ordinating powers over the other two officers. In the case of a formation, the Chief of Staff of a formation has co-ordinating powers over the Adjutant-General's and Quartermaster-General's branches in that formation and issues orders on behalf of the commanders to all these people.

Captain Cowan

That is correct and would be so in the event of a military force in the field, but where we are concerned with an army—a dangerous machine always, although not so dangerous in cold countries like this— Parliament keeps them independent and sends in a Minister to boss the lot of them and does not allow anyone to become the supreme commander of the others.

Mr. T. Brennan

Is he not all the time subject to the Minister ?

Chairman

He is not the supreme commander but the co-ordinating agency.

Captain Cowan

I understand that but I wanted to clear up the doubt that he is in any way the supreme commander. He is not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

The Committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 11th March.