Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1952

SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 14:

Before Section 14 to insert a new section as follows :—

14. (1) The Minister shall appoint an officer of the Permanent Defence Force to be the military secretary to the Minister.

(2) The military secretary to the Minister shall be charged with the performance of such duties as the Minister from time to time shall assign to him.

It will be seen that in a subsequent amendment I have made provision for certain particular functions for a military secretary in relation to grievances of military personnel. I must say that this idea of a military secretary is a personal idea which I have held for a long period of years. In the ordinary way of discipline a person in the Army, whether he is officer or soldier, is subject to his commanding officer and through him to the higher organisation such as the brigade, the division or the command as the case may be, but there are matters such as pay, deductions from pay, location and allowances which are strictly not very much the concern of the superior authorities but are very important from the point of view of the individual concerned and I have always felt that if the individual member of the Army had the right to bring his grievance directly to the Minister's notice through a person such as a military secretary it would go a long way towards the elimination of grievances that cause a good lot of trouble from time to time in the Army. The military secretary would be in a position to make inquiries from the different military branches or civilian sections right off the reel and could prepare data for the Minister on which the Minister could give an immediate decision and grievances of that kind are always best dealt with quickly.

I felt also that, in addition to having those functions, the military secretary should also be secretary of the Council of Defence. The Council of Defence consists of the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and the three Army principals, the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General, and the secretary of the Department who is himself a very important person, being in charge of the administrative end of the secretariat and also the financial end. I felt that he, as a member of the Council and a very important member, should not also be its secretary. He should have his own standing as secretary of the Department of Defence and advisor to the Council on matters relating to the civil administration of the Department and its finances. For that reason there should be some other person as secretary of the Council.

The Council of Defence does not meet very often. I do not know how often it meets now, but my personal experience was that it did not meet very often. Some other person, therefore, besides the secretary of the Department, should be the secretary of the Council and the proper person would be the military secretary. I must say that my main objective in proposing the establishment of this post was to deal with grievances. I have an amendment further down—I am not sure what section it deals with or whether it is in this list of amendments or not—dealing with grievances. It was mainly for the purpose of dealing urgently with grievances that I propose this appointment.

From what I have heard now from Deputy Cowan, it would appear to me that he is looking for an extensive " soldier's friend," in addition to bringing in a secretary of the Council of Defence. Actually the Adjutant-General carries out all the functions to which the Deputy has referred in respect to military personnel. The grievances can, if necessary, be brought to the attention of the Minister in present circumstances, but it is questionable whether it is desirable that all the grievances held by individuals in the Army are of such importance as to be brought before the Minister who has very responsible duties to carry out. I feel that the Adjutant-General fills the requirements mentioned by Deputy Cowan at the present time.

In regard to the secretary of the Council of Defence, the secretary of the Department, who is also the accounting officer, acts in that capacity and it is proposed in this Bill that in addition to that position he is to be a member of the Council. I think that is a good suggestion. When I saw it in the Bill I thought it was a desirable proposal and one that would add considerably to the importance of the Council of Defence, since naturally there is nobody in the Department of Defence who possesses a more intimate knowledge either of the Army itself or of the civil side of the Department. It can be truly said in respect of the present holder of that position that he has, in fact, grown with the Army and with the civil side of the Department. I think it would be completely undesirable to add to the military personnel already present on the Council, at the expense of the only civilian other than the Parliamentary Secretary, who would naturally look after the interests of the civilian side as well as of the military side. I do not think there is anything in this amendment that would recommend itself to me and, therefore, I would oppose it.

It seems to me that it would be unwise to put a man—who was apparently to be appointed really to deal with grievances of the members of the Army—at the same time in as secretary of the Council of Defence and presumably to take the place of the present secretary on the Council. I think it would rather tend to divorce the civil from the military side of the Department and would, therefore, not be really in the interest of the Department as a whole. I do not know how the grievances are dealt with at the moment, but if there is a case for a change in the method of dealing with them it could be done by some special rearrangement in the Adjutant-General's Department and probably it would be better done in that way.

The job of a military secretary would be a rather unenviable one for any particular officer.

It is very hard to put cases such as this against what has grown up as the machinery and any person who endeavours to improve anything in the line of administrative machinery anywhere will always run up against the position that it has not been done and, therefore, it is not desirable. As I have said, this is an idea I have considered over a long number of years and that I think desirable. I am not concerned so much at all with the secretaryship of the Council of Defence but with the other aspect where I feel that an officer or a soldier ought to have the right to make a complaint, as it were, direct to the Minister.

Mr. Brennan

Direct ?

Direct. That is the point I am making, by providing for a military secretary to whom these complaints would go, who would investigate them right away and advise the Minister as to what he had found in his investigations. In that way grievances could be dealt with pretty quickly and very satisfactorily. There is no doubt about it—and there is no use in saying otherwise—that the present system of dealing with the grievances of officers or soldiers is unsatisfactory and is known to be unsatisfactory both by officers and by soldiers. There is no doubt whatsoever about that and some improvement will have to be made. When I come to deal with the section covering that aspect I will give some experiences, where the wording of the Act has been used deliberately to prevent an officer or soldier putting forward a grievance. The Act specifically provides that if he has a complaint against his commanding officer he can do so and so, but when he attempts to do that he is told that that commanding officer is not responsible for pay or allowances or this, that and the other and, therefore, he has no complaint at all. Once you have to go through the machinery of command to deal with grievances, you are to some extent interfering with the ordinary routine of administration.

Where a person has a personal grievance it is better that he should have that submitted as quickly as possible to the person who is in a position to redress it. Most of the grievances of military personnel are not against officers; they are against the Department of Defence, against action of the civil side of the Department. These are the persons against whom the main grievances in the Army are and when there is a complaint to the commanding officer he says he cannot do anything about it, as some official in the Department has given that instruction—and that is done always in the name of the Minister, although the Minister never sees the matter at all and knows nothing about it. By having a direct opening to a person like a military secretary, the matter could be investigated immediately and the Minister could be advised about the complaint and could give such directions as he thought fit about it. I have felt for a number of years that that was a desirable thing to do. I have the opportunity now of putting the view forward, and I put it as a thought-out idea that would make for an improvement in military administration generally.

I mentioned the Secretary of the Department of Defence. I found that, since the Ministers and Secretaries Act, since the Council of Defence was formed, the Secretary of the Department has acted as Secretary of the Council. Under this new Bill he gets a more important position. He was simply a recorder of decisions in the old council. He kept the minutes—I am not altogether sure whether there are any minutes, but at least he kept the records. Now he is getting a new status and comes in as a member, the same as the Parliamentary Secretary or the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General or the Chief of Staff. That being, so, I felt that there was scope for a change in the secretaryship of that body. That is not the important aspect of my amendment, however. The important thing is that there should be such an appointment and that the holder would be charged with the immediate investigation of grievances—in other words, as the Minister very well put it, he would be a friend of the military personnel to whom their personal grievances could be referred for the purpose of having them redressed as speedily as possible. I would like the committee to consider that matter and I am sorry the Minister has not considered it a desirable thing to have such a person. I can assure the Minister and the committee that, as far as the ordinary juniors are concerned—junior officers and soldiers—they would welcome the appointment of such an officer with whom they could get in touch in regard to their grievances.

I am not altogether sure on this, but I think that in other armies they have such a person as a military secretary who has functions such as those I mentioned in regard to military personnel, with whom an officer could always get in touch directly and put a point of view to him in regard to his own personal position—which has nothing to do either with discipline or with command or general administration but with his own personal position. I am very strongly in favour of the idea and of the appointment and I strongly advocate it to the committee.

I do not believe that the machinery at present in operation is satisfactory for the hearing of grievances of soldiers and junior officers. I am not at all so keen on Deputy Cowan's proposed appointment of a military secretary to the Minister but I do think that the machinery at the disposal of the private soldier at present is not satisfactory. If some means could be devised whereby grievances that do occur would get a fair hearing and a quick hearing and sympathetic attention from the Minister or someone else, I would be satisfied and I think that is really what Deputy Cowan intends in this particular amendment.

I am not going to accept the statement that the present machinery is all right. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept this amendment, to explore the possibilities of arranging with the Adjutant-General's branch to simplify the present machinery. There are many examples of a man's pay being docked and it is days after the particular offence that the docking takes place and the soldier often has no idea of what it is all about. Once the decision is taken, that is the end of it as far as the soldier is concerned. He is told by the commanding officer that he can do nothing about it, that it is the civilian section in the Department of Defence that deals with these things and that it is out of his hands. If things like this could be remedied the Minister would be doing a good day's work for the lower ranks.

I wonder could we get this clear? There are three points involved. Deputy Cowan has rolled three things into one. First of all, there is the question of appointing a secretary to the Council of Defence. Personally, I believe the arrangement in the Bill is the best there. There is no need, apart from anything else, for a special secretary. The next is the vexed question of whether the Minister should have a military secretary. I have always felt, and I think Deputy Cowan would agree, that it would be desirable that the Minister should have in his own personal staff a military officer. I still feel that.

I could appoint a military officer at any time.

That is what I am getting at. Whether he would be elevated to a statutory post or not is a different thing. There is this particular point of difficulty, that it is a most unenviable task for any officer. If you appoint an officer as secretary to a particular Minister it is nearly bound to have a blighting effect on his career. I think that is the big objection, although, personally, I think there should be some provision for a military officer who could do certain work for the Minister. I could think of a lot of work he could do on the military side. It might be useful but it is not absolutely essential because in effect the Minister gets such advice from the principal staff heads. The final point is the question of the soldier's friend. I would like the Minister to note that it is the three people here at present who have had experience of the system who are lined up on this. I am perfectly confident that other Deputies who are not present but who have had experience of the Army would line up on this. The present system is undoubtedly inadequate. I do not think that anybody who has served in a line unit could come to any other conclusion. The fact that Deputy Cowan, Deputy McQuillan and myself are in agreement should make the Minister feel that there is substance in this point. Personally, I do not think that the machinery which Deputy Cowan proposes, that is, of rolling them all into one and making a military secretary, is necessarily the answer but I do think that there should be some military officer within the Department of Defence charged with the duty of looking after the rights of military personnel.

It has happened very frequently that the administrative branches, particularly the civil branches, have been—I will go so far as to say arbitrary, and that is a rather a strong word to use—in their dealings with soldiers in the matter of docking of pay, barrack damages, loss of stores and such kindred matters, and if the matter is fought it is frequently found that the Department is in the wrong. The notorious examples, of course, have been some of the pensions cases, where the Department has gone out and arbitrarily decided something until someone has brought them to court and pulled them up. Unfortunately, the private cannot do that.

I would like to take this opportunity of saying that, while I do not agree with the actual form that Deputy Cowan is proposing in this amendment and would vote against it in this form, I think that his last point is a very good point and that the Minister, not necessarily within the framework of the Bill, but within the Department, should try to put that right permanently. It is likely to become quite a serious thing on a project of extension. They called them F.18s in my time. We have all had our experience of these things. While I do not see how the Minister could accept this amendment in the framework of the Bill, I think he should consider the matter.

To some extent Deputy Cowan, and to a lesser extent Deputy McQuillan, have made some of the case which I would have to make if I were making the case against the proposition. Deputy Cowan referred to the fact that soldiers bring their grievances to their commanding officer, who points out to them that their particular complaint is not relevant because it refers to pay or something else which has to be referred to some other section or to the Department itself. That is true enough. Very many of the grievances fall because they are not relevant. If you had such a person as Deputy Cowan seems to desire I do not know that he would be in any better position. If he came to deal with complaints and grievances he would be in the very same position as the man's commanding officer if, when he examined the complaint, he found that it was either a frivolous complaint or that it was not a complaint with which he could deal. Therefore I do not think you can do very much about that.

I want to say this—it is something that is not generally known because it comes within my own section of the Department, that is, the ministerial office—there is hardly a day goes by that I do not get a bunch of letter from soldiers' wives. The soldier cannot write his complaints but Deputy Cowan knows as well as I do that the wife is a much more powerful means of getting at the Minister than the soldier or the soldier's commanding officer.

All soldiers are not married.

As far as I am concerned, I generally have these complaints examined very carefully, very meticulously, if they are really complaints against the system. I have been strongly advocating with the military authorities, with the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General that that kind of autocracy should be nipped in the bud right away and that the men who serve in the Army should be regarded as men who are devoting themselves to the service of the country and should be treated as men who are carrying out that task. I think that the system that Deputy Cowan knew many, many years ago is not the same system that operates to-day. It probably applies to every army in the world now that men are treated in the manner in which they should be treated, as men who are giving service to their country. I think we are in the forefront of that type of new idea.

If it were only a question of having the grievances of soldiers more readily examined, I could easily look into that but there is a bigger question than that being discussed, the question of a military secretary, to which I would not be prepared to agree at all. I have in my own right, and every Minister has, the power to appoint any person I wish to appoint as secretary, including a military officer, but, as the Chairman has very rightly pointed out, no military officer would be hankering after that particular job. He might be tabbed as being a sort of follower of the Minister when the man might not even be in sympathy with him. That is the danger and it is the danger to which I would not like to expose any officer.

Every soldier and junior officer will tell you that the machinery for airing grievances is anything but satisfactory. The junior officers and soldiers that I have met are of that opinion. As far as dealing more readily with grievances is concerned some effort should be made to have somebody detailed from the Adjutant-General's branch to deal with these things. I find that a soldier when he leaves the Army becomes more talkative and you get the real stuff from him then and he tells you that he would like to do this, that and the other and he just cannot do it. I feel that the Minister would be only too pleased to have all these grievances examined. He has told us that he has grievances that come before him examined in detail. I think we may accept from the Minister that he will see if something could be done to have somebody detailed for this work.

There is something more than that in it. One of the troubles with the soldier is to decipher what the actual position is with the mass of regulations and amendments by reference and all the rest of it. What the soldier needs is that he can make an inquiry and find out his rights. That seems to presuppose that there should be some machinery which would enable the Deputy-Judge Advocate General's Department to advise him objectively on what his rights are and thereafter to see that he is not docked money in the wrong or unnecessarily oppressed. I use the word " oppressed " objectively. There is no interest in this on anybody's part and there is no malice. I have never seen any direct evidence of malice but the system just works out that way. I think the Minister could very definitely give attention to these things but I think that it is beyond the scope of the Bill. If that is the only purpose for which the military secretary is needed, I would say that it is not necessary to supply it in the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

Would it not be the duty of the commanding officer to put his grievance in writing ?

The commanding officers have their job to find out what the position is.

Mr. Brennan

It should be his job.

Is the commanding officer to sit down for a few days to decipher the position and become legal adviser?

Mr. Brennan

We expect the commanding officer to take an interest in the men in his particular unit.

That is where the system breaks down.

Mr. Brennan

I would not agree with the suggestion in the amendment that the man would have direct approach to either the military secretary or the Minister because my view is that grievances should go through the proper channels. If not you would have grievances of the simplest nature being brought to the notice of the military secretary or the Minister.

There is substance in that.

No soldier will go outside the commanding officer.

More adequate machinery is necessary.

What happens when the commanding officer says: " I cannot do anything; I am tied up."

We are going beyond the terms of the Bill now, and I must rule myself and everybody else out of order. In so far as there is an argument for the amendment, it has been made and we can discuss the machinery by which it should be done—whether or not a military secretary is the solution.

What the Minister has said with regard to how they deal with grievances supports the idea I have in mind of bringing them as close to him as possible as quickly as possible, because the sooner they are brought to the Minister and investigated and dealt with the better. The funny thing about a soldier is that when he feels it has been investigated he is quite happy. When he is simply told this his commanding officer or the officer in command of the Command can do nothing about it and that the Adjutant-General can do nothing about it he feels a grievance. It is some official in an office in the Department who gives the order and gives it not by himself but by direction of the Minister when, as I say, the Minister has never heard of the order. The commanding officer undoubtedly has his own day's work to do. The training and administration of the unit is important and then there is the question of a grievance which may involve a legal investigation into a particular position. I accept what the Minister says that there has been an improvement in the Army but the Minister would be surprised if he were in the position I occupy from time to time when I am consulted professionally even up to now by soldiers in regard to what happens in particular units. Generally speaking, nobody wants to bring in more than is necessary to get a person acquitted when some charge is made. Nobody wants to bring the whole administration or general grievances into the record so that they may be investigated. I do not accept the idea that the position of military secretary would not be a position that officers would be anxious to get into. I think that the very keenest officers would be very anxious to get into a position of such importance. I did not have in mind that he was to be particularly junior officer or even a particularly senior officer but I certainly had in mind that he would be an experienced officer with a pretty wide knowledge of the whole administration of the Army because otherwise he would not be in a position to bring the facts before the Minister in such a way as to enable the Minister to decide the issue quickly. The proposed section is simply a section for the appointment of a permanent military secretary to do such work as the Minister may from time to time assign to him and I visualise that that man could deal with the grievances mentioned here and could, if it were so desired, act as secretary to the Council of Defence. That, however, is not important, as I have made clear. It is the investigation of grievances that is the important aspect so far as I am concerned. I believe that it is through machinery such as I suggest that grievances can be remedied quickly and for that reason I press the amendment.

What type of grievances does Deputy Cowan visualise ?

There are all kind of grievances.

Such as a surcharge.

Which might be correct.

And it might be incorrect, too.

Very often surcharges are incorrect and very often they are correct but a man feels aggrieved and wants the case investigated. When it is explained to him that it is perfectly right, he is satisfied. The ordinary commanding officer is not in a position to interpret whether an official in Defence who deducted £10 from a man's pay was correct in so doing. That is a very technical legal matter.

In respect of what ?

Suppose he is in a motor car and there is a collision and he holds that he is not at fault. There has been no court-martial or anything else arising out of it but it is decided that £10 be deducted from his pay. He feels very sore about that.

Mr. Brennan

Do you suggest that that man should have the right to sit down and write a letter direct to the military secretary or to the Minister?

No, to the military secretary. As the Minister says, and I agree, there has been a very big change in military standing all over the world and soldiers now get an opportunity of talking to people very high in rank to whom they would not have had the right to talk 40 years ago. There is a greater spirit of independence right through the world, and the fact that he can write to the military secretary to complain about £10 having been deducted from his pay does not make him in any way a worse soldier. He is probably a better soldier because he is an independent-minded fellow who wants to know why. It is not necessary that soldiers should be kept always under the control of the commanding officer as if he were a mother.

Mr. Brennan

There is such a thing as discipline.

Discipline has to deal with military matters.

Mr. Brennan

Discipline arises here in my interpretation.

That is why we are discussing the matter at all. I have known cases where a soldier went in to complain and discipline was used to throw him out.

Mr. Brennan

Then devise a method by which the commanding officer will be responsible.

I have had experience of the Army, and from the angle from which Deputy Cowan speaks, that of the rank and file, and except in the case of a ‘ stumer ' of a commanding officer or adjutant, I have never seen military law used to deprive the ordinary soldier of his rights.

What we are talking about is such things as surcharges. I have unfortunately seen cases of it.

It arises in relation to those cases which Deputy Cowan mentioned of a soldier going in to make a complaint to the commanding officer or adjutant and finding the section being used to throw him out.

I admit that there are exceptionally good commanding officers.

The point at issue is the third point, the question of grievances, and I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that he will take steps to see that the present machinery is improved. I am talking, like other members of the Committee, from actual experience of what amounts to victimisation of private soldiers and junior officers not through any fault of the commanding officer but because, as I believe, of some civilian stuck in an office at whom nobody so far as Army personnel are concerned can get and who, by reason of the power he has of using the Minister's name, can make a decision to deduct £5, £10 or more from a man's pay in respect of barrack damages, shortage of kit or equipment or such things.

He cannot do that.

If there is a check-up on particular stores and there is a doubt about whose is the responsibility for a shortage, it has often been the case that a certain officer has been picked out and his pay docked. I often found that that was done unjustifiably but afterwards that officer had very little chance of making a complaint.

Wherever a question of an officer or soldier being mulcted in costs for damages arises, the Minister's order must be secured and no civil servant can execute that. It is the Minister himself who must sign the order and before doing so he reads through a long document describing in detail not only the damage caused but the reasons which brought about the damage. If, after reading the document provided for him to enable him to get a clear mind when making his decision, the Minister wishes to approve of the recommendation or to alter it in any way he desires, he can do so. It would be unfair to the civilian official to say that he does that without any reference to the Minister. There may be, and I am sure there are, cases in which there has been an overpayment. Where an overpayment made to a soldier has been discovered, the sum in question must be recovered. Overpayments can be recovered without going to the Minister for an order but in all cases of damage to motor cars, property and so on, the Minister's order must be secured.

I agree, but the ordinary soldier is not in a position to know that. So far as he is concerned it is an official in the Department who does it, and even though the Minister himself makes the decision the soldier or officer afterwards feels that he has a grievance and, in spite of the fact that the decision has been made by the Minister, there is no re-opening of the matter with a view to having it revised.

While I still do not think the amendment is the way to deal with it I am rather impressed by some of the things which have been said here. I have also heard of these matters from outside and I know that men cansuffer a distinct grievance and that they do not seem to have any remedy. I suggest that the Minister should takesome steps to enable these men to make their case more directly to somebody of standing who could put that case forward for them. It is very important for the Army. After the emergency I heard some tales about things that happened and according to what I have heard here they were fairly widespread. It was some civil servant or officer who was not connected with these matters at all who was blamed and I think that some system should be devised if we are to have a contented Army ——

I would not like to see this.

—— by which those men should have some access to someone like a soldier's friend—some man of fairly senior rank who would be experienced and could tell them their rights and, if necessary, make a case for them as between them and civilians.

I could mention two cases, both of officers. One was the case of an officer who served with me. He was of my own rank and was a very capable and efficient officer. I sat with him around a table like this when we discussed very important matters and he always gave me the impression of being a most capable man. He had the experience one day of treating a person from another branch in an offhand way. He said to him: "That is a ridiculous suggestion "—as it was a ridiculous suggestion. That particular person reached a pretty high rank in the Army and was in a position to stop that officer's promotion from then until he left the Army a couple of years ago, never having been promoted one grade. He served in the Army all through the emergency and his promotion was held up all that time, he believes, because he stated his opinion at a conference where rank did not count. He had a distinct grievance but he could not get to the Minister directly. His complaint had to go to a number of people before reaching the Minister and he was stymied. Even at the moment there is a case about which I have talked to the Minister—that of a person who is resigning.

Do not talk of that.

I will not.

That is not a grievance.

It might be.

I will mention one case. It is outside this question but there are members of this Committee who have shown that they are anxious to do the best they can. I knew a young officer who was stationed down the country and he was " doing a line," as we say, with the daughter of a quartermaster. This is a serious matter. This was frowned upon by his commanding officer and other senior officers in the locality. He was not told directly by his commanding officer that he could not carry on this line with the lady but he was told indirectly that if he persisted he would not see promotion within that command. He persisted and as a result had to get a transfer to another command in the hope of rising in the Army. That is a typical example of a grievance which should be brought to the notice of an officer outside the command to be remedied. That was a case of class distinction. The officer, within the last two years, married the girl in question in spite of the advice of his commanding officer and the senior officers. This shows that there are grievances which have nothing to do with military discipline.

I think we have discussed it sufficiently.

We have more than discussed it.

In the net it is a matter for recommendation to the Minister but not a matter for this.

It is actually here in the Miscellaneous Provisions.

A lot of attacks seem to be made on civilian officers in the course of this discussion. I would like to say that from my own experience I could not take the view that you can blame the civilian officers for everything. It is just the way the system works out. In fairness I think that remark should be made. Is Deputy Cowan pressing the amendment?

It is a problem whether I will press it or not. Anyway, I have put it forward as a point. Apparently it is not acceptable to the Committee and that being so I do not think it would be right to press it to a vote. Perhaps when we come to Miscellaneous Provisions we may get an indication from the Minister that something will be done to deal with the matter in a better way than in this section.

Amendment No. 14, by leave, withdrawn.

I oppose the section. I do not think that such an appointment as Inspector-General is at all desirable at the moment. It is an old provision which I understand had something to do with the French Army and I think with the British Army. Whether it still exists in the British Army I do not know as I have not been able to check that. It was brought into operation only once in the recollection of any member of this Committee or of anyone else since the State was established. That was in 1924—I think it was—at the time of the Army mutiny. At that time the Government looked to the position as it was. They were making certain changes and they looked into the Defence Forces Act of that time and saw the provision for an Inspector-General, and appointed one. I do not know what an Inspector-General is, whether he is a Commander in Chief——

——or what. I should like the Minister to say whether after the experience of the last 28 years the Department is of opinion that this section should be retained in a permanent Act.

As far as I can find out it is really an attempt to provide for any contingency that might arise in the future where it would be desirable to have someone independent of the Chief of Staff to carry out the inspection of the Defence Forces. Suppose that in a time of emergency a detailed inspection of the forces was necessary and that the Chief of Staff himself was immersed in perhaps even more important work; then it would be desirable to have such a person. It is something that might or might not operate, but again it might be desirable to have the power should the necessity arise. I must say that during the last emergency, however, I never saw the necessity. We had the power to appoint such a person but, due perhaps to the intensive activity of the Chief of Staff, it was not necessary because he appeared to get around to every post in the country and examine it from the point of view of efficiency, and in future the position might be the same. As far as I can find out from the inquiries I have made it is merely an attempt to provide for the necessity to appoint such a person and there is nothing more to it.

I do not want to waste any time but I understand that when this was originally introduced in the British Army it was necessary. They had some elderly officers and when, as was not unusual in the British Army prior to the first world war, things were not too sound from the point of view of training and administration they introduced this provision whereby there could be a gee-up without interfering with the inefficient people at the top. We simply carted this section out of the British Act. It was never discussed and nobody knew what it ever meant. In 1924 they said : " What can we do?" There is a section which allows us to appoint an Inspector-General. We will appoint General O'Duffy." They gave him almost all the powers of a Commander in Chief. If I were satisfied that the duties involved would be simply those of an Inspector-General, that he would be concerned only with inspection and making recommendations to the Minister, in other words, if he were a superior military secretary such as we have just been discussing, I would have no objection at all the appointment, but in so far as the Government may appoint him as Commander in Chief of the forces and an appointment has once been made to such a position, I am opposed to it.

I could only give you my own assurance in that respect. I could give no assurance for any person who might succeed me but ordinary commonsense would dictate the use or otherwise of the section.

I wanted to enquire whether the years had increased the necessity for such an appointment but apparently the status is still the same as it was.

It is an enabling position.

The fact is that we did not fall back on it during the emergency.

The strange thing is that it was used in a period of crisis in 1924. In my view it was wrongly used and I am afraid that it might be wrongly used again. However, I will not press it.

Section put and agreed to.
Top
Share