Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate

Chairman

It is interesting to note the context of this section :—

" (1) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.

(2) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, go into any public place in the State while wearing any foreign uniform."

. . . . . . . . .

I think it is a very proper section. There is only one comment to be made on that. How is a properly accredited military attaché covered ?

Mr. Hilliard

Take the case of persons who wear portion of their uniform. I see people who have held rank in other armies wearing the over-coat of their uniform.

Chairman

If it is adapted, the Minister will not prosecute for mutilation.

The words " in writing of a Minister of State " may not be necessary. I can imagine that in time of emergency or strained relation or in time of peril or danger it may be necessary to enforce that. In ordinary circumstances, in the case of a man who comes in here wearing the uniform of Australia, America, Britain, I do not think the Minister should have to go to the trouble of issuing a consent in writing.

Mr. Collins

It might be wise for the Minister to take general power in certain circumstances to allow them in.

Mr. Traynor

Sub-section (3) gives that power.

Captain Cowan

It gives scope. In other words, as far as the Minister is concerned, unless there was some particular reason, there would be no objection.

Chairman

Under this section the Minister will have to go through some motions if a foreign ship comes in, for instance.

Captain Cowan

I gather that sub-section (3) would cover that. Supposing there was a ship coming in bringing a crew of naval men. Can the Minister decide not to enforce sub-sections (1) or (2) ? Is the section wide enough for this ? It is pretty well restricted even by sub-section (3).

Mr. Collins

I was just wondering if the Minister would not like slightly wider power to obviate the necessity of any commitment by him in a general way in a certain period to allow people to come in and out in uniform.

Mr. Traynor

We need not grant the permit. The permits are applied for but need not be granted.

Mr. Collins

I am only anxious to help the Minister if he felt he wanted an extension.

Captain Cowan

A young man who left this country and went to America and was roped into Korea and who is coming home on leave may have no mufti. The same thing would apply to somebody who comes in—I see a few knocking around—in British Air Force or British military uniform. So long as it is not abused, it does not matter.

Captain Cowan

I do not like the rank, " commandant ", although I know it has historical associations. When the change of rank was made before, " commandant " was retained. I would much prefer to see the rank, " commandant ", abolished, because " commandant "——

Chairman

——has another military meaning. It was for sentimental reasons that it was kept on. The corresponding rank in the French Army was " commandant " but I am not sure if that has been changed.

Mr. Collins

It is still there.

Chairman

They have not changed it to " major " in recent years, have they ? The lowest field officer rank is the rank above captain, generally known as " major " in most armies, but it was known in the French Army and perhaps in one or two others as " commandant " and we used it as " commandant ". I have not checked on others but I thought I saw somewhere recently where French officers with that rank were described as " major ". Our ranks were out of line completely. The rank we called " major " was really " lieutenant-colonel " and the rank we called " commandant " was what other armies call " major ". It has been adjusted more or less to fit in with the French Army.

Mr. Brennan

It meant more than sentiment for the men carrying those ranks. It was a good enough name at that time and it should be good enough now.

Mr. Collins

I am completely with the Deputy. I think we should keep it.

Chairman

The same objection is not there as in the case of the other rank because the equation is right.

Mr. Traynor

Everything now fits in with the rank titles in other armies—our commandants and the majors in other armies are of equal status.

Chairman

It used to be " colonel ". I remember dealing with a couple of foreign lieutenant-colonels and I had to start off by explaining that I was the same rank as they were before we could get on. That is obviated.

Captain Cowan

It can be seen from the discussion that there are great difficulties in making a change. I have a feeling that, notwithstanding its historical and traditional associations, " commandant " is not a rank at all. " Commandant " is an appointment, and it is not a rank, and I would like to see it changed to " major ". However, I can see the objections. They are not strong objections.

Mr. Collins

Even though they may not be technically sound, they are sentimentally satisfying.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 320 :—

To delete paragraph 8, page 141, lines 13 and 14.

I put down that amendment for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Minister as to what paragraphs really connotes or is intended to cover.

Mr. Traynor

I am advised that there is no duplication here ; that the definitions of " commanding officer " and " company officer " as in Section 2 link in with this.

Chairman

That brings up a question we raised here.

Mr. Traynor

I thought the Deputy might be under the impression that there was duplication.

Captain Cowan

I was afraid there was. We have already dealt with commanding officers and subordinate officers for the purpose of investigation of charges. That is already defined. That can be dealt with by regulation which the Minister may make. When I saw this section I began to wonder what exactly it meant.

Chairman

Under the definition section, which we will come to in a moment, the words " commanding officer " are defined as an officer nominated to be that by regulation. Under the schedule the Minister is empowered to make the regulations which will define commanding officer.

Captain Cowan

No.

Chairman

Yes. If the definition stood and there was no power to make a regulation defining commanding officer there would be no commanding officer because nobody would be caught by the definition.

Captain Cowan

We have already dealt with commanding officers. I see what the Chairman means. In another section we dealt with commanding officers and investigation of charges. It is Section 183, which says :—

" For the purposes of this chapter the Minister may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, in relation to all or any of the following matters—that is to say :

" (a) the officers in whom are to be vested the powers and duties of authorised officers and commanding officers under this chapter and the officers in whom may be vested by delegation the powers and duties of subordinate officers under this chapter."

There are commanding officers apart from that type of commanding officers, and we need a special provision to define them, as the Chairman says. Where did we come across " company commander " in the Bill ?

Mr. Collins

We came across it in the court-martial section.

Chairman

I do not think some of lay members of the Committee completely appreciated at the time that the word " commanding officer ", in military language, has two meanings. One of them is the ordinary military meaning and the other is the legal meaning. When we talk of a commanding officer in the ordinary way, we mean an officer actually in command of a force, commanding a unit, but that is not the same type of thing as what is legally meant by a commanding officer. The term " commanding officer " as well as meaning in ordinary military parlance an officer commanding a unit or in command of troops—and nearly every officer is that in one sense or other—has also a very definite meaning in the legal sense. It has the definite legal meaning of an officer who, for the purposes of military law, is regarded as a commanding officer. Normally a battalion commander, certain higher formations and a company officer is an officer who commands a company properly appointed thereto in the legal frame of things. Commanding officers and company commanders have certain jurisdiction. It is a legal technical term. Under the section, a commanding officer is generally defined for the purposes of the Act as an officer so defined by regulations, and the Schedule then gives the Minister power to make the regulations which will define what officers are to be commanding officers for legal purposes. It is important, however, to bear in mind the distinction between commanding troops and being a commanding officer with legal jurisdiction for the purposes of military law.

Mr. Collins

I think this covers the point that does arise where they may not be a person in the appointment in a certain company and the commanding officer for certain purposes appoints an officer who may be a platoon commander of a company for the purpose of dealing with a charge in its initiation. He is defined as a company commander only for that limited purpose.