Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 25

DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923 (CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT) BILL, 1924—SECOND STAGE.

The PRESIDENT (Minister for Defence)

I beg to move:—"That this Bill be now read a second time." In doing so, I should say that I shall find it necessary to either withdraw, or modify an undertaking given by General Mulcahy last year that men would not be recruited for a longer period than two years, with one-and-a-half in the Reserve, or one-and-a-half years, and two years in the Reserve. I have not the exact figures, but I anticipate having them before the Second Reading Stage is completed.

It is proposed to recruit something like 50 per cent. for two years service, and from recollection I would say that the other figures run in the form of 10 per cent. for 12 years service, and 15 per cent. for 7 years service; 15 per cent. for 5 years service; and 10 per cent. for 3 years service, but at any rate, as far as the twelve years service is concerned, I think I am right in saying that it was 10 per cent., and in the case of two years service, it was 50 per cent.

Now, the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, under which the Defence Forces are at present maintained and disciplined, will expire on the 2nd August next, and it is necessary to obtain fresh statutory authority from the Oireachtas. It had been intended to introduce, early this year, a Bill dealing with the Defence Forces on a more permanent basis, but this was not possible.

This Bill proposes first to continue in force the Act of 1923 until the 31st of March, 1925. It does not follow that the Act of 1923 will continue in operation until that date, because it is intended that the Bill which will be introduced in the autumn will be put into operation as soon as it becomes law. This Bill seeks to effect in last year's Act certain amendments: (1) There is the introduction of an oath of fidelity for officers, and a change in the form of the oath prescribed for soldiers; (2) power to reduce an officer or a non-commissioned officer (3) changes in the disciplinary provisions in reference to the following matters, including (a) powers of Provost Marshal and Military Police; (b) the introduction of an accused's right to elect to be tried by court-martial in certain cases instead of having his case dealt with summarily; (c) changes in procedure on the investigation and summary disposition of charges; (d) provisions with regard to jurisdiction of courts-martial not being ousted by non-compliance with provisions as regards preliminary investigation; (e) power to order accused for trial by court-martial in certain cases without previous investigation as prescribed by the Act; (4) changes as regards forfeitures and deductions from pay of officers and soldiers; (5) change in reference to the transfer of a soldier from one corps to another.

The Bill enables the Minister to reduce an officer who fails to pass his necessary qualifying examination for the rank to which he was gazetted for a commission to the next highest rank for which he is qualified. And it also enables the Minister to reduce a non-commissioned officer to a lower non-commissioned rank or to the ranks. At present there is no power of dealing with cases of that sort, except to dispense with the services of that non-commissioned officer who might be a well-conducted man. There were also some verbal amendments in the Bill. The term "constable" is, I think, employed under the present Act, and it is proposed to substitute the more correct terminology, that is Gárda Síochána, for that of Civic Guard. It is also proposed to substitute the expression "military defence forces" for the expression "armed forces." Armed forces would include the Army Medical Corps, and I think it would not be contended that that was an armed force. Power is also given to employ civilians and prescribe the term of their employment. This is principally to regulate the position of nursing sisters who are employed in military hospitals and who are neither officers nor soldiers. I formally move that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Major COOPER

Under normal circumstances, I should wish to discuss this Bill at very considerable length, because it raises questions of the very highest importance. It can hardly be considered without discussing the function that the Army is to play in the State, and that function is, as yet, somewhat vague and indefinite, and requires to be more accurately defined and determined. But, under the existing circumstances, this is an Act that is to expire in little more than a month's time, and it must necessarily be replaced if the whole fabric of law in the Army is not to disappear. That being so, I propose to reserve any general criticism that I might have delivered, till the permanent amending Bill is introduced, and I hope it will be introduced early in the Autumn Session, so that we may have a full and adequate opportunity for discussing it.

There is just one point which the President referred to in his opening remarks, that is the fact that 50 per cent. of the Army are only taken for a period of two years' service. He is very wise only to make it 50 per cent., because if you enlist any larger proportion than 50 per cent. for a term of short service, you would find it very hard to get the necessary specialists and necessary non-commissioned officers in that time. You can train an infantry soldier in something like six months, and have him effective. You cannot train a sergeant in very much less than two years, and as regards artillery men, signallers, and specialists of that kind, two years is all too short a time if they are to be trained and are to be made thoroughly efficient. I am inclined to demur, even to the wisdom of retaining 50 per cent. on a two years' service basis. Two years service is, I think, a term taken from the conscript armies of Europe, and it is not applicable to a voluntarily enlisted army, because you take a man out of civil life and keep him in the Army for two years. By doing that you unfit him for civil employment, and then when he is still a comparatively young man, ordinarily about 21 or 23 years of age, you send him back into civil life after having missed the two most important formative years in whatever trade or industry he was being brought up to. You send him back into civil life with only a smattering of military knowledge that is of no great value to him. It is possible to do that on the Continent of Europe, where they have conscript armies, because there everybody lacks that same formative period. It is cut out of everybody's life whether he likes it or not. But I believe it will place the soldier at a serious disadvantage in industrial competition here if he is removed from the labour market for two years. It would be better, really, to remove him for a longer period, and let him make military service a career in life, and then let him get a pension at the end of it.

I am inclined to hold—of course, there are arguments for and against on both sides—that our Army should be a very small army of expert men, of men having special training, with an Officers' Training Corps and organisations of that kind, and that we should provide the necessary machinery for expansion in case of need for our permanent Army, or an army regularly paid and equipped on a permanent footing. This could be described as a system of highly expert men, of specialists in their work engaged for a long period and obtaining a pension at the end of that period. But, on the whole, I believe that our Army must necessarily be a small Army. I believe that would be the most economical system. I am sure, too, it would be the most efficient sort of army to have. I hope, therefore, that before the permanent Bill comes up for consideration that the President, or whoever will then be occupying the position of Minister for Defence, will consider these points carefully. As I say I do not propose to debate this Bill in detail, because it is only put in as a stop gap, and under the conditions under which the Government has chosen that we are to discuss it, criticism is wasted.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am somewhat at a loss to understand the purpose of this Bill. I could have understood quite well if it had been a continuance Bill for the period that is stated as from August until March next, provided that there had been already indicated for the public consideration what the intentions of the Government may be regarding the permanent organisation of the Army. It seems to me that we ought to be informed, or, at least, shortly informed, of what the intentions and the proposals of the Government in general outline are regarding the future Defence Forces of the Saorstát, so that by the time March arrives the country will have been informed, and will have had some opportunities for a general discussion upon the principles that should be applied in the case of a permanent organisation of the Army.

In this Bill we have not merely a Continuance Bill, but an Amending Bill, an amendment of the Temporary Provisions Act. The amendments are fairly numerous, and I looked for some explanation from the Minister in moving the Second Reading as to why some of these amendments were required. I am not prepared to discuss any of them in detail. I will ask the Minister for Defence to tell us whether or not everyone of these changes in the Temporary Act is, without doubt, necessary for carrying on for six months. I would have thought that some of them are not necessary, and that, consequently, they would not have been introduced in a Bill of this kind which is purely temporary, and what one may call an emergency measure.

The statement of the Minister in this matter rather suggests that his mind has been made up, that the future military organisation is to be on the lines of the Temporary Act that is now in force, an Act which, bear in mind, though very long and detailed, was run through the Oireachtas without any consideration whatever or with about ten minutes' consideration in Committee. I do not know how many sections there are in that Act, but we all remember that it received no consideration whether in principle or in detail. One gathers from the Minister's statement that the plan embodied in that general Act still embodies the intentions of the Ministry with regard to the future. I think it would be advisable in the public interest that we should know from the Minister for Defence whether we are to assume that the scheme outlined in the Military Defence Forces Act of 1923, is the scheme which he is proposing to make permanent, so that long before the introduction of the Permanent Bill we shall have fitted ourselves for the proper consideration of such a Bill. I think it is almost unnecessary to go into further details at this stage, but I would like the Minister for Defence to tell us quite definitely whether every one of these amendments is assumed to be inevitable and necessary for the proper conduct of the Army between now and March next.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill which was introduced last year contained 246 sections, and when it reached the Committee Stage it was pushed through in about ten minutes. It was obvious from the debate that took place on it, that the greater part of that Bill had practically been adopted from English Army Acts by a process known to editors as "scissors and paste." I take it that the main function of the present amending Bill now before the Dáil, is to change the wording of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, and merely to make it look somewhat more like a Free State Act, and also to adopt certain changes that have been required by the training of the past year in matters of discipline. The principle, nevertheless, remains the same. I would join with Deputy Johnson in urging the Minister for Defence to make a somewhat fuller statement than he has made when closing the debate as to the lines which he has in mind for the more permanent force which, in his judgment, and in the judgment of the Executive Council, this country is likely to require. We remember that last year Deputy Fitz-Gibbon and several other Deputies urged a definite form of Army quite distinct and separate from the kind of Army we have at the present moment, an Army very like that which has been practised in the British Dominions with success, and on the lines which Deputy Cooper has commended in the Dáil to-day.

I think it would be right, now that Army matters are forward, and it is quite impossible to discuss this Bill in any detail pending some kind of decision of that kind, that the Minister for Defence should indicate to the Dáil some kind of decision that the Executive Council is likely to arrive at, because unquestionably there are indications in the present Bill that seem to suggest that the Executive Council has had this matter under consideration. There is only one outstanding matter in the present Bill that certainly is changed, and changed for the good. The Minister for Defence has referred to it in his opening comments.

Last year, when the Defence Forces Bill was being passed, I urged that the oath to be required of the Army should be exactly the same as had already been adopted for the Civic Guard, by which every person, officer, and of the rank and file, would require to pledge himself to abstain from membership of all secret societies, and the Minister for Defence, then speaking on behalf of the Executive Council, rejected that amendment. The amendment was proposed by me, not without certain knowledge of what was likely to become more evident in months that were to come. These events have come to pass, and the amendment has now been adopted, providing whatever army be adopted in the future should be an army that is bound only by one principle, and that is the principle of subjection to this House and to this Parliament as representing, as it may change from time to time, the will of the people.

Mr. NAGLE

Will the President please explain the reasons for the difference between the oath to be taken by an officer and the oath to be taken by a soldier?

The PRESIDENT

I do not quite understand the last question. If I am asked to describe the difference between the two I think the difference is observable on the Paper, but as to whether there should be a difference is another matter.

Mr. NAGLE

The reason for the difference.

The PRESIDENT

I am afraid that the Deputy will have to wait until we come to it in the Committee Stage, when I will be better able to deal with that question. I should say that it is the ordinary difference between a higher rank and a lower rank, that there are certain terms which ought to be prescribed for one which are apparently not considered necessary for the other. In some armies it is not considered necessary to submit an oath for an officer at all.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is not much use when you do.

The PRESIDENT

And it was held here at one time that we had really too much swearing in this country, and there was a general objection to oaths. Deputy Figgis is not in that particular category. I do not know whether it is that he has a conscientious scruple in favour of oaths——

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Is the President referring to political oaths or other forms of oaths?

The PRESIDENT

—— But apart from that—and I hope to be able to deal more fully with that on the Committee Stage—I should say that the Second Reading of a Bill such as this might reasonably warrant a very much more ample, a much more exhaustive, and a much abler statement than I made in introducing the measure. We are pressed for time in regard to legislation, and I suppose that, if one looks for an example in the matter of being brief, one should look to the head of the Government. That was what I had in mind.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is brevity at the expense of efficiency.

The PRESIDENT

I quite agree with Deputy Cooper's remarks with regard to the length of time for recruitment which have been borne out during the last twelve months in our experience. Something might be said with regard to that in the amendments which we are putting up. It has been found in practice that these are necessary. They are necessary, I think, in the majority of cases, in the interests of the soldiers themselves, in the interests of discipline; in other cases necessary in the interests of the State, and generally for efficiency.

Dealing with the question of period, I would remind the Dáil that last year it was regarded as almost a necessity that we should not recruit beyond a period of eighteen months or two years, but this year it is seen at once that if we are to have an efficient machine such a period as two years is really too short to enable people to learn this profession of arms and to be efficient in dealing with it. Some of the speakers dealt with what are the functions of the Army—what is the policy of the Executive Council with regard to it. I do not know that it would be possible to say what is the policy of the Executive Council with regard to the functions of the Army, nor of any Executive Council which might be called on to pronounce upon the same subject. One has got to remember that a large number of institutions have been handed over for guarding; I think in Dublin city alone something like twenty guards have to be mounted. They are a considerable number, absorbing a very considerable number of men, and whatever views one may have about discipline and training, it is certainly hampered very much by having to mount guard in such a large number of places. The same thing might be said of other parts of the country.

The functions of the Army will depend to a very great extent upon the requirements of the State for the time being. During the disturbed periods through which we have passed it was hoped to get the Army concentrated in particular places where discipline and training might be indulged in. To some extent it was found that there was very great opposition by the people to their removal from smaller posts in outlying districts, but there has been a gradual concentration. That concentration, however, has been offset up to this by the large number of guards which have to be put in different places. In the City and around it there are something like seven barracks, and while one might discuss what the functions of the Army might be in theory, in practice it has come down to this, that the chief business of the Army for some considerable time past has been to mount guard. With regard to the amendments, I am not in a position to say in connection with each one as to its vital and absolute necessity, but as regards the whole of them, they have been found during the year to be necessary, and are recommended as such by those who have had experience during the last twelve or eighteen months of the running of the Army. It would be better, I think, to deal with each of them in detail when we come to them, and I could be then in a position to give examples in certain cases, and reasons in other cases. It is absolutely essential that this Bill should pass before the 2nd of August, because last year's Bill only runs to that date. I am not in a position to promise Deputy Cooper that we would introduce it in the autumn, but it is our intention certainly to introduce the new measure before the winter begins.

Major COOPER

That is, before Christmas?

The PRESIDENT

Before Christmas, and in that new measure things shall be taken into account and dealt with in a more satisfactory manner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday.