DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Hughes)

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I think I may claim that it is one of the shortest measures that has come before the Dáil up to the present. It contains one clause, and it is to the effect that the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1923 to 1925, shall continue in force until the 31st day of March, 1927, and shall then expire. I think that on the last occasion when we asked for a continuance of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, it was promised to this House that by this time a permanent Act would be introduced. I am not, however, in a position at this juncture to introduce a permanent Act. I do not think, in the first instance, that it would be good policy to introduce such an Act now. So far as I can see from the connection which I have had with the Department of Defence, it will take, and it has taken, all the time from the establishment of the forces on the 1st October, 1924, up to date, to find out and sift what is best for the country and for the Army and what best possible form of permanent Defence Act could be brought forward. I do not wish to come before the Dáil with a trumped-up Bill which would not pass muster. If it is my privilege to bring a permanent Bill before the Dáil, I want to bring one which will be watertight and which will not require amendment every year. For that reason I am convinced that I have taken the best possible course in order to bring forth a measure over which we can stand and which will be for the best interests both of the Army and the country. Perhaps I will be asked what is my policy at present in regard to the Army. My policy is to maintain discipline in the present Defence Forces and to see that they are in a position to defend the country so far as the country's needs are concerned, and to see that the forces which we are maintaining are such as the country can afford to pay for.

I know that some people think that we could get on without an Army altogether. I do not share that opinion. I say that a moderate and well-equipped army is essential for the interests of the country. It is essential also as an insurance, if for nothing else, because I believe that the price you pay for the Army is well worth the expenditure and you get value in return for it. The Army and the Council of Defence have been considering for some time back what are the best organisation schemes that can be put forward. These schemes have been under consideration for some time but they are not yet perfected. But as a Bill must be brought in to legalise the forces after the 31st March, I think the only thing I can do is to continue the Emergency Bill up to the 31st March, 1927. The Defence Forces measure we have at present is an immense document. There are 246 clauses and eight schedules in it, and with the amount of legislation which we have before us for this session, I do not think it would be possible, even if we were ready for it, to get that legislation through and to give it the time and attention which it would deserve. Therefore, I am of opinion that I am doing the right thing in continuing the present Act in force for one year from the 31st March next.

We have made some changes in connection with the Army under the present Act. We are about to take in Cadets for the Air Force, and I hope to extend that system to the Army during the course of the coming year. The Army itself may possibly be greater or smaller, according as the exigencies of the case demand, but at present we have stopped recruiting except for No. 1 Battalion, the Irish-speaking Battalion, which is not up to strength. That is the only branch we are recruiting for with the exception of the School of Music. I think, under the circumstances, I am justified in asking the Dáil to pass this measure, and I may say confidently that it will be the last time that we will come before the Dáil to ask for a temporary measure.

Question—"That the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill. 1925, be read a second time."

Mr. ESMONDE

I have not much to say on the Bill. I think that the Dáil has been very kind and generous to the Minister during his period of office. My objection to the Bill, although I listened to the Minister's explanation, is that it extends the present system for too long a period. The Minister is asking power to retain the present organisation until March, 1927. That, I think, is certainly a very long period, and it is a period that would cover the presumed meeting between the British and Irish Governments this time next year for the consideration of national defence under Article 6 of the Treaty. One would hope that by that time, say, in twelve months' time, the Minister would have made up his mind as to what is to be the permanent organisation of the Army. For that reason I object to the Bill in its present form. In Committee I hope to move amendments to reduce the period for which the Bill will be in force. My opposition to the Minister has considerably abated since I saw photographs of him jumping over hedges and ditches in the South of Ireland following the manoeuvres of the Irish Army last summer. These photographs showed that he was taking a very active interest in his Department. I understand that the President was also engaged in the manoeuvres and was guilty of many grave breaches of etiquette by giving advice now to one side or the other, but I suppose the Minister is not called upon to take disciplinary action in that case.

In spite of the Minister's explanation, it is very remarkable that his is the only Department in the State which has not produced a permanent Bill for its organisation. It is now several years since the State came into being, and the other Departments have been permanently organised. I think the House would be very critical of the Minister for Justice if the police were at present on a temporary and semi-disorganised basis. The same would apply to all the other Departments of State. I wonder what explanation the Minister has to give for the fact that his Department is in this respect entirely exceptional, and that even now is not in the position of announcing a permanent policy for his Department. That is my objection to the Bill.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not rise to oppose the adoption of the measure. Having heard the Minister for Defence, I am glad that it is a temporary measure. The Bill comes before the House in a very brief form, but I think not briefer than the Minister's explanation of its provisions. The Minister in his explanation indicates the necessity for a permanent military force. For that reason I welcome the continuance of the measure on a temporary basis, so as to give him full time to reconsider his decision. I am not clear as to the need of the country for a permanent military force, but I would like the Minister to indicate in what respect he considers a permanent military force to be necessary. Looking at it from a commercial point of view, the military force has been criticised as a very heavy charge on the State. We get no indication as to whether there has been any saving of expense, or a reduction in the number of men that have been enlisted. The Minister has told us that recruiting has been stopped, and in that respect one feels he has done the right thing. The matter of a standing army involves the question as to the numbers required, as well as the broad basic principle as to whether an army constituted such as the present is absolutely required for the defence of the Saorstát. I suppose between this and the time the temporary Bill expires we all will have opportunities of considering that question, both in its economic bearings and otherwise.

Our War Lord indicated the necessity for a well-equipped, up-to-date army of whatever dimensions — he does not tell us the dimensions—adequate to the needs of the country, and I wish he would explain what that means. This matter has been so long under consideration that a decision should have been arrived at before this. Deputy Esmonde, in referring to the Minister for Justice, compared the Army with the Police Force. I do not think there is any comparison in that respect, because the Police Force had to be on a permanent basis from the start, but I think we might also criticise the Minister for Justice regarding delay in connection with Departments under his control. For instance, today we are not favoured with the Rules of Court, which are a very essential factor in connection with the Department of Justice. As I have said, I am not opposing this temporary measure, but I hope after the interval in which it has been in operation has elapsed, he will have modified his ideas as to the necessity for a standing army of any great dimensions, or as to the necessity for any elaborate programme for the defence of the country being necessary once we get the Boundary question settled.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would like to know from the Minister if the acceptance of this Bill means an acceptance of the present Army organisation, and a stereotyping of the present form of organisation for the next two years? If that is so I would register a protest against it. I think there is a good deal of feeling that a standing Army is not necessary in this State. Suggestions have been made here already that an army organisation in the nature of a militia or territorial army, trained for a short period each year, with a small permanent staff, would be much more in keeping with the ideals of this country than a permanent standing army. It is my opinion that in a country of the type of the Saorstát, where the ideals are all for peace, and which we hope will never get embroiled in any international troubles of any kind, something in the nature of a militia or territorial army will be much more in keeping with the nation's needs than a standing army.

It is also a fact that a standing army can become, in certain cases, a danger to the country rather than an advantage, and in a country which has very little possibilities of offering active military services to men, and in a country in which people are tiring of the question of active military service, I think it is a thing which ought to receive consideration before the end of the two years, as to whether the present form of army organisation should continue. I am not fully aware whether the acceptance of this Bill means that or not. I agree with Deputy Esmonde that it would be better to accept the temporary measure for a year, instead of two years.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I would like to ask whether the acceptance of this Bill now would prevent the Minister, between this and the date when this Bill expires, bringing in some measure providing for a number of married men whose wives can live on the strength of the army. On many occasions, and practically to every Deputy, promises have been made on this matter. I have heard of cases where married men applied either for quarters or for wages which would enable them to keep their wives outside.

I am satisfied that the Minister for Defence is sympathetic in that direction, judging by some letters I have seen from his Department, but he is not doing anything beyond being sympathetic, and the result is there are many married men, who with their wives and families have to live on what is paid to single soldiers. I think the Minister ought to be in a position today to make some arrangement to provide for married men who are already in the Army.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to ask the Minister one or two small questions with regard to regulations in the Army. I would like if the Minister would indicate to the Dáil what becomes of the money which is stopped from men in the Army in cases of breaches of military discipline? I understand that for some offences a certain number of days' pay is stopped, and there are other offences for which, I understand, the soldiers are fined. I am also informed that these stoppages of pay and fines amount to a considerable sum in the year, and I shall be glad if the Minister would indicate what becomes of that money. I would also like to ask him what are his intentions with regard to the matter mentioned by Deputy Byrne — the cases of married men in the Army. I am speaking now of men in the Army who married subsequent to the Order issued in October, 1923, or in October, 1924, I am not quite sure which, and whether he proposes to make any provision whereby those men will be in receipt of sufficient pay to enable them to keep their wives outside.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister told us what the policy of the Ministry of Defence is. We had an explanation recently of the policy in another Department, and in that case we were told that the policy was to make of Ireland a Gaelic Nation. The policy of the Ministry of Defence is to maintain discipline and to defend the country, both very admirable. But I had hoped that the Minister would have given us some indication of the character of the forces of Defence and of the purpose of their training. The matter was raised before, and we were not then told what was the view of the Ministry regarding the character of the Army forces. He told us, for instance, that he proposed to increase the air forces considerably. Well presumably there is a purpose in that increase. A change is taking place and a new balance is in process of development, a modification in the number of infantry and an increase in the air forces. What I would like to have from the Minister is some idea or explanation as to the impulse which leads to that change in the balance. It is a Defence Force, but there must be in mind some sort of an idea of the possible, potential enemy, and it would be in accordance with one's views as to the possibilities as to whether the Defence Forces ought have heavy artillery in good quantity, or cavalry, or develop an air force or a navy or any other arm.

This is a Defence Force Bill, not merely an Army Bill, and I think we are entitled to have some indication from the Minister as to whether the Army that is in being and that is being worked towards is to be a Defence Force, as continental armies are defence forces, or whether it is to be an enlarged police force. I am not sorry that the Bill is again a temporary Bill, notwithstanding my recollection of the original Bill, which, as the Minister has p[ointed out, is a very voluminous one, containing 200 or 300 sections, and which passed through the Oireachtas without any discussion. I think it is well that the present arrangement shall be still deemed to be temporary, because I am hoping that before the expiry of the present form of the Army, we may be in a position to discuss seriously the question of disarmament with a view to disarming. Deputy Heffernan has suggested that in his mind a form of territorial forces would be much more in accordance with the needs of this country. That may be so, and the whole question of armed forces and the necessity for an Army in this country will, I hope, arise and have a serious discussion here before the expiry of this present Bill. Deputy Hewat has contributed to this discussion, and he has forgotten one very important feature of our present constitutional position. I am going to ask the Dáil to consider it, not that I would elaborate it at the present time, but to bear it in mind in any consideration of the defence forces of the country. We have in the Constitution as everybody knows, and some people pride themselves on, an Article which says:—

"save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas."

That is a formulation of a doctrine which is receiving general acceptance in the British Dominions. They are contending almost with unanimity that they will not be ever again brought into participation in any war without the consent of their own people.

We have formulated that in our Constitution, but, unfortunately for our safety, we are nevertheless liable to attack if Great Britain were at war. The inclusion of this Article in our Constitution, while it may be true that we shall not be bound actively to participate in any war without our own consent, does not, unfortunately, make us immune from attack even if we are not participants in that war. I would like to be able to advocate complete disarmament, and I think it would be satisfactory to Deputy Hewat and others if we were able to advocate complete disarmament. The country would welcome, I imagine, a general disarmament policy for Ireland, inasmuch as we are not going to participate in any aggression, have no anxiety for territorial possessions, and we have not much likelihood of entering the field of international commerce, which so often leads to war. Nevertheless, we are faced with the possibility that, if England were at war, under our present international relations we are liable to attack. Because of that, it is, I am afraid, asking too much of the country to say that they should disarm.

I would like it to be brought under the consideration of Deputies whether, with a view to disarmament, we ought not to move in matters of general political policy in such a direction as would secure for this country and its nationals immunity from attack until we have, of our volition, participated in a war. I think our direct and deliberate policy should be to bring about a state of things whereby other countries, all the countries of the world, would come to recognise that we are not entering into any state of belligerency merely because another country has entered into that state. By that fact we ought to get, or seek to get, the agreement from the nations of the world that we are to be immune from attack because we are not participators in a war.

I am not asking the Minister to deal with this matter in any detail. I am putting it forward here for record purposes and with a view to inducing Deputies to consider our constitutional and international situation in so far as it affects our defence policy and our armament policy. I think that, if only for the sake of saving the costs of an army, the costs of a defence force, it is our bounden duty to endeavour to bring the country into a position internationally which would secure for us immunity from attack until we have, of our own volition, entered upon a state of belligerency. Having those thoughts in mind, I am agreeable that the present Defence Forces Act should continue for a period. I am not pressing for a permanent measure to be brought before the House, because I am hoping that long before the time when this Act ceases to operate the question I have raised will become a matter for general discussion, and perhaps our policy by that time can be determined by an international agreement in the direction that I have suggested.

Major COOPER

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I do so now, having heard Deputy Johnson's speech. Deputy Johnson always lives in a castle of dreams, a wonderful world where everybody is paid more wages than there is money to pay them with, and where everybody lives a strictly self-controlled and self-contained existence without regard to the crude forces of economics or outside competition. When Deputy Johnson, in his castle of dreams, suggests that that castle should not take the necessary steps for its protection, maintenance and repair, then that castle is likely to topple about his head. Deputy Johnson spoke about getting some international agreements that would secure us immunity from attack. I have heard of one such international agreement, entered into about the year 1836. It was an agreement under which the nations of Europe guaranteed Belgium immunity from attack and neutrality in case of war. Deputy Johnson knows as well as I do what the value of that international agreement was in 1914.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are you against the Pact of Locarno?

Major COOPER

I am not; but where is the point? The Locarno Pact is guaranteed on specific terms. Deputy Johnson speaks of a general agreement. the Locarno Pact is limited, and wisely limited, and the obligations of the Powers who have undertaken it are very clearly shown. I do not believe, having regard to the geographical conditions, to economic conditions, and to the fact that a footing in this island would be of such immense value to any Power at war with Great Britain, that any of the Great Powers would be prepared to guarantee our frontiers in the sense that they have guaranteed the frontiers of the Rhine in the Locarno Pact.

General MULCAHY

Will the Deputy go to war if the Locarno Pact is broken?

Major COOPER

I am a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, and I have not yet had any indication from the Minister for External Affairs as to whether he has acceded to the Locarno Pact. I may have the personal view that it would be right and wise for us to accede, if only as an example to the rest of the Dominions; but at present we are not bound, and I would not go to war, and I would not ask Deputy Mulcahy to go to war, until we are bound. I have strayed away from the point. I do say that to build any faith on international agreements of a vague nature and a vague character, unless they are absolutely specified and unless they lay down precisely the amount of defence and support that we may hope to receive, is to dwell in illusion.

Until the thing is more fully defined and more closely worked out than it is at present we should be foolish to disband our army forces. I have not yet heard any indication that we have sought such guarantees from any foreign Power. It would be a difficult thing and a somewhat invidious thing unless an International Congress were assembled to have such guarantees, and I suggest that we should not, on the second reading of a Bill to renew an Act for the period of one year, commit ourselves in any such important direction of international policy. By seeking peace we might obtain war.

I disagree with Deputy Johnson on a somewhat minor point. Deputy Johnson welcomed the fact that it is a temporary Bill. I, on the other hand, regret it. I hoped that we might have a fixed and a permanent code to control and regulate our Defence Forces before now. There is no guarantee that there will not be another renewing Bill in a year's time and that helps the Defence Forces to pass out of the control of the Dáil. Established customs will have arisen; prescription will have been created and it will be very difficult to make any real change, however strongly the Deputies may feel in the matter. This temporary code is springing up and assuming a permanent form, and every year it will be more difficult to reform it. There is an old constitutional custom in the British Parliament that every year the Army Act comes on for renewal but in practice the British Parliament has virtually no control, in elaborating the procedure, the discipline, and the conduct of the British Army. It has become an established institution, with its own customs. I will not say I am afraid, but I have an uneasy feeling that with this system of temporary Acts we are adopting the same thing is happening here. I am not a believer in excessive Parliamentary control of the Army, but I do think that in that institution we should be in a position to give it guidance and support. I do not hold with tinkering with the Army. I would like to have a more permanent measure. Therefore, I regret the fact that one of that character is not before us.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Hughes)

I am glad that this Bill has met with unanimity in all parts of the House. The questions raised are of a very minor nature. The principal one was why there is not a permanent Bill before the Dáil. I have given reasons why a permanent measure has not been introduced. The best reason I can give is that it is not ready at the moment. Deputy Esmonde complained that we are the only Department that has not produced permanent legislation. Several times in this House I have heard Ministers being twitted for rushing legislation and for coming back at subsequent sessions to have it amended. I do not want to be in that position.

As far as the other Deputies who spoke are concerned, the only one who seemed to see anything wrong in the Bill was Deputy Heffernan. He thought the Bill was to cover a period of two years. The Bill is only for one year from the 31st March next. As regards his point about the raising of a militia I am not convinced of the advisability of doing so at present. Later on it may be considered advisable, but at the present time I do not think it would be the best thing for the country. Deputy Byrne and Deputy Morrissey Enquired as to the position of married men. Of course, there is a number of married men in the Army at the moment. These are men who joined up before the marriage allowance was stopped, and whose time has not yet expired, and they are drawing marriage allowances. As regards other married men, regulations are being prepared at the present time which will give some assistance. I do not say that the assistance will please everybody, but some assistance will be given to married men. Deputy Morrissey wanted to know what becomes of fines. These fines go to the Treasury and nobody gets any benefit from them except the taxpayer. Deputy Johnson wants to know something about the character of the forces and their training. During the coming year the forces, as far as possible, will be divided into corps and services, and if it should ever arise that the Army would want to be expanded for any national emergency we will have the material to expand it at the shortest possible moment. There was an enquiry as to the present strength of the Army. The number provided for in the Army Vote last year was 1,078 officers, and the actual strength at the moment is 1,054. The number of sergeants and N.C.O's of higher rank provided for was 1,583; the actual strength is 1,386. The number of corporals provided for was 1,654; the actual strength is 1,217. The number of privates provided for was 13,300, and the actual strength is 13,791, making a full total of 17,438. These are all the points that were raised.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Might I ask the Minister a further question. I do not know that it comes under the heading of this Bill, but I would like to get information from the Minister with regard to a Bill which, I believe, is to be brought in to deal with pensions or compensation for men who meet with injuries.

Bill read a second time.

Third stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th December.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1925