Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 4

Estimates for Public Services. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill, on which I have not much to say. It is a hardy annual. Speaking on the Estimates in October last, I intimated that it had not up to then been found practicable or advisable to introduce a permanent Army Act to replace the temporary measures which have governed Army administration since 1923, and I outlined certain reasons which had led to that position. The existing Act, the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1927, expires on the 31st March, 1929, and it is proposed to renew it for a further period.

Deputies know that army organisation has been the subject of the most detailed consideration in recent years—the type of army needed for the Saorstát in its different aspects —standing army, instruction of corps, reserve, territorial formations, the size of the army and its geographical distribution, etc. The manner in which its regulation and administration should be provided for has come in for very considerable consideration. During the 15 months since the Act which is now coming to an end was introduced, we have gone a certain distance, successfully, towards securing the building up of a defence establishment on the lines then indicated. The strength of the regular army, officers and men, has been reduced, a process which is still going on, and behind that smaller but more efficient force we are getting together a reserve of trained officers, of experienced soldiers discharged from the regular army, and of men. Class "B" reservists, 3,000 in number, who may be regarded as partly trained, but whose annual courses will in time make them, we believe, potentially efficient soldiers. The Class "A" reserve of men was in being when the present Act was introduced here. The Class "B" reserve of men and the reserve of officers have come into existence since January last.

It is recognised that a permanent Army Act is a necessity, and that such an Act must be passed here some time, but in the gradual process of discovering our military needs and working down to them from the position which we occupied two or three years ago no insurmountable difficulty has been experienced in providing for administration under the temporary measures which have been in force so far. We are, therefore, satisfied that nothing will be lost by holding over the presentation of a permanent Army Bill until we are able to see that whatever proposals we make will be able to stand for a period of years and are calculated to produce and maintain for this State the type of army organisation which the circumstances of the Saorstát call for. I do not think I need go further into the matter.

Mr. Fahy

As the Minister has stated, this Bill is a hardy annual. I notice that the Minister has doubts as to when we will get a permanent Army Act, the necessity of which he admits. In 1923, the then Minister for Defence, Ristéard Ua Maolchatha, in introducing a Temporary Provisions Bill similar to this, stated that it was a temporary measure. In fact, he was at some pains to emphasise the temporary nature of it. In 1924, President Cosgrave, then Minister for Defence, said: "It does not follow that the Act of 1923 will continue in operation until March 31st, 1925." It is now going on to 1930 It had, he stated, "been intended to introduce early this year"—that is, in 1924—"a Bill dealing with the Defence Forces on a more permanent basis." In 1925, Mr. Hughes, then Minister for Defence, stated that the schemes had not yet been perfected. He also referred to the contingency that the Principal Act might go through before the 31st March, 1926.

I notice, from reading up the debates on that occasion, that Deputy Esmonde was of opinion that "the Dáil has been very generous to the Minister during his period of office." The Deputy was worried, I think, as to the form which a standing army should take. Since then, of course, the Government have lost the services of Mr. Hughes. His great military knowledge and his great organising ability are no longer at their service, and perhaps that would account for the fact that we are again asked to prolong this temporary measure for another twelve months.

In 1926 there was a one-clause Bill continuing the Act of 1925 for another year. Mr. Hughes said they wanted some time and experience to enable them to frame a permanent measure. In 1927, the Minister for Defence said: "These provisions are not final in form. Another Bill, constituted in the light of our experience in defence matters will be introduce, I hope and expect, within the next year." Well, the hopes and expectations of the Minister have apparently been disappointed, for he now speaks of "some time," whether the Greek Kalends or not, I do not know.

I would like to know whether the recent resignations and retirements in large numbers are part of the scheme which it is proposed to introduce into the permanent measure, or whether these have brought them, as the Minister says, along a certain distance. There are some points that I would like to emphasise in connection with any permanent measure that may be introduced. The attitude of this party towards the army, the nature and formation of it, is well known, and there is no need for me to reiterate what has been stated here repeatedly. At present you have a standing army and an A and B reserve, both paid. We think there should be a small standing army as to the recruitment of which, of course, we differ from the Government Party. We think that the A and B reserve should be a territorial force, and not paid. It is objectionable to have a large paid reserve. The country cannot afford it. There should be, of course, a small reserve of officers.

Regarding retired and resigned officers, I notice that many of them, owing to pre-Truce service, are entitled to a pension under existing legislation. In addition, they seem, if my reading is correct, to get two or three years' pay and allowances; some of them get an annual reserve grant of from £50 to £80, whether they are called up for training or not, and, in comparison with the officers, the men are rather poorly treated, as if there was a caste system there. Now, I would also like to know why it is necessary to have such an expensive staff, and whether a recent member of the Civil Service, whom I do not know, but whose reputation I know of, a man very efficient, who would have been very valuable to the Department in which he served on matters regarding harbours, coast erosion—his name is Mr. Deegan, and I suppose it is not out of order to mention it——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not desirable, as a general rule.

Mr. Fahy

I bow to your decision. I was not aware of the procedure in such cases. He was a very able official, and he is now put into the Army Department, and his experience and services are lost to the Department in which he certainly was most useful. I think the Minister might have had by now worked out the details of a permanent scheme. The Minister has had experience enough, and certainly there are not too many demands on his time, energy and ability. It is regrettable that we cannot do as they did in Spain. I wonder if any effort could be made to do it? They had to demobilise a large number on the settlement of the Moroccan question, and I suppose there would have been 100,000 men involved. Not a single one of the officers or men got a pension, but all were given employment. That would be the better ideal to aim at.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

When in November, 1927, there was a proposal similar to this, to continue the temporary measure, this Party supported the motion on a very definite and distinct promise from the Minister for Defence. Support was given on that occasion only with considerable reluctance in view of the numerous postponements that had taken place before that time, and which have been recounted by Deputy Fahy. Speaking a few moments ago the Minister for Local Government suggested that before charging a Minister with having made a definite promise care should be taken to read up the reports of the debates. I have taken the trouble of reading over the debate which took place on that occasion, and I do not think that a promise could be more definite than that which was then made by the Minister for Defence, that within the next year, or at least before the expiration of the date to which it was proposed then to extend the Bill, this new Bill, which has been promised within the last four or five years, would be introduced. The Minister comes along here to-day and in quite a cavalier fashion, hardly offering an excuse or putting any reasons before the House as to why that promise has not been fulfilled, asks us again to continue this temporary measure. This time he is much less definite, as Deputy Fahy has pointed out, with regard to the future.

I pointed out in 1927, and I repeat it now, that it is a very remarkable state of affairs that we have this very comprehensive Act of over 200 sections, governing the whole position with regard to our Army, and not a single section of that Act was ever debated by this or any previous Dáil. We have not had the opportunity of discussing a single section of that Act, and that was due to the circumstances under which it was originally introduced. I do not think that the Minister and the Government have treated the House fairly in this matter. I think their action with regard to Army legislation and their general attitude, especially towards this measure year after year, have created a certain amount of uncertainty and have had a very unsteadying effect on the country as a whole, and perhaps on the Army in particular. It is not good for the Army or the country that a policy of that kind should be continued. Under the circumstances I felt that there was nothing else that could be done but support the measure in 1927, in view of the reasons advanced by the Minister to the effect that in the year 1927 there were two elections, and there were other developments and happenings that might be reasonably taken as a cause for delay on the part of the Minister.

There was a change in the Ministry, with possibly new ideas as to the shape the Army would eventually take. These, to my mind, were sufficient reasons why we should support the Ministry when they asked for another year or fifteen months in which to introduce a new Bill; but there is no such justification to-day. None whatever. The Minister has not even pretended to justify to the House his attitude in not introducing the measure, and, as I and Deputy Fahy have said, he is much more indefinite on this occasion than he was in 1927. I remember asking him then could he offer any grounds as to whether we were nearer to his promise being carried out then than we were a year before, and his reply was in the nature of a challenge to me to point out any occasion on which he had made a definite promise that he did not fulfil. I would like to remind him of that on this occasion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. O'Connell

I do not know whether this is a suitable opportunity to discuss Army policy as a whole. I do not think that it is; but I want to protest very strenuously and very definitely against the action of the Government in regard to this whole matter of Army legislation. The only way I can signify that protest is to vote against this measure. I know the argument may be advanced that some Act is necessary if the Army is to be continued after March 31st. The responsibility in this matter is with the Government, and they have offered no justification or excuse here to-day for their delay in introducing a measure which would be of a permanent nature. The argument which the Minister has advanced, if it could be called an argument is that it is necessary to wait before introducing a measure that might be three or four years in existence; but here we have this measure that we are carrying on year after year, without any consideration being given to it at all for the past four or five years. The Minister might say that nothing very wonderful has happened as a result of that; but I do not think he has any reason to say that anything wonderful would happen if we were to introduce a permanent Act into this House and put it into operation, and we and the people would be in a position to say that the legislation under which the Army is operating is legislation which was discussed in the Dáil and legislation that had the approval of the Deputies in this House. That is not the position at the present time, and the Ministers and the Deputies know it. I say that it has a bad and unsteadying effect with regard to the whole position of the Army.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am not going to say very much. It is not necessary. But I would like to emphasise the absolute contempt that certain Ministers of the Executive Council of the Free State have for this House. The contumely that the so-called Minister for Defence——

Mr. Fitzgerald

On a point of order, what does the Deputy mean by saying the "so-called Minister for Defence?"

Mr. O'Kelly

I mean what I say.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I suggest that it is out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not an expression that should be used. The Minister for Defence was appointed by this House.

Mr. O'Kelly

The Minister for the time being, then. If you say that is out of order, then all right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy used the words "the so-called Minister for Defence." I do not think the Deputy said "the Minister for the time being."

Mr. O'Kelly

I say the Minister for the time being. If you say that is not to be used, I will not use it. Well, the Minister for Defence for the time being——

Mr. Sheehy (West Cork)

Even that is in bad taste.

Mr. O'Kelly

The Minister for Defence! Well, defence of what, I would like to know? However, he is called the Minister for Defence. He shows the greatest possible contempt for this Assembly. No contempt that either I or any other Republican ever uttered about this Assembly could compare with the contempt shown it by the Minister for Defence and by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Both of them here to-day showed the greatest contempt and the greatest amount of disrespect that could be shown to this Assembly. They did that both by their speeches and by the nature of the Bills that they introduced. They have shown that they do not care a snap of their fingers for this Assembly, for what it is or for what it does. They have done that in their personal capacity and in their capacity as Ministers, acting for certain Departments. They have done it on several occasions. The present Minister for Defence in 1927 and the present Minister for Local Government promised that certain legislation would be introduced. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health promised legislation to regulate the affairs of the Municipality of Dublin and Local Government direction in general in Dublin city and county. These Ministers promised that legislation would be introduced with regard to the regulation of the Free State Army. They have repeatedly come to this House and asked the House for time to prepare that legislation. That time has been granted. Deputy Fahy mentioned that Deputy Esmonde, a couple of years ago, came to this House and said that the House had treated the Minister generously in giving time for the introduction of this legislation. Two years have elapsed since then. Still they are hatching their Defence Bill.

There is one thing that is satisfactory to me. I read in the papers that their Army is fast disappearing. I hope it will disappear at a faster rate, and that very shortly there will be no necessity for this long-promised Army Bill or for a Minister for Defence, or for the Free State as established either. That is my hope. But I would like to emphasise—it is the only thing that I got up with the desire of saying—the contempt that these Ministers have for this Assembly. I do not, in some respects, object to that. I need not emphasise my point of view; you know it quite well. You know the point of view of those who speak or sit on this side of the House with regard to that. But I have heard here, and I have sometimes read in the newspapers, the speeches made on the Minister's side of the House with regard to the wonderful respect they have for this House, and the great joy the people of Ireland should have in their hearts at having here this representative Assembly, this sovereign Assembly, as one Deputy called it. Now I have heard, and so have other Deputies, how the Ministers and members of the Government Party speak disrespectfully sometimes even of this Assembly and of its capacity in certain directions. I certainly have not yet come across any declaration anywhere that shows and emphasises such a want of respect for this institution or for its powers, and such a want of respect for members of the House as has been evidenced here to-day by the two Ministers who have just spoken.

Mr. Esmonde

As Deputies Fahy and O'Kelly have mentioned my name, I would like to say that on two previous occasions I voted against a similar temporary Bill. Since then I have changed my mind. As we grow older, the more we learn. I think it would be very undesirable to bring in a permanent Army Bill until our higher officers in the Army have, by training and experience, got fully acquainted with the strategic requirements of this country, and until a full realisation has been arrived at by our Army authorities of the general geographical conditions of the country. Furthermore, I think it would be very undesirable to discuss a permanent Army Bill or to introduce a permanent Army Bill into the Dáil at the present time in view of the lack of interest in the strategic position of the country, as is evidenced by Deputies on the other side of the House. Now, last week we had here statements of their warlike intentions. To-day we have statements of their desire that the Army should disappear, and, not only the Army, but Deputy O'Kelly has become an Eleventh Day Adventist, and has prophesied the disappearance of the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties. Deputy O'Kelly has emphasised——

Mr. O'Kelly

What about the navy?

Mr. Esmonde

I would like to ask the Minister if he can state what stage the reduction of the Army has reached, whether the reduction is completed and, if not, if he can tell us when he expects to have it definitely completed. I ask that because there is naturally very considerable dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Army because of the uncertainty of the position to-day. A number of men who want to take up a military career do not know if they will be kept on. They have been kept in a very unsatisfactory position for years. These men are now approaching the final term. I think the Minister ought to say when he expects that the reduction in the Army will be definitely completed. It is only fair to these men who wish to take up a military career to know if they are to be kept on or if they are to be sent out of the Army because of reduction in the personnel of the Army.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is suggested that I did not give sufficient notice, did not stress sufficiently, or did not explain sufficiently, the lack of a permanent Act at this moment. I did not even wait until this occasion to do so. On 25th October last I adverted quite clearly to Deputy O'Connell's remarks on a previous occasion when such a Bill was before the House. I intimated I was not prepared to bring in a permanent Act during this period and I set out as clearly as I could the reasons for that. The fact that I did not give any further explanation to-day is just because I gave the necessary explanation and notice then. I do not see any need for saying again what has been said before. I have not given any indication here of the time when I could bring in a permanent Act merely for the reason that I prefer to promise after the event rather than before it.

Deputy Fahy says he does not see that there is much demand on my ability, my energy or my time. Possibly he overestimates my ability and my energy and has a wrong conception of time; but I can assure him that the last twelve months have been a period of very strenuous work on my part and on the part of those associated with me. During that period we have practically changed the whole form of the Army, though not to the same degree as the last Deputy but one has stated. He said the Army was fast disappearing. I do not wish to deal with any remarks made by that Deputy, because I consider his remarks indicate an attitude towards this House and towards this State, of which he has the privilege of being a citizen, that is unworthy of any notice from me or anybody like me. The Army is being changed solely for the purpose of adding to its efficiency. In actual numbers, counting in the various reserves, we have more now than twelve months ago. Deputy Fahy objects to the A and B reserves being paid. As I said on the occasion of my Estimates last October, this Government had certain experience of the unpaid heroes in 1922, and we do not think that this country can afford them.

Deputy Fahy also asked if the resignations and retirements were part of the scheme. Necessarily so. I indicated previously that I anticipated a standing Army of 5,000 men. The Army was once 50,000 men. We do not require as many officers for 5,000 as for 50,000 men, and we do not require for 5,000 men as many officers as we would require for 10,000 men. As the Army reduces, the number of officers required will be reduced also. Officers given commissions had a certain justification in expecting permanency. Therefore, when it is necessary in the ordinary interests of the Army, and for the requirements of the Army, to reduce the number of officers, we give them pay and allowances in lieu of service. There is not, up to the moment, a pension scheme in the Army. The pay and allowances are calculated roughly on a basis which would be equivalent to the proportion of pension due to them had a pension scheme been operative. I hope when I do bring in a permanent Act, or when the permanent Act is brought in, that it will include a pension scheme for officers.

Deputy Fahy said that the men were treated as if there was a class system. I do not wish to go into any class system. Men attest for a short period and their period of service exists only for the period of attestation. At the end of that time they are free to go or, if circumstances justify it, they may be reattested. Their contract is for a definite period only. At the end of that time they are, in the normal course of events, due to go. On the other hand, officers were granted commissions, and they had definitely laid themselves out for an Army career—to make military life a career. The changes that have taken place made that impossible for all of them, and in the case of those who decided to go, they were given certain conditions on retirement or resignation. The Deputy referred to an ordinary matter of a civil servant transferred from one section to another. That happens, naturally, as vacancies occur in different Departments, and as men are due for promotion. The appointment of Mr. Deegan to my Department was in itself a recognition of his efficiency and good service.

Mr. Fahy

Was this civil servant replacing somebody who had been transferred from the Department of Defence, or was he an addition to the official staff of the Minister for Defence?

Mr. Fitzgerald

He is not an addition. The personnel, both military and civil, in my Department has been reduced. Deputy O'Connell is quite right in saying that I made an unwise promise last November twelve months. I think Deputy O'Connell should recognise that, when I found that promise was—I will not say impossible of fulfilment, because the welfare of the State was met by not fulfilling rather than fulfilling that promise— I had it conveyed to him at the earliest opportunity that it was undesirable that the promise should be fulfilled. On that occasion he did not demur. I will not go into details now as I did then, because I have already stated the case.

Deputy Esmonde asks how far the reductions have reached. As I have said before, the standing Army should be about 5,000. I could not give exact figures now, because I think the reduction in men must continue for a further period. That is achieved by merely not recruiting to fill up the vacancies brought about by the period of attestation ending. With regard to officers, we have now reached our minimum of officers, or shall do so within the next few days. As far as the officers who remain are concerned, they may, subject to satisfactory conditions, regard themselves as permanent.

Deputy O'Kelly referred to "their Army" disappearing, and he also referred to the State disappearing. When a Deputy refers to "their Army," and when he means the Army controlled by this House, I do not wish to discuss the matter with him.

An Ceann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 59.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlan, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.

Níl

• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Holt, Samuel.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killane, James Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Duggan. Níl: Deputies Allen and G. Boland.

Question declared carried.

Bill read a Second Time; Committee Stage to be taken to-morrow.