I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
Tariff on Butter. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1931—Fifth Stage.
We hardly heard what the Minister said here on the last occasion, because he spoke in such a very low voice, but when we read it in the report of the proceedings we were not a bit surprised that he spoke in a tone that could not be heard. The Minister said on that occasion: "I think anybody who knows the details of the work of the Army will know that the statement the Deputy made, and the document he quoted from, are contrary to facts." The document from which Deputy Lemass and I quoted was signed by Deputy Seán MacEoin. It made very definite allegations about the running of the Army. The first allegation made was: "There is not and there never has been, any considered policy with regard to the Army such as would be calculated to make an adequate return to the taxpayer for his money." The statement pointed out that since 1924 over £14,000,000 had been voted for defence purposes in Saorstát Eireann, and that there was no adequate return to the taxpayer for that money.
I am sorry that Deputy MacEoin is absenting himself in this debate, but we hope he will come in before the debate concludes and repeat in the Dáil the allegations he made in the document which he signed. We know perfectly well that during the Black and Tan War Deputy MacEoin was an ordinary good fighter and that he did good work. We never believed that he was all that the Ministers cracked him up to be when it suited their purpose. But we think, anyway, that having been in the Army of the State here for a certain number of years he knew what he was talking about. When he signed this document he was on the reserve force of the Army. The Minister here definitely accuses him of making statements that were contrary to facts. When it suited the Ministers' purpose during the last few years they said that Deputy MacEoin was the greatest strategist that ever existed, that he was one of the men who won the war and made this country safe for democracy, and all the rest of it. But then when he acted up to his beliefs, ceased to be one of the silent Cumann na nGaedheal chess men and started to criticise them a little bit, he, too, turns out to be a lad. It was no wonder the Minister for Defence was inaudible when making these statements. It is to be hoped that he will deal with this situation at greater length to-night and show us how exactly the statements made by the Officers' Association, which claims to represent 80 per cent. of the Army, are contrary to facts.
The country as a whole is convinced that the statements made by those officers and ex-officers are according to facts. The country does not believe that the £14,000,000 which has been spent on the Army during the last few years was spent in such a way as would give an adequate return to the taxpayers. We here criticised the administration of the Army, its organisation and its supplies on many occasions. Our criticisms were borne out when this document was published. It was signed by Deputy MacEoin and others on behalf of the organisation which, as they claimed, represented 89 per cent. of the regular officers serving in the Army, and 79 per cent. of the retired officers. I hope Deputy MacKeon will rise before this debate concludes and impress upon the rest of the members of this House that it is a waste of public money to be spending this year 1½ million pounds on the Army when the Army is altogether dependent upon England for its supplies. As I have already said, it is a most humiliating position for an officer in the Army who has any national outlook. It is a disgrace in the general economic conditions of this country to ask the taxpayers to bear 1½ million pounds this year for such expenditure. The cost of the Army during the last couple of years has not fallen in proportion to the general fall of the national income.
During the last few years the prices that farmers got for their produce fell round about 150 to 120 per cent., yet the cost of the Army had not fallen in anything like that proportion. It is time the House put a stop to this whole system of spending this enormous amount of money, which, for all effective purposes, is wasted.
Before the Minister concludes I would like to say I am considerably surprised that the Dáil should treat the matter referred to by Deputy Aiken so lightly. Deputies are prepared to spend two days, and more, discussing comparatively trivial matters, like the opening of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day, but they remain silent, and apparently indifferent, when it is brought to their notice that people, whose authority to speak cannot be denied, allege that money now being expended on the maintenance of the National Army is very largely being wasted. If there is any truth whatever in these allegations it is a very serious thing, and surely Deputies, no matter what Party they belong to, should demand from the Minister for Defence a much more elaborate explanation of the policy of the Government in relation to the Army, and a more detailed defence of its administration, than the Minister thought fit to give on the Second Reading of this Bill.
Which Army—yours or ours?
The Deputy had an opportunity of speaking last night and was not here to do so. I am referring to the Army.
Yours or ours?
Has the Deputy got an army? I am referring to the force which it is proposed to keep in existence by this Bill, and which we are told by persons of the standing of Deputy MacKeon, and the officers who signed the document Deputy Aiken referred to, has no value as a defensive force.
When this matter was referred to, on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister for Defence made a speech which did not answer any of the queries put to him, but in one particular, and that, in fact, created a number of new questions to be answered. The Minister denied that those who signed the document referred to spoke for anyone except themselves. The document purported to be signed by those people on behalf of the Executive Council of the organisation known as the National Defence Association. When that National Defence Association was formed, I understood, the Minister described it as both desirable and necessary. He certainly did not take any steps to prevent its formation. Eighty-nine per cent. of the serving officers of the Army belonged to it with the Minister's knowledge and consent. The situation changed for some reason that we do not know, but which we want to know, and the Minister, through his Chief of Staff, intimated to the members of the Army who were members of the Association that the Association was no longer approved of, thus compelling serving officers to retire from membership of the Association. Why did the Minister for Defence issue that notice of disapproval? What occurred between the date of the formation of this Association, when he thought it both desirable and necessary, and the date of its dissolution when he thought it most unnecessary and apparently undesirable as well?
When the Minister issued his disapproval order the serving officers, apparently, retired from it, and the Executive Officers Council at that time consisted only of officers of the Reserve. These officers met, and signed this document to the Executive Council, and the document contained such serious allegations concerning the administration of the Army that it was thought that the Government would take steps to meet these allegations, if not publicly in the Press, at least in this House when the first opportunity would arise. The opportunity arises on this Bill, but instead of meeting the allegations, the Minister for Defence merely questioned the bona-fides of those who made them. We are not concerned with the bonafides of those who made them or whether or not there should be a National Defence Association. We are more concerned with the fact that the suspicions which we entertain concerning the administration of the Army are substantiated by people who must have been in a position to get accurate information. We know there is not, and never has been, a considered policy on the part of the Executive Council in relation to the Army unless we can take the Minister's declaration, that, in the event of a general attack on these islands, the Army would, of course, co-operate with the British Army, as a declaration of policy. No other declaration of policy has ever been made, and the whole attitude of the Executive Council appears to be one that it is a customary thing for Governments to have armies and, therefore, we must have an army.
I would like Deputies to realise that the cost of this Army to us is a very considerable matter. If we had not got it the difficulties concerning de-rating of agricultural land, so often referred to recently, would not be there. It would be possible to carry out a de-rating scheme by the abolition of the Army and to devote to it that money now apparently wasted on the Army. I do not say that circumstances here do not require the maintenance of a defence force, but if we are to have a defence force let us have one capable of acting as such. We have been repeatedly told in this House that the existing force is not capable of acting as such. We have referred to the fact that the Minister for Agriculture endorsed that view here. Is the Minister satisfied that there is, in fact, in existence a force capable of acting in defence of this island under all possible circumstances? If he is let him tell us the basis upon which that certainty exists. Does he believe, for example, that a force which cannot get ammunition except by the good-will of the British, is an effective defence force? Is not the position such that if the British Government choose to deprive the defence force here of munitions, that defence force will be reduced to fighting with its fists?
The officers who signed that statement, on behalf of the Executive Council of the National Defence Association, however, went further than that altogether. Apart from the question of the Army policy or the use of the Army in certain contingencies to defend the country, they alleged that owing to maladministration the money expended was being paid out in a manner which did not in any way increase the efficiency of the Army. They state that officers were sent abroad for training, but that no attempt was made to avail of the training acquired when those officers returned here.
At present we have, I understand from the Minister, two officers in training in England. What advantage is it to have them trained in England if when they come back the special knowledge that they acquire is not to be passed on to other members of the Army? It is alleged that large sums of money have been spent on the equipment of special Corps—an Air Corps and a Tank Corps, and organisations of that kind, but that no attempt has been made to co-ordinate these special Corps so as to make them capable of acting in a unified manner. Is that so? We have nothing to go on except the statements made by those officers and our own suspicions. We are left in the dark by the Minister. I put that query to him during the Second Reading debate and he did not think fit to answer it. He did not answer any of the allegations contained in the document except one, and he answered that in an evasive manner. The statement alleged that flagrantly illegal attempts had been made to interfere with officers acting on courts-martial. He replied that he never interfered with officers acting on courts-martial. It was not alleged that he did. It was alleged that attempts were made, but it did not say by whom. Is there any truth in the allegation that officers acting on courts-martial have been approached or interfered with in any way in order to defeat the ends of justice? These officers allege that they have been. They also allege that the practice with regard to the assigning of personnel to appointments has in many cases been dictated by petty personal considerations and not by the requirements of military efficiency. That is an allegation that we can well believe, because it has been the whole practice of the Government to make appointments on the basis of personal considerations and not on the basis of efficiency. In local government, in agriculture, in finance, in every other Department of the Government that practice has prevailed, and we are quite prepared to believe that it prevails in the Army, particularly as it is apparently not contemplated that the Army will ever be utilised for the purpose for which it is being maintained.
The Dáil is entitled to demand and, I say in particular that members of Cumann na nGaedheal should demand, that these allegations made by a member of their own Party and supported by people who have no association, and never had, with Fianna Fáil, should be met, and that conclusive proof should be produced that there is no foundation for them, if, in fact, there is no foundation for them. I think that the situation is one which would have justified the setting up of an inquiry by the Minister, so that members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and of the general public could have been satisfied, if it were possible to satisfy them, that conditions were different from what was alleged by the members of this association.
I intend to vote against the Final Stages of this Bill, and I want to record my protest against the action of the Minister for Defence in not giving us a declaration as to where his Government stands in regard to future Army policy. I think this is an opportune time, and that he should, in the course of his reply to these criticisms, give the House an indication as to where he stands, in view of the commitments that this State has entered into in recent months in international affairs, which seem to be more important in the eyes of the Executive Council than home affairs. The Minister, on the Second Stage, said that he would deprecate any attempt to hasten the bringing in of a permanent Bill, especially during a period of transition. Later on he said he did not know whether we would ever be in a position to provide the material which the army required. I think the House and the people are entitled to know from the Minister whether he regards the National Army, as at present existing, as a serious force, or merely as part of the ornamental trappings that go to make up the camouflage of the sovereign State, of which we hear so much. If the army is a really serious proposition, and if it is intended by this State to be a serious factor in the affairs of this State in future, then why has not some effort been made for the past eight years to secure even one munition factory which would provide it with ammunition for future occasions? Why has no effort been made to develop, more than any other thing, if they regard it as a serious affair, the air service of the army? At the present moment, according to statements recently issued, even that service, which possibly would be the only arm of military force that would be of any use to this country in a future conflict, has not been developed to the extent to which it should be developed.
Then we come to the statement recently issued by the ex-Army officers who undoubtedly, no matter what criticism may be passed upon them, held high rank in the Army of the Irish Free State. Surely the Minister does not mean to insinuate that if ten or twelve men of standing who had seen service in the Civic Guards came forward in the public Press with a statement on behalf of the whole body charging indiscipline, unfairness and inability on the part of officers of the Civic Guards, the Minister for Justice would ignore that statement, and make no reply, except a caustic comment or merely a sarcastic reference. The statement issued by these officers calls not alone for a reply in the Dáil, but for close investigation by a committee of this House. Undoubtedly a statement of that nature tends to create uneasiness, and if the Army is to be regarded as a serious proposition, that state of uneasiness in the minds of the people must not be allowed to remain. If, on the other hand, the Army is not to be regarded as a serious proposition, then the Minister should give us some indication as to when he intends to introduce a permanent Bill, and on what basis he intends to model Army policy in future.
During the last twelve months we have had elaborate full-dress debates on the Kellogg Pact for International Renunciation of War. We have had a debate on the International Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments. We have signed Conventions by the dozen from Geneva protesting against the use of poison gas, and guaranteeing that in any future war Saorstát Eireann will not indulge in that luxury. If all these things are meant to be taken seriously, and if all the platitudes expressed by the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence are not to be regarded as anything else, then is it not time that this State, which we hear has given the lead to other States in many matters, financial, cultural and otherwise, should give a lead and "call the bluff" of those big Powers with which we are associated in the limitation of international armaments by making a gesture for international peace—if that is what is desired—by the abolition of this Army, which is not to be taken seriously in present circumstances. The Minister should tell the House and country where he stands in this matter, particularly since the recent declarations of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in which he stated that this part of Ireland was now one contented unit in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that he had no intention, so far as he was concerned anyhow, of advancing one inch further beyond the position in which we now find ourselves. If that is so, if there is to be no advance to the Republic by military means, no further advance to the Republic by constitutional means—if that is to be the final position of this part of Ireland, why this Army? Whom are we going to fight? What country is going to fight us? We have made peace with England. Why this Army expenditure? The people demand an answer, and the Minister should not attempt to evade the issue at the close of the debate by saying that it does not matter.
I was hoping that some members of the Government Party who appreciate the seriousness of the issue which was raised by the officers' manifesto would have joined with us in demanding an explanation from the Minister. I think the most disquieting feature about the whole of this affair has been the silence maintained by those whose experience elsewhere ought to have made them realise the seriousness and gravity of the situation which that manifesto created.
I would like to ask Deputy George Wolfe who has had experience, I believe, in another army, what would have been the consequences in Great Britain, for instance, if there had been issued a manifesto of that type to which the senior officers of the army, on the Retired List or in the Reserve, had appended their names and declared that they were speaking on behalf of the senior serving officers of the army. What position does Deputy Captain Redmond think would have been created by such a manifesto if it had emanated from officers of the British Army? There are some Deputies in this House who have had experience in the British House of Commons. What attitude would the members of all Parties in that House, whether they sat behind the Government or sat on the Opposition benches, have taken in such a crisis? I certainly think they would not have been so neglectful of their public duty, so unmindful of their obligations to the citizens as to preserve a silence which I can only describe as being shameful. The issue raised by this manifesto is too serious, both from the point of view of public safety and public economy, to permit any Deputy in this House to shirk his obligations in regard to the matter. There should have been, and it is not too late yet to institute it, a public sworn inquiry into the charges which were made in that manifesto.
Either the Army is an efficient Army, maintained, as the Ministers have professed to maintain it, for the purpose of defending this State; it is an army upon which the expenditure of public money is justifiable or not justifiable. If it is not efficient, then the £14,000,000 of taxpayers' money which has been spent on it for the past few years has been squandered, and the Government responsible for that waste and extravagance ought to be made responsible for it now in the eyes of the public.
I do not wish to detain the House. We are speaking on this matter—at least I am—regardless of Party affiliations. I am trying to look at it as I believe it would be regarded by a member of any other legislature in the world except this. This is a matter which, as I said, touches the whole root of public order and administration in this country. We must ask Deputies who support the Government to face it as we are facing it. We do not wish to make Party capital out of it. We allowed this thing to remain unquestioned and unchallenged until any possibility of a serious development within the Army would have passed. We did not wish to have it stated that we were encouraging mutiny in the Army, even though we had no responsibility for the Army, and even though we do not believe all the statements the Minister has made in this House as to the purpose for which the Army is being maintained. But we have, for the sake of public peace and safety, taken those statements at their face value, and I think it must be admitted that we have maintained, throughout the whole of that crisis, an attitude which was above suspicion, and which was entirely correct, and now having done that, we ask the Minister here, and ask the members of the Government Party to join with us in asking him, to set up an inquiry into the charges made in that manifesto.
There are some points in connection with this that have been already mentioned, but which were not stressed to my mind. One is that the Minister for Defence has stated on the one hand that his Army was for the protection of this State, and on the other hand that it was to co-operate with the British Army in any operations which may be under taken by the British Army, either on their own behalf or on behalf of what used to be called these islands of Great Britain and Ireland. In furtherance of the latter portion of the Minister's statement we have an extraordinary position in the Free State, inasmuch as we have had an Army for which there have been millions of pounds of public money spent in this State. That Army is not in a position to last for one week on its own resources without having to resort to Britain for its supplies of arms and ammunition. It is an extraordinary thing for any Army or State to have to say that they cannot produce one round of ammunition for one rifle unless they get that particular supply from a State that may, at some time, be at variance with them. It looks as if we are committed, for time immemorial, to co-operation with the British Army, and are in such a position that we have to get our supplies, not alone of big guns, but of rifles and revolvers, from Britain. We cannot manufacture one round of ammunition for those guns, but have to apply to England for it. If we are going to have an effective Army for the protection of this State, at least we should be able to supply that Army with arms and ammunition, unless we go back to the stage of the old pike, when a common blacksmith could produce the arms that were necessary in the country. It must be the intention of the Minister to commit this State for all time to constant co-operation with England, if he does not in this country provide the Army over which he has control with sufficient arms and ammunition, manufactured in this State, to protect the State that at the particular time he is responsible for the defence of.
Another point that was brought up very extensively in this debate was the attitude adopted by a Deputy of this House, a former officer in the Free State Army, and, further back, a distinguished officer in the I.R.A. That officer was boosted to the skies by the Minister and his colleagues when they wanted to make use of him for political purposes. That officer signed his name to a document which, as has been pointed out by Deputies on these benches, if it were signed in any other country in the world would have been the means of having an inquiry that would absolutely split the Army from top to bottom, and would have been responsible for the reduction, if I might put it that way, of the Minister to the ranks. This Deputy signed a document because there was a certain movement at that particular time, not alone among the reserve officers, but among serving officers of the Army, and the reason that inquiry was not held was this, because the Minister for Defence was afraid to hold an inquiry. I state that emphatically; the Minister for Defence and his colleagues are afraid to hold an inquiry.
The Deputy concerned in this particular thing is not present here, for what reason I do not know, but I have been concerned myself with similar movements before. In 1923 I remember there was a movement on foot inside this particular Army, over which the present Minister was in charge as Minister for Defence, to create a rebellion inside the Free State Army, and, in a tentative way, I was partly connected with it for the reason that I was asked if the rebellion took place in the Free State Army to take charge of the North-West. And I agreed to do it on certain terms. I did not trust, mind you, certain people, nor do I trust them yet. The terms were, if they made the first move I would provide the men if they would provide the arms. I safeguarded both my men and myself. My judgment proved correct, for the reason that there was a parallel movement to that going on inside the Free State Army at the time, and one Minister of the Front Benches opposite was concerned in it, the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy in this House, Deputy Gearóid O'Sullivan, to reintroduce the I.R.B. into the Free State Army. You had two parallel movements at the same time going on to create a rebellion in the Free State Army. A number of traitors cropped up. I suppose I do not know the inner workings of it. I kept wisely outside. The consequence was that certain secrets were divulged, and the particular Minister and the particular Deputy whom I referred to were dispensed with by colleagues of the Minister opposite, the Minister for Defence. This particular rebellion proved abortive, but, strange to say, the men who were responsible for the creation of that movement, the men who rebelled, were afterwards put on pension and are, at present, in receipt of a pension from the Free State Army. If the Minister can deny that he is perfectly at liberty to do so.
Perhaps the Deputy would come——
The same thing applies at the present time, inasmuch as the Deputy of this House who signed that document is a reserve officer of the Free State Army, and is in the same position as those men were that he was speaking on behalf of, not alone of a number of reserve officers, but of a number of officers who were serving in the Free State Army, and the Minister is so much afraid of that combination that he will not have a public inquiry into the circumstances concerning the whole event.
I regret if, on the last time I spoke on this matter, I was inaudible. There was no indication, on that occasion, from the opposite benches that I could not be heard. The point was not referred to on the occasion of the Committee Stage of this Bill when, quite obviously, it could have been done, and I can only think that the story of my inaudibility, which was only referred to by one Deputy, is brought up now on the present occasion in order to have a type of debate which is appropriate to a Second Reading, or would be appropriate, possibly, to the Army Estimates, but which seems to me hardly appropriate to the Fifth Stage of a Bill which is, I believe, for the purpose of verbal alterations that may have been made necessary by virtue of the amendments that were made in Committee Stage.
Again, reference is made to the supplies of arms, and Deputy Carney, who seems to have a bad memory and to be misinformed at the same time, attributes statements to me that I never made, and adduces from these statements that I did not make facts that do not exist. I never made the statement with regard to Army policy which the Deputy said I did. I think his history is about as dubious. He referred to me as the Minister for Defence in 1923, which I was not. He said I had somehow or other stated that we had to get our supplies from England. I have never said anything of the sort. In the creation of this country it seems to me that many of the more immediate raw materials for the production of arms are lacking. It may be that development may be such that amongst the raw materials this country produces will be found all that is necessary for the production of armaments. In the absence of all those raw materials it is obvious that we must go outside our shores for the material. I have never stated, and it is not a fact, that we must get all these materials from England. As an ordinary business concern, we will naturally set about getting our requirements in the market that supplies us most satisfactorily from the point of view of cost, the point of view of quality and suitability. That is the situation. It is not my making. It is an ordinary common-sense situation, that you will go where you get your requirements best satisfied. I seem to be criticised for refusing to state definitely that we would be in a position to provide all our military requirements. A limitation was put to that by the very nature of the products of this country and what is necessary for the making of armaments. Although Deputy Aiken said he could not hear me the other day, I think if Deputies read my statement on that occasion they would see that I stated certain things and, clearly, I stated that no document had been issued on behalf of the Officers' Organisation. I stated that no document was printed representing any percentage of officers in any Army organisation. I was asked why I allowed it to go through. I quite agree with what I said at that time, but there are such things as discretion and good judgment. They may be lacking in an organisation which may, with good judgment, be quite useful, and when the judgment is not as sound as one would like it to be it may be justifiable in certain circumstances to discontinue the organisation. The organisation was actually discontinued by the action of the officers who were members of it. Deputies have said that in other countries a similar situation would lead to enormous results.
I do not think that is right. A few months ago, when I was in London, we were actually accosted and propaganded by an ex-representative of one of the British Forces, but I do not think the British Government upset themselves a great deal about it. Of course, the House understands perfectly well that a reserve officer for eleven months of the year is outside the Army, and for one month in the year comes up for training. That is the position. I do not think that anybody would expect that by coming up for one month in the year to the Curragh anyone would be in a position to give any detailed account of the organisation of the Army. I do not think that in any country in the world would anyone be terribly concerned that two reserve officers, two officers on the retired list, made criticisms which, with the best will in the world, would require greater facilities for knowledge of the inner organisation of the Army than they could possibly have. Deputy Carney, with that air of great wisdom which he assumed, it is merely assumed, said that I was afraid to have an inquiry. Quite the contrary. I am ready to face up to any inquiry, but the one thing that came out of the very minor and unimportant incident, of which Deputies have endeavoured to make a big thing, was the extraordinary discipline of the Army. Without any action on my part the officers themselves disbanded that organisation. It was not I did that. It was the officers who did so without any lead from me. I understand when the Deputy was speaking about courts-martial that the suggestion was that I had attempted flagrantly to interfere with the course of justice, or whatever the phrase was. All I can say is that so far as my knowledge goes, and my knowledge of the working of the Army is more intimate than that which is usually expected of a Minister, I am not aware of any attempt to interfere with courts-martial for the purpose of denying justice. Certainly, I have never been a party to any such thing, and to the best of my knowledge I have no knowledge of such a thing happening.
The Deputy said that officers were trained abroad and that no attempt was made to use the knowledge which these men acquired. Coupled with that was the statement that there was no attempt at co-ordination in the Army. At present there is a staff course going on, and the purpose of that course is to instruct officers in the co-ordination of the various forces in the Army. I think that that mere fact, that ordinary bare fact, is sufficient refutation of any statement to the effect that no attempt at co-ordination has been made. As a matter of fact, in every course of instruction, whether in the case of officers in the standing Army or in the Reserve of officers, the services of men who have got these advantages in training are availed of.
One Deputy, I think Deputy Carney, said that in effect the promotions in the Army were made for personal considerations and not for efficiency. I defy any one here, or outside, to point to any case where personal considerations on my part of any officer in any way influenced any action that was taken, or, so far as my knowledge goes, or with my consent, did any officer receive any favour otherwise than for suitability and efficiency. The Deputy also stated that the cost of the Army had not been reduced. Since I became Minister for Defence the cost of the Army has been reduced, roughly, by thirty-three and one-third per cent., and the mobilisible forces of the Army have been increased by about 50 per cent. Have we an efficient Army for the defence needs of the country? We have, I think, a remarkably efficient Army, but I do not think it has reached its fullest extent in numbers or efficiency. I think that we are rapidly building up an Army which will be adequate to meet any needs which the defence of the country may require.
As to the policy of having an Army we do not have an Army merely because other countries have. We have an Army for the same reasons that other countries have. The possession of freedom is a responsibility, and, possessing it, we are bound to protect it against any attack from any source whatever. Any country is always hypothetically, or potentially, subject to attack, and it is the duty of the country to itself, to its culture, and to everything which it thinks should be preserved, within its resources, to take all the necessary steps for the protection of itself and all it stands for against any possible attack that might be made on it. We are not immune from possible attack. No country is immune. There may be countries which are in more immediate danger than we, but we are, by the very nature of our existence, a living organism as a State independent, dependent on itself, and with its duty to itself to defend itself—that is what is behind the whole policy of the Army. We may be attacked. In the event of our being attacked it is our duty to defend ourselves. If we are not prepared to maintain an Army for defence, if we are looking to people outside to take over that duty, which is an essential part of our responsibility, then all I can say is that we should not be free. We claim to be free, and it is our duty to protect that freedom within our resources.
It happens in this country that the organisation of the Army is on a particularly economic basis, and I think that the percentage of taxation which we are paying for that defence works out rather less than in the case of most countries. I think that, with even that small percentage of revenue spent on Army maintenance, we are able to build up an Army capable of meeting any reasonably conceivable attack that may be made on us. An attempt has been made this evening to make a mountain out of a molehill. One does not expect every officer in the Army to be perfectly au fait with every aspect in the Army. One does not expect every officer in the Army Reserve, still less, to be well informed as to the co-ordination of the various units, or as to the inner working of the Army in close detail. We all make mistakes. Even I, if I may say so, may conceivably make a mistake. I am not going to blame persons who make mistakes, especially when they talk about matters which are to some extent outside the range of their possible knowledge.
Deputies opposite should not upset themselves greatly about what they read in the newspapers. For instance, I read nearly every Monday morning a statement by Deputy Lemass on Government policy which is complete news to me, and which I never heard of before. Deputy Lemass is closer in the Government counsels than members of the Government, but we do not rush into print and denounce Deputy Lemass as a liar. We say that he is in the habit of talking out of his hat, and insists upon talking about things about which he knows nothing. It pleases him to do so. We leave him at it week after week, and when the people have had a few weeks of it they come to believe that he is not very reliable, or that he is not always well informed. Therefore, we do not think we need worry about him. I do not upset myself when I read any document representing only the people who sign it. The incident which the Deputy referred to was one of the most pleasing things which helped to bring out the extraordinary discipline of the Army. I am satisfied that with that discipline we will build up an Army capable of meeting our needs, and calculated to be a credit to us, and also calculated to repay the people for the remarkably small percentage of revenue spent on its maintenance.
Mr. de Valera
I wonder would the Minister give us a little more information about the munitions question? He said that we have not the raw material here. Are we to assume that it is only raw material which is brought in? Have we a factory to work that material up to the finished product? Do we make cartridges here?
I understand that the complaint was that we were dependent on outside sources. In fact, it was more specific, namely, that we were completely dependent on England for warlike equipment. The statement was that we should be independent of outside sources for military equipment. When Deputies say that we are dependent on outside sources and that we are perfectly useless, then I say that under these circumstances no country which lacks any part of the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of warlike stores is capable of being free. We have not a factory in operation at the moment. We are busily engaged in calculating costs on the economic side, and the various other aspects of the work being done here in the manufacture of certain warlike stores. But it is no good my assuring Deputy Aiken, Deputy Carney, and others who know such a great deal about it and who say that the whole thing is solved, that we can be blockaded for five years and still be able to maintain an Army. We are engaged on a problem which is relatively very small and, so far as I can see, within a reasonable period, anything that can be done will still provide only a relative proportion of the warlike stores which this country may conceivably require. In any case, so far as I can see, we shall always have to go outside the country for raw material.
Mr. de Valera
Surely the Minister must realise that there is reasonable ground for discontent if he continues to get from outside the materials which he could provide here at home. I have read the statement and, looking at it from the point of view of the Minister, I would say that there is reasonable ground for complaint if warlike material which could be manufactured here was imported from outside. I am sure that he knows that a large section of the present National Army, at least until recently, comprised men who were led to believe that the building up of the Army was merely for the purpose of——
The Deputy must not make a speech at this stage.
Mr. de Valera
I am merely asking a question about a very important matter.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Mr. de Valera
I am only impressing on the Minister the reasonableness of the demand.
The Deputy can only ask a question.
I cannot go so far as the Deputy. I quite agree that we should make here anything we can rather than import it from outside, but the Deputy realises perfectly well that there are certain things which modify that general statement. I am not, for instance, prepared to start a factory for making cartridges when each cartridge would cost ten times more than it would cost outside.
Mr. de Valera
You are spending a million and a half every year. That is useless if we cannot get cartridges.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Joseph E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- 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'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehv, Timothy (Tipp.)
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until Friday, March 6, at 10.30 a.m.