Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Oct 1944

Vol. 95 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Post-War Plans—Address to Defence Forces.

Dr. O'Higgins

I asked the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to raise, on the Adjournment this evening, some circumstances associated with the meeting held by the Taoiseach at Ennis on Sunday last. I was informed that it would be inadmissible, on an Adjournment debate, to refer to any matter of Government policy. Consequently, I do not intend, at this point, to discuss in any detail the rather sensational and startling and disturbing statement made by the Taoiseach, in so far as that statement affects the Army. It was a statement to the effect that, post-war, the age limit for the Army would be 30 years, with the exception of senior officers. I think that such a statement, unexplained, must have a disquieting and disturbing effect on any non-commissioned officer, soldier, or junior officer who is in or about 30 years of age. We have a great pension scheme for the Army which was intended to attract the young men of this country to adopt the Army as a career. It lays down the minimum term for a pension as 14 years' service. A man cannot join the Army until he is 18 years of age. Under this new scheme announced in Ennis he will be "turfed" out of the Army at the age of 30, so that no pension will be possible, unless for very senior officers. However, that is a matter of policy which I do not intend to pursue.

It is rather regrettable that major questions of this kind are not discussed in Parliament, or not discussed at the Defence Conference. The reason that brings me to my feet this evening is that, whether it was intentional or otherwise, all the circumstances attending last Sunday's meeting in Ennis showed very scant respect for Parliament. It was a distinct discourtesy to the Defence Conference and was a public insult to the Leader of the main Opposition Party. The Defence Conference, as everybody knows, was brought into being in the early days of the emergency so as to stimulate recruiting for all branches of the Army and of the emergency forces.

Recruiting was slow and it was suggested that if all Parties in this House got together on a common platform and made common appeals throughout the country and convinced the young men and others in this country that there was nothing political about the defence organisations, the response would be very gratifying. It was.

In the early days of this movement, Government Ministers took to platforms by themselves, unaccompanied by any other representatives of that conference. After serious consideration was given to the matter, it was decided officially that, if there were any parades or meetings of L.D.F. and other forces at which speeches would be made, all the Parties participating in the Defence Conference would be invited to send a representative, who would get an opportunity of speaking. Little by little there was ample evidence of the desire and deliberate intention of Government Ministers to work away from that undertaking, that official agreement, that honourable pact and, deliberately and insidiously, to turn such platforms into political platforms.

Of late that intention has become more pronounced. On Sunday we had the Leader of the main Opposition invited to attend and to speak in Ennis. When he got down there he was informed that the Taoiseach, the head of the Fianna Fáil Party and one of the Deputies for that constituency, would be the only persons who would be allowed to speak. The Leader of the main Opposition was brought there under false pretences. The decision taken, whether by the L.D.F. locally or by military officers or by the Minister for Defence, reversed the decision arrived at by the Defence Conference.

I think the House is entitled to some explanation as to why a decision on matters of such grave importance as were outlined by the Taoiseach at Ennis, affecting vitally the livelihood and careers of very many junior officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the permanent forces, was taken and announced without any reference whatever either to Parliament or to the Defence Conference. I think an explanation is due both to that conference and to Parliament. I demand a full and thorough investigation as to why agreements arrived at by that conference, and unanimously agreed to, were dishonoured, and as to whether that was by instruction of the Minister or by decision of the local people or of Army officers.

The continuation of the Defence Conference as a body that may have certain uses depends on a thorough investigation of all the circumstances associated with the public insult which was offered to the leader of this Party on last Sunday. I am asking that a thorough and searching inquiry be made as to the responsibility for the decision to prohibit him or any representative of his or any representative of Clann na Talmhan, the Labour Party, or members of the Defence Conference from speaking at any such fixture. When was the decision to prohibit such speakers arrived at? Why was the Defence Conference not notified that their decisions had been reversed, and would no longer be carried out.

I believe that that conference, representing all Parties, had very beneficial effects in this country. I believe that their effort in getting a response to the appeal for men not only in the Army but in the other emergency forces should be recognised and appreciated, and that the Government and the people should be grateful. I think that people who have had such a good effect by working together and bringing others together should not be treated in the manner in which members of that conference have been treated, particularly on last Sunday. Either that body is a body to be consulted and to advise, or it is an entirely worthless body which should be discontinued. If it is to be there to consult and to advise, then an explanation is required as to why matters of major Army policy are enunciated from a platform which I am entitled to call a political platform in the town of Ennis, and are kept secret from the members of that conference.

I wonder is the Minister aware of the disturbing effect those remarks had on members of the permanent Army who are over 30 years of age? I wonder is he aware of the number of calls, telephonic and otherwise, received by members of the Defence Conference following the publication of that ill-considered statement? I wonder if he appreciates the ignominious position in which members of that conference were placed when they had to reply to everybody: "I never heard a word about it in Dáil Eireann or in the Defence Conference. Such matters were never discussed there." An investigation is required as to the circumstances in which all but one were prohibited from speaking at this meeting. It was in order to give the Minister an opportunity of putting forward an explanation, if there is one, that I asked the permission of the Chair to raise this matter this evening.

Mr. Norton

I can hardly imagine that the Taoiseach consciously contemplated announcing in Ennis on Sunday last an Army reorganisation policy which would give the nation an Army consisting, in the main, of persons of not more than 30 years of age, but, from the inquiries which have reached me, there is no doubt that the Taoiseach's remarks on that occasion have, whether correctly or incorrectly, created the impression that the Government contemplates an Army which would, except in the higher branches, have no personnel over 30 years of age. No other country in the world has contemplated building up its defence forces on a basis of that kind. The whole Army organisation could not possibly be built up in any country on the basis of such an upper age limit. I can hardly imagine that the Taoiseach deliberately contemplates a situation of that kind, but his remarks on the occasion, as reported in the Press, are certainly open to that interpretation. It is because his remarks are open to that interpretation that the Taoiseach's speech has caused grave disquietude amongst people serving in the Army at present who are over 30 years of age, who have decided to make the Army a career, and who expected that, in return for long service in the Army, they would be permitted to soldier there for their allotted span and receive a pension on retirement.

The Taoiseach's speech, as reported in the Press, and that is the only information I have on the matter, might indicate that the Government contemplates premature demobilisation—the demobilisation of people who are over 30 years of age. To issue a blanket order of that kind would cause very serious hardship to a large number of persons in the Army who would be unable to adjust themselves to civilian life with ease or smoothness in existing circumstances.

As the Taoiseach has already acknowledged, and as the whole nation, without political distinction, is aware, a great debt of gratitude is due to those who voluntarily joined the Defence Forces of this country during the past five years. I think everybody in the nation desires that they should be treated considerately and fairly, and that no precipitate steps should be taken regarding their demobilisation until adequate provision has been made for them. I think, therefore, that the Taoiseach might avail of this occasion, seeing that his remarks have caused some misunder-standing, to indicate in more detail what the Government's proposals are in so far as Army reorganisation is concerned, and that he should give the House an opportunity of discussing those proposals in a general way before any irretrievable decisions are taken by the Government. I think the Taoiseach should assure those who are vitally interested in this matter that it is not the Government's policy to demobilise persons who are over 30 years of age, unless those demobilisations are accompanied by some adequate provisions for safeguarding the welfare of those who will be affected by them.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I was somewhat surprised at the manner in which Deputy O'Higgins decided to raise this matter, and I must say that I was more surprised at the lines which he took in his speech. It must have been obvious—and I am sure it was clear to everybody who was listening to the speech in Ennis on Sunday, or who read it—that the Taoiseach was speaking of a post-war period. He was making it clear to the members of the L.D.F. who were paraded there before him that there would be a place in the post-war army for the L.D.F. The plans which he was speaking about had not been considered by the Government and, therefore, I am sure nobody will suggest that they should be placed before the Defence Conference before the Government had examined them. When the plans have been examined by the Government, I have no doubt whatever that the Leaders of the various Opposition Parties will be consulted before the plans are implemented. It surprises me to hear Deputy O'Higgins talking about the position of officers in the Army, as from his experience, he must surely know that these men have entered into a contract with the State and that the State will honour that contract.

Dr. O'Higgins

What about the medical officers? Was their contract honoured?

Mr. Traynor

Therefore, his fears should not arise. I do not know what his purpose is in raising the matter, other than to get some kind of kudos out of it.

Dr. O'Higgins

I believe the Taoiseach meant what he said. That is the only question.

Mr. Traynor

The question of inviting people to attend at the Ennis parade rested with the local committee, as also did the question of speaking from the platform. When I was asked the question—as I was asked it— whether there were to be speakers other than the Taoiseach, I said—and the Army authorities agreed with me— that it was undesirable to have a series of speeches at an army parade, especially in view of the fact that there was a dinner being given by the local committee, at which we all were invited to attend and speak. If Deputy Mulcahy had anything of importance to add to the statements made by the Taoiseach, he was being offered a platform there in the hotel from which he could have made any statement he desired to make. I made a speech at that particular function—it was late, and I had to get away, so I do not know who spoke after me—but I was rather surprised to find that Deputy Mulcahy had left. I do not know why he did go away, as I understand he was invited to speak.

Dr. O'Higgins

That was all known two days before.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy O'Higgins is endeavouring to suggest that there is some sinister motive behind all this.

Dr. O'Higgins

On a point of explanation I am not endeavouring to suggest anything. I am making a straightforward statement that that is so.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy is making a statement all right — whether straightforward or not is another matter.

Dr. O'Higgins

We will pass over the offence.

Mr. Traynor

I want to assure the House that, as far as the Defence Conference is concerned—I am sure members of the Defence Conference will agree with this—in respect to any important matter in regard to the emergency they have been kept fully informed.

Dr. O'Higgins

It met twice in two years.

Mr. Traynor

This is, as I have mentioned in the beginning, a matter dealing with the post-war period. I can say to Deputy Norton also that the contracts which we have entered into with the officers and the men of the Army will be honoured. There is no question whatever of having an army only of men of 30 years of age. It must have been clear to everyone who was listening that the personnel of whom the Taoiseach was speaking was the active fighting personnel. We all know that the administrative personnel is of an older type. The young men of 30 years of age, if they have administrative ability, too, would, in course of time, proceed into that particular branch. When the Taoiseach was speaking of men of 30 years of age, it must have been obvious that he was speaking of the field force.

Dr. O'Higgins

Might I ask the Minister, before he concludes, if he recollects that there was a decision arrived at by the Defence Conference, the Minister himself being one of the sponsors of it, that, if there were speeches at any such meetings, each Party participating in the conference would get an opportunity to send forward a speaker? That was not subject to any decision by any local body, whether in Ennis or any other place. When the local committee in Ennis was approached on the question, they were very decent and very apologetic, and they said the military had prohibited it. I want that looked into.

Mr. Traynor

Prohibited what?

Dr. O'Higgins

Any speaker but the one.

Mr. Traynor

I am sure that the Deputy will agree with me that it is highly undesirable to have a number of speakers.

Dr. O'Higgins

That is neither here nor there.

Mr. Traynor

I was present and did not feel aggrieved in any sense when not allowed to speak, although I feel I would have had as much right to do so as Deputy Mulcahy.

Dr. O'Higgins

Your authorities prevented it.

Mr. Traynor

I feel that other members of the Dáil on the platform would have as much right. However, there is very little time left now, and I am sure the Taoiseach is anxious to make the position clear as far as he is concerned.

The Taoiseach

I honestly have difficulty in understanding what all this is about. I was invited to distribute certain prizes and was very happy to do so; and it was intimated that I might, if I wished, address the parade, and that it would be well if I did so. I had two objects in my speech—first, to tell the members of the L.D.F. and the people of the country as a whole that, in regard to this matter of general post-war planning and policy, the question of national defence was not being forgotten. The question of national defence, after the emergency, surely is as important—in certain directions, more important—than a lot of other things we are planning and thinking about. I wanted to assure the people of the country—and, in particular, to assure the defence forces— that the question of national defence and the organisation necessary to defend our liberties in future was not being forgotten.

With regard to want of courtesy, either to the Defence Conference or the House, surely it is not suggested that I can never open my mouth in public on any particular matter, without coming here first to the Dáil and telling the House I intend to make a speech. I made it quite clear that all policies, or anything in connection with policies or post-war planning, would need legislation and would, of course, have to be brought before the Oireachtas and that these matters would have to be discussed before any official decisions would be made — even by the Government. What has happened actually is that in regard to the committee for post-war planning, this question of our defence came up. Naturally, the first thing to do is to get from the military authorities their recommendations, in the light of their experience during the emergency through which we have just passed. The moment that these come along, they will have to be examined in detail by the Government as a whole, and the Government will have to make up its mind to approve or disapprove of certain plans.

When the Government has got to that stage, that would be the time— and I agree it is desirable in matters of defence—to get the agreement of all Parties. It may or may not be possible to do that, but surely the Government is not going to be precluded, if it considers there are certain plans which are important from its point of view for the interests and safety of the country, from bringing these plans before Parliament if it is not able to get agreement between the different Parties? As I say, it is natural that we should try, even in the post-war situation, to get agreement. If I were trying to get agreement, I should be inclined to go to the heads of the political Parties and bring them in in a matter of this kind rather than to bring in the Defence Conference, which is a purely emergency organisation. I certainly do not feel in the slightest that I have been discourteous either to the Dáil or to the Defence Conference in making the statement I made. The thing that surprises me most is that anybody who read the speech would have any doubt as to what its general meaning was, that I was talking of post-war plans, and that I said what almost everybody who had any idea of military matters at all will agree with. That is that if you want to have a first-line Defence Force, that must in the main be composed of young men. I mentioned the age of 30 because I wanted to give some idea of what I meant by young men. I said that the younger officers and men of the field force would have to be of an age which would be roughly about 30 because I wanted to give some idea of what I had in mind when I was talking of young men. The whole question of recruitment for the Army, how we are to get the class of officers and men we want, what inducements are to be given, what is the career offered—all that would have to be thought out. My view and the view of everybody who has given any thought to the matter—I do not think there can be any question about it—is that the younger the active elements of our Army are, the better will be its efficiency.

I do not think this is the time to discuss the question of actual policy but there was an indication generally of the sort of problem we shall have to face. My purpose was to get the people generally to understand that that is one of the problems. Of course in addition to the front line defence, you will have a reserve. If we want to preserve our liberty, unless there is some world organisation which will provide for collective security, I doubt if we can get on in future without having made preparations in advance so that we shall not find ourselves in the position in which we shall again have to build up a territorial force. Some policy will have to be adopted to deal with that. With regard to the disturbance which it is suggested officers feel, I cannot understand that statement at all. Anybody who read my speech, anybody who attempted to read it at all carefully, and who was not content merely to glance at the headings in the newspapers, must be aware that I was talking of the future.

The other point in my speech was to try to get the Defence Forces to stand steady. I do not believe that we are out of the wood yet. A very dangerous world position may arise, not merely before the war ends, but for a period after the war ends. It would be a tremendous mistake, in my opinion, if having built up our Defence Forces with such care and trouble we were to think: "Everything is grand, everything is fine" and go on as if the emergency did not exist. I think that would be very wrong. The second purpose of my speech was to ask those in the Defence Forces to stand fast until those who are responsible for the safety of the State at the moment can say to them: "Look here, the emergency is now past." We are bringing in a scheme which we shall try as far as possible to dovetail into the present position so that we can, by a gentle transition, pass from our present position into the future. There will be at the end of the term the question of how we shall manage so as to get into the new situation. We have contracts which of course will be kept. One of the things which Parliament will have to consider is how we are going to get this transition, how we are going to manage so that we will have officers in future coming in and entering into contracts of a type different from those which exist at the moment.

I am surprised that this question was raised at all as I cannot see the point of it. I read my speech again in three newspapers since I heard this question was going to be raised to see was there anything in what I said which would reasonably justify anything like public anxiety. I could not see it. It might as well be said that if I am to talk about post-war planning in another direction as well as defence, I am not to speak about that unless I have first of all discussed it here in the Dáil. The Dáil ought to discuss, in the main, definite propositions which are brought before it. Everybody knows as I have indicated that changes of that kind can only come by legislation, that they will have to come before the Dáil. The Dáil in the main has to deal only with practical propositions, complete and definite decisions, and not with general considerations such as I had in mind when I was speaking.

Dr. O'Higgins

May I ask why the decision of the Defence Conference was violated, that, in order to get unity within the conference, all Parties, members of that conference, should be represented when there are speeches at such meetings?

The Taoiseach

I can only tell the Deputy that I know nothing about the violation of an agreement, but what I do know is that when there was a question of recruiting, when we were asking for recruits and talking to the public in general, there were speeches from all Parties and I can see the reason for that. On this occasion I went down to address a military parade and to present cups to the winners in a military competition. I kept myself to things that dealt with matters of national defence and, as the Minister has pointed out, it was not a question of a series of speeches. It was not a question of talking to the public in general. That is quite a different thing in my opinion. I know nothing about a violation of any agreement.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, 18th October.