Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 6

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."— (Minister for Defence.)

Mr. McQuillan

When the debate on this Bill was adjourned I was making the point that the attitude now adopted by Fianna Fáil towards the introduction of permanent legislation with regard to the Army was as hypocritical as their attitude towards the recruiting campaign that they undertook at the end of the emergency. One would need great patience to listen to Deputy Traynor and Deputy de Valera when they proceed to tell the House that the country was prepared for any emergency in 1939 owing to the foresight of the then Fianna Fáil Government. To my mind, that is one of the most dishonest statements that could be made, but it is typical of the Party opposite. They now pretend to be anxious to have this permanent legislation introduced when the Army and the country have been waiting for 27 years for its introduction. Overnight they have got more than anxious to see it brought in this week.

It is astonishing to have it claimed by Fianna Fáil that they kept this country out of the war, in other words that the fairy godmother spread her cloak over this country. That kind of statement does not sound very amusing to me. I happen to be one of those who joined the Army during the emergency like a good number of other Irishmen. We joined the forces at the call of the then Government. But there were many young Irishmen who were just as anxious to serve this country as the men who joined the Defence Forces but who did not join because of the duplicity of the Party opposite.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot go back to what is now history. The Deputy should confine himself to the measure before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

I was only following the lead of Deputy de Valera when he told us what steps they had taken to keep this country out of the war, both in the matter of getting war material and in the agricultural policy which they pursued.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have told all Deputies that it is not relevant.

Mr. McQuillan

I bow to your ruling. I should like to say, at any rate, that the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party prior to the war with regard to the repeal of the External Relations Act and their collaboration with a foreign country in hounding down young Irishmen——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this measure.

Mr. McQuillan

If Fianna Fáil claim to have kept this country neutral during the war, I find it very hard to understand how during that period they allowed certain individuals who were interned in this country as prisoners of war to leave it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot reopen all that. It is not germane to this measure and must not be discussed now.

Mr. McQuillan

It was gone back on by Deputies on the far side of the House. I suggest, at any rate, that thousands of young Irishmen were prevented from joining the Army and the L.D.F. by the dishonest actions of the Fianna Fáil Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to cease that line of argument. I will not allow him to proceed any further on that line.

Mr. McQuillan

I am saying that the services of these men would be given to the Army if the right attitude were adopted. There is no doubt that thousands of young Irishmen joined the Defence Forces and thousands more joined the L.D.F. in order to serve this country. I have no hesitation in saying that it was the hope of a great number of these men that, if their services were not required to repel an invader, at any rate their services would be used at a later stage to remove an invader who has been here for years. That hope, of course, disappeared in the Army after a very short time and the state of the F.C.A. to-day is proof that they had no hope of seeing that position reached.

When we are thinking in terms of defence, whether we remain neutral or whether we take the side of either of the combatants in another war which may come, we must have what I may describe as a ground force that will enable us to man all positions in this country. If we do not do that, we are faced with the alternative that an outside force will come into this country. If any force comes into this country, they will come in in large numbers and I can visualise a position in which we would have in the vicinity of all our seaport towns and in areas where we would have air bases hundreds of thousands of foreign troops. If we are prepared to welcome in these foreigners, no matter what their nationality may be, that is all right, but I suggest to the House that in countries where foreign troops came in either as friends or as enemies, they had a very demoralising influence. If such a thing happened here, we would have all sorts of complications. I think that by pursuing a proper defence policy here we can prevent that kind of thing happening. I suggest to the Minister that he must see that new life is put into the F.C.A., that they must get some ideal to aim at. At present there is a sense of frustration both in the Army and in the F.C.A. If he can find a way of removing that sense of frustration, he will have achieved a great deal of work that is necessary in preparing a defence plan.

Dr. O'Higgins

In winding up this debate, I shall resist the temptation, which is definitely strong, to follow Deputies opposite back through the years and fight out old battles all over again. I do agree with one or two Deputies who suggested that, 27 years after the establishment of this State, we should have reached the point when the Army—not the army of any particular Government but the Army of the country—should be placed outside the zone of political controversy. We had that disgusting type of speech which we listened to from Deputy Aiken, an individual who at one time was Minister for Defence and who left that office under very unhappy circumstances, so unhappy that a Deputy sitting behind him says that there are really very terrible lessons to be learned by all from the state of affairs that existed in 1939.

I come in here with a three-line Bill asking experienced Deputies, particularly men who had been for 16 years in the Government of this country, in view of the fact that we shall have the Army Estimates before us in a couple of weeks' time and a permanent Army Bill in a couple of months' time, and when the law provides for the continuation of the Army after the 31st March, to agree that this Bill might be let through without this rather irrelevant type of debate that we have listened to since half-past three.

The debate was opened by an ex-Minister for Defence who staggers into Dáil Éireann, bent down with the weight of the Dáil debates which he carries under his arm in order to quote speeches made ten or 15 years ago in the light of the circumstances then existing. We had nothing that was even relevant to the Bill before us uttered from his lips. We had the annual whine with the serious face that he did not get enough information with regard to the policy of this State and its Army policy. The person who lays down State policy, and the right person to lay it down, is the head of the Government and in a clearer voice than ever was uttered by the head of a Government for 16 years prior. Clearly and candidly the position, policy and outlook of this country with regard to war and with regard to entanglements and alliances in any direction were announced, not once but many times, by the head of the Government. But, of course, when it suits Deputies not to read or to throw the blind eye at utterances made, they come in here with the hardy annual whine: "What is your policy?"

The Leader of the Opposition was so deluded and carried off his feet by the deluge of vicious propaganda from behind him that, I assume in perfectly good faith, he tells us he is terribly disturbed, terribly worried, terribly anxious, because the Army is disappearing, because it is under strength, because the best officers are leaving and because we have no specialists, and the fact of the matter is that we have a bigger Army to-day than his Minister for Defence left behind him. I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition— he is living in a cesspool of vicious propaganda against the Army that was started on the very day I became Minister for Defence. We have these foul articles in the newspaper mainly owned and governed by the political Opposition here and we have their correspondents supplying the English Sunday newspapers with the most damaging propaganda ever used against any Army. I have read their articles and I have traced them to their source and that is why I ask the Leader of the Opposition to co-operate with me in eradicating that kind of damaging propaganda, propaganda which is damaging to the Army and which is disgusting when its origins are considered to be within this country.

Did we not read the cartoons in the English Sunday papers where the medical officer, attending a soldier in bed, is told: "Be careful, doc, he is the last soldier we have"? Surely we can march proudly on St. Patrick's Day because we have poured that kind of filth over the Irish Army, because we have done our best to sap and undermine confidence in that Army. We had this talk about the Army melting. From the day I came over here, was there ever a question asked here with regard to the Army, its strength, its equipment, its numbers, its personnel, that I ever sheltered behind the public interest and refused to answer?

Mr. Traynor

You refused to answer.

Dr. O'Higgins

The poor Deputy— what answer does he want? Does he want his own nose rubbed in his own past? I am asked what is the policy, not of the Army but of the Government, and I point out that it has been stated on many occasions by the head of the Government, stated very clearly and without any ambiguity, that this country, no matter how it feels, no matter what its impulses are with regard to the European or world line-up, cannot possibly ally itself with an army that occupies portion of its territory. The other possible alliance is with the Communists over on the other side of Europe. Do Deputies think we are going to ally ourselves with them? Those who can read and have brains to understand words can read into that sentence what the policy and what the outlook is—that, as things are, we have to rely on our own strength to hold this island against anybody who may be an aggressor.

Now we come to Army strength and Army policy. Absence of policy in the past was smothered and hidden by squandering money in all directions. The spending of money does not make a defence plan or a national defence policy. We have not got conscription in this country and I do not believe we will have it. The population of this country are free to join the Army or not. We recruit up to the strength that we get and that is our strength. It is not our policy; it is our strength. As the Deputy knows when he left me a smaller Army than we have at the moment, he camouflaged that by putting down a figure which misled his Leader this evening—12,500. In the Book of Estimates, however, he made provision for an Army of less than 9,000. Was that either stupidity or dishonesty? The book showed the permission which he was asking the Dáil to give him—an Army of less than 9,000—but he floundered around here and pretended that his plan was for an Army 50 per cent. greater than that.

Mr. Traynor

And so it was.

Dr. O'Higgins

Do not be stupid, man. The Army you are looking for is the Army you asked authority to pay, and neither the ex-Minister for Defence nor the present Minister can carry one officer, one soldier or one N.C.O. more than the amount of money voted can carry.

Mr. Traynor

It represented the number of individuals we believed we could get in that year.

Dr. O'Higgins

The figure of 9,000?

Mr. Traynor

Yes, but the policy was for an Army of 12,500. The Minister knows that better than anybody in this House.

Dr. O'Higgins

The policy was to talk about more men than he thought he would get. That was exactly typical of the whole Administration. You had a policy founded on words and humbug speeches. I believe in policy founded on facts. There is one thing in my time here, be it long or short: you will get nothing from me but absolute candour and an absolute statement of fact. I shall never try to delude the Opposition or the people. The Deputy in his time had no hope of getting more than 9,000 men. I have tried and I have not got more than that. That being so, and facing up to the situation of this country as a country that may have to stand alone, then quite clearly in the absence of conscription one has to look for defensive manpower, for the big numbers, not inside the Army but outside the Army. That brings me then to the question of the F.C.A. I found the F.C.A. an unknown force, an invisible army, an army of which I could not get an estimate within 10,000 of its known strength in terms of effectiveness.

Mr. Traynor

That is libel on the Army staff.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is not a libel on the Army. It is a statement of fact. It is a statement that so many men joined the F.C.A., got their boots and their uniform, and yet nobody could tell me how many were effective on any given day. Not one could tell me that. For practically a whole year I had the greater part of the general staff going out week-end after week-end in order to try to get a firm figure as to the effective strength of that particular force. The situation was that men were joining the F.C.A.—and the Deputy must know this—and getting their equipment, but the greater number of them never appeared again. Others turned up for a week-end or two and then melted away, together with the equipment. Then, in that set of circumstances, we have a squeal with regard to a shortage of boots. I was asked—the suggestion came from Deputy Aiken—to give more attention to the F.C.A. I take it he did not mean me as an individual. He meant that the Army and those responsible for the defence of the country should give more attention to the F.C.A. The F.C.A. has got more attention from the Army in the last 12 months than it ever got since the date of its inception.

Mr. Traynor

Did you hear the remarks of the only Deputy on your side who spoke about the F.C.A.?

Dr. O'Higgins

Not only that, but as a result of a comprehensive report which I got and as a result of that year of intensive study, the number of regular officers to be attached to the F.C.A. will go up by some hundreds and the number of N.C.O.s by a similar proportion.

We come now to the question of the training of the F.C.A. It was said that they were only half-trained or quarter-trained. The training of any voluntary soldier obviously depends on the amount of time he gives to that training. It must have been all very happy-go-lucky when one could say on paper there was an F.C.A. force of 60,000 men and the training returns show that only 10 per cent. of that 60,000 came up for training. That meant that the balance was very much a nominal roll, absorbing uniforms and equipment, but not being trained. A very intensive and lengthy investigation was made of that particular aspect of the situation. In spite of that fact the Deputy quite improperly said that they were not called up one year in order to save money. They were not called up one year for the reason stated; they were not called up because we wanted to study, examine and properly explore the whole situation.

We found, as a result of that examination, that even if 40 per cent. of them came up for training, with the plan of summer camps in existence, that would be more than could be handled. The plan was that they would be called up for training during a certain number of months each year and that that training would be carried out at certain named camps. There was a good deal to be said for that policy. The summer time is more attractive; the seaside places provide a greater inducement to people to turn up for training. Training is to a great extent a kind of holiday under such conditions. But a considerable number of the F.C.A. would not be released during that period; a considerable number of them did not find it feasible to come up for training during that period. If more than 40 per cent. turned up they could not be handled. I have changed all that. I am making provision that every month of the year and any month of the year members of the F.C.A. can present themselves for training and they will be trained. In addition to the other drawbacks, there were no inducements, certainly not in peace time, to that particular force to come up. There was no provision that a married man would be treated as a married man financially. There was no bonus. There was no bounty of any kind for such men when they came up for training although there were such inducements for the regular reservists. Those matters are now being examined fully in the belief that the F.C.A. is a force to which the country and the people must look and that, so long as that is a force to which we must look, then the outlook of the Minister for Defence and the authorities must be to have that force as highly trained as possible.

I come now to the question of equipment. We have had a lot of cheap heroics about war—who we will fight, who we should fight, and who should be the untouchables, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that we do not produce as much as one bullet in this country. We do not produce as much as one popgun. We do not produce a single rifle, to go no higher than that. Anything we buy in the way of military equipment, warlike stores, arms and ammunition has got to be bought from outside the shores of this country. That is an unhealthy state of affairs militarily. It is an unpleasant statement to make, but it is a fact. It is a fact that we must face. When Deputies opposite criticise me or my Administration because we are not equipped along modern lines as an Army, they must pause and remember that the only place where we can buy our goods is from other armies; and they must remember, too, that those other armies will only sell to us when they have a surplus. I venture to say offhand that in the way of armaments and warlike stores I have purchased in two years more armaments and warlike stores than were ever purchased before my time in any given two-year period. I have to be thankful to the British Army for the fact that they have supplied those goods in face of the present world situation and in face of their own difficulties; and it would be ungracious if we did not at least say thanks for that supply, be it only a trickle.

Mr. Davin

That was done during the last war too.

Dr. O'Higgins

Yes, and I am expressing gratitude for that because there was no other trickle from any other country in the world—none whatever. We heard a lot of talk about the permanent Army Bill. People were throwing fits of hysteria because there is a possible delay of two months before the permanent Army Bill comes along.

They got into a state of hysterics—yet their nerves were perfectly calm and their countenances were perfectly placid for the past 16 years. At least, I can claim that after 27 years of talk— talk about a permanent Army Bill, I have introduced it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration and passed.