This Bill comes before the Dáil and Seanad every year. It is a formal Bill, and it has been discussed at greater or lesser length each year. I do not think that there is anything new to be said about its subject-matter. The general discussion takes place, as a rule, on the Estimates. In the Dáil, on the Second Reading of this Bill, I gave some account of the strength of the Army at present, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat that now. The reserve side of the Army has increased steadily, so that, as I pointed out in the Dáil, although we reduced the cost of the Army by about a third, we increased our mobilisable force by about 50 per cent. This Bill requires to be law by the 31st March, and, as it is a formal Bill which has to come before the Oireachtas annually, I do not think I need go further into the matter now.
Public Business. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
The Minister or his predecessors have brought in a Bill of this kind year after year since 1923. Although the original Bill was only intended to be in operation for a few months, and although there was an assurance given that the provisions of that Bill would be thoroughly examined, they have never yet been examined for five minutes in the Dáil or Seanad. The original Bill, consisting of I do not know how many thousand clauses, passed through the Dáil and Seanad without five minutes' discussion, on the plea of urgency and on the assurance that the Bill would have proper consideration within a few months. So far from its having had proper consideration, it has never yet had any further discussion. Year after year we have had the promise that a Bill—either a repetition of the original Bill or the original Bill amended— would be brought before the legislature for discussion in a formal and proper manner. Because of the failure to implement that promise, year after year; because there is no reason why even the existing Act should not be thoroughly examined, even if there is no amendment required, I think this House should decline to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
I suggest that the House should do that as a protest and with the object of forcing the Minister to bring forward a Bill—even the present Act as a new Bill—and have it properly discussed. I think that the House, in duty to itself, is bound to insist on the Act at present in operation being brought into the legislative arena for discussion and examination. It is hardly possible to conceive a Bill of such enormous importance being in operation for eight years without having had five minutes' consideration by the legislature. No doubt it had full consideration—if full consideration was possible in the circumstances— before it was introduced. On many occasions, when similar questions arose regarding other matters, we were reminded of the abnormal circumstances that obtained in 1922 and 1923. We have been told, particularly in respect to the Army and to Army matters, how difficult it was in these years to give the close consideration to matters that in normal times they would have had. This Bill of so many clauses was introduced in that abnormal period and I assume that it is possible that it contains clauses which, if they had been thoroughly examined, would not have been passed in the form which they were. Because of these things, and because of the ease with which the Minister could bring forward a Bill of a permanent character dealing with the powers of the Army for its self-discipline, I think the House should not pass this Bill.
I should like to ask Senator Johnson if he would kindly explain to the House what will happen if we accept his advice. He has asked us to reject the Bill as a grand protest against the continuance of the measure under which the Army has been conducted for the past eight years. If the Seanad rejects the Bill, perhaps Senator Johnson would tell us what will happen to the Army.
Cathaoirleach
I am afraid that I cannot allow Senator Johnson to do as the Senator suggests. He must ask the Minister to give the explanation he requires. Senator Johnson has already spoken on the Bill.
It seems a tall order to ask the House to reject a Bill which is palpably necessary to the carrying on of the present control of the Army. I thought Senator Johnson would have dealt with that point. I was waiting for him to explain what the result of his proposal would be. I shall certainly ask the Minister to say what the result would be if the Seanad should refuse to pass this Bill. There was much to be said during the last few years in favour of postponing consideration of a final Army Bill. We all know that our Army has been in a very liquid condition, that enormous changes have had to take place, and that the person who could frame a Bill during the past four years which would have dealt adequately with the final form of the Army would have been a very wonderful individual. I think that, so far as the ordinary citizens are concerned, we have gained rather than lost by not having spent our time in trying to frame a Bill which it was practically impossible to frame.
When we are going to get an Army Bill is another question. We may abuse those who promised us a Bill for not having produced it, but the Bill under which they have been working cannot have been so very bad, because, somehow or other, things were carried on under it. I do not think that any ordinary citizen has any reason to grumble from the point of view of his pocket as to the management of the Army under the existing Bill. Whether or not the soldier element would regard the matter from exactly the same point of view I do not know. So far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, I do not think he has much to grumble about. As to the question, whether the time has arrived when a final Army Bill could be presented, it would look as if it had. Probably, we have got to the stage when, like Senator Johnson, we ought to expect a Bill, but I think the Senator is proposing a much too drastic method of extracting that Bill and a most inappropriate method. I do not think we have suffered a great deal by what has happened in the past, and I would ask the Minister, when replying, to tell us what would follow if Senator Johnson's advice were adopted.
We would be glad to know in this House what the Minister has got to say in explanation of the extraordinary situation that arose recently when certain officers of the Reserve, and I believe certain officers of the Army—certainly in the initial stage—made public charges against the organisation of the Army, the general ineffectiveness of it as an armed force and, what is more sinister, an open and considered charge of attempting to interfere with the officers officiating at courts-martial. I think that we are entitled to know something more about that. It is true that the matter was raised in the other House, but the answer there was, to my mind, anything but satisfactory. It may be that the Minister is not disposed to answer such questions. It may be that he is quite within his rights in coming into this House and the other House in very nonchalant fashion and, with a few remarks, asking to have this Temporary Provisions Bill passed again. I cannot say that that type of attitude appeals to me, and I do not think it will appeal to this House.
There is another issue which has come to light recently, and which we should have some explanation of from the Minister, if he is in a position to explain it. We read recently that pensions have been paid without any authority from the Oireachtas whatsoever. The Minister may not be responsible for that. The responsibility may lie on another Department but, at all events, these two points are of sufficient importance to warrant explanation as fully as possible from the Minister. I put these points before the Minister for consideration, and I should like to hear what satisfactory answer he has to give to both.
Senator Jameson asks what would happen if this Bill were not passed. Nothing would happen except that the Government would bring in another Bill in the other House. A message would go from here to the other House to say that this Bill had not been passed, and the Government would be compelled to bring in a Bill of another character.
In three weeks.
This is only the 11th March, and existing legislation continues until the 31st March. We have an Act under which the Army has been operating. If the Minister says that it is not possible to amend it sufficiently within that time, or a shorter time, it is an admission that the present Act is perfectly unsuitable and is not capable of dealing with the Army situation at all. Senator Jameson seems to overlook the fact that the Army Act deals almost entirely with discipline, and has very little to do with the actual formation of the Army, or with matters of economy or the other matters to which he referred. It is a disciplinary measure. I do not want to criticise the Army at all because I think it is grossly improper to try to make the Army a political question—to bring politics into military affairs. I think that if there had been a proper Army Act in operation some incidents that did occur in the Army would not have occurred, and that the Army would have been the better of that.
I do not see what black magic is required for the introduction of an Army Bill for our Army more than for any other army in the world. On all sides we have in recent years seen new States set up. These States have set up large military forces, and some of them have set up sea forces. They have been able to bring in legislation dealing with their Armies. Why should we take a generation, or half a generation, to bring in such legislation? This time twelve months Senator Jameson or some other Senator may get up and put the same question that was put to-day—what will happen if we do not pass this Temporary Bill? Ten years hence, the same question can be put with exactly the same answer. Senator Connolly has referred to an incident which possibly would not have happened if there had been a proper Army Act in operation. I think it is gross lack of discipline and an impertinence on the part of Army Officers to issue manifestos or statements of any kind such as have been referred to. There is a way of dealing with matters of that kind. Some of the officers are out of the Army now, and they have an opportunity as civilians, of drawing attention to any abuses which have existed in the Army but the method resorted to was grossly improper and one which no self-respecting community would tolerate in regard to its military forces. I think the whole position is very nebulous, insecure and unsatisfactory, and that the excuses— they are not reasons—advanced from year to year are certainly not acceptable to any intelligent assembly. There was nothing to prevent our Government more than any other Government from having brought in proper Army legislation long before now.
With regard to what Senator Johnson has said, I must assume that when the Dáil and Seanad pass a Bill, that is not an irresponsible act. I do not remember the circumstances of the passing of the present Act in the way that Senator Johnson says he does but the consideration of a Bill is certainly not to be measured by the amount of discussion that takes place on it. The Dail and Seanad passed the original Bill, and it became an Act. That is how I inherited it. In 1927, immediately on going into the Department of Defence, I had to introduce the appropriate Bill of that year and I may have, directly or by implication, promised a Bill within 12 months. When I went into the Department of Defence, I saw that whatever proposals there were there for a Bill so circumscribed things that it would be directed towards the formation of an Army such as I had not in mind.
I admit that the changes we have made in the Army during the last three years or so have been experimental. In changing the formation of the Army, I wished to have an Army here of sufficient dimensions to be effective in respect of any attack that one might reasonably regard as conceivable, and, at the same time, I realised that we did not desire in any way to make the Army a great burden financially upon the country. I worked out a way for myself in which I thought those requirements could be met—a way that would not be feasible if the old ideas had prevailed. During the past three or four years one has been engaged in moving from one type of Army to another, and I cannot say that we have reached our destination fully yet. I do think that the various new branches we have started—the A and B Reserves, the Volunteer Reserve and other formations—have, each one of them in its own line, been remarkably successful. They have justified the hopes we had of building up an Army in that way. Roughly, in the course of twelve months, we should be able to say: "This is approximately the form the Army will remain in," and within, I should say, two years we will be able to bring in a Bill which will be sufficiently elastic to allow any change of mind that may come about as a result of experience to be made effective.
Senator Johnson referred to this Act as containing some thousands of clauses. He exaggerated somewhat, as he probably intended to do. The present Act has about 300 clauses. During the past four years the Army has been completely changed in form, to the great benefit of the Army and to the great benefit of the State, as I believe. It was suggested by Senator O'Farrell that within a period of 20 days we should produce a permanent Bill. I think it would require a considerable amount of magic in the draughtsman's office, in the Department of Defence, in the Dáil and in the Seanad to produce a Bill of approximately 300 clauses—a very complicated Bill—and to pass it so that it would become law within 20 days.
I admit there has been considerable delay, although I think the importance of that point has been exaggerated. This is not the only country where there is an annual Army Bill. Personally, I think it would be just as well to have a permanent Bill, but it is necessary to proceed on the side of caution and put into operation certain forms before I definitely bring in a Bill which commits us to one form rather than to another. Senator Jameson and others must know that if this Bill does not become law by the 31st there would be an extraordinary constitutional position, as the Army could exist only by the legal effectiveness of this Bill. Failing this Bill, there would be no legal sanction for the existence of the Army.
Senator Connolly referred to a document issued to the newspapers, and he seemed to consider my account of that matter in the Dáil unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, I can only give the facts, and facts are very often unsatisfactory. The Army Association was formed for the benefit of officers in the Army. There were a number of material benefits they thought they could achieve that way. I did make it clear at that time to two officers in the standing Army that the running of such an organisation would require good judgment on their part. That organisation consisted not only of officers in the standing Army but of officers of the Reserve and others not associated with the Army at all. The document the Senator referred to had no signature of any member of the standing Army. One must recognise that an officer in the Reserve is only in the Army for one month out of twelve and that for eleven months he is a civilian. I do not expect the rigidly high standard of discipline from Reserve officers that I expect from officers in the standing Army, but I expect that discipline during the period the Reserve officers are with the Army. I have expressed satisfaction that the sense of discipline in the standing Army was such that none of them was associated with that document, and I think there were only two Reserve officers who were at the time effective officers connected with it, and the remainder were in no way associated with the Army.
Senator Connolly and others have endeavoured to make a great deal out of that document. In every country throughout Europe you find a certain amount of discontent. We have in the Reserve and standing Army 750 or 800 officers, and the fact that two men owing to lack of judgment injudiciously put their names to a document asserting certain things which they were not in a position to know were so or not, does not strike me as anything terrible.
Senator Connolly referred to the matter of interfering with justice. As I said in the Dáil regarding the suggestion, that I, as a Minister, endeavoured to defeat justice in the Army by interfering with courts-martial, as far as that was concerned I was in a position to assert that such a charge was without the slightest foundation of truth. As to whether such a thing could happen in the Army, I think I have watched the Army as closely as it is possible for one man to watch it, and I know the details of its operations, and I can say that I am satisfied that this particular allegation referred to is without foundation. I am satisfied of that, although I admit a thing could happen without my knowing of it, but no one has complained to me, and anyone in the Army has the right under Article 122 of the Act to come direct to me, but nobody has come to me with any complaint in any way or to say that a court-martial was unfair and prevented him from getting justice. I am perfectly convinced that there is no foundation for the charge in that respect, and I know that as far as the signatories to the document are concerned they are not in a position to say whether such was the case or not, for only half the signatories were associated with the Army, and to the extent of doing one month's training with the Army once a year.
There was also the question of the effectiveness of the Army.
That is a thing a man who comes but once a month for training to the Curragh is not in a position to speak about. This document stated that there was no attempt to co-ordinate the various branches of the Army. We have at present a staff course for officers for the purpose of instruction in the co-ordination of the different branches of the Army. I am not going to say that the Army, with the short life it has had and the peculiar circumstances of its earlier years, has been completely instructed in every branch of military science, but I am satisfied that there has been a satisfactory advance in that instruction. At the present moment we have operations on for the instruction of men, from the recruit to the staff officer and the man who commands the complete Army. That is a fact. As far as the document the Senator referred to is concerned, it had no weight whatever, for there was no responsibility behind it, and there was no knowledge of these matters available to the signatories to the document.
I hesitate to promise a permanent Bill in less than about two years. The preparation of a Bill of this magnitude in the Department and by the draughtsman is a lengthy thing. We are engaged in new formations which have been successful to the point of surprising me. I was always optimistic, but we have been successful beyond what I have expected. I feel we must in the shortest possible time take steps to provide pensions for officers in the Army. We must as soon as possible bring in a permanent Bill that will not require to be renewed annually and that will provide for the form of Army I have in mind, but that will allow elasticity for any changes that may be decided upon by me or my successors as a result of experience.
Senator Connolly suggested that pensions were paid without the sanction of the Oireachtas. The forms of pensions that exist in the Army are under the Army Military Service Pensions Act, the Wounds Pensions Act, and the Disability Act. No pension has been given to any man other than in accordance with these Acts passed by the Oireachtas, and consequently in accordance with the law in this country. There is no pension given otherwise than is provided for in the form of the law—the law provided for according to these Acts.
Might I explain that I should have limited the criticism of pensions to the question which arose at the Committee of Public Accounts?
Cathaoirleach
That is hardly a question for us at the moment.
Then the Senator withdraws his statement that pensions were granted otherwise than according to law?
I do, but I think we might get some explanation of the matter raised at the Public Accounts Committee.
I have only one word to say with regard to what the Minister has said——
Cathaoirleach
The debate is now wound up.
I only want to pass one remark. The Minister has promised to introduce a permanent Bill that will not require to be passed every year. I have the strongest objection to that. That is not the practice in most armies, and it certainly is not in the British Army. That is one of the important factors that keeps civilians in control of the Army.