The White Paper circulated with this Bill makes its contents very clear. In the main, it is the annual Bill for the renewal of the temporary Defence Forces Act, which has a life only of one year. When I was here in the Seanad last, discussing the Defence Forces Bill, a claim that has been repeatedly put forward in the Dáil that a permanent Act should be introduced was rather resisted here, on the grounds that, since Estimates do not come up here for review, the only opportunity the Seanad ever gets for having a word to say or a view to express on Army matters is on the annual introduction of this Bill.
That particular matter was referred to again during the week in Dáil Éireann and I agreed to meet the view of the Leader of the Opposition as far as possible by trying, in connection with the permanent Bill, to make some arrangement that it would come up annually for discussion even though it might be permanent in many of its features. The reason for the early introduction of the Bill this year, leaving a period of some 15 months before I would have to return, is in order to give the Minister and Departmental officials adequate time so that they would not be unduly rushed in giving consideration to the permanent Bill, the skeleton of which is on the stocks.
As far as this Bill goes, most of its sections are merely machinery sections, fixing dates, repeating titles, renewing definitions, that have been there all the time. There are only five sections in which there is any new element or feature in this temporary Bill. Section 5 deals with the question of attestation and reattestation of soldiers. Heretofore, after the soldier had completed his full period of service, if he desired to reattest he could do so for a period of two years and could keep on reattesting in periods of two years until he reached a total of ten years; but during any two-year period, by giving three months' notice, he could vacate the Army. That meant instability in the Army and was very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the General Staff, who never knew its strength at any time for a period of three months in advance. Section 5, while preserving the right of the soldier to reattest as heretofore, in periods of time up to a maximum of ten, lays it down that when he has reattested he cannot terminate his military engagement on three months' notice. It leaves the ordinary Ministerial machine there. He can apply to get out of the Army in the ordinary way, that is, he can apply for release on compassionate grounds or business grounds. All such applications, even with regard to younger soldiers, are always adequately and very sympathetically considered. In the light of that, it is obvious that, when we are dealing with the case of a man who has given his full legal period of military service, if such an application goes forward it will be considered in a very sympathetic manner. An assurance could nearly be given that when such an application goes forward he will be released.
Section 6 deals with the Reserve of Officers. Again, that is merely a matter of oiling the machine. Applications frequently come before the Staff from officers to change from one reserve formation into another. As the law stood up to this, that could only be done by terminating that officer's engagement and reattesting him into the other unit. This is merely a case of oiling the machine, so that on application from the officer, if it is approved of by the General Staff, he can be transferred from one reserve formation to another.
Section 7 deals with the calling up of the Reserve. As the law stands at the moment, if you call up a reservist for his annual period of training and— because of things that may arise, business or deaths, or anything like that—his period of annual training is broken, he cannot be called up a second time in order to complete his number of days' reserve training, with the result that he cannot get his financial grant and allowance for that particular year. Section 7 makes it possible, where special circumstances arise, to call the reservist up at once, twice or three times, so as to give him an opportunity of doing what is regarded as the normal stretch of training and, therefore, putting him in a position where, first, he gets his training and, second, he gets the financial benefits that arise from that particular training.
Section 9 deals with the training of the cadets in the Navy. In the course of training they had, at one period, to carry out the duties of an officer and, as it were, to understudy an officer; but according to military law they have not the authority of an officer. We are proposing to create a new rank of midshipman, with the military power and authority of an officer, so as to get over that particular difficulty.
I have left Section 8 until last, because it is the only section of anything more than mere machinery importance. Section 8 is the only section about which there may be any doubts or uneasiness, any controversy or criticism. In Section 8 it is proposed that the civilian penalties which have been heretofore imposed on men who deserted from the Army should be removed. At first sight, any Senator might think that this is in some way condoning the rather serious crime of desertion or, alternatively, that by granting immunity with regard to this penalty to those who deserted you may be running the risk of encouraging desertion in the future. From some quarters I was rather accused of having adopted that particular attitude. I want to make it clear before I deal with the particular effect of this section that I am as conscious of my responsibilities as Minister for Defence as any Minister for Defence was before my time, and I hope that any Minister for Defence who succeeds me will be equally conscious of his responsibilities with regard to discipline in the Army and establishing healthy or unhealthy precedents.
The position is this: that the military law is a drastic, ruthless code of law and, within the four corners of the military law and of the Defence Forces Act which we renew with life every single year, there are as heavy and as severe penalties for the military offence of desertion as there are in any European army. I am not remitting any of the penalties that were in that Act from its beginning; I am not remitting any of the penalties that are imposed on deserters from any army in the world. But I think it is bad for the esprit de corps of an army, whether this Army or any other army that, for military offences, military men should pass over the delinquents to be sentenced and punished by civilian boards up and down the country.
If a military offence has been committed, then military men should deal with the offender in a military way. In my opinion, it is indefensible to pass the transgressor over to the Cork Corporation or the Clonmel Town Council and ask them to deal with the military offender. But every Minister for Defence and every Minister for War, after a war is over and when he is dealing with transgressors, reaches a point where somebody or some group of persons touch the ordinary feelings of sympathy and compassion that are within the heart of every one of us.
When the war was over and we had this number of deserters listed in our books, my predecessor informed us that he got letters from mothers, wives and children asking him, if those men came back to the country, would he waive the penalty of imprisonment. He was touched and he regarded the situation in this way. As the war is over now, let us forget about it and get on with the job of peace, and he remitted all the military penalties of imprisonment. He replaced those penalties, however, by the penalty of seven years of outlawry so far as employment by any body, directly or indirectly associated with public funds was concerned. The first step towards interfering with the working of the ordinary machine was when that particular step was taken. Let me say clearly, in case anyone may have any doubts as to my outlook on the matter, that he did the right thing. After the war was over, with these fellows scattered over the globe, any person would have done exactly as he did. If I were there at that time, I would have taken the same action. I probably would have replaced that penalty by some such penalty as he imposed by the seven years' disqualification. But three years' out of that have gone by. These people have laboured under that disqualification for three years out of these seven. I have asked the Dáil, and now ask the Seanad, to waive the other four years. That particular penalty in operation has worked out as a punishment of the wife and the children rather than a punishment of the individual soldier.
As I said in the Lower House, I have had those men knocking at my door at night accompanied by wives and children and, as a medical man, I could see in the faces in front of me actual physical starvation and I found myself the individual charged with the direct responsibility as to whether that state of affairs was to continue or not. I made my decision in face of the picture presented to me, and I asked the Dáil during the week to take their decision in the light of that information truthfully given to them. There is no individual sitting in this House, no matter what he may say, who in face of that picture would not take the same decision as I took and I am asking others to take.
That is the one matter in this Bill which I believe may be the subject of criticism. The risk I am taking on it, and the risk I am asking others to take, in some way, directly or indirectly, may be interpreted as regarding the crime of desertion as not being in the field or arena of major crimes. I do not want that impression to get abroad. I do, however, want it to be understood that, whatever penalties we may inflict on the soldier, we should not extend them to the family. With the onset of winter, there may be minor relief schemes or drainage schemes of one kind or another for the relief of unemployment and destitution in various parts of the country.
If such a scheme were in operation and if one of these transgressors were living on the fringe of it in utter destitution with a wife and young children dependent upon him, I do not think one of us would stand over a situation where, by our decision and by our vote, we must say: you cannot enjoy any part of that work although there is a vacancy; you must starve and so must your wife starve and so must your children starve. That is an act which no Christian could possibly adopt, an attitude which no Christian could defend. All kinds of verbal red herrings have been dragged across this subject. I like, if I am examining a body professionally, to strip that body naked and see what I am dealing with. In this case let us face up to the question stripped naked as to whether, in fact, if any of us as individuals were faced with the situation we would not make exactly the same decision as is implemented in this Bill.
In the Dáil it was argued that I was displacing old I.R.A. men in order to make way for deserters. I was one of the former myself. I am not charged with any responsibility, or particularly with disciplinary responsibility, to give priority to any transgressor as against the man who stuck to his job, whether it was difficult, whether it was laborious, whether it was risky or monotonous, or to favour the fellow who quit. There is no intention of doing that, but there is an intention of removing civilian penalties from the military transgressor. I think that at the time when those penalties were imposed the matter was not sufficiently considered. If any of us was a military man, it would offend our esprit de corps to think that we were passing a transgressor over to civilians to deal with. A number of other penalties are imposed on these men which are continuous and will continue; the loss of pension, any pay that accrued to them, the gratuity which had been accumulating for every serving soldier and the loss of unemployment benefit for the period of his army service.
In addition, the record is clearly marked on the service book or the service card: this man was dismissed from the Defence Forces. That is a disability on any man who is seeking employment whether from a local authority, a State organisation or a private employer. I am leaving all those disabilities. The only disability I am removing is the disqualification from employment in works financed directly or indirectly out of public funds for the next three or four years.
