Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Mar 1952

SECTION 12.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 10:

" In subsection (2), paragraph (c), line 30, after the word ‘ Force ' to add the words ‘ or an officer of the Reserve Defence Force when he is ordered or employed on service or duty for which as an officer of the Reserve Defence Force he is liable.'"

The paragraph as it stands at the moment says that " every person appointed to a principal military office shall be an officer of the permanent defence force " and " principal military officer " means that of Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General.

I can visualise a situation such as occurred during the last emergency when the Reserve may be called out and an officer of the Reserve or permanent service could conceivably be appointed to one of these principal posts. It is to make provision for that that I move the amendment. Where there may be a long period of emergency with Reserve officers called back into training, one of them might be found most capable for appointment as Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General or even Chief of Staff. The Minister and the Government should have the power so to appoint if the necessity arose.

Chairman

A somewhat similar case arose during the last emergency when Colonel Henry, a Reserve Officer, was appointed head of the Military Police.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

If the Minister deemed someone outside the permanent service—an ex-officer or Reserve officer — most suitable, all he would have to do is bring him in, give him a permanent commission and then appoint him to any position he wished. That is the simplest manner of dealing with it. It would not present a problem at all.

Captain Cowan

I can understand that anyone can be appointed at any time to any post and that the Government has wide power. However, it is a useful thing for the Reserve that an officer on the Reserve, who keeps himself abreast of the developments, who may study in his spare time and may be called on permanent service, might show great ability and there should be no necessity to ask him to resign from the Reserve and then commission him as colonel or general and appoint him Chief of Staff. That sort of thing would be undesirable— compelling a man to resign from one force first. In the interest of the Reserve, officers on the Reserve should be in a position to reach the highest position in the Defence Forces. This amendment is one which should not be resisted and the Minister should accept it. It does not tie his hands or those of the Government. It would be beneficial to Reserve officers to know that that could happen.

Mr. Traynor

In my opinion, it would be far from beneficial inasmuch as he would be bringing back a Reserve officer and appointing him to a post over permanent officers. That might have serious repercussions and I do not think it should occur. If there were such officer as the Deputy has in mind, the way I suggest would be the simplest way.

There is another aspect of the matter. As far as I know, there are not officers in the Reserve of the type which the Deputy seems to have in mind. We get the Reserve officers mainly from officers who resigned in rather junior positions, because they felt bettter suited to some other type of life or were offered some outside appointment. At the moment, the ages for the office of the permanent force and the officers of the Reserve are the same. A captain resigns at 50 years of age in the permanent force and the same thing applies to the Reserve. At present that is the limit to which he can go. He does not go into the Reserve but back into civilian life. The same would apply to a lieutenant, the limit of whose period would be 47. He would not go into the Reserve as there is no machinery by which he could be taken in at that age. So, in fact, the type of officer the Deputy seems to have in mind does not exist. The other type does, the type who was a member of the Army and who has gone back into civil life. If he were of the required standard, all the Minister has to say is : " This is the man for the job; we will recommission him and then appoint him to this post." There would be no more to it than that.

Mr. Hilliard

The Minister has given a fair explanation. There is nothing to prevent the appointment of any person to any post named in the Bill further than the formality of issuing to him a permanent service appointment.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister's argument is that, so far as he is aware, there is no man of the capacity in the personnel of the Reserve to fill such a high appointment but that there may be such in civilian life now, men who have resigned completely from the Army, and that he could appoint such a man. Once you take men off the Reserve and put them on active service, it should be open to any officer, whether of low or medium rank, to reach the highest position without having to resign the Reserve commission and be reappointed on a permanent basis. The Minister said it might be undesirable from the point of view of officers in the Regular Army if this amendment were adopted. I think it would be more undesirable if an officer on the Reserve had to resign his commission first and then be reappointed direct by the Minister to one of these appointments. It would be much simpler if he could pass from the Reserve ranks right into that appointment.

I do not think that it is fair to say that you have not got available the right type of officer in the junior ranks of the Reserve, because they happen to be mostly of the junior category. Every officer and soldier should feel that he carries a Field-marshal's baton in his pack. Theoretically, some of the cream of military experts could rest in the ranks of the Reserve. I think there is a lot to be said for the amendment. I do not think that the regular Army personnel in the senior grades could have any great objection to it.

Mr. Carter

We could count on our fingers the number of Chiefs of Staff, Adjutants-General and such ranks that we have had in the past. It is hardly necessary to alter the section for that purpose. So far as I know, we have had only three or four Chiefs of Staff since the Army was founded. The vacancy may not arise.

Chairman

Deputy Cowan's point might be met by simply saying, " an officer on active service."

Captain Cowan

That is what we had in mind. I consider that there is very little difference between being on active service and being on permanent service. Permanent service under the Act means that you are called out. Of course, the Reserve is called out on permanent service only on a couple of occasions, in aid of the civil power, when a proclamation is issued by the Government or in a state of emergency. These are the only times.

I think this is important, for this reason, that our Defence Force is based on a small permanent force and a large Reserve and when an officer on the Reserve is called out on permanent service he ranks equally with and is not subservient to an officer of his own rank. You can have, as we have had during the recent emergency, officers commanding battalions who are Reserve officers and, serving under them, quite a number of regular officers and regular soldiers. I have always regarded the Reserve commission as being equivalent in honour and status to a commission in the permanent forces. It is issued by the President. It is in no way inferior from the point of view of honour.

Mr. Traynor

Nobody introduced the word " honour."

Captain Cowan

I want to make the argument. When I use the word "honour," I use it in a very specialised sense. It is in no way inferior in that an officer holding a commission from the President when he is called out has all the rights and duties, responsibilities and functions of his rank and status as an officer. If the Reserve is called out and becomes part of the general forces in an emergency, that emergency may last a year or ten years. Where it lasts for a long period it may be that officers of comparatively junior rank who have been called to service may be promoted and advanced in rank to the stage where the Government may consider that one of them may be the most outstanding officer in the whole Defence Force and that he can be appointed to a principal military office. It would be a shocking thing and, in my view, derogatory to the Reserve if, in order to obtain this high appointment for which he was fully qualified and for which the Government thought he was the best in the country, he would have to resign his Reserve commission and be appointed to the Regular Army for the purpose of being made Adjutant-General or Quarter-master-General. As a Reserve officer he may be Assistant Adjutant-General, Assistant Quartermaster - General, Assistant Chief of Staff. He may be Officer Commanding the Curragh Command, Officer Commanding the Western Command, Officer Commanding the Eastern Command, Officer Commanding the Southern Command.

As a Reserve officer, he can hold any position. He may be the outstanding man in the Defence Forces, head and shoulders above everybody, and in order to make him either Adjutant-General, Quartermaster - General or Chief of Staff you have to say to him : " Give up that commission, which is as good as the other, and we will appoint you to the other one, and when we appoint you to the other we will make you Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General."

I have limited it to the appointment being only when the Reserve is called out on permanent service, when there could be no objection to it on any principle. It does not oblige the Government to appoint anyone except the best man, whether he holds a Reserve commission or a permanent commission. They have the duty to appoint the best man and will appoint the best man. I think it would be derogatory to the Reserve that the officer would have to resign his Reserve commission in order to be appointed at Adjutant-General, whereas he could have higher rank, in charge of a field force or in charge of a command as a Reserve officer. Logically, there is no ground for objection to that provision and I think it would be desirable in the interests of the Reserve that such an amendment should be made.

Mr. Traynor

I do not intend to accept the amendment but I would like to point out to Deputy Cowan that he seems to regard it as the infliction of an indignity on a Reserve officer to offer him a permanent appointment. Actually it is the reverse of that. If he were regarded as being in the category to which the Deputy refers, he certainly would be entitled to a permanent commission. Further, I would like to point out to the Deputy that if he was appointed in the temporary capacity that the Deputy suggests, and if the emergency during which he was called out ended in a week or a month or six months, he would have to be released. You would be in the extraordinary position of having to release an executive officer immediately on the termination of the emergency, which might be a very undesirable situation to have to deal with.

I can assure everybody here that these matters have been very carefully considered. They have been considered by the best brains on the Army side, the civil side and the legal side. They have not been put down without considerable thought. These are some of the points that have had to be bridged. I did not in any circumstances suggest that because an officer was in the Reserve he was not entitled to go to the highest post in the Army. If he has the ability to do that, he will reach that post and that rank without any need for a push-up by me or by anybody else. If there is such a man in the Army as is capable of carrying the Marshal's baton, he will get there.

General MacEoin

If we had an outstanding man like that could not we make him an Inspector-General ?

Mr. Traynor

We could make him a whole lot of things. I have been pointing out that, unfortunately, the Reserve is very limited. The reservoir from which the Reserve is fed is, unfortunately, very limited and the result is that the number of senior officers in the Reserve is very small. I could not tell you at the moment what it is.

Captain Cowan

That is all the better, that there should not be many senior officers.

Mr. Traynor

The fact remains that if we are considering the question of the possible appointment of a Chief of Staff from persons outside the Army, we must take all these points into very careful and serious consideration. The method by which it is suggested that he be given a permanent commission and appointed to the post is not only the simplest but the best form and because we believe that it is the best form, I must oppose the amendment.

Captain Cowan

I am afraid there is some misunderstanding in regard to the position. I never suggested and I do not suggest that it is a question of offering anybody a permanent appointment. An officer on the Reserve of Officers may, in accordance with his duties, come up for service during a period of emergency and may have no desire or anxiety to take a permanent appointment or to give up his civilian employment ; but while he is on the Reserve and is called up for service, it is the duty and, in fact, the responsibility of the State to get the best it can out of him, and if the best the State can get out of him is that he is fitted to hold one of these principal military posts, he should be appointed to it.

I should like to point out to the Minister—and I am quite sure it must be clear to the Minister's advisers, particularly on the military side—that in other armies, particularly in continental armies, the fact of being an officer on reserve when a state of war comes does not prevent that man serving and rendering service in any appointment, such as in command of an army which is more responsible than simply an administrative job like that of Adjutant-General. There is some fantastic idea that the position of Adjutant-General is a terribly responsible position. It is not ; it is simply an administrative position, whereas the responsble position would be the position of an officer in charge of troops in the field. In continental armies and in the British Army, the fact that a man is on reserve when a war starts does not mean that he cannot rise to the very highest appointment during the period of the war. He can do so and then he simply goes back to his civilian employment when the war is over.

There is no ground of principle on which this amendment can be opposed. There is no question of offering permanent employment to a man who may not want a permanent appointment.

It is simply a question of the best abilities being at the disposal of the Government, and the putting in of this amendment, while it would be very helpful from the point of view of the morale of the Reserve of Officers, does not in any way compel the Government to appoint a Reserve officer to any of these appointments. It will be agreed, I think, that one has only to look at a big number of continental armies, one after the other, to find that a Reserve officer can go to the very top during a period of war or emergency, and it does to me look a little rough, if you like, that, in order to get to one of these appointments, an officer should have to resign his commission which he held with honour and take another commission which is no different because it is from the same person, obliging him to do the same thing. There is no question of a permanent appointment at all. It is a question of rendering service during an emergency and if the young lieutenant of the Reserve, the man who joins the Reserve and does his weekend training and who, by reason of that training and his efficiency, becomes promoted to the rank of captain or lieutenant-colonel in time, is called out in an emergency and has the ability to go to the very top, to become Chief of Staff, there is no reason why he should not do so. He should not have to change his status as a Reserve officer for the purpose of doing that. There is no logic, in my submission to the Committee, in saying that you cannot allow him to become Adjutant-General but can allow him to have charge of forces in the field.

Mr. Traynor

I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided : Tá, 2 ; Níl, 5.

Tá

• Cowan, Peadar.
• McQuillan, John.

Níl.

• Minister for Defence.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Carter, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• Colley, Harry.

Amendment declared lost.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 11 :—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), line 32, to delete the word " five " and substitute the word " three ".

This is a very simple amendment. The policy up to the moment has been to appoint these officers for a period not exceeding three years. That has been the policy since 1924. In 1924, this limitation to five years was specifically included for the first time in the Ministers and Secretaries Act of that year, I think. There were reasons why that was brought in at the time into which it is not necessary for me to go now, but it was then explained that the reason was to prevent what is known as a sense of proprietorship developing in certain holders of these military offices. For quite a number of years, officers were appointed for three years and when they had completed that period, they ceased to be employed in one of these principal military offices.

That idea was subsequently carried on, but when the three years' period was up the officer was reappointed, and the result has been that over a long period the Army has had a couple of Chiefs of Staff who have been reappointed and reappointed. I do not for one moment say that that was bad, nor is there any necessity for me to point out that it is good. Now it is proposed in this sub-section that the period of appointment be five years and, of course, the holder will be eligible for reappointment. I feel that there is a certain misconception about this. An officer who holds a particular military office may or may not give satisfaction in a period of three years, but it is a very simple thing, if he is not satisfactory at the end of three years, to appoint somebody else, but it is difficult to terminate his employment at the end of three years, although it can be done. The general thing would be that, unless he was very bad, he would continue for five years.

The original idea was that a person who filled one of these principal military offices would render service in that office for a period of three years, and, at the end of the period, would be appointed out to some other post, in a command, over a corps or something else. It is the idea in continental armies. It prevents people getting into a rut, and by bringing up experienced officers to the administrative staff it helps to keep the army alive and progressing. We have got to a position recently in which when a person has filled the position of Chief of Staff, he retires. That is a practice which has grown up, but there is no obligation on a Chief of Staff to retire. He may simply cease to hold his appointment as Chief of Staff and can be appointed to any other military position.

In the general way, five years in the life of a soldier or an officer is a long period, and if a person gives excellent service in a period of three years, he can be reappointed, but if he is just the type who plods along without doing very much—doing no great harm and not much good—he can hold the job for a period of five years. That is not, in my view, conducive to efficiency, and for that reason I would prefer to have the period limited to three years. If a person is so outstandingly good that he should be reappointed, then he should be reappointed.

General MacEoin

There is much to be said for the point of view expressed by Captain Cowan, but my recollection of the situation as visualised in the Act of 1924 is somewhat different. The intention was that for whatever period the Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General was appointed, whether for three or five years, he had then reached the top, and, having reached it, should get out and make a place for somebody else. The idea was that he should retire so that there would be an opportunity for younger officers to come up.

If you appoint him to some other command you are stopping an appointment, you are holding up some other good young officer such as Deputy Cowan referred to and preventing him from getting his promotion. I think that five years is a reasonable time to give an officer to show what is in him in that administrative post, and I think three years is too short. When he has served for five years in that post he should go on the Reserve automatically and give young officers an opportunity of filling the position he had filled. That creates an appointment the whole way down the line. While there is much to be said for the point of view expressed by Deputy Cowan, in the interests of the Army it is much better that five years should be the period for which this office is held.

Mr. Colley

I agree with that point of view. Three years is too short. The period should certainly be five years. A change of Chief of Staff every three years would not be good for the Army. A man would have very little opportunity in three years to show his ability or otherwise, and consequently I would very much favour a period of five years.

Mr. McQuillan

There is much to be said for what both Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Cowan have said. I agree with Deputy MacEoin to the extent that every opportunity should be given to all officers to get to the top and get promotion. His idea of a five-year period would be all right if a system obtained or a custom grew up that the five-year period would not be extended, but the danger is that if you made a five-year period the normal one the practice already in operation regarding the three-year period would be carried on and the man who filled the job for five years would quite likely fill it for the next five as well, and therefore we would make it much more difficult for the younger officer to reach the top.

If it were considered that the Chief of Staff was not up to the mark, or if the Government had a better man in mind, if the period were three years, at the end of that three years there would be no trouble about asking him to retire and no slur would be cast upon him, whereas if the period were five years it might be awkward for all concerned, including the officer, if it were felt desirable to replace him. In such a case with a three-year period the Chief of Staff would not suffer half so much.

I think that Deputy Cowan's point of view regarding three years is a reasonable one and I had intended to question the Minister himself as to his reasons for extending the period. The main thing we should keep in mind is to give an opportunity to the best officers in the Army to reach the highest ranks, and you can achieve that better by leaving the period three years, keeping always in view that the man who is in the post for three years can be kept on.

Mr. Brennan

What is the regulation regarding the appointment of the Chief of Staff at the present time. Must he have a certain number of years' service or be of a certain age ?

Captain Cowan

Neither.

Mr. Brennan

Assuming that an exceptional young man is appointed Chief of Staff, would it not be against the best interests of the Army and, in fact, of the people of the State, that that man's services should be dispensed with after three years ?

Mr. McQuillan

That point is covered. The practice has been to extend the period.

Mr. Brennan

In the case of a young man why should it not be so ? Why lose the services of a young man who has shown outstanding ability in that post and relegate him to the Reserve ? I would not agree with that.

Captain Cowan

This goes back to the point I made. The original idea was—Deputy MacEoin and myself may disagree on it—that after three years in this isolated position, where you can very easily get into a groove, you were sent back where you could get nearer to the ranks. You got an opportunity of seeing how things were with the command. In that way the services of a good officer were kept up-to-date. After a period as commander of a corps and of regimental responsibility then the officer was reappointed. I think that the Minister has had this experience. I know of one man who was Chief of Staff and then served in a command afterwards. The present Chief of Staff was Quartermaster-General, and a successful one, and was then sent out to different posts in charge of a command and is now back as Chief of Staff. Anyone who knows anything knows that he comes back an abler man and fitter to be Chief of Staff having got this period of line work, having served on the Defence Council as G.O.C. The present Adjutant-General has gone out and done important and valuable work and has gone back a much better Adjutant-General than he was. I think that every soldier will agree that it is a great idea for these men, having spent a period in the staff line, to go back to a corps where they can get in touch and hear the sort of criticisms expressed. One thing is agony to a soldier : to have to serve under a dud. The dud may be clever enough to hold the position down and cod the Minister—when I say " Minister " I do not mean the Minister who is here. He can do that and present nice reports, but everybody down the line will be praying anxiously for the day when the Government will remove that person. It is not that they dislike him personally but that they feel he is inefficient, incompetent and retarding the Army. I do not want to be more blunt than that about it, but I personally am opposed to reappointment until the officer goes out and does a period of service in another appointment. I think that three years is much better than five, and it is for that reason I propose the amendment.

Mr. Traynor

The main point we are considering here to-day is whether it is fair to suggest that three years is a sufficiently long period for a man who is appointed to a very high administrative position. My own personal experience is that it is not, that three years is too short a period to allow a man to produce anything worth while, anything that would be worth remembering. The decision to extend the period to five years was not mine, but it was one with which I agree. I stated on the Second Reading that I was in full agreement with the extension of the period. The reason was that the extra two years provides a greater opportunity for the man to produce that type of work to which I have referred. It may be that the Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General could very easily at the end of their appointment go out and take up work in one or other of the commands, but one could not expect a Chief of Staff to do that just as easily. I do not know whether it has ever been done.

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Mr. Traynor

I would say that it would be very embarrassing for the individual who had held that post to have to go out and be perhaps under the supervision of people whom he had had to discipline. I am not wedded to the idea of five years, but I would stand for it as against the three years' period on the principle that the longer term gives the individual concerned a better opportunity of producing better work. I wonder would any of us here be satisfied if at the end of three years we had to get out—I mean as Deputies— and that somebody else should come in. The suggestion was something like that. If a man is capable of doing his job, if he is a first-class man, I cannot see why he should not be reappointed.

I would not favour the reappointment of the Chief of Staff in peace time but would strongly favour letting the post go round, but I must always throw my mind back to the period when I was Minister for Defence before. It was a very difficult period and I, personally, was satisfied that the man who was Chief of Staff was the best man I could have had at that particular time. I am not asking anyone to share that belief with me, but because I believed that and believed that it was completely and entirely undesirable to change the individual holding that important post at that period, I favoured his reappointment, and in the same circumstances I would do the same again. In peace time, however, I would be all in favour of the retirement of the Chief of Staff at the end of the period. Sub-section (2) (d) of Section 12 reads :—

" Every holder of a principal military office shall hold that office for such time (not exceeding five years) as may be specified in the instrument of his appointment but shall be eligible for reappointment on the expiration of that term."

Note the phrase " as may be specified in the instrument of his appointment." The Government of the day could say three years if they wanted to but the limit is five. The Government could say two years but even if they specified three years and the individual did not come up to their requirements he could be removed and another Chief of Staff appointed.

I do not think this is worth arguing about. I fear the three-year period would lend itself more to reappointment than the five-year period, since if you reappoint after three years you are giving the man only a year in excess of the period proposed here.

General MacEoin

In the reappointment you could still say it was for two years or for one.

Captain Cowan

I know the views of the very junior ranks and also of the rank-and-file. There was a certain period of happiness when the principal military officers were changed every three years, but I can truthfully say there was not the same happiness when they held office for long periods. I can say that to the Minister and to this Committee and I would be saying something that a very big volume of intelligent thought in the Army held. There is a difference between what a Minister and a Government may consider and what the professional people in the Army may think, with regard to efficiency. Generally, right along the ordinary line you will find a very sound view. That is why I believe the appointment should be for no longer than three years, with the right of a particular man to be sent wherever the Government wants to send him when that period has expired.

There is a danger that, in discussing this Bill, we may look on the Chief of Staff as the head of the Army. That is a very incorrect view. The Minister is the head of the Army and he has three staffs — the Adjutant-General deals with discipline, the Quartermaster-General deals in a broad way with supplies and the Chief of Staff deals with training and organisation. In actual fact, the Chief of Staff is not superior to the other two, except in so far as under another section of this Bill he is given particular powers. The Adjutant-General can snap his fingers at the Chief of Staff in the ordinary way and say : " I am going to see the Minister about this," and he can do it.

The Chief of Staff is not a superior officer of the Adjutant-General in the ordinary administration, unless in certain circumstances and under a section of this Bill he is vested with that command for special reasons. Ordinarily, he is just the head staff officer of the Minister. If we realise that, we will not make the mistake of thinking that he is a commander-in-chief. These officers may be, and very often are, inferior in rank to the officer commanding a command.

Even down as far as an ordinary battalion, it is considered undesirable that the adjutant should be in that position for too long a period. It is considered good for discipline and progress that even that appointment should be changed. If that is so even as low as a battalion, it is certainly desirable higher up. It is only right that the Minister and the Government should be advised by the best and freshest brains in the Army. If a person is too long in his appointment he gets into a rut or groove, and instead of being a military officer he becomes a type of civil servant, which is not good for military efficiency.

General MacEoin

The Government may assign the Chief of Staff to the executive command in the Army. He is nearly always vested with some of this power. To go back to the question of the period of time, it is true that one Chief of Staff came back and took up a command, but I do not think it was a success—without casting any reflection on anyone. A Chief of Staff has a good deal of administrative and executive authority over the rest of the Army, delegated to him by the Minister, and as a consequence it is natural that he will tread on the toes of several of his inferiors during his term of office.

It is not a monastic institution, where a priest can become a provincial and then go back and become a monk. I have always felt that it would not be in the interests of discipline that a person who was in command of the whole Army—issuing orders, sometimes in conflict with the opinion of a G.O.C. or officers commanding brigades or battalions, as the case may be—should go back down and take orders from the person on whose toes he had walked. That does not lend itself to discipline. I am glad the Minister has given expression to the view that his intention would be, in so far as the exigencies of the situation would permit it, that in peace time, when the term of office of the Chief of Staff has reached its limit, he would retire and the position would be left open for a junior officer—for whom Deputy McQuillan is anxious to get promotion.

My experience of the junior officer is that, if they know that at the end of some period of time the gate is open to get one step higher, it tends for greater discipline and better service. I hold that five years is a reasonable time to give a Chief of Staff to leave his mark or, as the Minister very properly said, to leave something of a record behind him. I hold three years too short and four in-between.

As the sub-section says, in the instrument of appointment the Government may make it two, three, four or four and a-half years. The officer is not compelled to accept that appointment but if he knows there is a chance of having it for five years, and that that is the end of his career during peace time, he can adjust himself in that five years to make his mark in the Army plus making arrangements for his retirement. I think that is an ideal thing to do and I would suggest to Deputy Cowan not to press the amendment. The Government of the day could decide what period to put in the instrument of appointment. If they have a good man they may be satisfied to put in five. I do not think any Government or Minister would take the risk of appointing the person to whom Deputy Cowan referred—the dud—as that Minister would be heading straight for trouble. He would have the dud to carry and to fight in the Council of Defence, and the dud would be a trouble not only to his colleagues but to the Minister, and he would have to get rid of the dud at the earliest moment for his own safety. A dud is bound to create conditions sufficiently serious for the Minister to take steps to remove him. I suggest that five years is reasonable in peace time and that at the end he retire and leave the way open.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister said that if the three-year term were adopted and the man were reappointed he would have six years, one over the period envisaged in this section. Does he consider the possibility that the term of office should be three years and that any period of extension should be on a yearly basis ?

General MacEoin

Then it would be no good at all.

Mr. Traynor

In actual fact, that is the position. After reappointment, he can be removed at any moment the Minister may desire.

Mr. McQuillan

Is his reappointment for the same number of years for which he acted at first ?

Mr. Traynor

Not necessarily. It could be for any period named in the instrument of appointment.

Mr. McQuillan

What is the position at present ? I understood he was appointed Chief of Staff for three years.

Mr. Traynor

If an officer is appointed and good enough to retain, yes ; but if he were of the type to which Deputy MacEoin referred, or if he had been good and deteriorated, there is the power to change him.

Mr. McQuillan

You reappoint for a similar period of time ?

Mr. Traynor

The Government could do that.

Captain Cowan

I may be wrong, as I am speaking from recollection and it is a bit blurred, but under the old Act I think the Government appointed the Chief of Staff and he could not hold office for more than three years under the Ministers and Secretaries Act.

Chairman

We are dealing with enabling legislation and I suggest that some of this discussion has been Estimate discussion, as to what the Minister should do. The section says "not exceeding five years" and there is the provision that he may be reappointed. That would leave the Minister free to carry on the policy that he, and Deputy MacEoin before him, carried on and if Deputy Cowan were Minister he would be perfectly free to do exactly what he wants. I make the suggestion with a view to saving time, that this is purely enabling legislation and that the debate has been going on here on the basis of criticism of policy.

Mr. Traynor

If Deputy Cowan is going to press this to a division, I think we have said as much as we can say.

Captain Cowan

I would like to ask the Minister a question—it is probably an unfair question.

What is the period of office in Britain for a Chief of Staff? What is the period in France or in any of the British Commonwealth countries ? How is it laid down ? I know that in America there was a Chief of Staff for a very long time. There were one or two. I have an idea that in Britain the Chief of Staff is limited to a period of three years. I may be wrong in that. I think it is limited.

General MacEoin

He is Chief of the Imperial Staff.

Captain Cowan

It does not matter what the title is. He is Chief of Staff. I think the period is definitely limited to three years and at the end of that period he can go off to take command of something somewhere. For what period was General Montgomery Chief of the General Staff ?

Chairman

I think we are going outside the scope of the debate. The question here is whether the Minister should have power to go to five years. The policy to be applied within the terms of the Act is not in question here. The net question is as to whether you should restrict the power of the Minister or not. Could we confine the discussion to that ?

Captain Cowan

I will not say any more on the matter except this : I have practical experience of the three years' period working well. I have practical experience of the reappointments working not so well. I have also this experience that where you say five years in an Act it will be for five years because, if the Government are appointing a Chief of Staff, they are not going to appoint a man that they think is a dud, and they will not say : " We will appoint you for two years because you have to prove yourself." They appoint for five years—the maximum period under the Act. If that man is reappointed for another five years then he is Chief of Staff for half the military lifetime of every soldier and nearly every officer in it, and he may be a menace to the whole Army. I must ask you, a Chathaoirligh, in these circumstances, to take a vote. If I am defeated, well and good, but I feel that it is a thing that ought to be on record.

General MacEoin

The Deputy never heard of the principle of promotion to get rid of a fellow ?

Captain Cowan

I did, but the trouble is that when you keep them in office for a period while you are getting rid of them they can do an awful lot of damage.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided : Tá, 2 ; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Cowan, Peadar.
• McQuillan, John.

Níl.

• Minister for Defence.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Carter, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• Colley, Harry.

Amendment declared defeated.

Captain Cowan

Amendment No. 12 is consequential on a decision already taken. Therefore it goes by the board.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.