I move amendment No. 17 :—

In sub-section (1), line 10, to delete the words " under the direction of the President, and."

The section opens with the words :—

(1) Under the direction of the President, and subject to the provisions of this Act, the military command of, and all executive and administrative powers in relation to, the Defence Forces, including the power to delegate command and authority, shall be exercisable by the Government. . . .

Under the Constitution, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces but he exercises that constitutional command in accordance with the Constitution and the law through the Government and, through the Government, through the Minister. That is the chain of command, but the Constitution never intended to give the President any powers of direction at all. He is Commander-in-Chief but his powers can only be exercised through the Government through the Minister and he has no authority under the Constitution to give directions to anybody. He is advised and does everything he does on the advice of the Government. Every action of the President is done on the advice of the Government. The words I propose to delete give the impression that the President has executive powers which are not given to him under the Constitution and it is because I think it would be a dangerous thing to put words into an Act which have no basis in fact or in the Constitution that I oppose the insertion of these words, words which are mere surplusage.

I must say that there is something to be said for Deputy Cowan's suggestion. Would the Minister consider putting it this way: " Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of this Act"? Would the Minister consider that on Report Stage? From a formal point of view, I think Deputy Cowan has some point.

We can have it examined.

I move amendment No. 18.

In subsection (1) to delete all the words after " shall be " in line 13 to the end of the subsection and substitute the words " exercised through and by the Minister."

I should like the Minister to look into this amendment. It seems to me that there are unnecessary words in the sub-section which says :—

the military command of, and all executive and administrative powers in relation to Defence Forces, including the power to delegate command and authority shall be exercisable by the Government and, subject to such exceptions and limitations as the Government may from time to time determine, through and by the Minister.

I cannot conceive any position in which the Government would interfere with the Minister in exercising his power of command as Minister for Defence.

There is the question of collective responsibility. I think the Minister's form is preferable. The amendment, if it applied to all Ministries, would result in separate autonomous Ministers in committee which is not quite the principle of collective responsibility provided for in the Constitution.

The amendment cuts out the words " exercisable by the Government."

There is the further point that the section sets out that it is all subject to the provisions of this Act and of the Constitution. However, if the Minister is advised that it is desirable to have the words which I propose should be deleted, I will not press the amendment.

We are strongly advised on that point.

I move amendment No. 19 :—

In sub-section (3), line 33, to delete the words " the Defence Forces or any part thereof" and substitute the words " any part of the Defence Forces."

I think this amendment would improve the wording of the sub-section. It simply puts in " any part of the Defence Forces " instead of " thereof ". You have " thereof " and " thereto " in the sub-section.

If you were drafting a legal document, which form would you use ?

I would use the form I suggest. I ask the Minister to say that he will examine it.

We could not do that at all. The Deputy's suggestion could not be accepted in any sense.

You are deleting the words, " the Defence Forces or any part thereof" and putting in simply " any part of the Defence Forces."

I am sorry; I was misreading my own amendment. The amendment is more important than I thought at first glance. We have been discussing this position of the Commander-in-Chief, the person invested with military command over the Defence Forces. That is objectionable. The whole idea of the Act is to have a Minister, three military heads, etc., and while the Minister may invest an officer with power over a part of the Defence Forces he cannot be given the power to appoint a man in command of all the Defence Forces. That is completely wrong and the Legislature could not permit that. It is an important amendment, as the Minister will see. He can appoint anyone to exercise military command over part of the Defence Forces but not over all the Defence Forces.

I think there is a point which should be considered here. If you appoint somebody who is in command of all the Defence Forces you are appointing to one person the full functions assigned to the Government and there is one person even in a state of emergency completely in command of all your Defence Forces.

With certain limitations.

This is merely for argument's sake. It is open on the wording to say to somebody: " You are in charge of every part of the Army." If that were done, it is highly objectionable. On the other hand, what the Minister would normally do in a case like that is to appoint a general officer commanding the field forces which might mean all the field Army but would not mean the G.H.Q. staff. I know that present-day Ministers would not want to appoint somebody in complete command of the Army as such. They would still want to keep their own personal control but now that the point has been raised and the amendment moved, it might be a matter which the Minister would reconsider on Report. It is one of the most important points of principle that have come up.

General McKenna was appointed to command the forces during the emergency and it worked out perfectly all right.

He was not appointed in command of all the forces.

He was, but there were certain limitations on what he could do. He was not empowered to carry out surrender negotiations with an enemy or anything like that. He was limited in certain respects but I do not see anything wrong with that. If he is a general commanding the Army or the most experienced man we have in the Army, surely it is not going to be suggested that he should not operate the tactics and strategy in the field but that it perhaps should be done by a number of civilians, myself included? I think the last Government acted wisely when they gave me power to delegate these powers to General McKenna.

It is a question of the possibilities in the content of the words.

It would be unwise for the Legislature at any time to authorise the Minister to invest an officer with military command over the Defence Forces because " Defence Forces " includes everybody in the Regular Army, the permanent force and the Reserve force.

And the Naval Service.

The Naval Service and Air Force—the whole lot. It is a power that ought not to be given.

The Minister is only taking power to make regulations.

Yes, but that is the point.

It is not actually handing over the whole system ; it is a question of making regulations.

You would have to alter that whole section. For instance, nobody has referred to sub-section (3) of Section 2. According to it the delegation of command and authority by the Minister may, during a period of emergency, be in relation to the whole of the Defence Forces.

I think that this is a misapprehension of the responsibilities of the Government in relation to the Defence Forces as distinct from the field forces which are a completely different thing. The Government must exercise its machinery through the Minister and the Council of Defence.

I see the point but it is very difficult.

The whole section would need to be recast and while the Minister could make regulations regarding parts of the Defence Forces he certainly should not provide that the Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General, who are directly responsible to himself and through him to the Government for the correct performance of their duties, should be under a military man who would in fact be Commander-in-Chief.

That would not affect—it never has affected—their right of audience with the Minister for Defence. At the present moment the Chief of Staff is regarded as being the chief officer of the Army.

I have no objection in the world to what you might call the " field forces " being placed under one man but the Defence Forces as a whole must be under Parliament. Parliament puts them under the control of the Minister for Defence and he is responsible to Parliament and the Government are responsible to Parliament.

He would still be responsible; there is no question whatever about that.

That is the intention.

I think I would have to insist on this going through as it is.

Sub-section (3) states that the Minister may make regulations.

I am in agreement with the Minister's intention but I can see something wider that might possibly be a danger. Would the Minister look into the wording of the section?

Of the whole section?

Sub-section (3) of Section 17.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 19.

I will have to insist on holding on to sub-section (3).

Would the Minister have the wording examined ?

While we are examining sub-section (1) I can have the wording examined, but I cannot hope to make any changes.

The Defence Forces cannot be permitted to be placed under the command of one military man.

According to sub-section (3) the Minister must make regulations and therefore he is retaining his authority although he is appointing a man for the time being to do certain work.

Parliament should be jealous all the time of vesting military powers in one individual.

Every Parliament must from time to time, and especially in time of crisis, do that. There is no Parliament in the world that has not delegated these powers to one individual in the hope that that individual will preserve the nation.

In the greatest crisis Britain faced Parliament held its control over the forces.

We have continued to do so also.

While I agree with that, the point is that we are passing a permanent Bill now which we hope will last for all time. We are looking forward 20, 30, 40, 50 years. I have been trying to make clear all the time that we are not looking at the present Minister, the present Government, at any past Minister or past Government or at any possible future Minister whom we know. Parliament should not put our military forces under one individual who is not subject to Parliament. I would be agreeable to allowing this sub-section to be again examined by the Minister but if the Minister thinks that there is no necessity for having it examined I should like the question to be put and the section decided. I would much prefer, however, if the Minister would have it examined.

I will have it examined but an examination of this portion of the section will not result in any change. Leave it at that.

I withdraw on the Minister's undertaking to examine it.

The Minister has undertaken to examine it but he has held out no hope.