asked the Minister for Defence if an order was issued by the Chief of Staff to members of the Defence Forces not to contact Deputies on any matter; and, if this is the case, the reason.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Contact With TDs.
19.
On 5 February 1982 a directive was issued by the military authorities to the effect that all units should promulgate the contents of paragraph 27 of General Routine Orders 43 of 1955, which forbids members of the Defence Forces communicating with, inter alia, Members of Dáil Éireann in relation to service matters.
Is the Minister aware that this directive issued by the Chief of Staff is being interpreted by certain members of the armed forces as meaning, for instance, that a soldier living in bad housing accommodation could not contact a Member of Dáil Éireann and ask him to intervene with the housing authority? Have the Army something to hide if they do not want to allow ordinary soldiers to contact Dáil Deputies, their elected representatives, with complaints about bad housing and other matters unrelated to military or State secrets?
The Deputy is probably aware that in a case of bad housing the normal procedure used is that the wife of the soldier approaches a Dáil Deputy seeking redress. The matters involved in this directive related specifically to the Army, including promotions, transfers, service abroad and so on. There is redress for matters relating to married quarters or bad accomodation.
In view of the fact that the Army are not unionised and have not got a representative body to speak for them about their complaints, would the Minister not agree that they should be able to talk to their elected representatives? Is it not time to review that rule?
I will have a look at what the Deputy said. As Army regulations stand at the moment, and since discipline, promotion and other matters are involved, to change a system which has worked pretty well since the foundation of the State could present difficulties and allow for considerable abuses.
In view of the fact that we are now living in the 20th century, and the fact the armed forces have not got a trade union movement to represent their interests, surely the Minister would agree that an aggrieved member of the armed forces should have the right to contact his public representative to intervene for him without being militarily reprimanded? On one occasion in my experience a soldier had not been paid wages for three weeks simply because somebody did not want to process it. Of course, it was subsequently sorted out with the Department of Defence. Would the Minister not agree that, in matters like that, a member of the armed forces should have the right to contact a public representative? In view of the fact that the Minister is the member of the Government of this State responsible for those armed forces, I am asking him to direct the Chief of Staff to withdraw or certainly to modify that directive in the areas I have mentioned.
The system has existed under which any member of the Defence Forces who feels he has been wronged in any way can have his wrongs redressed. As Minister for Defence, I would be very conscious of the need to ensure that every person, from the rank of private upwards, should have some method available to him to have his problems resolved. I shall deal with that. I shall bring what the Deputy has said to the notice of the Chief of Staff and discuss the matter with him. If the Deputy feels he would like to contact me in connection with such matters as, for instance, somebody not having been paid for three weeks, perhaps he would come into my office and we can have a chat about it.
While the Minister is doing that — and I am grateful for the Minister's last assurance — would he also ask the Chief of Staff to define somewhat more clearly than has been done to date just what matters are subject to the order he has just read out, because it appears in a number of cases that members of the armed forces interpret the rules communicated to them as being a blanket ban on any contact with elected representatives? Would the Minister also ensure that matters which are not strictly within the province of military discipline and military secrecy are specifically identified as being matters in respect of which members of the armed forces have a right to contact their public representatives—for example, that matters such as the participation of serving members in training or educational courses would be clearly set out as matters on which they would enjoy the same rights of representation and the same access to public representatives as every other citizen?
That is a matter to which we will give consideration.
Finally, would the Minister——
I am sorry, Deputy. I have allowed too many supplementary questions already. Question No. 20.
Would the Minister agree to review the matter?
The Minister said he would examine it for the Deputy.