Vol. 383 No. 7
asked the Minister for Defence if there is any provision in Defence Forces regulations, or if any instructions has been given to members of the Defence Forces, prohibiting them from contacting their elected public representatives regarding their pay and conditions; if so, if he will give details of same; if he plans to end this prohibition; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
32.
asked the Minister for Defence the basis for the prohibition of members of the Defence Forces approaching their public representatives in order to discuss their grievances as stated in a report (details supplied); the reason this procedure is in place; if he will remove this prohibition; and if there are any other similar qualifications on the rights of members of the Defence Forces.
(Limerick West): I propose to take Question Nos. 13 and 32 together.
General routine orders provide that communications or requests from members of the Defence Forces in connection with service matters addressed to public representatives are expressly forbidden. The expression "service matters" includes postings, transfers, promotion, overseas service and other matters connected with service in the Defence Force.
The official channels for the processing of complaints or grievances relating to service matters are provided in the Defence Acts and Regulations made thereunder.
These procedures are a fundamental part of military discipline and it is not proposed to change them.
The question is specific with regard to the representations that members of the Defence Forces can make to public representatives and I am glad the Minister has given the very emphatic and clear answer which he has given here today. I do not believe that anyone abroad would have believed, unless it has come from the Minister's mouth, that members of the Defence Forces cannot approach those people whom they elect ——
The Deputy is not asking a question. The Deputy is embarking upon a speech.
Would the Minister accept that what he is engaging in under the guise of the defence Acts and these regulations is completely unconstitutional and uncivilised in modern day life? Is it not time that the Minister and his Department brought up-to-date the regulations governing the rights of members of the Defence Forces to air their grievances publicly, be it through their elected representatives or their own association within the armed forces? Surely the Minister must address this question as a matter of urgency?
(Limerick West): The Minister is not indulging in anything different from what has been indulged in by his predecessors.
That does not justify it at all.
What these people would ask——
Deputies, let us be courteous enough to hear the reply.
(Limerick West): This only applies to service matters and does not include matters such as problems with personal income tax, the telephone service, local authority housing and entitlements to benefits and services under the social welfare or health Acts. It only applies to service matters. I also want to remind the Deputy that section 114 of the Defence Act, 1954, enables an officer or a man who thinks himself wronged in any matter by any superior or other officer, to complain thereof to his superior officers. If he does not get satisfaction from his superior officers, he may complain through the normal military channels to the Minister who, having considered all of the facts, makes a decision on the complaint.
In view of the fact that the Minister met yesterday with representatives of the families, wives and spouses of serving soldiers at every level, he has given tacit recognition to the fact that the Defence Forces need a body to allow them to air their grievances through the normal conciliation and arbitration machinery of any normal society.
(Limerick West): I think the Deputy must have misinterpreted me. I arranged for the spouses' association to meet with the committee set up by the Government to examine the pay review and allowances of the Defence Forces.
In view of the Minister's response here today and because there is general belief abroad that no approaches can be made by members of the Defence Forces, and indeed on many occasions by their spouses, to elected representatives, would the Minister be agreeable to issue a directive or instruction clarifying the position under the law so that there can be no doubt where soldiers stand — although as I have indicated, the situation is unsatisfactory?
(Limerick West): I can give the Deputy a copy of the Act so that he can read it himself. He will then see who is debarred from meeting public representatives.
It is not in the Act, it is in the regulations.
Would the Minister open up the Incorporated Law Society?
I must now proceed to deal with questions nominated for priority.
On a point of order, Sir, I want to give notice of my intention to withdraw Question No. 15 in my name on today's Order paper. I seek your permission to raise the subject matter of that question on the Adjournment debate.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
