Vote 37: Defence (Revised Estimate).

Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Mr. V. Brady)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £264,487,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence, including certain services administered by that Office, and for the pay and expenses of the Defence Forces.

The Defence Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1989 is for a net sum of £264.5 million. This is an increase of £4.4 million on the corresponding outturn figure of £260.1 million for 1988. The gross provision in the 1989 Estimate is £274.9 million.

The major part of the 1989 Estimate — 82 per cent or £217.5 million — provides for pay and allowances and this represents an increase of £17.8 million and the outturn for 1988. The non-pay items amount to £57.4 million; the comparable 1988 figure was £73.1 million but it included exceptional expenditure amounting to approximately £14 million on the purchase of two patrol vessels for the Naval Service and the installation of a computerised information system for use in fishery protection activities. In addition, provision for grants-in-aid totalling £.54 million in respect of the Irish Red Cross Society and Coiste An Asgard was also included in the 1988 figure. In 1989, this expenditure will be funded from the national lottery.

The provision of £10.4 million for appropriations-in-aid shows a decrease of £2.2 million on the 1988 outturn.

The Estimate for 1989 is based on an average total strength of 12,910 in the Permanent Defence Force comprising 1,560 officers, 50 cadets and 11,300 other ranks. The averages for 1988 were 1,590 officers, 40 cadets and 11,600 other ranks.

This year's Estimate makes provision for the special increase in pay and allowances for members of the Permanent Defence Force awarded by the Government following consideration of the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee on Defence Forces Pay, Allowances and Conditions.

Since 1969 the main preoccupation of the Defence Forces has been with internal security matters. Primary responsibility for internal security rests with the Garda Síochána and the involvement of the Defence Forces in this field derives from their role of rendering aid to the civil power. The employment of Army personnel and resources in aid to the civil power involves the Defence Forces in patrolling, with the Garda, in the road network along the Border area, in the provision of assistance at joint Garda-Army checkpoints, in the provision of escorts for explosive and blasting operations and in the provision of specialist personnel to deal with requests for bomb disposal. In addition, vital non-military installations have the protection of military guards or patrols, while the Defence Forces also supply military parties to escort civilian prisoners and cash in transit and to help in searches for arms and explosives.

Demands made on the Defence Forces in regard to internal security matters continued at a high level during the past 12 months and indications are that there will be no significant reduction in the demands made in the security field in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of points which I would like to make with regard to Defence Forces pay. First, the pay of the Defence Forces has for many years been linked to the pay of certain Civil Service grades and the benefit of all increases — both round increases and appropriate special increases — has been passed on to the Defence Forces as a matter of course. Accordingly, the pay of military personnel has broadly kept pace with that of the public service generally.

Secondly, the review of the remuneration of members of the Defence Forces had to take full cognisance of the general condition of the economy and of the particular provisions of the Programme for National Recovery which deal with public service pay. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has already spoken of the need to maintain strict control of the public service pay bill which currently stands at approximately £3,000 million a year. Should the cost of pay in the public service run our of control, all of the gains which have been made in the last few years would be eroded. Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain. For this reason, the programme strikes a fair balance between the legitimate right of public servants to just pay levels and the need to control spending. Attempts to isolate the pay of the Defence Forces from the wider picture are unrealistic.

Thirdly, the Defence Forces' pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants. Instead of a simple system of pay scales, military personnel are paid a combination of basic pay, additional pay, daily allowances and weekly allowances. When the committee reviewed the remuneration of the Defence Forces, they looked at the total package of remuneration, and not just basic pay.

The recommendations of the committee have been implemented in full with one minor exception. In addition to the committee's recommendations, Defence Forces personnel will also receive the general round increases provided for by the public service pay agreement. All in all, the total remuneration of the other ranks personnel was increased by an average of about 9 per cent from 1 January 1989. By 1 July 1989 the average increase reached around 15 per cent rising to slightly more than 21 per cent on full implementation. The cost of these increases in 1989 will be about £12.5 million. If no review had taken place, the cost of special increases would have been £2.5 million. This is the factual position with regard to Defence Forces pay and allowances.

At a time when all areas of the public service are being asked to exercise restraint, the increases which I have just outlined could not be considered unreasonable. In the longer term, however, it is intended to restructure the Defence Forces pay system completely so as to increase basic pay levels and reduce the dependence of soldiers on special allowances.

The previous Government decided to set up a special committee to carry out a review of pay, allowances and conditions. In order to ensure better representation of the military position, the Government appointed two former members of the Permanent Defence Force to the committee. The intention was that the military authorities would continue to be afforded every opportunity of presenting their views to the committee and to meet the committee for the purpose of elaborating on the various aspects of their case.

As the House will be aware, the question of forming an association in the Permanent Defence Force has been raised. A number of non-commissioned officers and men have recently intimated that they are contemplating the formation of an association with the objects of having the right of consultation in matters relating to pay and allowances and to make recommendations for the improvement of conditions of other ranks. The association would also have a role in several other areas including welfare and educational matters and professional standards.

On any occasion on which this matter has previously been considered the official view has consistently been that the formation of an association such as that contemplated, having a system of organisation and control separate from that of the Defence Forces, would be incompatible with the system of command essential to our Defence Forces. Whatever about the acceptability or otherwise of the objects of an association such as that contemplated, a fundamental issue of principle does arise in the case of the Defence Forces.

Obviously this is an area which requires very careful examination to get the balance right. It is important that members of the Defence Forces feel that they can make their views known in regard to their conditions of service. It is equally important to ensure that any developments in this area will not be incompatible with the system of command in the Defence Forces and will not compromise good order and discipline. This matter requires careful and mature examination to try to accommodate the legitimate requirements of the members of the Defence Forces. Recognising, however, that there is a difficulty to be resolved, I intend to have the situation examined in a thorough-going way and to do so as quickly as the complexity of the subject will allow.

Mr. McCartan

Rubbish.

Mr. V. Brady

The restrictions on the filling of officer vacancies in the Permanent Defence Force were modified early this year because of military and security considerations. In accordance with these arrangements, 258 officer promotions have already been made since 1 January 1989. Promotions at non-commissioned officer level take place in accordance with military requirements.

Deputies will be aware that the Permanent Defence Force is making a significant contribution in the cause of international peace by way of participation in a number of United Nations peace-keeping missions. We now have an Irish contingent of about 750 all ranks serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, eight personnel serving in staff appointments with the United Nations Force in Cyprus and a military police company of 37 all ranks serving with the United Nations Observer Group in Iran/Iraq. In addition, there are approximately 60 Irish officers serving as observers with various United Nations missions in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Iran/Iraq and in Namibia.

We must all be mindful that a number of Irish personnel have made the supreme sacrifice in the cause of peace in the Middle East as we have seen most recently with the tragic deaths in Lebanon of the late Corporal Fintan Heneghan and Privates Michael McNeela, Thomas Walsh and Mannix Armstrong. Their deaths draw our attention to the continuing instability of the Middle East and the need to maintain the search for a comprehensive peace settlement which would lead to a lasting peace. I am proud to say that the contribution of Irish troops to United Nations peace-keeping efforts is well recognised internationally and has been highly praised. They are a credit to the Defence Forces and to Ireland.

As regards the Reserve Defence Force, I regret that because of financial considerations, it has not been found possible to order annual training for members of the First Line Reserve in 1989. However, annual training for the FCA and the Slua Muirí at the same level as in recent years will be held.

Since early this year the STEYR rifle has been the standard infantry weapon on issue to the Permanent Defence Force. The STEYR rifle was purchased after extensive testing by the Defence Forces over a two year period and has proved to be very satisfactory. I am satisfied that the STEYR rifle will provide the Defence Forces with a reliable and effective weapon for the future.

Two additional patrol vessels were acquired for the Naval Service in late 1988 and were renamed LE Orla and LE Ciara. These vessels are relatively new, are in a very good condition and should enhance the fishery surveillance capacity of the Naval Service.

At the request of the Department of the Marine, it was agreed that both these vessels be deployed to combat illegal salmon fishing during the 1989 season. Naval patrols commenced at the beginning of June and will continue until early August. The procedure is that the regional fishery board officer enforces the law backed up by a Garda sergeant. It is only when these personnel are obstructed in the course of their duties that they call on the personnel from the Naval Service boarding party to render assistance. A number of incidents, involving violent confrontations with Naval personnel, occurred recently and these are to be deplored.

A modern communications and information system is being provided in connection with the fishery protection activities of the Naval Service. In addition, four of the petrol vessels are being refitted with more powerful radar, thereby increasing their detection range. The programme of improved fishery monitoring facilities will considerably enhance the capacity of the Naval Service in regard to fishery surveillance and has been approved by the European Commission, which has agreed to reimburse up to 50 per cent of the additional cost involved. The question of the provision of additional financial support, particularly with a view to improving the fishery surveillance capacity of the Air Corps, is being vigorously pursued with the European Commission.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, a review group has been set up to examine the structure and the operation of the air/sea rescue service and to make recommendations to ensure a cost effective and efficient service to meet national and international requirements and to report at the earliest possible date.

As previously announced, a Dauphin helicopter will be positioned at Shannon from September 1989. In addition, arrangements are being made to have the helicopter refuelling sites of the Commissioners of Irish Lights at Fanad Head, County Donegal, Blacksod, County Mayo, and Castletownbere, County Cork upgraded for 24-hour refuelling of SAR helicopters.

Since their acquisition, the Dauphin have flown 167 search and rescue missions as a result of which 108 people were rescued. I want to take this opportunity to place on record my own appreciation and that of the Government for the wonderful job which the Air Corps are doing in the search and rescue role.

Here I might say that 20 Air Corps cadetships are on offer this year. My long-term aim is to maintain a reasonable balance between the requirements of the Air Corps and the needs of a vigorous and thriving civil aviation sector.

Provision of £9.8 million is made in subhead S of the Estimates for building and engineering works. This figure includes a capital sum of £7 million for new buildings and major refurbishment projects. The provision will enable a programme of replacement, renewal, reconstruction and maintenance of accommodation and facilities to be implemented throughout the Defence Forces.

Construction work on the new military barracks at Cavan is proceeding satisfactorily and it should be ready for occupation by April 1990. A new compact school with ancillary accommodation for the Ordnance Corps at Clancy Barracks is also under construction. It will replace a number of unserviceable buildings which are beyond economic repair. Replacement accommodation for an old temporary officers' mess at Haulbowline, County Cork is planned for commencement this year.

In April 1987 it was decided to transfer 200 of my Department's staff to new offices at Renmore, Galway. The first sold was turned on the site in February 1988. The building was handed over on 13 March 1989 and was fitted out by the Office of Public Works in the following three months. The first section of the finance branch moved in on 19 June 1989 and the move was completed by the end of the month.

The provision for Civil Defence is £1.8 million. As Minister of State with special responsibility for Civil Defence, I regard this allocation as adequate to sustain the viability of this important component of national defence.

The bulk of the provision is utilised to fund local authorities on a grant aided basis in respect of their obligations to provide a locally based voluntary civil defence organisation. The grants are usually at the rate of 70 per cent of actual expenditure on civil defence by local authorities. The commitment of the local authorities is vital in providing and maintaining the main civil defence services which would be essential in mitigating wartime effects on the civilian population. These services fulfil a further role in assisting in the relief of distress in peacetime disasters. A new major task for Civil Defence would be assisting in measures to protect the public from the consequences of peacetime nuclear accidents.

The catastrophe of Chernobyl and, lately, the nuclear submarine accidents off the Norwegian coast serve to remind us of the need for constant vigilance and preparedness. The Nuclear Accident Plan which is being prepared to cope with peacetime radiation threats to this country exploits the capability of Civil Defence to monitor and provide information on radiation levels so that the public can be advised of the measures required for its protection.

I wish to express my own thanks and the thanks of the Government generally to all the volunteers throughout the country for their continuing service in the Civil Defence Organisation. I know that Deputies will wish to join with me in conveying the country's appreciation to the thousands of volunteers who give so much of their time to the organisation.

I will move on now to the Army Pension Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1989, which is for a net sum of £42.7 million.

The Estimate includes provision for increases in pensions, allowances, and gratuities on foot of the second phase increase in pay under the terms of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service. Flat-rate payments have been increased by three per cent from 1 January 1989, while the increase in pay-related payments reflects the appropriate increased rates of pay.

I have referred earlier to the inter-departmental committee on the pay, allowances and conditions of Defence Forces' personnel. The report of the committee recommended improvements in the retirement gratuity payable to long service soldiers and I was gratified that the Government also accepted this recommendation. The improvements consisted of:

—an increase from 21 to 25 weeks' pay in the basic 21 year gratuity;

—in the case of personnel with 22 or more years' service, a further two weeks' pay (instead of one) for each year of service in excess of 21 years, up to a maximum gratuity of 45 weeks' pay in place of 31 weeks' pay.

The Defence Forces Pensions code is non-contributory and, most importantly, allows for the immediate payment of pensions and gratuities regardless of age after relatively short periods of service. For example, an NCO or private can qualify for a gratuity after as little as three years' service and for a pension and gratuity after 21 years' service, at which stage he may still be under 40 years of age. In the case of an officer, the minimum service required for a gratuity is five years and, for a pension and gratuity, 12 years. These features are generous and are not paralleled in any other area of the public service. As such, they cannot be overlooked in the context of the consideration of pay levels and other conditions of service of military personnel.

Reverting to the Estimate, the provision of £31.8 million in Subhead E.1 for retired pay, pensions and gratuities for former members of the Defence Forces and their dependants is substantial and represents over seventy per cent of the total Estimate. The remaining subheads do not, I think, call for any particular comment but, if any Deputy requires clarification, I will be happy to provide it.

I commend both Estimates to the favourable consideration of the House.

Mr. Connaughton

First, I congratulate the new Minister in the Department of Defence. I wish him well in his new role. I congratulate the Minister of State also on his appointment.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on these Estimates. Very few other Departments have gone through such a harrowing experience over the past year as the Department of Defence. Much of this was caused by the Administration who created many of the problems. It must be said that the policy matters relating to the Defence Forces were arrived at by collective Cabinet deliberations presided over by the Taoiseach. Therefore the former Minister, should not have taken all the flak that emanated from the controversy, being just a player on the team. The last Fianna Fáil Government made an absolute mess of the Defence Forces' pay award. The general handling of the affair was dismal. When the Minister had good news to deliver, it was bad news by the time it got out. Everything went wrong with the whole procedure and I will go through it in a few moments.

Why is morale in the Defence Forces so low? Why are its members so disgruntled? Those are the questions that the Minister must answer. From what we have heard here this morning there seems to be no change contemplated by this new Administration. These questions must be analysed against a background of distrust, disharmony and of the Government taking the Defence Forces for granted.

There was general unrest for over a year when the inter-departmental committee sat to review pay and conditions in the Defence Forces, and it is the view of the Defence Forces that it took an inordinate length of time to come to a conclusion. It was felt that the Government were playing for time, but at least a pay award was imminent and figures like 15 per cent to 18 per cent were bandied around. The Military were asked for their views, but we will never know what their recommendations were. The consensus opinion was that a 20 per cent increase was sought on justifiable grounds.

Side by side with these negotiations another unusual movement was beginning to emerge. The Army spouses were taking up the fight for their husbands and getting organised across the country. They felt nobody was listening to them and they desperately wanted to speak to the Minister for Defence. I will never understand why he did not meet them or why they were not invited into his office and allowed to make their case. The Minister for Agriculture regularly meets the various farming groups. I do not see why another Minister would not meet the wives of the Army personnel and listen to the complaints from their point of view. Much of the trouble that this Government brought down on their heads started at that point. I would urge the new Minister to meet these people. He will find goodwill in abundance and hear at first hand about the difficulties experienced by Army families on very low incomes. When the wives could not get into dialogue with the Minister they organised protests to alert the general public to their complaints. It is well to reflect that they struck a positive chord with the general public as gauged in various opinion polls.

The Government waited until two days before last Christmas to announce their solution to the Defence Forces pay crisis. Over £25 million is being made available, according to the Government Press Office, which would include a 12 per cent hike for many of the lower ranks. Because of the Christmas break, and with th Dáil in recess, many Army families were relatively happy because they believed what they heard. With an increase in the various allowances imminent and a 12 per cent increase in pay it looked like things were getting a bit easier; but the bad news was yet to come. The increase in allowance would come into effect on 1 January 1989 but allowances would not apply to everybody, so the effect on disposable income would be unevenly distributed. I want to make an important point here. I see the Minister clinging to this old view that because people get an increase in their allowances that is an increase in basic income. If he or I got an increase in our allowances we would not say that our salary had increased. It is time for the Department of Defence and the Minister to come off that one.

The next bit of bad news was that the 12 per cent would be broken down so that the first 4.8 per cent of it would be paid on 1 July 1989, a couple of weeks ago. They have had to wait since Christmas. I understand that last week they got this increase amounting to £6.2 million. Nobody in Government circles would come clean and say when the remainder would be paid, but after intense questioning in the Dáil the Minister for Defence said that the remainder of the pay award was linked to the special pay claim of the public service and would receive no greater priority. This development incensed the Defence Forces and is one of the reasons morale is so low. It appears the next phase will not be payable until mid-1990, with the last part being paid at a later date. As far as I can see from the Minister's statement this morning he did not give the dates when the rest of the pay claim will be given. This is scandalous. Had the 12 per cent been paid at the beginning much of the heat would have been taken out of the situation.

However, as in all personnel disputes, when the core problem is not tackled other issues emerged. Many sections of the Defence Forces are unhappy with the method by which their grievances are dealt with. Many of the lower ranks believe that their grievances are not highlighted at all. There is a belief that irrespective of how important or valid a complaint is it will not be listened to and this leads to discontent. In a decade when great emphasis is placed on solving personnel matters by encouraging dialogue between the parties concerned it is past time that a fundamental look be taken at the Defence Forces mechanism for dealing with complaints.

Like many more Members, I would not countenance the Defence Forces becoming unionised. The vast majority of the Defence Forces do no want to be unionised as they fully understand there could be a conflict of interest between their membership of a trade union and a direction by the Government in the public interest to deliver a service which would have been strike-bound in normal circumstances. Many people in the Army would point to the importance of having a mechanism to deal with complaints but this mechanism would have to have the confidence of the Defence Forces. The members of the Defence Forces point to the very successful Garda representative body.

It is important that members of the inter-departmental group should be selected democratically from all the ranks of the Defence Forces and the members of the committee should have access to all the deliberations that are going on. It is important that the lower ranks are represented on that committee. This experiment should be tried immediately. From what the Minister said this morning suggesting a roundabout method of dealing with the problems, we could be talking here for three or four years. The proposal to democratically elect members of the Defence Forces to the inter-departmental committee should be given a chance to work and the system could be refined as the years go by. Representation is now a big question in the Defence Forces. Had the 12 per cent been paid in the way the Defence Forces personnel understood it would, we might not be having these problems today.

The twin problems of low basic income and lack of representation will haunt this administration unless they do something about it very quickly. I hope this new coalition Government will tackle the problems quickly. The outgoing administration messed up a great opportunity to prove to the Defence Forces that they were not being taken for granted, that this House accepts that their service is vitally important in that they play a vital role in protecting the democratic process and that their valued service is not going unnoticed by the nation.

The handling of the Defence Forces pay deal was a botched job. The previous Government seemed to believe they had to deal positively with groups in society via the trade union movement but that the Defence Forces were a different category who were unlikely to create any trouble by making their complaints known to the public and that after a few months the problem would just go away. That has not been the case. For the first time in many years the general public have now accepted that the Defence Forces play a vital role in many areas of Irish life and that that role had been taken for granted.

Our involvement with UNIFIL in the trouble spots of the world has brought us immense credit. The services provided by the Defence Forces as an aid to the civil power here can never be underestimated. Because of trends in society it is likely we will need this service more than ever in the future. There is an urgent need to do an in-depth study on the future of the Defence Forces. The Minister should take the opportunity to review everything in the Department of Defence and in the Defence Forces so as to ascertain what future numbers should be, the role of the Army, the equipment they should have and so on. This is a very important review and the general public agree that it is necessary. It would be welcomed by the Defence Forces as well.

On the proposal issued by the present Coalition Government last week in relation to Defence Forces pay, I am very disappointed that the new Government have not seen fit to pay at least the remainder of what is owed of this award by 1 January 1990. If the Government would pay this award it would show they were sincere about the very special problems of the Defence Forces who would know that even at this late stage the Government acknowledged there was a problem in relation to low basic income.

I agree with the long term objective that Army pay should be restructured so as to substantially improve basic pay and reduce the over-dependence of soldiers on special duty allowances. I am tired of highlighting that aspect in the House for the past two years. This is something that should be tackled and it is a major aspect of the current dispute.

In relation to the search and rescue service provided by the Air Corps it has now been acknowledged by all the experts involved that it is important to have a greater concentration of Dauphin helicopters on the west coast. Fine Gael proved conclusively only a few months ago that several hours can be saved in a normal rescue mission by having the helicopters stationed at Shannon. Because of the problems of the island communities and the fishing communities along the west coast nothing less than a total relocation of Dauphin helicopters would be of any real use. Just before the election the former Minister for the Marine announced that a Dauphin helicopter would be stationed at Shannon. Will the Minister let the House know if the Air Corps have the necessary manpower to do this? When is this relocation likely to happen? It is absolutely necessary to have a long-range helicopter available in the west of Ireland for rescue missions at sea, which would be on call 24 hours a day, have a range of between 150 and 200 miles, be able to carry between 25 and 30 people and have the capacity to stay hovering in the air for a long period of time.

I have stated many times in this House that it is unlikely that we would be able to pay for such a machine but in keeping with many other countries there is no reason why we should not have a rental arrangement with a private company. There is no ideological reason why good rescue cover cannot be provided by a private firm. This is done in Britain, Norway and several other countries. Such a long-range, all-weather, fully equipped helicopter is available in this country. I understand many of the oil companies have them on their oil rigs. There is no magic involved. All that is needed is the resolve and a commitment from the Government to solve this problem. In the circumstances, Fine Gael feel duty bound to oppose this Estimate because of the mess up during the year.

Mr. Bell

It seems like we have had all this before. As far as I can see, the only thing that has happened is that we have had a change of Government and Minister. Everything in the Minister's submission is more or less in keeping with what we have been hearing during the past couple of years. That is the problem. It would appear we have not yet convinced the Government, the Department and the powers that be that a serious problem exists. With all due respect, there was nothing in the Minister's submission to the House that will change anything. It is proposed to increase the size of the interdepartmental committee but it is clear from the general and European election results that it is not a question of strengthening an interdepartmental committee. It will make no difference how many additional personnel we include on the committee; the structure of the committee is wrong and I have consistently said this. The committee only report to the Minister.

In the last Dáil the Minister refused to make available to those of us who worked for it a copy of the findings of the inter-departmental committee. In other words, we do not know on what basis they come to their conclusions. The difference between this and any form of arbitration and conciliation scheme is that people would be able to make a submission and at the end of the day they would know why a concession was granted or not. Most, if not all, meetings are held in private. The members of the Defence Forces have no access to these, either directly or indirectly, and the Members of this House have no opportunity to make a contribution.

It annoys me when the Department say —they said this again to us this morning — that "we cannot divorce it from the public service". What the Defence Forces want are the same facilities that are afforded to the public service. In the public service there is a variety of arbitration and conciliation schemes. The Defence Forces have none. Under the DFR they may try to redress wrongs but this is only in respect of individual complaints from individual members of the Defence Forces. Effectively, they have no opportunity to make any submission on their conditions of employment. That is what we are talking about here.

As I have said, in the public service there is a variety of arbitration and conciliation schemes under which conditions of employment can be dealt with. Some sections of the public service can take their case to the arbitration and conciliation section of the Labour Court but the Defence Forces do not have this right. Since coming into this House over eight years ago I have been saying that this problem will never be resolved until the Army have direct representation. Ministers deliberately tried to confuse the matter by saying that what I was arguing for was a trade union for the Army. We do not want a trade union for the Army. The Army do not want one, but rather a representative body made up of the various units of the Army, be it on a command or unit basis, to represent all ranks. It will not be satisfactory only to have an interdepartmental committee made up of public servants and a number of selected officers. A representative body, with all due respects, would have to represent every unit of the Army— officers, NCOs, and men — the Naval Service and Air Corps. I understand it is proposed in the programme for government to include two officers, but this will not resolve the problem. It will only make things worse.

Those of us who took part in the election campaign are aware of the depth of feeling about this matter all over the country. In every section of the Defence Forces there was a massive protest vote against the previous Government. It is true to say that the Minister had to pay the price for the inactivity of the Government. While a collective decision had been taken, nevertheless there was a massive protest vote against the Minister. There will also be a massive protest vote against the new Minister and Tánaiste. Here I would like to take the opportunity to join with my colleagues in wishing him a speedy recovery and a return to good health. He is going to need his good health in rectifying years of injustice.

I have said previously in this House that the last Minister to be held in respect by the Defence Forces— was Mr. Paddy Donegan, a former colleague in my constituency. He had the human touch and understood what the men were saying. However, no Minister since then has understood what the men have been saying. He saw the need to improve facilities which at that stage were out of the Stone Age to say the least and he was strong enough in Cabinet to obtain the necessary funds to be able to do this. At that stage Army pay was increased by 33 per cent. That was the last decent increase awarded to the Defence Forces. I attended a NASA meeting in Dundalk some time ago at which one Army wife effectively made this point and she was correct. She said that years ago she could go somewhere on holidays with her children each year but now, 15 or 20 years, later, she could go nowhere and could not even pay her bills.

This is all about basic pay and allowances, but the emphasis seems to be moving from basic pay to allowances. That is putting the cart before the horse. We must first get basic pay right and then the allowances, not the other way around. There are a variety of allowances which do not apply to every member of the Defence Forces, but depend on circumstances and the type of duties. All allowances do not apply in the Southern or Western, or even Curragh Commands, for that matter. Allowances paid for duties in Portlaoise do not apply in Haulbowline. The kernel of the matter is getting basic pay right. It has gone substantially out of line over a long number of years. This is because the method by which Army personnel received their increases were linked directly with the public service and the public service's committee of ICTU. That committee, which dealt directly with the Government of the day, worked out their national or annual agreement, and that was passed on globally to the various sectors of the public service, including the Army.

Coupled with that, the individual trade unions within the public service had the opportunity of negotiating basic pay increases based on a variety of different matters. That was never passed on to the Army. Probably there would be difficulties because there is no parallel between a public servant within, say, the Department of Social Welfare and a man involved on duty in the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces lost out substantially because of that, the net result now being that their basic pay has gone very far out of line.

When I say "basic pay" I mean pay relating to hours of work. We all know that the straw that broke the camel's back was Operation Mallard, when some men were on duty over 100 hours and well in excess of 80 hours in most cases. They were paid between £20 and £30 gross while the gardaí standing with them were earning £600 or £700 a week, and in some cases more. We are talking about equality in the method of payment with the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service. Nobody will deny the right of prison officers or members of the Garda Síochána to be paid for their hours of work. That is as it should be and that came about because the gardaí had a body representative of all ranks, including inspectors and senior officers. They won that right by negotiating with the Department of Justice and unless the Defence Forces have the same structure, they will never achieve parity.

I have been in negotiation since I was 18 years old at every level of the trade union movement and I know that unless there is an active negotiating representative body operating on behalf of those within industry or sectors of industry, you will not achieve what the workers require. It is well known that non-organised labour within industry and within the commercial sector, do not achieve the same level of earnings as those within the organised trade union sector of industry and services. That is a fact of life. The Defence Forces will always be behind unless they have a strong representative body able to negotiate with the Department of Defence.

The Parliamentary Labour Party will, if necessary, either draft a Bill or use some portion of their Private Members' time to test out the sincerity of the new Coalition Government. I am putting the Minister on notice. I wish the former Minister for Defence well in his new portfolio. Progressive Democrat Deputy Molloy is on public record at every level — on radio, television and in the national media — stating the injustices suffered by the Defence Forces. Both he and his colleague are now a very important part of the new Government and naturally we shall be watching to see if they can influence the policy of that Government in relation to the Defence Forces. We want action. We do not want a repeat of what we had this morning, simply telling us what we have been listening to for the last two and a half years. That will not satisfy the Defence Forces and I can assure the Minister that, come the next election and the election after that, that will be the issue.

Mr. McCartan

First, I congratulate the new Minister for Defence on his appointment. Deputy Lenihan is a man who enjoys the respect and admiration of Deputies on all sides of the House. However, it will require all his considerable political skill and diplomatic experience to deal with the very serious current situation in the Defence Forces. I also wish him a speedy return to good health and congratulate the Minister of State at his Department, Deputy Vincent Brady, who is here today.

The former Minister for Defence had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Defence Forces and few will have shed any tears on his departure. At the same time, Deputy Noonan was implementing policies which had been collectively decided by Cabinet. The blame for the appalling mess in the Defence Forces must be shared by all members of the last Government and the responsibility for dealing with the situation rests collectively on all members of this new Government.

The greatest mistake the new Government could make would be to underestimate the seething discontent that now exists or to hope that if it is ignored it will go away. The Defence Forces have been one of the most reliable and stable institutions of the State but it is now no exaggeration to say that that stability is being threatened by the failure of Government to deal adequately with the problems of pay and conditions. Discontent and dissatisfaction did not originate in the life of the last Government but it did come to a head then.

Successive Governments have always been quick to pay ritual tribute to the great work done by members of the Defence Forces and we had much of that in the Minister's speech today. However, the same Governments have refused to put their money where their mouths were by ensuring that members of the Army, Navy and Air Corps were paid a wage appropriate to the onerous and responsible tasks which they were asked to perform. Apart from normal military duties, the Defence Forces have been asked to perform quasi-policing duties along the Border, at prisons and important institutions. They are expected to provide air and sea rescue services at least in fishing grounds and Governments have been very quick to call on them to provide emergency services in the event of industrial dispute.

Despite this, the Government failed to ensure that Defence Forces personnel are paid wages appropriate to their responsibility. Most rank and file soldiers earn well below the average industrial wage and an Army captain who might have responsibility for 100 men or more would be earning well below what an executive with similar responsibilities in civilian life would earn. The poor salaries paid to officers and other highly skilled technical personnel has led to a virtual brain drain, with consequent major problems for both the Air Corps and the Naval Service. Indeed it clearly does not make sense for the State to invest large sums of money in training officers if they are then offered rates of pay which provide no incentive to stay in the Defence Forces.

The Minister's remarks concerning pay deserve specific comment. The suggestion that the pay of military personnel has broadly kept pace with that of the public service generally is disingenuous. It clearly indicates that the Minister has totally lost the drift of the argument, failed to listen to what was said on the doorsteps or to have regard for the way people voted in the recent election. Our argument is that you cannot equate work within the general public service with the duties required of members of the Defence Forces. There is no comparison. Deputy Bell, in some small way, helped to illustrate that by reference to Operation Mallard where members of the public service the gardaí working alongside the Army were earning sums vastly in excess of those paid to the Defence Forces.

To go on to suggest that any concession to a decent wage to members of the Defence Forces would in some way introduce an imbalance and an attack on the so-called gains of the Government over the last two years is ridiculous in the extreme and an insult to the dedicated members of the Defence Forces.

The Minister said that if the cost of pay in the public service ran out of control all the gains which have been made in the last few years would be eroded, that our economic targets would become unattainable and that all our sacrifices would have been in vain. What sacrifices? All whose sacrifices? It is certainly clear that the PAYE sector make sacrifices but where is the sacrifice of the wealthy, the farming community and those who fiddle their tax on a daily basis? Do not lecture members of the Defence Forces about sacrifice because they know all about them on a daily basis. One third of the country live on the poverty line or below it. Those of us who argue for action on their behalf cannot be told that these people must continue to make sacrifices. Churches and economic commentators have also pleaded for something to be done about poverty and when we refer to wages in the Defence Forces we are talking about the poverty line and below it. The numbers receiving the family income supplement clearly bear this out. The Minister's response to the issue of pay levels has been lamentable. Deputy Connaughton dealt at length with the abysmal response of the Government to the pay review body and it is not necessary to elaborate except to say that if the Government continue on the lines expressed by the Minister there will be major problems of morale and disaffection within the Defence Forces. It was hoped that the new Minister might indicate a change of attitude but clearly that is not forthcoming.

The majority of soldiers know that unemployment is running at nearly 250,000 and that there is not much prospect of alternative employment in civilian life. They have, quite rightly, turned to campaigning for improved pay and conditions in the Defence Forces. The response of the Department of Defence to the legitimate grievances of the soldiers has simply worsened the situation. The recommendations of the review body were totally inadequate and attempts by the last Government to present them as something they were not caused considerable resentment. The decision to increase the buy-out rates and to abolish the outpost allowance for certain personnel added insult to injury. In these circumstances and against a background of the continued refusal of the Department to consider the establishment of a representative body, it was not surprising that the Army Spouses' Association should have got off the ground. I should like to pay a tribute to them but, clearly, there work is not yet done. They must be congratulated on their showing in the election, their success indicated that there is a widespread demand in the Defence Forces for an improvement in their conditions and the establishment of an association. It is not surprising either that, within the last few weeks, a Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks' Representative Association have been set up. The Government will have to accept that they cannot take any action to legally prevent members of the Defence Forces from establishing a representative body. The right of members of the Defence Forces to establish a representative body was explicitly recognised in a report of the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament in 1984 which noted that the absence of any such body in Ireland was based "not on a legal prohibition but on traditional discipline". Given the appallingly shoddy way in which members of our Defence Forces have been treated by successive Governments, it is not surprising that some personal have taken a unilateral decision to establish a representative association.

Soldiers are simply citizens in uniform and are entitled to the same democratic rights as apply to other citizens. The Department of Defence should now bow to the inevitable, accept the other ranks' representative association and seek to establish a working relationship with it. The representative bodies have posed no threat to order or discipline in the Garda Síochána and there is no reason why the organisation established for the Defence Forces cannot play a similarly constructive role.

Any refusal by the Department of Defence to recognise the new body or any petty attempts to restrict their development will sour the atmosphere in the Defence Forces and further damage morale. The worst possible development would be a repeat of the Macushla Ballroom affair in the early sixties when there were heavy-handed attempts by the Department of Justice and the Special Branch to prevent the formation of a Garda Representative Body, which almost led to mutiny. The Minister's response is particularly disappointing. I did not press him yesterday at Question Time on the issues surrounding this matter in the belief that something would be forthcoming today. He said there would not be substantial changes, I did not think there would be such a dismal response.

The Minister recognised that the association are not talking about a trade union. I hope Fine Gael will take note of this——

Mr. Connaughton

We do.

Mr. McCartan

The association are simply asking for the right to consult others. The Minister also suggested that there is an issue of principle involved, that it is inconceivable to establish an organisation that would bring in a system of "organisation and control separate from that of the Defence Forces". Nobody said that control mechanisms or organisations would be established. They are merely talking about the right to establish a body, democratically elected by members of the Defence Forces, to represent their members and to be consulted. That right is available to Defence Force members in Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, our fellow members in the EC.

They do not have any difficulties relating to discipline, control or command structures. Let us bury this issue once and for all. I specifically want to address Fine Gael in the few minutes left. It is time to recognise the double think and prevarication in that party. Throughout the last Dáil they made scathing attacks on Fianna Fáil because of their inability to act on this issue but they have now clouded the issue by introducing the threat of trade unionism. They now also suggest that we should expand the complaints procedure. The redress of wrongs and complaints procedures within the Defence Forces refer to individual problems relating to rank, order and command. They have nothing to do with the conditions of pay, health service and educational and housing facilities which are so grossly neglected throughout the whole structure of the Defence Forces. A complaints board would have nothing to do with those issues. There is only one way to deal with these issues, Defence members themselves raising complaints through proper staff association procedures. I welcome Deputy Bell's suggestion that we use Private Members' Time to test this issue because it is time we made Fine Gael——

Mr. Connaughton

We have a better record than the Deputy's party.

Mr. McCartan

They should stand up for the fundamental issues that are facing the Defence Forces, the right to establish a representative association and to accept that civilian conditions and democratic rights should exist for members of the Defence Forces. It is time Fine Gael members were called to account in regard to those issues.

Mr. Connaughton

We always stood up for the Defence Forces.

Mr. McCartan

It is sad to hear the way Fine Gael Members have prevaricated on this issue. There is a need to hold discussions with the UN. We recognise the role our soldiers have played in peace-keeping exercises in the international arena. I should like to pay tribute to those soldiers who have served abroad and reiterate my condemnation, as expressed by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats in the last Dáil, of any suggestion that we should contemplate withdrawing our soldiers from UN operations. I put a request to the former Minister that an all-party delegation should be given an opportunity to visit Defence Forces installations throughout the country and meet personnel to discuss various issues but I did not get any response to it. I should like to repeat that request to the new Minister and I hope he will respond.

Mr. D. Ahern

I should like to congratulate the new Minister, Deputy Lenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady, on their appointment. They will have a difficult task in the coming years. Changes will occur in the pay and conditions of Army personnel, moves which are long overdue. I was disappointed we had to listen to the same rhetoric that we heard in the 25th Dáil from two Deputies of the so-called left, Deputies Bell and McCartan. We heard the same easy talk in regard to Defence Forces issues in the last Dáil. I have no doubt that if those Members were on this side of the House they would have something different to say and would appreciate the difficulties the Government are facing.

All candidates in the general election were made aware of the discontent among the wives of Army personnel and their families in regard to pay and conditions. However, it is important to bear in mind that those problems did not arise overnight. Deputy Bell, who is from my constituency, received a respectable protest vote from Army personnel against Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. However, people have come to realise that the Labour Party had an opportunity on the day the 26th Dáil met to do something about the complaints they had heard during the campaign. Those who voted for that party looked to their Members to put things right.

Mr. Bell

The Deputy must not have been listening to my contribution.

Mr. D. Ahern

People voted for Labour Party candidates on the understanding that they would help put things right but those elected to the House copped out on the instructions of the leader of that party who said he wanted to stay in Opposition. One cannot oppose all the time; one must try to change things. It is nonsense to consider tabling a Bill to test the sincerity of the Government. The Labour Party had an opportunity to enter Government and press for the introduction of a Bill.

Mr. McCartan

The Deputy is in government and he should tell us what he intends doing to change things.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to tell Deputies Bell and McCartan that in this short debate I will not tolerate any interruptions.

Mr. Bell

Deputy Ahern is getting very personal on this issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bell's contribution could have been challenged, sentence by sentence, but that is not allowed; the debate does not follow in that way.

Mr. Bell

On a point of order, I would expect that when Members make a personal attacks on other Members the Chair would intervene. This issue is not about Michael Bell. I gave Deputy Ahern his answer in the election.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The expectations of Deputies in regard to their personal reactions is not accommodated in Standing Orders. Deputies are not allowed to interrupt and that is the position.

Mr. M. Higgins

On a point of order, it was my understanding that we were discussing the Estimate for the Department of Defence but the debate has been broadened into a discussion of the role of Opposition and Government. In that event we will be delighted to extend the debate when we are making our contributions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Higgins had been listening to earlier contributions he would understand the debate has extended over a wide range of issues. He has not raised a point of order and the Deputy, who is an expert on Standing Orders——

Mr. M. Higgins

I have not interrupted any Member.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt any Member to make commentary of that kind, or any other commentary.

Mr. M. Higgins

I was raising a point of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was not a point of order. The Deputy should not make little of his own intelligence because I know he knows he has not raised a point of order.

Mr. M. Higgins

The debate is about the Department of Defence and people's lives are affected by this Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ahern should be allowed to continue without interruption. If Deputy Ahern's contribution irritates Members, they must contain their irritation for some other time.

Mr. D. Ahern

The two Deputies opposite have taken my comments personally but they cannot escape from the fact that their parties opted out of Government and did not avail of the opportunity to make the changes they have suggested. The people are aware of that. There is an Army barracks in my home town and in the course of the election campaign I was made aware of the discontent among Army personnel. However, I got the impression that basic pay was not the major issue. Their basic pay was considered to be reasonable but there was concern expressed about the fact that Army personnel do not receive recompense for the long hours they must work. The Government will have to try to reward Army personnel for their long hours of duty. There is no doubt that at the time of the search for the "Border Fox" gardaí were paid for the overtime they worked but Army personnel were not. That issue will have to be put right. It is easy to complain but it is more difficult to do something about it particularly when there are so many calls on the public purse.

Army personnel, in addition to their basic pay, receive daily and weekly allowances. In my view that system is out of date and any review of it will have to consider reorganising pay on different structures. Too many allowances are paid. Those serving in Border areas were delighted to receive the increase in the Border allowance but I wonder if it would have been better to spread such allowance throughout the Defence Forces. The wives of Army personnel were very forceful in their criticism at the lack of proper medical facilities for them and their families. In some cases those in possession of medical cards were in receipt of the same weekly income as Army personnel. The review committee should consider that anomaly.

Some Members suggested that a representative body should be established but I did not hear any great demand for such a body. People recognise that if a representative body is established for Army personnel the authority of the Army might be undermined. We will have to give careful consideration to such a proposal. It is important to point out that two former members of the Army will be appointed to the pay review committee. We should all welcome that decision because those people will be aware of the conditions in the Army. I am concerned that there is not a facility for communication between members of the Defence Forces and the review committee. If representatives of a barracks decide to make representatives to the review committee they could find themselves in hot water with the top brass.

I wish the Minister, and the Minister of State, well in their work. They have a very difficult brief. In the short term they will not be able to do very much about the whole area of Army pay but in the long term they will have to do something about it. There is very grave discontent among the people involved and the Minister and his Minister of State will have to do their level best to alleviate some of those fears. I know that many of the fears of the people involved have been whipped up unreasonably by both political commentators and the media. This issue will require very careful examination during the next few years. The way to do this is through a beefed-up pay review committee who would review the conditions of pay and possibly restructure the whole area of pay.

Finally, I should like to pay tribute to Private McNeela, who was a constituent of mine, and to the other members of the Defence Forces who were killed tragically while on duty in foreign places over the past couple of years. I agree with Deputy McCartan that we should never change our attitude of helping other countries by way of our Defence Forces serving with UNIFIL or any other body.

Mr. Durkan

First, I should like to take the opportunity to wish the new Minister for Defence every success in his post. Long may he reign there. I should also like to offer my congratulations to the new Minister of State in the Department.

Of all the issues we have been made aware of in recent times the position of our Defence Forces, with particular reference to Army pay, conditions of employment and lack of morale, has been brought home very forcibly to each and every one of us in public life. It is unfortunate that this problem had to degenerate to the extent that the spouses of Army personnel had to take to the streets, in fact they protested outside this very House, in order to bring to bear on everybody concerned the seriousness of the situation.

I do not want to alarm anybody but I want to underscore what I have said here on previous occasions. I am not sure that the Government were fully aware of the seriousness of the situation in the Defence Forces. It is true that the Minister who had official responsibility for the Defence Forces was recognised as not been able to respond to the situation, but as previous speakers have said it should also be readily recognised that the Government and those who sat around the Cabinet table should have been as equally aware as the Minister of the lack of morale and the discontent within the Army.

It is all very fine to say that we are a small peaceful nation and, therefore, should not place great emphasis on defence. It is true that we are not an international super power but it is necessary in every democracy to have the ultimate defence force which people can rely on. It is equally necessary to ensure that that defence force are reasonably well paid, reasonably content and have a certain amount of pride both in themselves and in the other elements of the authorities within the State, the rest of the public service, so that they can take their rightful place alongside them with pride and dignity and know they are being treated as equal citizens.

Over the past couple of years it has become patently obvious to everybody that there has been serious discontent among members of the Army. This has been referred to by previous speakers in terms of, for example, special duties where one sector of the civil authorities are paid at a particular level while the Army, for doing the same job in support of those authorities, are paid at a miserable level. This augments the discontent felt by the Army. They are incensed by virtue of the fact that they regard themselves as second class citizens because they get a lower rate of pay than those alongside people whom they work. More importantly still — not only was this annoying to the Defence Forces themselves but also to those of us in this House — the then Minister, obviously expounding Government policy, repeatedly said here that there was no crisis in the Army and asked what lack of morale we were talking about. I plead with the Minister of State who is on the other side of the House at the moment that in the programme for Government which has just been announced — perhaps, from what we have seen this morning, some of the proposals in that programme will be no more than announcements — to take into account the serious situation which has developed in the Army. He should recognise that it will not go away and that if we want to have a Permanent Defence Force who are going to be reasonably content they will have to be reasonably well paid and their conditions must be comparable with those of other elements within the State. If this is not done the force will continue to be discontented.

I should like to refer to one other issue. Recently I attended a passing out parade of apprentices in Devoy Barracks. I was more than impressed with the standard of military training achieved by those apprentices. Obviously they were equally impressive in their technical training in the various categories. This was borne out especially by the apprentices who had passed out the previous year. Special mention is made each year of those who have attained high honours in the previous year. It was significant to note that the two apprentices who had achieved the highest honours in the previous class and who had gone abroad and achieved not only national recognition but world recognition in their specific categories had left the Defence Forces within one year. That, more than anything else, underscores the points which have been made by various speakers here today. They had sufficient pride to enlist in the first place, to spend the time required going through their apprenticeship and learning their trade but because they realised after one year that they could not remain within the Defence Forces and try to do the best for themselves and their families the only option they had was to get out. They achieved international recognition by virtue of the training they had received.

The problem now revolves around pay and conditions of employment. Fine Gael were mentioned as having a particular role to play in this regard. I thought we were out of Government. Nevertheless every opposition party have an important role to play. I do not necessarily agree that the representative body are the ultimate answer and neither do all the people within the Defence Forces agree on that.

Mr. McCartan

I disagree.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy may dispute that but this is the suggestion. It is not the ultimate solution, but all suggestions are welcome. There is a need for some body to be chaired by, for example, a High Court judge who would examine in detail all that goes on within the Defence Forces so as to find out the fundamentals of the problem and report back to Government. This could be somewhat along the lines of the Conroy Commission. It should be done as a first step and I ask the Minister to please consider something along such lines. I know the present review body was set up with the best of intentions but it is not an independent review body, no matter what we say about it. In the short time available I do not wish to go down that road. If we really want to get to the bottom of the problem, to restore Army morale and restore national pride in our Defence Forces, that is the way we should go about it. There needs to be established within, and by the Army itself, a permanent commission whereby complaints and grievances can be aired, something along the lines suggested but not necessarily in the form of a representative body. There must be a means devised whereby — on a continuous basis — members of the Defence Forces can have their grievances aired knowing that that will be done in a fair, equitable fashion, giving them a fair hearing.

I was somewhat disappointed at the number of references in the Minister's introductory remarks to the economic position, the fact that one cannot pay in excess of other Government Departments and agencies because of the economic circumstances obtaining. That may well be the case. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that the deterioration of Army morale should be regarded as the first warning sign to any democratic Administration. A Government should never allow circumstances to develop as are developing here. It is most important for a Government to be able to respond quickly. If they do not do so then those people who are frustrated and annoyed will become even more so and will come to believe that Government do not care, that those in power do not care. As a result they will lose interest and, if that happens, the Minister knows perfectly well what will be the result.

I might refer to the increase in the buy-out provision which contributes further to the annoyance and frustration felt by members of the Defence Forces, particularly when people must thumb lifts to work because they cannot afford to drive there or back or cannot afford to avail of public transport. It is a well known fact that some personnel in the Defence Forces are thumbing lifts to work, which is very sad. If that happened in any other country, such country would be regarded as a banana republic, but, as a rule we do not have the right climate, with the exception of recent weeks. The increased buy-out provision will further annoy and indeed incense the personnel it affects.

Any member of the Defence Forces who intended to buy themselves out would be further annoyed and incensed by the fact that the Government have decided to increase the requisite figure rendering it more difficult for them to do so. We should be endeavouring to improve relations between the Minister, the Department and the Army rather than appearing to do the opposite.

We resort to the services of the Army whenever a river bursts its banks, snow clearance is necessary or fires need to be extinguished. We expect the Army to be at our beck and call 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, over Christmas, Easter, summer, winter, in effect, continuously. Yet we seem unable to resolve a minor matter fundamental to the very existence of that body on whom we must rely.

We have talked about the matter sufficiently long in this House, over the past few months in particular. I would appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State to disregard what has taken place before today, to forget what has, been said and to deal with the position as it obtains now and is likely to obtain in the future. If he does not, then I warn him he will be confronted by an even more serious position when there will be even more disenchantment among the members of the Defence Forces; then, on the Minister's head be it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

I am calling Deputy M. Higgins.

Mr. Allen

Before Deputy Higgins begins, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the Incorporated Law Society's entrance examination, the use of the Incorporated Law Society of examiners with no law degrees and the failure and refusal of the Incorporated Law Society——

Acting Chairman

The Ceann Comhairle will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.

Mr. Allen

The Chair has not heard my full submission yet. I want to raise the failure or refusal of the Incorporated Law Society to reveal the identity of all their internal examiners. I raised that matter yesterday morning. On the general issue I was refused because, I was told, the matter was sub judice. It is a serious barrier that should not exist.

Acting Chairman

The Ceann Comhairle will communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. M. Higgins

I want to make a few points in relation to this debate so far which I find very interesting. I am sure that those people in the Army and their spouses must be feeling a sense of strangeness at the overwhelming tributes paid to him in recent weeks and months, which I presume had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we had a general election. I suppose we should welcome the fact that interest has been sustained into the month of July.

When considering the Estimate for the Department of Defence it behoves us to address the matters as seriously as we can in terms of what we should do. A few fundamental principles have already arisen. One of these is the question at the centre of the debate over the past year and beyond that, pay and conditions. Other speakers have already addressed this issue and I do not intend to delay the House unduly. However, I want to add my voice to those who find totally unrealistic what the Minister said in his introductory remarks this morning.

Like everyone else, I wish the new incumbent and his Minister of State every success but I find that the language used is entirely unrealistic. I also think it is unfair. For example, the Minister had this to say in the course of his remarks:

Firstly, the pay of the Defence Forces has for many years been linked to the pay of certain Civil Service grades and the benefit of all increases — both round increases and appropriate special increases — have been passed to the Defence Forces as a matter of course.

The most important word in that statement is the word "certain" because that means that the anomalies and inequities in the existing pay conditions are being regarded as given, as constant. Therefore, what the Minister is saying — without it being written there — is that the structure of public service pay has to hold together as an entity, that he cannot reduce the inequities, the unfairness in the Defence Forces in isolation but that they must wait until the whole of public service pay can be awarded. This is an absolutely absurd proposition.

There are many other areas also that illustrate how this has come to be. It would behove the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Public Service, to address the history of some of these anomalies. I could argue that elected representatives travelling to the same meeting with their county manager and officers of a local authority will find themselves on different rates from the Members themselves. Many of them comment on that fact occasionally. That is something which is regarded as sacrosanct, something that can never be touched because it was drawn up by members of the public service in somewhat privileged positions, I am sorry to say, looking after their own interests.

It is absolute nonsense to say that one cannot deal with the inequalities in pay within the Defence Forces on their own as an aspect of public service pay. They must be dealt with on their own. If the case is morally correct it must be addressed in that way. If the Minister does not agree — as Deputy Bell has said — we will assist him by introducing our Bill, if necessary.

Later in the same page of the Minister's remarks he had this comment to make: "Attempts to isolate the pay of the Defence Forces from the wider picture are unrealistic". That is simply saying that any attempt to redress the issue of the inadequacy of pay and allowances — apart altogether from the balance between the two — must come at the tail-end of a general public pay review.

Earlier in the statement is an absolute piece of hypocrisy and I compliment those speakers, including Deputy McCartan, who mentioned it in rather strong language with which I agree. It states: "Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain". Let us be clear about all our sacrifices. In 1981 there was a wealth tax of about 1 per cent but it was paid by very few people. We abandoned the effort not because of what it was yielding but what it was telling us about the wealthy. That was one of the decisions by the Fianna Fáil Administration, which Deputy Ahern would have the Labour Party join in his Mafiaesque construction of democracy. Their decision was to abolish the wealth tax at its tiny level. If it had been continued even at 1981 levels it would have yielded in the present financial year about £30 million, more than enough to meet the pay demand and to meet some of the health and education demands. It is part of the hypocrisy of this House to put language that is absolutely untrue, immoral and misleading into Ministers' speeches. I repeat that phrase in case it gets lost: "Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain".

As far as the wealthy who are affected by the wealth tax and those whose corporation profit tax was reduced are concerned, they made no sacrifices. Not only that, but because they are regarded as such rarefied hyacinths in the world of business, it is though that if any tax at all is imposed on them they will be frightened away and will not invest their pennies so, therefore, we must create a climate of investment for them. As previous speakers have said, it is the workers who made the sacrifices in relation to restraint and it is insulting to those who need an increase in income and want decent pay to be trotting out that kind of rubbish. People who suggest that they are concerned, that their hearts are bleeding, that they like to see people going to Lebanon and Namibia and that they are continually thinking about, caring and praying for them while, at the same time, they are telling them they will wait for an adequate pay level until everyone else has got it, are simply hypocrites and that is what they should be called.

There is another gem of a phrase in the Minister's speech. Having said that these people cannot be taken out of line in relation to public service pay, he then makes a statement that is a flat contradiction to that. He stated: "the Defence Forces pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants." It would be nice if he could make up his mind as to what he is saying. If it is unlike that of other public servants, why is he asking them to wait until all the public servants have received their pay increases? The Minister should tell us what he means. If he means their pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants, why does he not pay for the difference? You do not have to be a very complicated person to know what makes it different. Many of us have visited the houses of Army personnel and met their wives and children. They can tell us very forcefully — and they have developed a nice direct line of language as well — what their lives are like in terms of the conditions under which they are forced to serve, the amount of pay they get and the amount of money that is available for their children, their health condition and that of their children and their lack of ability to send their children to third level education. That is what the phrase "unlike other public servants" means.

There is another amoral suggestion in this speech as well. That is, having recognised that there are peculiar circumstances attached to the occupation, there is no commitment to redressing an inequity based on a simple proposition, that is that the same people, doing the same work, under the same conditions and for the same amount of time should be entitled to expect the same remuneration. There is nothing earth-shattering about that. It is a fundamental principle of the ILO and most people have accepted it in civilised countries. It is accepted even in what a previous speaker over here referred to a few minutes ago in his unfortunate insulting language as "banana republics". There are many so-called banana republics who accept the principle of equal pay for equal work under equal conditions.

Mr. McGahon

China does not.

Mr. M. Higgins

There is another little phrase I would like the Minister to clarify. He stated in his speech: "In the longer term, it is intended to restructure the Defence Forces pay system completely so as to increase basic pay levels and reduce the dependence of soldiers on special allowances". What does "in the longer term" mean? Does it mean this year, next year, the four-year term that is part of the accord that is a coalition, that might be an inter-party agreement, that has no status in the Parliament, as we hard this morning? Does it mean the lifetime of the Minister, his children's lifetime, or what? No procedure is specified as to how it is to be implemented. If people over here are very sincere about their concern for the conditions of Army personnel, their wives and their children, they will be interested in flushing out what the "longer term" means by supporting our Bill in that regard when the time comes. That is one way of making language precise.

People are very worried that our Army might become contaminated by politics, trade unionism or organised representatives bodies. It is very interesting to know what is at stake here. The command structure of the Army is at stake, I believe. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches this morning. People come out with phrases like, "I would be against there being a trade union" and "I would be against a representative body but they should be allowed to make their views known". It would remind you of the days of the emancipation of slavery, that you are letting the slaves speak and there should be channels through which they could push up their little complaints.

The distinction has been accurately drawn between a complaints procedure and a representative body. We are not talking about the visiting committees of prisons but that is what it sounded like as I listened to these alternatives to representative bodies. It would be terrible to keep them silent totally. You should let them talk occasionally and have channels open through which they could write their little complaints and then you could put them in a bin. Why should these people not have a representative body? They are workers. To the people who claim to be speaking on behalf of the Army, I would say that I have talked to a number of Army personnel, their wives and their families and I did not hear anyone objecting to a representative body. If they are going to be excluded from discussing pay conditions in the future and the right to have a decent career structure, people should not be saying that they themselves are unhappy with that.

Everybody I spoke to said it would be a good thing if morale was restored by their being able to discuss conditions and prospects. Nobody mentioned this morning that a representative body might have a view, for example, in stopping political interference in promotions in the Army. In regard to those who are allowed to organise on behalf of people in our Defence Forces, their first demand, that has not been qualified, has been for a representative body. If you want to become converted to the cause of rights for the Army personnel, their wives and their families, do not deny them representation. I want to refer to the question of what is being kept intact by denying a representative body, this so-called command structure. Many people have been very concerned about the manner in which attitudes have been encouraged within the Defence Forces, for which we have very little accountability here. I am not talking about the people who are going on night duty, serving on the Border or enlisting for work abroad but, for example, the deep sexism that invades the Department of Defence at top level. Question after question in the last Dáil and the previous one revealed that there was a bias against the recruitment of women cadets and where women cadets went on to become officers in the Army there had been a decision — no one knows who took it — that they were suitable for administrative duties but not combat duties.

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Deputy to conclude. His time is up.

Mr. M. Higgins

Therefore, when the Minister replies he might talk about the sexism that is clearly part of the policy of the Department of Defence for some time.

I will conclude by saying I welcome any innovation but what we are all after in the end is this. People want to be and are proud to be part of the Defence Forces, but they want a career structure, decent conditions, openness and not to be excluded, and the right to be represented. Any Member of this House who offers them less is not speaking truly on their behalf.

Acting Chairman

Two Deputies are wishing to contribute on this debate and I suggest giving them five minutes each. Would that be acceptable? Agreed.

Mr. Allen

I was hoping to get in.

Acting Chairman

On the Order of Business the Minister is to be called in about ten minutes or before 15 minutes. I am adhering now to the Order of Business.

Mr. Allen

So I cannot speak. My constituency has a large——

Mr. Clohessy

I want to use this opportunity, while acknowledging the Estimates for the Department of Defence, to make a couple of points about the Defence Forces. First, I offer my congratulations to the Tánaiste, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on his appointment as the new Minister for Defence. I wish him the best of success in his new appointment and a continued and full recuperation from his recent operation. His appointment comes at a particularly crucial time for the Defence Forces. Nobody needs to be reminded just how bad the problems in the Defence Forces are, particularly in the Army. It has been clear now for over a year how bad these problems are, particularly the pay conditions and the general morale. We have all heard stories of Army families depending on family income supplement, of families with loan sharks feeding off them and of so many Army personnel who are living and working in those terrible conditions. We have all seen over the last year a serious increase in the numbers of people leaving the Forces, the unpredecented attempts made by individuals to establish representative bodies for the Forces and Army wives standing in the recent general election for the first time ever to highlight the problems. Tackling those problems must be a priority for the new Government.

The Defence Forces play a crucial role. We depend on them to perform not just their normal role of protecting the security of the State, particularly against the terrorist threat we constantly face, but a whole host of other duties. We deploy them to help guard our prisons and escort large consignments of money, and we have used them during times of natural and industrial hardship to drive buses, collect garbage, deliver fuel and even clear snow. The relationship between the Forces and the State depends on mutual understanding. The fact that no representative bodies are allowed for the Forces puts extra responsibility on the Minister for Defence and the Government to ensure that issues like pay, conditions and morale are properly looked after and do not become problems.

Two aspects of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government are particularly important to the Forces. They are the long term objective of restructuring Army pay with the aim of improving basic pay substantially and reducing over-dependence of soldiers on special duty allowances, and the permanent interdepartmental committees, including two members nominated by the Defence Forces to consider the situation and problems of the Forces. Both of these are crucial, but they must be matched by determination to ensure urgent action is taken to deal with the problem in the Forces and that the situation is never allowed to deteriorate so much again. There is no longer the excuse for people to claim they did not realise how bad the situation was. There is no longer excuse for not tackling the situation urgently and effectively. I have every confidence that the new Government with PD participation will immediately tackle the urgent problems and achieve a satisfactory long term solution for the general grievances of soldiers and their families.

Mr. McGahon

Coming as I do from a Border area I have had plenty of opportunity over the last 20 years to appreciate the role of the Defence Forces, both the Army and the Garda Síochána. In the last 20 years they have had a hard job to do to ensure the safety of the Border area against the threat to this entire country posed by various shades of IRA activity, the Provisional IRA, the INLA and the Official IRA. I have observed Army patrols who were working right through the night and I could not help but reflect, even long before I came into the Dáil, on why there was such a distinction made between the pay allotted to the Garda on the one hand and the unfortunate soldiers who until a few years ago had to work right through the night for absolutely no money at all. I would like to recognise the role the security Forces have played and will continue to play to ensure the safety of the State. I would also like to recognise the role we have played in overseas service and I hope that participation will continue. Indeed, only some months ago a young man from my constituency, the town of Dundalk, Private McNeela, paid the supreme sacrifice in foreign fields. We have a proud role and we have made a big contribution to international safety. I hope our role in international affairs will continue.

I ask today that a realistic appraisal be made of the situation in which the Army find themselves. As Deputy Higgins, said, the rate of pay should have nothing to do with the public finances. If they are performing a very useful and necessary job, surely that is justification for paying them a realistic and acceptable wage, but it is not just money that is the problem in the Army. In recent years we have seen a continuing deterioration in morale. That cannot be good for the Forces as a whole. In my town of Dundalk I am aware that two young men have recently left the Army. One has joined the Australian Army and the other has joined, of all things, the Israeli Army. There are many cases of people leaving the Force because of the lack of progress or career structure in the Irish Army.

I have to acknowledge the role played by the wives of the soldiers, NASA, in focusing attention at national level on the plight of the lower paid personnel in the Army. There is no doubt that they played a significant role in getting the Government to acknowledge, maybe begrudgingly, that there was discontent in the Army. I am a little cynical about whether a representative body will be formed; despite the fact that large numbers of personnel in the Army of all ranks will sign this petition, I feel it will not be recognised by the Government. That is a pity. Consultation is the answer to everything and it is in everybody's interests, the Government's and the Army's to sit down and compromise and come up with a rational solution rather than have simmering discontent, which is not good for the morale of the Army. It is not just money. Many of these people on Border duty are earning reasonable money but the hours they are being asked to work for it are ludicrous, in some cases 100 hours. Nobody should be asked to work for that length of time. I would ask the Minister to initiate some type of consultation regarding a representative body so that the Government can ascertain the feelings of the rank and file of the Army.

Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Mr. V. Brady)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate which reflect their feelings in regard to the members of the Defence Forces. Very often we are accused of indulging in clichés but it is true that Deputies on all sides have a genuine interest in the members of the Defence Forces and are anxious to ensure that if there are problems they should be resolved in the best possible way.

Deputy Connaughton referred to the helicopter to be based at Shannon. I indicated in my opening speech that the Dauphin helicopter will be positioned at Shannon from September this year and that arrangements will be made to have helicopter refuelling sites at various other parts of the country upgraded for 24-hour refuelling.

Mr. Connaughton

What about the long range one?

Mr. V. Brady

The advisory group have been set up and have had a number of meetings. The urgency of their terms of reference has been conveyed to them by the Government and I am satisfied that we will have a report in this House, possibly before the end of the year. A lot of work must be done and consideration must be given to various aspects. These are issues that cannot be resolved overnight since it has taken many years to tackle them. When the committee report to Government we will be in a position to initiate whatever measures are necessary to bring about a much more satisfactory situation for people in that part of the country.

The representative body has been the main theme of the debate. We all accept that this is an extremely important matter deserving very careful attention. It is continuing to receive attention but it is all too easy to dismiss as rubbish the process of setting up such a body and the time taken to consider it. It is very easy to say that. Many aspects must be examined. There is a fundamental issue involved. It would be foolish in the extreme for any Government to rush in and say either yes or no when such proposals are brought before them. The Government will be considering that matter in every detail as soon as possible and a decision will be made in due course. We all accept that consultation is absolutely necessary. Perhaps one of the reasons for the current problems is that there was insuficient consultation. This is an area which will be looked at in conjunction with every other proposal and suggestion coming to Government. It is extremely important that various members of the Defence Forces have access to the Department and to the Minister if they have grievances or suggestions. I am certain that the Minister will achieve a resolution of the problems experienced by the man on the ground.

Deputy Bell mentioned the proposal to extend the membership of the present committee. There is no such proposal. The committe was extended some months ago by the inclusion of two new members. Since the new committee was set up on a permanent basis they have had a number of meetings attended by the two new members. There are no proposals to extend the committee further at this stage.

Deputy Bell also said that special increases paid in other areas of the public service were not passed on to the members of the Defence Forces. I dealt with this in my earlier contribution. I would point out that all increases to employees in the public service were passed on at exactly the same level to members of the Defence Forces.

Mr. Connaughton

That is not the problem.

Mr. V. Brady

I know it is not the problem. I am merely correcting a statement made here this morning. We in Government consider this matter to be extremely important. I appeal to all Members not to make a political football of the issue. It is too serious for that.

(Interruptions).

Mr. McCartan

His speech today suggests that the Minister is doing absolutely nothing.

Mr. V. Brady

Most contributors to the debate have been very constructive. It has already been said that it is very easy for The Workers' Party to make all sorts of proposals and suggestions since they are not in a position to implement them in legislation. It is very easy for them to oppose for the sake of opposing.

This debate has been constructive. I should like to feel that we are all acting cohesively on this issue. We recognise that there is a problem which requires resolution. It is the firm commitment of this Government to pursue the matter as quickly as possible to bring about a resolution of all the problems.

On behalf of the Government I assure all members of the Defence Forces that their position is considered at all times by the Government in a very positive way. That will continue to be the case. Whatever the problems may be, we intend to resolve them as quickly as possible.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House: "That the Estimates for Defence and Army Pensions for the year ending 31 December 1989 are hereby agreed to."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 71.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Séamus.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Cullimore, Séamus.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foxe, Tom.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peader.
Collins, Gerard.
Connolly, Ger.
Martin, Micheál.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Morley, P. J.
Noonan, Michael J.
(Limerick West).
O'Connell, John.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond J.
O'Rourke, Mary.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Reynolds, Albert.
Roche, Dick.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.
Wilson, John P.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

Ahearn, Theresa.
Allen, Bernard.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Seán.
Barry, Peter.
Bell, Michael.
Belton, Louis J.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Browne, John.
(Carlow-Kilkenny)
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Carey, Donal.
Connaughton, Paul.
Connor, John.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Cotter, Bill.
Creed, Michael.
Currie, Austin.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard.
Enright, Thomas W.
Farrelly, John V.
Fennell, Nuala.
Ferris, Michael.
Finnucane, Michael.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Spring, Dick.
Stagg, Emmet.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gregory, Tony.
Harte, Paddy.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Philip.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
Kenny, Enda.
Lee, Pat.
Lowry, Michael.
McCartan, Pat.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
McGrath, Paul.
Mitchell, Gay.
Moynihan, Michael.
Nealon, Ted.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Gerry.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Pattison, Séamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ryan, Seán.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, Patrick J.
Sherlock, Joe.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Howlin.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 20 Jul 1989