Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1990

Vol. 396 No. 9

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Lenihan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of associations for the purpose of representing members of the Defence Forces on remuneration and related matters without compromising the essential military systems of command and control. The new arrangements will give members a representative voice on pay, allowances, grants and pensions and various other matters as well as access to conciliation and arbitration for the first time.

The Bill, in essence, is an enabling one. Before dealing with the background to it and the main underlying considerations, I shall run through the main provisions.

Section 1 deals with definitions. Section 2 provides for the establishment of associations, the scope of their representation and excludes matters such as operations, command and discipline from the scope of such associations. This section also recognises the right of individuals not to be members of an association and provides that the association will be independent of and will not, without the Minister's consent, be associated with, or affiliated to any trade union or other body. It also provides that members will not join a trade union or body, other than an association established under the Act, which seeks to influence the remuneration or other conditions of service of members of the Defence Forces.

Section 3 provides that the association will be inoperative during a state of emergency as provided for in section 4 of the Defence Act, 1954. Section 4 of the Bill deals with circumstances in which the Defence Forces are on active service and section 5 deals with members serving overseas.

Any person, whether subject to military law or otherwise, is prohibited by section 6 of the Bill from endeavouring to persuade a member of the Defence Forces to join a trade union or other body — except an association established under section 2 — and penalties for a breach of the section by persons not subject to military law are provided for. Persons who are subject to military law and who are in breach of this section are comprehended by the existing provisions of the Defence Act, 1954. Sections 7 and 8 are, I think self-explanatory.

The background to the Bill is that last July the Taoiseach anounced two major new developments regarding the Defence Forces. For the first time ever a completely independent prestigious commission was established to inquire into the remuneration and conditions of service of the Permanent Defence Forces. The deliberations of the commission are proceeding. On the same occasion the Taoiseach announced that I had instructed the Chief of Staff to make preparations for the establishment of a new structure regarding remuneration and related matters for privates, non-commissioned officers and officers. Since then considerable study, research and consultation has taken place.

There are fundamental constitutional and policy issues involved in this matter. The constitutional right to form an association is not an absolute or unqualified right. Article 40.6.1º provides that laws may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the right — thus explicitly providing for the limitation of the right. The courts have made the position very clear in a case involving the Garda Síochána; in Aughey v. Ireland, it was held by the High Court on 29 August 1985 that—

the right of association in Article 40.6.1º (iii) of the Constitution is subject to public order and because of their close connection with the security of the State, Gardaí may have to accept limitation on their right to form associations and unions which other citizens would not have to accept.

The need to regulate the right applies, I suggest, a fortiori in the case of the armed forces of the country and there can be no question of allowing unregulated development. This House has a particular responsibility in that connection since under the Constitution — Article 15.6.1º — the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

The supreme command of the Defence Forces is vested in the President under Article 13.4º, and Article 13.5.1º provides that the exercise of the supreme command shall be regulated by law.

The Constitution, therefore, recognises the unique position of the Defence Forces and the manner in which the State may provide by law for their organisation and control.

The organisation of the Defence Forces is specifically provided for in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 and the Defence Act, 1954. It is but one of a number of functions in relation to the Defence Forces the exercise of which, for fundamental reasons, is controlled and regulated.

This controlled and regulated system of the exercise of command and authority is fundamental to the raising and maintenance of a defence force in a democratic state. We live in a Parliamentary democracy which implies that the armed forces are subject to civil control. We have a system which has stood the test of time and any development which involves the creation of a new institutional arrangement in that system has to be examined against the background I have outlined. It is important to get the balance right. It is important that members of the Defence Forces feel they have a representative voice in relation to their pay and other 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, therefore, requires careful and mature examination to try to accommodate the legitimate wishes of the members of the Defence Forces with the requirements of the public good.

A study group was established by the Chief of Staff and members of the group visited Denmark and Italy to study the operation of representative associations there. The position in Great Britain was examined also and information was assembled on a number of other countries.

From the information which is available it is clear that there is great diversity in the arrangements in different countries. A report in March 1988 by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe concluded that the number of member states of the Council of Europe which recognise the military right to form and join trade unions equals the number of member states which do not.

In any event, while the systems which apply in other countries are of interest, it is necessary that we should try to design a system which is the optimum one for our circumstances. An important consideration in that connection is the fact that, unlike the majority of other armies in Western Europe, the Permanent Defence Force is an entirely volunteer force.

It has been repeatedly alleged that there has been no consultation and that a system is being imposed. The factual position is that from day one in the evolution of the new process I sought to involve those who are affected by the new system: from an early stage any information of a substantive kind was made known to the force through letters issued by the Chief of Staff, press statements and replies to questions in this House.

As Deputies will be aware, three military teams were assembled — one for officers, one for non-commissioned officers and one for privates — in connection with the Independent Pay Commission. Early last December I addressed these teams on the representative structure issue as part of the process of consultation which I wished to have undertaken. Later I prepared a document for dissemination throughout the force and as a basis for discussion with the teams by the military study group which had been set up. The document contained the broad principles regarding representation and the views of the force were sought on it.

Even at this stage the process of consultation is still only in an early phase: consultation is the essence of the new arrangements — I emphasise this — and will continue as an integral part of the arrangements. It is, however, obviously necessary to make a start somewhere and democratic elections, by secret ballot, will form a sound basis on which to proceed. There is absolutely no question of a system of representation being imposed on Defence Forces personnel without consultation and in essence this is an enabling Bill. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion on this issue, I wish to emphasise that the structures to be put in place will be the subject of discussion, consultation and agreement with the duly elected representatives after the first election. As regards the structures, what is involved here is the question of the number of representative associations, the number of representatives, their distribution geographically and the practical arrangements throughout the Permanent Defence Force. In sum the entire representative structure, in all its aspects, will be the first business for discussion with the duly elected representatives. I attach particular importance to this; there can be no question of an imposed structure which would be counter-productive and would do more harm than good. Once the democratic process under the protection of the legislation is gone through, real dialogue on this central issue will take place. The structures once agreed will then and only then be incorporated in regulations which will be laid before the Oireachtas.

To avoid doubt, I wish to add here that the formal establishment of the associations and the making of the relevant Defence Force regulations will not take place until after the consultations and dialogue to which I have referred and the various issues involved have been resolved.

As the House will be aware, in broad outline, what is envisaged, is that the associations will represent members in relation to remuneration — pay, allowances, gratuities, grants and pensions — and other matters to be prescribed by regulations. Their role will also include welfare matters such as credit unions, recreational facilities, medical benefit schemes and family support systems, on the same lines as the Garda representative bodies which are also protected by legislation and regulation.

Spokespersons for the associations will be permitted to make statements to the news media on matters which fall within their mandate and the associations will be permitted to raise money by subscription, in addition to receiving certain facilities by way of accommodation and staffing from the Department. A system of conciliation and arbitration will be provided for the first time which goes beyond any demand or request made by anyone in the Defence Forces in recent times. This is the most important initiative I am now proposing to put in place — a system of conciliation and arbitration which compares with the system that obtains in regard to the Garda Síochána and in regard to the public service generally. The real power that the new representative bodies will have will be that they can do more than just make representations and suggestions. They will be permanent participants in the conciliation and arbitration regime such as has obtained successfully in the public service generally.

Last week the Chief of Staff circulated a detailed booklet outlining the military proposals for the new system. I hope that this booklet, copies of which I have made available in the Dáil Library and sent to Deputies, will be studied in detail by each Deputy and individual member of the Permanent Defence Force to whom it has been sent. I hope it will form the basis of widespread constructive discussion towards the final resolution of the question and the establishment of the representative structure.

Throughout the entire process the Government have sought to avoid a situation where democratic procedures might be pre-empted. Every opportunity will be accorded to the duly elected representatives to participate in the formulation and finalisation of the arrangements which can then be incorporated in regulations. The process of establishing the necessary structure on a statutory basis will prevent the development of a proliferation of groups and spokespersons which would be most undesirable and against the interests of the personnel of the Defence Forces. In that context it is disappointing that certain self-appointed individuals, however well-intentioned, should take it upon themselves to try to pre-empt the results of the democratic elections which will take place. I am seeking to establish a democratic process as a legitimate basis upon which a representative association can be established and that that representative association will be protected by legislation and regulations, in the preparation of which they will have participation.

As I mentioned earlier, the views of all members of the Permanent Defence Forces were invited in the early stage of this process and proposals submitted by individuals contained much that was acceptable and formed a valuable input into the examination which culminated in the presentation of draft legislation. The scheme which is envisaged for members of the Permanent Defence Forces is, however, more comprehensive and in certain respects goes much further than what is contained in some proposals which were put forward and would, I am satisfied, best serve the interests of all concerned.

As regards the first elections — it is important to say this in order to again clear any confusion about allegations which may be made — it is my intention that the principal officer of the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, Mr. Tim Sexton, who is a well known expert on elections and referenda and a public official of long standing, will supervise these elections. Before the elections take place he will seek, by way of submissions from all interested parties, including PDFORRA, to determine a system of election which will find acceptance throughout the Defence Forces. His task before these elections take place is to seek these submissions to ensure that a totally acceptable, above board and legitimate form of election or elections will take place by secret ballot. The count will be taken under his supervision and with any safeguards he may seek to impose in order to ensure absolute propriety in regard to all aspects of both the election and the count. He will establish this electoral structure after consulting with all the interested parties and seeking submissions from them on what form these elections should take. All elections will, of course, be by secret ballot using the single, non-transferable vote system.

I commend the Bill to the House. It is a framework for a fair solution to an important organisational issue in the Defence Forces. Giving members of the Defence Forces a real say on pay and related matters without compromising military discipline requires a fine balance. The issue of representation could have major long-term implications for the armed forces of this country. I express the hope that our deliberations will be guided accordingly in a constructive manner.

Mr. Nealon

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until such time as the document entitled Permanent Defence Force — Representative Groups has been published generally and has been considered and debated by Dáil Éireann.”

The first thing which has to be said in all honesty is that it is good to finally see some Bill which will enable members of the Defence Forces to establish a representative association coming before Dáil Éireann. However inadequate, disappointing or defective that Bill is, at least it is a reluctant recognition by the Government — we have been saying this to Governments since 1987 — that something must be done but I regret to have to say that the Bill before us is not much more than mere recognition.

Most of the defence forces in Western Europe have their own independent representative associations. I learned this morning that the Dutch Defence Forces have had their independent representative association since 1898 — 92 years. Indeed, they have followed modern trends by coming together in a European organisation of military associations called EUROMIL. As I said at the outset it is good that the Government have at last recognised that our Defence Forces are entitled to move into the 20th century.

In the ordinary way I should pay tribute to the Government and the Minister for Defence for introducing this legislation — this is very much the done thing, especially in regard to a Bill which is wanted by everyone — but I am genuinely sorry I cannot do so in the case of this Bill, its content or, as must be said on this occasion, its total lack of content. The reason this Bill has been prepared was not due to any enlightened or progressive thinking on the part of this Government or their Fianna Fáil predecessors; it was forced on them through the rightful outrage at conditions within the forces and, most importantly of all, by the outrage and frustration at the lack of any change to bring these grievances to the attention of someone who would be delegated to listen to them and act. This frustration led to protests by the Army Spouses Association on the streets. Then there was the result at the ballot box during the general election, and later the establishment of PDFORRA.

It is only right on this occasion to give due recognition to the achievements of the Army Spouses Association. Without their well organised protests on the streets and at the ballot box we would not now have before us a Bill setting up a representative association for the Defence Forces. Neither would we have the Gleeson Committee on Pay — I understand they will report in June. I am confident their report will bring major improvements so far as pay is concerned. I regret the failure of the Minister, who estimated that there would be large improvements in pay, to introduce an interim improvement for members of the Defence Forces at the Christmas period. The Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89 ignored all the grievances and the logic of the case for the establishment of a representative association but acknowledged the message in the ballot box. It has to be accepted that their antennae are still very acute in that respect.

As a result of the outcome in the ballot box and the protests, the Gleeson Committee were set up and this Bill, inadequate as it is, has been introduced. Even now the response has been a very reluctant one. An excellent opportunity has been bungled. What could have been, to use the words of the Chief of Staff himself, an historic progression in the development of the Defence Forces is ending up in conflict, in acrimony, in confrontation and in protests outside Dáil Éireann. The Minister could have delivered this historic progression with the support of all sides of this House, with total accord within all ranks of the Defence Forces, had he carried out proper consultations and allowed common sense to prevail instead of being guided by a sense of obligation to outdated codes and practices or maybe just letting the military authorities or his Department do the thinking for him.

With a totally inadequate Defence (Amendment) Bill we are now heading into another unnecessary debacle akin to the rod licence debacle. When the Minister asked the Chief of Staff to examine the question of representative associations there was naturally the expectation that there would be meaningful consultation throughout the ranks of the Defence Forces. Why should there not be consultations? After all, what were to be set up were associations representing members of the Defence Forces, dealing with their needs and their conditions. These were to be their organisations, not those of the Department or the General Command. Why then should they not be consulted? The Minister again said here that he has carried out consultations, He keeps repeating that he has carried out consultations. Yet, we can ascertain from within the Defence Forces that no meaningful consultations have been carried out. I refer the Minister to a document from the Office of the Curragh Command referred to in the Irish Independent of 7 March:

The success or failure of a proposed representative association really rests with one question — Is it fair? It is suggested that any proposed structure which is not seen to be fair by the general body will not work. It is suggested by the officer body of this command that any structure which is imposed upon it without any consultation or communication will not be fair and will not work.

Because of the lack of communication on this issue there is a belief in the Curragh Command that the type of representative structure envisaged by the General Staff is NOT remotely similar to that proposed in this paper. If this is so, then the Barrack Representatives of this command believe that the general officer body and the general staff will be in a conflict which could result in the formation of an association along similar lines to that organised by other ranks.

This, we believe, is not the type of confrontational situation the Defence Forces requires at any time. Therefore, it is in all our interests that this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is suggested therefore that the proposals outlined in this paper should form the basis of consultation and communication between the Chief of Staff's Study Group and the representatives of the general officer body.

That is, of course, for the Curragh Command, but I understand there are papers along the same lines available within other commands. The Minister keeps telling us that he has had consultations but we are getting all the evidence that there have been no meaningful consultations——

Mr. Lenihan

The real consultations have yet to take place.

Mr. Nealon

This is at the root of the whole trouble, that the Minister did not have his consultations before he produced this Bill, before he produced these detailed regulations, before he gave his ideas of how meetings should be held and how elections should be held.

Mr. Lenihan

There are no detailed regulations.

Mr. Nealon

Already a new body has been set up representing the enlisted men. I have read its constitution very carefully and it seems to be well within the law as far as the constitution and the Defence Forces regulations are concerned. It represents somewhere in the region of 8,000 enlisted men. The Minister says dramatically across the floor of this House the he will give them 95 per cent of what they are looking for, that with conciliation and arbitration he will give them even more. Why then did he find it impossible to consult them? Why did he not carry on the necessary consultations which would have avoided all the confrontation we have now? He can still do that. All that is needed is a little imagination and a bit of common sense.

There is no need to lose face on this matter. There are various structures there. The pay advisory group worked very well. The Minister could use some mechanism whereby these consultations could take place before this measure becomes law. The Minister should have done that. He has missed his opportunity, but he can still retrieve the situation to some extent with a bit of commonsense. Instead, he seems hell-bent on confrontation when nothing of that sort is needed. The Minister seems to be following very much in the footsteps of the Minister for the Marine in relation to the rod licence.

Mr. McCormack

That was fixed up.

Mr. Nealon

Yes, after totally unnecessary confrontation that lasted a year when everyone wanted to do it at the very beginning.

The Bill the Minister has given us abjectly fails to deal with the principal issues. There is in this Bill but one positive section, section 2 which will enable the Minister, by regulation, to provide for the establishment of representative associations for the Defence Force members. The rest of the Bill states what the associations cannot do and nothing at all about what they can do. All of this is to be decided by the Minister by regulation.

Mr. Lenihan

By election and consultation and then by regulation.

Mr. Nealon

The reason the Minister and other Deputies are interrupting is that they do not want to hear what I have to say because they know they have created chaos in a situation where there should be total agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest to you that you do not look invitingly or encouragingly at the Minister to answer questions. If Deputy Nealon addresses the Chair he can be guaranteed that the Chair will not tolerate any interruption from that side of the House.

Mr. Dukes

They could do on that side with a little bit of consultation between the Minister and Deputy Ahern.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Nealon is not to be interrupted. If he addresses the Chair, the Chair will guarantee him that he will not be interrupted.

Mr. Nealon

I thank you very much for that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I would have thought that with such experienced parliamentarians, it would be unnecessary to have that intervention by you.

What we are being asked to do is to pass a Bill with nothing in it outlining its scope or impact. The Bill just says the associations to be set up by regulations will deal with remuneration and such other matters, if any, as the Minister may specify. I notice also that this is far more curtailed in the Bill than was the Minister's statement where he specified quite a number of things; when it comes to dealing with such in the Bill it is stated that it will deal with remuneration and such other matters, if any, as the Minister may specify. There is nothing here about the basic issues of how the members are to be elected, about the independence of the organisation, about access to the media, about how meetings are to be held. All of this is to be done by Ministerial regulation. We will not be able to discuss these or debate them here in the House or put down amendments. If we challenge them the Minister will be able to dragoon them through with a majority of the House. What the Minister is asking us to do is to sign a blank document and he will fill in the details later. What he has given us is an empty framework. I notice also that in the paragraph which says that the various regulations have to come before the House it is not the affirmative version, the version that would demand discussion here. We know we cannot get amendments in that procedure but it would at least be some advancement if we could have discussion on a particular item.

Mr. Lenihan

Put down an amendment and we will have a look at it.

Mr. Nealon

I see the Minister is already backing away from the highhanded attitude he adopted earlier on as far as the elections were concerned. Now he is asking us to put down an amendment and he will have a look at it. Why not have it in a proper state to begin with?

When the legislation is passed we will have a situation where members of the Defence Forces will be asked to vote to form the various tiers of associations but they will not know exactly what those tiers are to do until after they have voted. Suppose they do not like what the Minister has in his regulations——

Mr. Lenihan

They will make regulations.

Mr. Nealon

Suppose they do not like what the Minister dictates to them. Suppose it is unacceptable to one, two or three organisations or associations, what is going to happen? There will be very little they can do about it at that stage. They have gone through the election process, they have been locked into that framework, and they find themselves in a legal position they can do very little about.

Mr. Lenihan

That has been done to help them.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Nealon

There is, of course, another document very relevant to all this — the Permanent Defence Force Representative Groups. This sets out the Government's proposals for the various representative groups in all sections or all ranks. It is a very detailed document in every respect. I understand it has been circulated to each member of the Defence Forces and was made available to spokespersons of the various parties — I got mine this morning. There are a limited number of copies available in the Library but it has not been published generally. It is not available yet to all Members unless they go to the Library for it. These are the regulations. This is what it is all about.

Mr. Lenihan

They are not regulations.

Mr. Nealon

This debate started without these details being available except to a limited number of persons. In the document, the letter to each member of the Permanent Defence Forces from the Chief of Staff says that the first and most important step would be conducting the elections. Then he goes on to say that, once the elections are over, full consultations will take place with the elected representatives on all aspects, including the electoral process itself, the voting system. After the election has taken place, the most important, vital election of all, they can have consultations about the electoral system.

Mr. Lenihan

Did the Deputy listen to my speech one hour ago?

Mr. Nealon

I am getting to it now. The Minister has seen the mistake that has been made——

Mr. Lenihan

That is a military document.

Mr. Nealon

He is seeking to change it by providing an official of the franchise section of the Department of the Environment to supervise the elections and before they take place he will seek, by submissions from all interested parties, to determine a system of election which will find acceptance throughout the force. That already is a change, an acceptance that what the Minister was first proposing is defective. That is going to be the history of this Bill; section after section will be proved to be defective and the Minister will have to retreat and produce a decent, honest Bill that we can discuss and amend in the appropriate fashion for the well being of members of the Defence Forces whom this is intended to help. I am delighted that there is a bit of improvement there, but it is a bit late to have these consultations about the electoral system when the voting is over and the first elections have taken place. These are essentially the most important elections.

Incidentally on the voting system, the Minister might explain why he has opted for the single non-transferable vote in the Defence Forces as against PR which is enshrined in our Constitution and which the Irish public at large on two occasions refused to change. As far as the Defence Forces in particular are concerned, it might have been appropriate that PR be used.

Mr. Lenihan

The returning officer decides that.

Mr. Nealon

I would like to explain the system which is detailed in this document with an accompanying ballot paper where electors place an X opposite the names of the candidate or candidates of their choice up to the maximum of the number of candidates to be elected. I am not sure what version of the single, non-transferable vote that is if you put an X after many candidates. I think it is the one used at Fianna Fáil conventions. This can create major distortions within the electoral system where one group of people commanding a vote, say in excess of 60 per cent, can monopolise all the seats, and it does not give the same true vote that the PR system gives.

Mr. Lenihan

That is why I am bringing in a starting one——

Mr. Nealon

Of course, all these could have been sorted out if the Minister had taken the trouble to have consultations before the legislation and the rules were drawn up. The letter of the Chief of Staff is followed by an introduction by the Minister for Defence himself, concise I have to say and clear cut, but also very ominous in that it is a pointer to the restricted nature of the associations envisaged at this moment under this legislation, but which I think we will be changing as time goes on. He is putting a major question mark over the independence of these associations.

For instance, under the heading "Meetings" we are told by the Minister that there will be regular meetings of representatives in military installations to whatever extent is required. Does this mean meetings will not be permitted to take place outside military installations?

Mr. Lenihan

They will be permitted.

Mr. Nealon

I am afraid it is not as now envisaged because I have checked for fuller elaboration of the Minister's reference down the line, and it comes from the section dealing with the format and operation of the structure. Section 11 in this document headed "Meetings" states that there will be regular meetings of representatives in military installations by arrangement between the elected representatives and the relevant military authorities. Not only are they told where they will meet, but the meetings will be by arrangement with the relevant military authorities. What kind of independent structure is that? Who can have confidence if the representatives are so constrained as regards the place of the meeting, and if it has to be arranged between the military authorities and the representatives when these meetings take place? Is it now envisaged that the headquarters of the various associations will be in military installations? Would the associations decide on these headquarters themselves?

Mr. Lenihan

That is for discussion and consultation.

Mr. Nealon

What I am saying is in this document. These are the regulations we have now.

Mr. Lenihan

That is not a regulation.

Mr. Nealon

That is the thinking at this moment. We find another very ominous sign in the section dealing with the electoral process.

Mr. Lenihan

On a point of order, there is no regulation before the House and the Deputy is incorrectly describing the document — that is an Army discussion document.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is hardly a point of order.

Mr. Lenihan

It is not a regulation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will have his chance to reply in due course.

Mr. Nealon

The Minister is seeking to back away from what was obviously intended to be definite thinking as far as the military authorities are concerned. He now sees the difficulties that arise and he is trying to back away. Our intention is that throughout this debate he will have to back away much further because these sections are ominous as far as the independence of the associations is concerned.

We find another very ominous sign in the section dealing with the electoral process. To qualify to become a candidate a member must have a conduct rating of not less than good or its equivalent. I am not an authority on these ratings so I do not know exactly how good a good rating is or how bad, but if you have truly free elections, the much vaunted democratic process the Minister has been going on about across the floor of the House, then anyone good enough to be a serving member of the Defence Forces should be good enough to be a candidate and submit himself to the electoral process and the judgment of his colleagues.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Nealon

I am told that the conduct weighting can be changed very easily. This could in certain circumstances be used as a method of vetting who would go forward. The Minister may very well say in reply — and I will go along with him in this — that such things would be very unlikely to happen in the Defence Forces but even if they could not happen, he should countenance nothing in his legislation or his regulations that would leave the electoral system open to even the possibility of the suggestion of rigging.

Mr. Lenihan

I have said that.

Mr. Nealon

Something should be done about that. There is also the consideration, which the Minister has not adverted to, that conduct ratings are supposed to be confidential. Therefore, if a candidate is disqualified after appearing on a list, or if a likely candidate is mysteriously a non-runner, then confidentiality for that person as far as conduct is concerned is gone. As I said, if a member is good enough to be a serving member of the Defence Forces and he can gain sufficient support from his colleagues to represent them, the Minister should not seek to interfere. If, as he wants to claim, this election is to be free and democratic, we hope the new provisions he has introduced will ensure this beyond doubt.

The Bill proper has one positive section. The remainder are negative and will be more appropriate for dealing with on Committee Stage, but I do not think section 6 could possibly be left until Committee Stage, especially subsection (2) which provides that: "a person who is not subject to military law who endeavours to persuade or conspires with any other person to endeavour to persuade a member to join a trade union or other body (other than an association) aforesaid shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the penalties provided for a contravention of section 257 of the Principal Act". That is a monstrous provision in any Bill.

What about the trade unionist who genuinely feels that the members of the association would benefit by being part of some other organisation? Under this legislation he is forbidden to give expression to that view. The same would apply to a journalist or a Member of this House who would attempt to put this forward. It is a Draconian measure which I believe would not stand up constitutionally. It prevents everything except having bad thoughts about the issue.

The penalties are the same as those in the principal Defence Act, 1954. The penalties there are imposed for someone who wilfully obstructs an officer, or a man who wilfully induces any disease or infirmity into a member of a force or a man who provides them with a drug, substance or preparation which would make them incapable of performing their duties. The penalties are £100, which has not been changed despite inflation since 1954, or a term of imprisonment of six months or both. This section is extraordinarily objectionable. It obviously must be removed from the Bill by way of amendment. I believe it would not stand up constitutionally.

We should be thankful that the Minister's regulations — the whole Bill in this case, as at present envisaged — will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is very much a window-dressing exercise. The Minister has the majority to push them through. As the section is worded, we cannot have discussion or debate and we cannot have an amendment. It is a very mixed blessing. The regulations will be the entire substance deriving from this Bill.

The Chief of Staff has described this move to representative associations as an historic progression in the development of the Defence Forces. It should have been and it could have been. We know that the Government never wanted this development and that it was only wrung from them by the pressure of protest, the pressure of the ballot box and the knowledge that it would cost them dearly in future elections if nothing were done. Even with this background, they could still have seized the opportunity to make an historic progression with proper consultation, common sense and acceptance of the fact that our Defence Forces are like everyone else in the last decade of the 20th century. We should all have been participating in formulating that historic progression with resultant untold benefits to the morale of the Defence Forces.

I would still appeal to the Minister to have consultations. These people out there are not wild men. They are not people who seek to have a union card vote before they go to war. They are very reasonable people and there can be a coming together. There is no use in the Minister saying that consultation has taken place and that everything is all right when the street outside is lined with people and every Deputy has been approached over the weekend by representatives of the women's association. Obviously there is something wrong and the Minister knows it. Obviously he has not done the background work which is so necessary. I would appeal to him to have these consultations, to repair the damage which has been done and to ensure that what he brings before this House is in line with what he is saying on the radio.

Mr. Lenihan

What I said on the radio I said here.

Mr. Nealon

The Minister sounds reasonable but the legislation is a great disappointment to me and to everyone in the House. This could have been an historic progression but it is an empty framework which fails to address the main issues.

The regulations to be enacted need massive amendment. Already in the course of my address the Minister, who was responsible for the preparation of this Bill, has conceded in a number of important areas that amendments should be made. Therefore, he is conceding that what appeared originally should never have come before the legislators. I hope the Minister will be amenable to various amendments. In the meantime it is essential that this document be widely published, made available to everyone and debated in this House. We could then go into the finer points and find out exactly what the Minister means.

Mr. Lenihan

That document is not a regulation.

Mr. Nealon

He tells me that it is possible to hold meetings outside military installations but any ordinary man who understands English can see what the Minister is seeking. It is no use saying that this is a preliminary document. It is obviously what the Minister intended. These are his ideas. Why should he set up confrontation by putting in something which he will later amend? These are what the military authorities, the Department, the Minister and the Government intend. They were brought reluctantly to this and they are still reluctant about giving us a good Bill. We have our democratic duty in this very important matter for the Army. It can be enormously important in regard to morale, the future of the Defence Forces, the quality of the people attracted and the quality of the work they do for our democratic institutions. All these matters are tied into this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to have second thoughts. I hope that my amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading until this document has been debated here will be acceptable.

Mr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until such time as—

(a) the constitutionality of the measures proposed in the Bill shall have been established;

(b) the substance of the regulations proposed to be made by the Minister is made available to Dáil Éireann; and

(c) consultations have taken place on all relevant matters between the Minister and all interested parties to the Bill, including the democratically chosen Association currently representing members of the Defence Forces, the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association."

Given the starting point when the Minister took over, we have moved quite a distance down the road. We must acknowledge that. In view of the Minister's conciliatory approach and his replies in the House on numerous occasions. it is a pity that the much vaunted Bill has been introduced in the House in an atmosphere of conflict. We do not need conflict——

Mr. Lenihan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

Spouses are protesting outside the Dáil and other representative bodies are trying to make their voices heard. I hope it is clear, from the wording of this amendment, that the Labour Party intend to oppose this Bill in every possible way. We regard the Bill as not just undemocratic but as anti-democratic. It flies in the face of the letter and the spirit of our Constitution and places in danger people who have committed no wrong other than to seek to organise their colleagues in pursuance of the rights to which every other citizen is entitled.

We question the extraordinary haste with which the Bill has been introduced. We only got details of it this morning. The documents which were referred to earlier have been distributed right across the country and many members of the Defence Forces and TDs did not have an opportunity of reading them. The Bill is being presented to the House and to members of the Defence Forces as a fait accompli. It was circulated to the vast majority of the Members of the House as late as yesterday and we have had to rely on media coverage for details of the Minister's conclusions.

There has not been any real consultation with members of the Defence Forces or with the groups who have been campaigning so valiantly on their behalf for the last year. I understand that the Minister has not granted the National Army Spouses' Association the courtesy of a meeting. Instead he commenced disciplinary action against one of the members involved——

Mr. Lenihan

I did not. The Deputy should get his facts right. The Minister for Defence does not initiate proceedings of that kind.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should be very concerned lest Deputy Ryan refers to a matter which I consider to be sub judice. The Deputy adverted to a specific case and I would be grateful if he does not refer to it further.

Mr. McCartan

It should never have happened.

Mr. Ryan

I will not make any further reference to the case but it is regrettable that it should have happened in the first place. The Bill raises a whole series of fundamental questions because it is so badly thought out and prepared. Perhaps its worst feature is the position in which it places people who have been campaigning, perfectly democratically and legitimately, to establish an association which is now in place with over 8,000 signed up members. The association has a constitution which explicitly recognises 95 per cent of the aspects contained in the Minister's speech here this afternoon. Its officials are clearly people who have the interests of a professional army at heart. Having met some of them I can vouch for that. However, the effect of this Bill will be to outlaw the association and to make it illegal. People will not be able to seek membership of the association when this Bill is passed. Indeed, it will be a criminal offence for anyone to seek to recruit members to it. In other words, this Bill places democratically organised soldiers in exactly the same position as the provisional IRA, an illegal organisation. This is not just absurd, it is scandalous and I will develop that theme later.

The need for some sort of representative body for enlisted personnel was painfuly obvious to the whole country in the aftermath of the 1988 inter-Departmental Pay Review Committee. Enlisted personnel expected a meaningful response to their low pay, long hours and conditions of employment. In many cases take home pay was not as high as the deplorably low rate of unemployment benefit or the dole.

Various Ministers referred to increases of 19 per cent to 21 per cent. What have members of the Defence Forces received since then? Many of them are living in poverty and have to resort to moneylenders to pay their bills. This is why a representative body was needed but members of the Defence Forces could not set up such a body. The National Army Spouses' Association was then founded and they took up the fight on behalf of their men to campaign for improved pay, allowances and conditions for all members of the Defence Forces. They also set up a lawfully constituted representative body for members of the Permanent Defence Forces, one of the main planks in their objectives.

I honestly believe that the Government never forgot the involvement of NASA in the general election because such involvement helped to elect a Coalition Government. I also object to section 6 (2) which was referred to by Deputy Nealon. It is a highly undemocratic section because, not only does it not allow Members of the Dáil to put forward suggestions for improvements in the Defence Forces, but it technically prevents a member of the Defence Forces from recommending to his wife that there might be a better way of improving their lot. The Minister should look at that section again.

Members of the Defence Forces felt helpless when they saw their wives protesting, endeavouring to fight their cause. Who could blame them? Accordingly, they decided to set up their own association help to improve their conditions of employment and rates of pay so that they could look after themselves and their families.

There was also a reference to a PDFORRA. There is no legal barrier to the formation of the proposed association as Article 40.6.1º (ii) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations unless barred by law. Therefore, unless there is a clear, legal prohibition in the statute that right now exists, and will exist until this Bill is passed, I ask the Minister and Members of the House if these people were looking for something unreasonable. Would 8,000 people have joined the association if that was the case?

The whole aspect of representatives for the Defence Forces has been discussed at length in Europe and at the United Nations. A comment from the European Parliament at this stage would be relevant. This matter was discussed there in 1984 when it was stated that the basic goal must be to ensure that members of the armed forces enjoy fundamental rights, including the right to form associations. This is the main difference of opinion between the Minister and ourselves. The Minister is denying these people the opportunity to form an association.

Mr. Lenihan

I am giving it to them.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister thinks he is giving it to them but that is not so. These people do not want the Minister to give them this opportunity; they want to be involved in a process with him in bringing that about.

Mr. Lenihan

Correct.

Mr. Ryan

We will come to that later. The member states of the European Community consider that a soldier, as a citizen in uniform, is an integral member of the community. In principle, therefore, a member of the armed forces is also entitled to enjoy all fundamental rights. A soldier's task is to protect civil rights and liberties from external and internal threats. These men and women bear the responsibility for the defence of fundamental rights against external threats in the same way as members of the police forces are called upon to protect rights and liberties against internal threats. It seems inconsistent, therefore, that those who are responsible for protecting the community and its liberties should have some of these liberties withheld from them. Members of the Defence Forces would have greater motivation to defend the rights and liberties of a democratic society if they themselves possessed these rights. Most of the countries in the EC agree with that.

I want to refer to another aspect. A question has been put down in the European Parliament by the Socialist group for answer next Thursday — reference, H267/90; subject, Servicemen's Organisation, PDFORRA. On 12 April 1984 the European Parliament called for servicemen to be granted the right to establish, join and actively participate in professional associations. Servicemen's organisations are not bound under the Irish Constitution. The Irish Presidency should say whether the recently formed Irish servicemen's organisation, PDFORRA, belongs to the category of associations referred to by the European Parliament and what it will do to make sure that PDFORRA can operate freely and their members do not risk imprisonment or an inquiry simply because of their acts in connection with PDFORRA.

I regret very much that appeals have been made by Members of the Council, who approached the President's office, to withdraw this question. I am delighted to say it was not withdrawn and it will be dealt with next Thursday or Friday. There were ominous connotations in that movement in that regard. It was stated in the European Parliament in 1984 that member states within the Community have established representative organisations to look after the interests of enlisted personnel. It should also be said — and this is very important — that in their rules PDFORRA state that their association shall be of a consultative nature and shall at no time seek to interfere with the organisation, structure or command of the Defence Forces. This is very important and should reassure the Minister. Why have 8,000 members joined PDFORRA and why are they opposed to the Minister's proposals? In answer to a question last week the Minister doubted whether that number of people were in the organisation.

Mr. Lenihan

I do not know. Nobody knows.

Mr. Ryan

I can assure the Minister that that is the case. As I said earlier, this is an enabling Bill, enabling the Minister to take whatever powers are needed by regulation. The members want to be involved and want to know what they are voting for and what the regulations are. Given that there are no regulations with this Bill at the moment — that probably is not unusual — we can only refer in the first instance to the document "Permanent Defence Forces Representative Groups" which was issued to most members last Friday. The Minister said he will implement what he has put on record in the House this afternoon, but at the end of the day, this is unsatisfactory. We can only go by what is contained in the Bill and what is placed before this House by regulation.

If there is any way that I, as a public representative, can be of assistance in trying to bring about a coming together of the Government and the members of the Defence Forces I would be happy to do so. Basically what we are saying — and the Minister has acknowledged this — is that elections will take place in the next couple of weeks for PDFORRA. The Minister acknowledges a role for them in relation to consultation and the format of the elections. We are making progress in that regard but the breaking point at present is in relation to the regulations. There are aspects of the regulations which we can come back to later if we have time. It can be seen from the document that people are very concerned about the suitability of a candidate. They wonder why should they vote for some of the so-called regulations — the Minister says they are not regulations but they are all the people can go by.

These are some of the matters of concern. After the elections and before the vote the Minister should bring forward a mechanism where consultation can take place between the legally organised PDFORRA, which represents over 70 per cent of the Defence Forces, and the Government to see if we can bring about the type of powers that should be provided for in the Bill. I would ask the Minister to take some of those aspects on board.

To get back to the constitutionality aspect, I and my party are convinced that this Bill cannot pass the test of the Constitution. For instance, section 2 (4) of the Bill is in clear contradiction of Article 40.6.1º iii of the Constitution unless the Minister can prove to the satisfaction of this House that the association be referred to is in the public interest and the association already established is not. That section of the Bill makes it illegal for people to be members of the PDFORRA. If the 8,000 members of the association believe they have a constitutional right to belong to that association, the Minister should not deny them that right. What will he do if those 8,000 members refuse to resign from PDFORRA? I hope this does not arise. It would be in nobody's interest if there was a general boycott of the election process referred to in this Bill. It is incumbent on the Minister to move in the direction of consultation to prevent the possibilities of a boycott.

These questions highlight the ludicrous nature of the Bill. The Minister cannot court martial 8,000 members of the Army or put them in jail. He cannot cashier them out of the Army for exercising what they believe to be their constitutional rights. The Minister knows that, and indeed they know it.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy knows that, too.

Mr. Ryan

They know the Minister is trying to pass a law that is both unenforceable and undemocratic. I doubt if they will stand by and allow the Minister to railroad them into an association to which they do not want to belong.

Mr. Lenihan

It is their association and they will elect members to it.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister can ask the Army officers to give him the facts on the ground.

Mr. Lenihan

I am trying to protect Army personnel. Let us be honest about it, if they do not get that protection dozens of groups can be organised and there will be total chaos.

Mr. Ryan

No one is talking about chaos. We are referring to the two established bodies which will be set up under the Bill. In fact, there is little or no difference between the Minister and the PDFORRA. They want advice and a consultative process in the regulations.

Mr. Lenihan

I am trying to prevent the establishment of 20, 30 or 50 groups. In the Bill I am trying to protect the men's elected body.

Mr. Ryan

With all due respect to the Minister, there is no way that 20 organisations can be formed under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

Of course.

Mr. Ryan

Once the Bill is passed there cannot be 20 organisations so there is no use saying there will be 20 organisations.

Mr. Lenihan

There could be if the Deputy had his way.

Mr. Ryan

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not Committee Stage. I would prefer if the Deputy would direct his remarks through the Chair rather than direct to the Minister and we could avoid this cross-talk.

Mr. Ryan

My apologies, Sir, I was trying to be helpful to the Minister. With a certain bit of movement we could have two bodies and that could be established once and for all in this House.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Ryan

The serious issue of the constitutionality of the Bill has to be raised. In normal circumstances it would be possible for us to urge the President at this stage to examine the Bill closely and refer it to the Supreme Court for consideration of its constitutionality, but in this instance, the President — I think this is a very important point — is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and, therefore, is an interested party in regard to the legislation. While it does, of course, remain open to him to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court, expecting him to do so may place the President in an invidious position. That is why we believe the question of the constitutionality of the Bill must be argued out on the floor of this House and Members of the House must be satisfied in conscience that the Bill does not deprive individuals of well-established rights before we give it a Second Reading.

As I said earlier, this is enabling legislation which places restrictions on the rights of citizens to bear arms on behalf of the State while enabling the Minister to order his future relations with those same citizens by way of regulation on any matter he sees fit in such a way that the regulations need never be debated in the Dáil. We will not be shown the regulations before we pass the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

Because I want to have consultations and I do not want to impose them.

Mr. Ryan

That is a valid point. Perhaps on the basis of amendments we may be able to find an accommodation between what the Minister is seeking and what I, other TDs and the members of the forces are seeking.

As things stand, people perceive that they are being asked to buy a pig in the poke and to trust the Minister to behave in a democratic and consultative way. I am not saying for one moment that would not happen, but the fact still remains we are taking the Minister at his word. From reading the papers I know the Minister has other hopes and aspirations for higher office and if the people decide so, we will have another Minister coming in to take over and what has been said here this afternoon will be irrelevant.

Mr. Nealon

He will have to refer the Bill to the courts for constitutional assessment.

Mr. Ryan

There is nothing in the Bill that would enable us to place that level of trust in the Minister. There is a simple solution to the problem. If the Minister would agree to meet PDFORRA he would quickly find that its officers are genuinely committed to the development of good relations and a modern professional defence force. They are not troublemakers, interested in wrecking the Army or Navy. In fact, if I thought for one moment that there was a subversive element who were prepared to do that, I would not be standing up here on behalf of the Labour Party supporting them and trying to bring in better legislation by changing the Minister's mind on the matter. PDFORRA are comprised of professional Defence Forces personnel who are interested in the Defence Forces.

My strong advice to the Minister, if he is prepared to take it, is that before it is too late, he should meet with officers of PDFORRA and this could be done following their elections. At that stage we will know how many have joined that association and we could then give them the opportunity of discussing the regulations which will affect their lives and the lives of future members of the Defence Forces for years to come. It is not asking too much that the Minister should meet with them to see if there can be a coming together in that regard. I hope that can be facilitated. I do not want and I do not think anybody in the country, least of all the personnel of the Defence Forces, want a split in the Defence Forces which will not be in anybody's interest. The regulations will affect them for the rest of their working lives. The issues of who will process the regulations and whether there will be a complaints procedure need to be discussed in a process of consultation and I do not think it is unreasonable for these people to expect to have a say in that process.

I ask the Minister to take on board what we have been saying and, hopefully, on the basis of amendments put forward by the Labour Party and other parties we will be able to reach a solution. At the end of the debate I hope we will have adopted a unified approach not only in the interests of this House and the country but also of the people who work long hours in the Defence Forces. In all their interests it is incumbent on us to come together. One way or another at the end of the day it is in everybody's interest that the Minister acknowledges this body and meets them before we reach the next Stage.

Mr. McCartan

I rise on behalf of The Workers' Party to give our response to the legislation before the House, the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990, and to speak to our amendment which reads as follows:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann, believing the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990, to be seriously defective, in view of its failure to spell out detailed arrangements for the operation of the proposed representative bodies, declines to give a second reading to the Bill until such time as the Minister for Defence enters into discussions with representatives of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association, with a view of seeking agreement on democratic representative structures, which would be acceptable to all concerned.".

In drawing the attention of the House to the details of the amendment I say to the Minister in all sincerity that I hope by the end of this debate it will not be necessary to move this amendment. I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday to tease out some of my concerns about this legislation and for his genuine offer to seriously consider and, if I understood him correctly, take on board many of the points raised.

I persist with my attempt to address the amendment and those of the other parties in Opposition because, quite frankly, the Bill in its first printing is not a formidable or impressive document and the Minister in his speech moving the Bill does not seem to have taken on board some of the points which I understand he would be prepared to seriously address. I would also like to express our appreciation to the National Army Spouses Association who were first into this debate and who at a very early stage recognised that they would never be in a position to address in the long term to pay and conditions of their spouses in the Defence Forces unless an independent group or organisation was established to argue on a continual basis on behalf of members of the Defence Forces as circumstances changed. They also recognised from an early stage that over the decades politicians have failed the members of the Defence Forces in their duties as public representatives in this House and the Minister for Defence has failed to look after their basic conditions.

One of the basic propositions is that members of the Defence Forces who do exactly the same work, if not more demanding work, as other officers of the State in the area of security, namely, members of the Garda Síochána and prison officers, do not get equal treatment or recognition. It is sometimes suggested that others are better trained. I can say unequivocally today that there is no better trained group of men or women in the service of the State than those in the Defence Forces who have to undergo rigorous training an a daily basis and whose service to the State is unparalleled but they do not get the recognition they deserve in terms of conditions or levels of pay.

I have been led to understand in my meetings with representatives of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Assocation, whose existence I fully acknowledge and respect, that they could be subjected to discipline by the military authorities for meeting with me. I find it remarkable that people concerned about their everyday working and living conditions could as a result of meeting with me, a public representative elected by the people, be subjected to discipline. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the general headquarters of the Defence Forces, whom I had the honour to meet for the first time last Friday in the company of the other six members of The Workers' Party in this House. I received a full briefing from them and had the opportunity under the guidance of Commandant Duffy to visit Collins's Barracks and meet with the officers and men there. That meeting and the meeting at Army GHQ proved very helpful in speaking in this debate. I appreciate all that was done in alerting me to the demands, problems and issues facing the members of the Defence Forces.

We have made remarkable progress on the issue of representation within the Defence Forces during recent months. The issue of pay and conditions is now being looked at by the Gleeson Committee in exactly the same way as the issue of pay and conditions in the public service is being addressed and in exactly the same way as the issue of pay and remuneration and other entitlements of Members of this House is being looked at. The Gleeson Committee is acknowledged as a hardworking and conscientious body. It is only proper that it is the body to which we look for recommendations with regard to the pay and conditions of those in the Defence Forces.

I wish to put down a marker here. I want to see the deliberations of the Gleeson Committee completed at an early stage, its report published and acted upon. There is a grave fear and worry within the Defence Forces that it will be at least two years, if not longer, before action is taken on the recommendations of that committee. We have to acknowledge that PDFORRA are in existence. That, in itself, would be progress and a remarkable development in the history of the Defence Forces. Members of the Defence Forces have sought in an orderly, organised, law-abiding fashion to establish spokespersons and there is much in the history of the past 12 months to show why this has happened. I will come back to deal with this matter briefly later.

The Minister for Defence has formally acknowledged on behalf of the Government that members of the Defence Forces have the right, in principle, to representation. I do not think we can understate the importance and significance of that declaration. I fully acknowledge the contribution and role played by the Minister for Defence in this. We can all recall our unfortunate experience during the lifetime of the previous Government when the Minister for Defence simply repeated time and again that he did not consider it was consistent with the good order and discipline in the Defence Forces to establish a representative organisation. This was repeated as late as 7 December 1988, when the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Noonan, replied to a question from a member of The Workers' Party, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla. I quote from column 652, Volume 385 of the Official Report of 7 December 1988:

I am advised that the formation by members of the Defence Forces of associations or unions having a system of organisation and control separate from that of the Defence Forces, would be incompatible with the system of command essential in any defence or military force contemplated by Articles 13 and 15 of the Constitution and provided for in the Defence Acts and the regulations made under those Acts.

That view was repeated time and again. It is a view that was taken on by the Minister of State at the Department of Defence in the course of an Estimates debate on 20 July 1989. In the course of his speech, which was distributed in the House, the Minister of State said that, as the House would be aware, the question of forming an association in the Permanent Defence Forces had been raised. He said a number of non-commissioned officers and men had recently intimated that they were contemplating the formation of an association, with the objects of having the right of consultation in matters relating to pay and allowances and making recommendations for the improvement of conditions of other ranks. He said the association would also have a role in several other areas, including welfare and educational matters and professional standards.

The Minister of State, who is currently the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, went on to say that on any occasion on which this matter had previously been considered the official view had consistently been that the formation of an association such as that contemplated, having a system of organisation and control separate from the Defence Forces, would be incompatible with the system of command essential to our Defence Forces.

No more than seven or eight months ago the Minister of State at the Department of Defence was reiterating the official view as held consistently, the idea of representation being incompatible with the command system required. In that view he was not seriously challenged by any member of the Fine Gael Party. Deputy Connaughton in the same debate indicated that this was a matter of fundamental principle and concern and that there could not be progress too quickly on that matter.

I find it galling that when we are trying to address what is a most fundamental departure in the development of the Defence Forces Deputy Nealon should come in and upbraid the Government for what they are trying to do. He said that the Government were now doing what he, and the Fine Gael Party, had been telling them to do for the last number of years, and that is not true. The Deputy should read the record. Their position, and that of many former members of his party, including the former Minister for Defence, now MEP, Mr. Patrick Cooney, is that they consistently opposed any suggestion of independent representation for members of the Defence Forces. Even members of the Labour Party were somewhat confused on this issue.

Mr. Nealon

The Deputy is quoting me incorrectly. I would appreciate if he would quote me accurately, something he has failed to do.

Mr. Ryan

I should like to tell Deputy McCartan that I am not confused in my views.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will appreciate that if we are to have a situation where following a political statement made by a Deputy we are to have a succession of explanations we will be at this debate all day. Deputies know that this is a feature of the House and that ample opportunity is given to other contributors later to take issue with the statement made. We cannot be interrupting Deputy McCartan in the course of his contribution, which is perfectly in order. He is entitled to make that contribution without interruption.

Mr. McCartan

The view of the Labour Party was enunciated in the House in an exchange with the Minister for Defence on 7 December 1988. Deputy Bell suggested the following to the Minister:

Would the Minister agree that this (representation for members of the Defence Forces) could be done by assigning an officer in each command who would form a group within the Army and be responsible for making representations directly to the Minister, following consultation with the units and that this could be done by setting up a special personnel section? Would the Minister like to comment on this?

That was the thinking in the Labour Party at the time. The point I should like to make is that the thinking in Opposition was not clear on what should be done within the Defence Forces.

We are entering a debate in which we are saying that we are not satisfied with what is proposed by the Minister for Defence but at least it should not be suggested that the hands of all Members are entirely clean on this issue. We should recognise that we are dealing with an issue of major complexity that requires us to address the issue in a constructive way and not suggest that there is the scope for confrontation inside or outside the House, that there is scope for dissent and that there is the possibility that by the time we conclude this debate there will be no need for opposing voices. We want clear assurances from the Minister that issues being raised by us will be taken on board before the debate has ended.

I should like to make a number of points about what I consider to be major defects in the Bill. In doing so I want to refer to the document, Permanent Defence Force Representative Groups. I do not think the Minister would suggest that he would not stand over that document. In the post this morning I received from his office a copy of a document which is similar to it in every respect except layout. It was accompanied by a letter from the Minister's Private Secretary which stated that enclosed was a copy of a document issued recently by the Chief of Staff to all members of the Permanent Defence Forces which outlines the Government's proposals for the establishment of a representative structure. The view expressed in that correspondence that was circulated by the Chief of Staff is his general proposal for the establishment of structures in the context of the Bill.

It is essential for the establishment of any Defence Forces representative organisation that it be exterior to independent of the command structure of the Defence Forces. It is essential that there should be two representative associations, one of the non-commissioned officers and privates. They join the Defence Forces through a common system of enlistment and they are anxious to stay together and be represented by one structural representative body. The Minister is proposing there should be three but I am asking him to agree to the establishment of two bodies. That body must have an external and representative secretariat free and independent of the command structure of the Army. The Minister has said that he wants to establish representative associations in line with the Prison Officers Association and, more particularly, with the Garda Representative Association. The document I have referred to does not propose that type of representation. From the point of view of discussion the Minister should withdraw it, particularly if he intends to take on board the points we are raising.

For the representative body to work at all it must have a general secretary and a secretariat independent of the Defence Forces. There are limits laid down in the Bill in regard to associations and connections with other organisations. They are subject to the agreement of the Minister. The Garda Representative Association is affiliated to the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations. Why is it that the Defence Forces representative bodies will not be free to involve themselves with other groups in the context of their objectives? The constitution of PDFORRA states, in subparagraph (d), that the association recognise that they do not have any power to take industrial action. In that event, what is the fear if there is a majority feeling that they should be affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions? If there is a commitment to nonindustrial action why is there a worry about members of the representative body getting involved in the general stream of labour relations discussions and negotiations?

Provisions like section 2 (3) and others imposing penalties for canvassing and so on, suggest that there is a potential in the Defence Forces not to be loyal and law abiding. I resent that inference. One of the factors that impresses me most in any discussions with the spouses, members of the Defence Forces and representatives of the PDFORRA was their commitment and loyalty to the Chief of Staff and to their supreme commander under the Constitution. There is no question of any word of military dissension emanating. I will illustrate that later, with some examples.

In every debate in this House the Minister and the Minister of State acknowledged that there is an undying loyalty amongst the Defence Forces. This point was made to me by Commanding Officers in Collins Barracks and General Headquarters. They have absolute confidence in the loyalty of their men. That being so, why do we have to introduce penal legislation which is attempting to outlaw PDFORRA and to suggest that any involvement with outside organisations might not be contemplated or allowed? Why should not our Defence Forces representatives once established, affilitate to EUROMIL, the European Organisation established under the Council of Europe? That would not represent sedition in any shape or form.

Under section 2 (4) concern was expressed about joining other bodies or trade unions. Why can those members of the Defence Forces who are lawyers not maintain membership of the law society? Why should a tradesman not be able to maintain his membership of a skilled trade organisation for when he might ultimately leave the Defence Forces? This subsection is utterly unnecessary.

The real purpose of section 3 is to put down the PDFORRA. Unless we get a definite assurance from the Minister, there will be a great suspicion that that is what this entire Bill is about. If under these structures we do not allow for a full-time independent secretariat, what is to stop a commanding officer from ordering a person involved in important work on to active service, frustrating all efforts of the representative association along the way? The command to active service would override any other consideration and the work of the representative association would be set at nought.

I resent the provision in section 6 which would affect Members of the House like myself who make an active interest in matters concerning the Defence Forces and their representation. That section should not be in this Bill.

The provision for laying regulations before the House under section 7 is a remarkable proposition. The Minister wants us to give him enabling powers to make proposals without us having the opportunity to debate them in the House. The Minister has circulated his outline proposals but that is not good enough. If regulations are to be introduced they must come before the House and require the assent of the Dáil before they become law. This Bill will not be supported on Second Stage by any Member of the Opposition unless we can expect to debate at length at an early date the minutiae of what the Minister proposes from the development and establishment of the Defence Forces representative organisations.

The regulations circulated seem to be the Minister's current ideas as per his covering letter. There is no objection to the basic idea about representation except that we demand that the NCOs' and privates' structures be amalgamated and that the two years' service limitation be looked at. Also the good conduct rating must be reviewed because it is stitch up an effective representative of the soldiers who is facing up to pressure from above on issues affecting day-to-day business. A commanding officer could put in a report saying that he had not had a snappy response to a demand.

Mr. Lenihan

I interrupt just to say that those are typical matters for consultation with elected representatives. Those are matters which will automatically be taken up with the representative.

Mr. McCartan

I agree with the Minister and I am only commenting on it to put it on the record. This document and the covering letter from the Minister's office seems to outline the Government's proposals for the establishment of a representative structure. I am happy, on the basis that they are a framework for discussion and once we have a clear understanding that we can come back here to debate the proposals after consultations with the representatives of the soldiers in due course.

Mr. Lenihan

I take that point.

Mr. McCartan

In this debate we must address the existence of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association because they are of pivotal importance in this whole debate. To date the Minister has not openly acknowledged their existence and the need to consult with them. I will outline some of the facts as to why they are in existence and have a pivotal role to play and I hope the Minister will recognise the need to meet and talk with them. I put this proposition to the Minister no later than last Thursday and the response at the press conference on Friday seemed to indicate a lack of understanding about what is happening.

In July of last year the Minister of State replying to the debate here on the Estimates indicated that there was no shift in Government policy. Because Members like myself had been unequivocal in saying that there was nothing in law or in the Constitution to prohibit the establishment of a Defence Forces representative organisation, the message went back to the soldiers, who consulted with solicitors and got legal opinion indicating that in law and under the Constitution there was nothing to prevent the establishment of a representative association. I represented that view first in this House in August 1988 and I have repeated it since then. I conveyed that view to the spouses when I spoke at some of their meetings around the country, including in Mullingar on one occasion. I asked the spouses to put that proposition to the soldiers — to set up their own representative association because there was nothing in law to stop them from doing so. That right was acknowledged in the research documents of the European Parliament in 1984 when they reported on the present situation. They said it appeared that the non-existence of a representative body in Ireland was based on military tradition and discipline and there was no reason for it in law.

Having got that opinion the Minister's office — I do not know if the Minister saw these letters — received correspondence from both the legal representatives and members of PDFORRA asking for the Minister's response on whether he had agreed they could progress and establish such an organisation. They wrote to the Minister's office on eight or nine occasions — I am not sure exactly how many times they wrote — but they never received a response from that office whether they could establish such an organisation. They received acknowledgments which said that the matter was a technically complex one and was being looked at. They have not received a full acknowledgment to date.

Perhaps this is superfluous now because of the events which have occurred in the meantime. These events include the setting up of the Gleeson Committee to look at the pay and conditions of the Defence Forces and the establishment of a study group within the Defence Forces to look at representative structures. That study group which was comprised entirely of senior officers visited other countries to look at their organisations. They visited Italy where there is a constitutional ban on the establishment of representative associations. What was the point in visiting that country? They went to Denmark, which is the other extreme, where radical structures are in existence for the independent representation of soldiers in regard to pay, conditions and other matters. No enlisted men were involved in the delegations who visited these countries and they never spoke to one enlisted member of the Danish Defence Forces. The study group had some consultation with someone in GHQ in regard to the problems which were likely to arise and how they could deal with them. There are established representative associations within the Danish structure but the study group never met with any member or group from those associations to discuss their ideas. That study group are an irrelevant structure so far as enlisted men are concerned. When I talk about "enlisted" I am talking about NCO members.

On the other hand under the Gleeson Committee three working groups were established at each rank level. When the delegation from the NCO group met the Gleeson Committee on 14 September they were accompanied by a commanding officer from the planning and research section. When Mr. Gleeson, the chairman of the committee, invited submissions from the group on representative structures, because he correctly believes that pay and conditions are an integral part of the representative structures issue and he cannot divorce one from the other, there was an immediate interjection from the commanding officer present, who said that that was not a matter for the delegation but for the study group who were already established. However, Mr. Gleeson persisted and said he would like to hear the views of the people on the ground. That being so, the delegation withdrew. As a result of the persistence of the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Gleeson, Senior Counsel, the planning and research section of HQ were obliged to sit down with the various representative groups and look at the question of representation.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the consultation referred to——

Mr. McCartan

They were forced into it. The NCO group then sought the assistance of the Judge Advocate and other personnel attached to the planning and research unit. They wanted advice on what it was possible to suggest while at the same time keeping within the laws and regulations of the Defence Forces. They got no help whatsoever from those quarters. Because they received no response the NCO group went ahead and prepared their submission for the Gleeson Committee and presented it as best they could. That submission was returned to the committee on 14 November 1989.

As he acknowledged in his speech, the Minister met three of the groups from each of the ranks who had made submissions to the Gleeson Committee, on 14 December 1989. I am sure the Minister recalls that he thanked them for the work they had done and said he had read the PDFORRA constitution, was happy with it and disagreed with very little of it. He indicated that he would expect these three representative groups — one for the privates, one for the NCO's and one for the officers commanding — each of which comprised six persons, to stay in existence and act as consultative groups in regard to the question of representation, which was being actively looked at by his Department. The Minister indicated that if there were any difficulties his office would always be available.

Arising from that meeting the NCO group, who had previously been to the Gleeson Committee and who are now being kept in place as a consultative group on the representative structures, sought a meeting on 15 December with the study group who were looking at this issue on behalf of the general officers commanding. They put their request for a meeting with the study group through the co-ordinating officer in the research and development section. That request was passed on but there was no response. The study group were not prepared to meet them at that stage. Because they had received no response after three weeks the NCO group contacted the Minister's office and asked to meet with him. They were upbraided for having had the audacity to contact the Minister's office directly and were referred back summarily to meet with the study group. They were told that that was their business.

The next event occurred in or around 5 January 1990 when a document entitled "Briefing Notes" was circulated in vague terms by the general office commanding staff. This document dealt in general and brief terms with the ideas which were percolating in regard to what body might be established and considered by the Department. This document was circulated and prepared by the general offices staff without consultation with the study group who had been established by the Minister or any ordinary member of the Defence Forces, the privates and NCOs. The NCO group responded by asking for the document to be withdrawn. On 8 January, three days later, they were eventually invited by the study group to meet and discuss their ideas. They were told by the study group that the first they had seen of this document was on the morning of 8 January 1990, the morning they met with the NCO delegation. It appeared to the PDFORRA people that something was afoot at general office commanding level and they were having no regard to what was going on at the study group or PDFORRA level.

When they met with the study group they were told that the study group's only function then was to elicit the response of the NCOs and others to the "Briefing Notes" document and nothing else was envisaged. The NCO group withdrew and said there was nothing they could do about it because that meeting was completely at variance with what they understood from their meeting with the Minister on 14 December would be the function of the meeting. The NCO representative group who were present took the document away and said they would consult with their members. They did this and when they met at the end of January with the study group they indicated there was universal rejection of the principles and ideas contained in the "Briefing Notes" document. That is where the matter has stood since then.

I have outlined these facts at some length to the Minister in order to show that while there was a declaration that there would be consultation, the clear practice over the past nine months has been that the general offices staff commanding have gone about their own business and paid little or no regard to any consultation, discussion or involvement of the other ranks in the deliberations. That is why this document was produced and even today the other ranks say they have not been consulted or involved even though they were assured they would be. For those reasons, and no other, PDFORRA set a pace in establishing their own organisation with their members. Perhaps at that stage they might have been in a position to demand the right to be consulted and involved.

There are some other facts I would like to put on record on behalf of these people. I have met them. I am absolutely convinced that they represent over 8,000 members of the current other ranks. The figures stand at 84 per cent of the Naval members; 92 per cent of the Air Corps; 94 per cent of the Southern Command; equal figures in the Western Command; 75 per cent and rising in the Eastern Command and between 80 and 85 per cent of the Curragh Command already listed having signed forms of appointment. They propose to proceed with their elections by ballot which will be circulated on 30 March next and they will be counted on Easter Saturday, 14 April.

Their message to me leaving their meeting last Saturday was that they are simply doing this to get involved. What they are asking for is active consultation and negotiation with the Minister in regard to the progress of the proposals the Minister has now put before the House. With that consultation involving direct negotiation — because they have been denied it to date — the Minister will get a workable formula which he can present to this House in time in regulation form. If the Minister can give us those assurances The Workers' Party will not press this amendment. We will await the outcome of the deliberations and negotiations; we will await what we believe will be the culmination of this historic moment in the development of democracy within the Defence Forces in the form of regulations. I urge the Minister, with all the strength I have, to meet those men, to negotiate and consult and to come back with regulations that everyone in the Defence Forces want.

Professor Hillery

I welcome this legislation which provides for the setting up of the first representative associations for the members of the Defence Forces in the country. The Bill has not come out of the blue. It follows an initiative taken by the Government last July and since then we have known that these proposals were on the way.

The representative groups will be established on the basis of elections by secret ballot supervised by an election agent who is expert in these matters. I welcome the Bill which is a genuinely new departure reflecting fresh thinking in the area of representation in the armed forces. Whatever earlier speakers have said, nobody can really doubt the bona fides of the Minister. I therefore support him in this initiative and see the Bill as a wholesome response to the need and the request for a representative structure in the Defence Forces.

The provisions in the Bill are very similar to the arrangements already prevailing in the case of the Garda Síochána. The Bill before us is a compromise in that the Minister has to steer a middle course and hold centre stage between, on the one hand, permitting a clear voice on remuneration and other matters while at the same time ensuring that proper controls are maintained in the operational and command areas of the Defence Forces so that they can carry out their duties properly.

Listening to earlier speakers, I feel there is some confusion. The Minister has intervened from time to time to say that the Bill is intended to provide the necessary framework, the first step not alone to provide protection for the Government but especially for the members of the Defence Forces. Following this legislative framework we will have secret ballots and genuine participation and discussion on the regulations, on the shape of which the Defence Forces themselves will have a major say.

The Defence Forces differ from other sections of the workforce. Article 40.6.1º (i) of the Constitution provides for the rights of the citizens to form associations and unions. It is useful I suppose, as Deputy McCartan has done, to look at international experience. It is a fact in that context that most international conventions recognise the entitlement of a State to exclude certain categories of workers from the general freedom of association. For example, although the Freedom of Association and Protection of right to Organise Convention of the ILO, guarantees association for workers and employers without distinction, nevertheless, it allows States to exclude the armed forces and the police. In Ireland, for example, the Garda are not free to join trade unions of their choice. While the Garda have associations, and effective ones at that, they are not allowed to affiliate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Similar circumstances prevail in Britain.

As the Minister said, the European experience is a mixed one. The Council of Europe shows that the number of member states where the military have the right to form and join trade unions equals the number of member states where there is no such right. Drawing again on the international scene, the International Labour Conference Convention No. 98, which is concerned with the application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively, states "The extent to which the guarantee provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations", in other words, it is left to the discretion of member states of the ILO.

Whatever about international experience, what we are addressing, shaping and designing here today are structures that suit Irish circumstances. We, as Members of the Oireachtas, have to take the requirements of national security very seriously. In this Bill the Minister is putting forward proposals which are suited to our circumstances. The Bill has been drawn up against the background of a large corpus of legislation in relation to the armed forces. We start from the premise that obedience to lawful order is of paramount importance. That is basic.

In the course of this debate I feel we should exercise the restraint that this Bill deserves. The constitutional right to form associations and unions is subject to public order and is not an unqualified right for anybody in the country. Co-operation between the armed forces and the Government is clearly important and therefore as Members of the Oireachtas we have to behave responsibly and not contribute in any way to fuelling confrontation. The Minister, by his personal disposition as well as in his capacity as Minister for Defence, has made it very clear that he wants a co-operative approach, as opposed to a confrontational one, to this Bill.

PDFORRA are seeking representative structures for the Permanent Defence Force. The Bill is a comprehensive response, I suggest, to their needs. On grounds of law, logic and practicality the initiative for representative structures of the Defence Forces properly rests with the Minister for Defence and the Government and not with an unregulated group. Indeed under Article 15.6.1º of the Constitution the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas; so we have a particular right in this context and that obviously gives rise to corresponding responsibilities. I suggest we have a responsibility to ensure that there will be no erosion of the essential integrity of the armed forces. It is, therefore, unacceptable if steps are taken in relation to representative structures in the Army that could pre-empt the decisions in the Oireachtas. That is our right, and that is our duty here.

The provisions in the Bill provide for the establishment, by secret ballot, of representative groups in the Defence Forces. This is a new, major, fundamental development. It provides the first step for a legal, formal channel for representation, that is, genuine participation as opposed to a talking shop for the Defence Forces. Put another way, the new machinery as envisaged in the Bill will provide the opportunity for members of the Defence Forces, including those in PDFORRA, to opt, by secret ballot, for participation in the arrangements leading to representative associations.

As the Minister outlined, the last thing he wants to do is to impose structures. What we are doing here today is contributing to a debate which is concerned with providing a legal framework which in turn will provide a forum for genuine participative arrangements in drawing up regulations. Structures are now being established under the Bill to accommodate the need for representation in the Defence Forces. What the Forces are seeking obviously are outlets to express their views and opinions, to have a say on pay and related matters. The proposed machinery, therefore, meets the needs of the Defence Forces. Not only that, it goes a long way further in that it provides for conciliation and arbitration machinery. This scheme will again be the subject of consultation before it is put in place.

I fail to see any conflict here. The Minister for Defence and the Defence Forces have this in common. Both want a system of effective representation for the Defence Forces and we here in the Oireachtas do not want to weaken this innovative proposal and affect it adversely at its birth. The experience of conciliation and arbitration schemes in the public service — here I want to draw on my professional experience in UCD in this field — is that they are seen to be fair, effective and highly regarded by the members. In other words, the record of the conciliation and arbitration schemes shows that these schemes enjoy a very large measure of confidence by their members and this confidence is reflected in several ways, not least by the very high membership — more than 80 per cent — of the associations who participate in these schemes in the public service.

The armed forces, I suggest, can take heart from the excellent experience elsewhere in the public service, especially in the parallel case of the Garda. The proposed conciliation and arbitration arrangements for the Defence Forces are very similar to those of the Garda Síochána. The experience of the gardaí shows that their schemes have stood the test of time. Indeed, the Garda representatives have been robust in dealing with issues on pay and related matters. This is no house union we are talking about here. Furthermore, the representatives in the public service associations in general have been very able people who show that they can fight their corner with the best.

Here in this Bill we are talking about the Defence Forces; able, intelligent, competent, resilient people who have proved their worth at home and often in difficult assignments abroad in the Congo, the Lebanon and so on. The representatives who will act as advocates for their members in these new associations envisaged in the Bill will be as able as anybody else to handle the issues facing their members. Indeed, the record of public service associations shows that not alone have they been effective in handling matters on a day-to-day basis, they have proved particularly resilient, stable and orderly in handling very difficult, and even crisis situations occasionally.

I make an appeal to the Defence Forces and say they should have no fears about their future in the proposed representative structures. The existing public service associations have an impressive record of achievement which underlines their members' participation in and commitment to the machinery that has been provided by law just as we are now doing here for this machinery. Equally, the same opportunities will exist under the proposed arrangements. As in the case of the Garda, certain conditions relate to the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Defence Forces. After all, our lives and the security of the State depend on the Army. It would not be logical to have exactly the same scope and range of negotiable issues for an Army as would apply in the case of a non-Army representation. Again, the experience of the Garda scheme which, like the Army, consists of a uniformed force, shows it is entirely possible, given the provisions of the conciliation and arbitration scheme proposed here for the Defence Forces, to have effective representation on a number of highly relevant matters like pay and other conditions.

I feel the Minister has produced a good scheme which provides for review and change in the light of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements. All things considered, I appeal for the support of the House for this enlightened legislative matter.

Mr. McCormack

First, I support the amendment of this Bill as proposed by our spokesman, Deputy Nealon, that Dáil Eireann declines to give the Bill a Second Reading until such time as the document entitled Permanent Defence Force Representative Groups has been published generally and has been considered and debated by Dáil Éireann.

I support the amendment not because we oppose the Bill, but because we believe enough discussion has not taken place on this Bill. The Minister has missed a great opportunity in the introduction of this legislation. Now is the time to give the Defence Forces a full say in the running of their own affairs. If the Minister had approached this in a different manner and had entered into proper consultations with the various people concerned and the people whose lives this Bill will affect, we might have had near unanimity on the Bill in this debate tonight.

The Bill before us is a panic reaction on the part of the Government and the Minister to the public awareness of the rights of the members of the Defence Forces. This was brought to light first by the formation of the Army Wives' Association and secondly by the issues they have highlighted. Let us consider first the formation of the Army Wives' Association. The wives of the members of our Defence Forces normally were like any other housewives. They minded their own business and stayed at home in the background worrying about the things that usually worry women in looking after their families and trying to make ends meet. I have met a number of them since their association was formed. They have come to present their case to me as they have done to other public representatives. I met them today outside the Dáil. They do not wish to be involved in this type of public agitation or campaign, but this was forced on them because of the circumstances of their husbands' position and the continued frustration at not being able to do anything to improve or highlight their position. No greater loyalty can any wife display than to go out on the streets in support of her husbands' claim because she believes in her right to do that. These wives believe their husbands have the right to meaningful consultation about their conditions of work and their remuneration. Similar loyalty is sometimes displayed by politicians' spouses so we know what it means.

I salute the Army wives on their great efforts and the progress they have made so far in their campaign. It is not easy for a quiet section of the public who are usually in the background to come out and take the lead in such a prominent and important matter as this and they deserve great credit. We can be certain we would not be here tonight debating this Bill in all its inadequacies but for the campaign of the Army Wives Association, particularly in their involvement in the last general election where they hit the Government where it hurt most, in the ballot box, by having candidates of their own in various constituencies. That had an effect on the returns to this Dáil. That was the ultimate step in their campaign to draw attention to the situation their husbands found themselves in.

One aim of the Army Wives Association was an association for members of the Defence Forces and they were outside the gates of Leinster House today protesting against and showing their dissatisfaction with this Bill. The Minister should ask himself the reason. I have asked myself the reason and I would say they do not intend to be deceived by this Bill. That is probably due partly to an event which occurred in their negotiations. They were deceived previously in one of their major objectives, their claim for parity in conditions and pay with the Garda and prison officers. Their campaign started in 1988 and the previous Fianna Fáil Government made great play of it at the time when they announced with great hype and fanfare a 12 per cent wage increase at Christmas 1988. That was simply a PR exercise to stall the public support for the Army Wives Association that was building up at that time with great momentum. Quite suddenly at an opportune time before Christmas the Government announced what was supposed to be a 12 per cent pay increase. This was a PR exercise by the Government but they flattered only to deceive. The 12 per cent turned out to be 4 per cent then and 4 per cent for the election in June 1989. We are still waiting for the other 4 per cent. That which appeared at first to be a concession to the campaign served only to raise the hopes of the people concerned that the campaign was having an effect. Those hopes were then dashed by an exercise which left the Army wives and members of the Defence Forces disappointed, suspicious and frustrated. It would not have been as bad if the Government had come clean at the time and said quite clearly that they were giving a 4 per cent rise rather than a 12 per cent one. Hopes would not have been built up. The increase of 12 per cent was announced with great fanfare. It did not deceive those people directly concerned but it deceived a large number of the general public who had been supporting the Army wives in their courageous stand. That move on the part of the Government is part of the reason the Army wives are outside the gates of Leinster House today. It is part of the reason that we as public representatives have been approached since the publication of the Bill and given an indication by these people that they do not want to buy a pig in a poke again. They might have taken the Minister and the Bill at face value but for the earlier letdown.

It is a pity that when the Minister was prepared to make this historic breakthrough by agreeing to set up an association, warts and all, he could not have consulted more widely. He could have consulted the people concerned and won the confidence of members of the Defence Forces and the Army wives. The association proposed in this Bill is to be set up without any consultation with enlisted personnel. That is a major fault in what the Minister is trying to achieve. I am afraid the Minister is leading his regiment from behind.

I would pose some questions to the Minister. If this Bill is passed, will the Army wives association be illegal or can they continue with their legitimate efforts to sort out various problems?

Mr. Lenihan

Of course. It has nothing to do with the Army Wives Association. They have an elected body of their own.

Mr. McCormack

That is why I asked the question.

Mr. Lenihan

I am accepting the spirit of the Deputy's question.

Mr. McCormack

I am very glad to know that. The Minister has conceded that some amendments will be made in the course of the Bill's progress but unless we can make a substantial number of amendments it will not be accepted by the Defence Forces because of the suspicious manner in which it has been introduced. That is regrettable because we could have done something very good.

Mr. Lenihan

Of course you could.

Mr. McCormack

It is a pity the Minister did not go through the format of consulting and talking to people instead of using a sledgehammer to break a nut. A great and historic opportunity has been lost due to the manner in which this Bill has been handled. All we can do now is try our best by tabling amendments to redress some of the very serious inadequacies in the Bill.

The denial of the right to form an association contravenes the UN Charter on Human rights and Article 40 of our own Constitution on the right to form and join associations. The Bill ignores the 1984 European Parliament resolution which called on all member states in peace time to allow armed forces to participate in representative associations.

Mr. Lenihan

That is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister may or may not be right in saying that is what the Bill is all about. It is extraordinary that it has taken from 1984 until now to get this Bill on the floor of the Dáil.

Mr. Lenihan

Since 1922.

Mr. McCartan

Who was Minister for Defence in 1984?

Mr. McCormack

I heard Deputy McCartan's contribution. I have been in this House since June 1989 and I will be responsible for my actions when in this House and for my contributions to any legislation. That is my responsibility as a Deputy. It is extraordinary that it has taken until now to get this Bill on the floor of the Dáil. I contend that it would not be here but for the very serious campaign by the Army wives and pressure of public opinion and also because the Army wives took the ultimate step of contesting marginal constituencies in the last general election. This brought the Government to their sense and they realised they had to face up to the problem and do something about it.

It is a pity we have not an adequate Bill before us. I have not yet gone through it but it is obvious that it is not satisfactory to the very people it is meant to serve. They would not be outside the gates of Leinster House today had it been otherwise. Deputy McCartan and the Minister must address themselves to this problem, as must the Government. Why are those people outside protesting about a Bill which the Minister claims is giving them what they want? They have contacted me and every other Deputy on the Opposition benches during the past few days because they are not satisfied with the Bill as presented. The Minister should have allowed consultation with the people directly concerned. I challenge him to say whether he consulted Army officers or Defence Force personnel in relation to this Bill.

Debate adjourned.