Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Lenihan, on Tuesday, 13 March 1990:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Debate resumed on 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 entitledPermanent Defence Force — Representative Groups has been published generally and has been considered and debated by Dáil Éireann”.

—(Deputy Nealon.)

Mr. Harte

Like other Deputies I welcome the opportunity provided by the Government to discuss a Bill which is probably a century too late. However, I must give some credit to the Minister for Defence for taking the bull by the horns and doing something about it. At this stage he must realise that the proposals he has in mind will not meet with the approval which would be expected of the Opposition benches or of the rank and file of the armed forces. I do not blame the soldiers or anybody in the Army for not taking the present Government at face value. If one were to refer to the infamous Fianna Fáil Manifesto of 1977, the Fianna Fáil Party said their objectives would be:

1. A new code for the administration of military law.

2. Establishment of a women's service corps.

I think they got around to that.

3. Introduction of a new and fairer system for promotion than that introduced by this Government.

They were referring to the Coalition Government of 1973-77.

4. A reduction in the age limits to a more realistic level.

5. Access to Army hospitals for retired servicemen requiring treatment.

6. A training scheme to prepare those due for discharge for outside employment, and further assistance by educational grants if required after discharge.

These were pious platitudes embodied in an election manifesto aimed at buying votes to get back into power and successfully, if I might say, persuading the military personnel to vote in large numbers for Fianna Fáil. The gift that Fianna Fáil have had since their inception was to be able to tell people what they were doing, make them believe it was for their good, get them to support them in the elections and then proceed to do nothing about it. If I had time I could go through the strata of society and point out different examples where Fianna Fáil succeeded in persuading people that this was what they stood for when in fact they were doing different things altogether.

I do not blame members in the Army for taking up an anti position on the proposals introduced by the Minister for Defence.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to share my time with Deputy McGrath.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Harte

A report in today's Irish Press says: “Lenihan's Bill Unlikely to End Army Discontent” and I will quote sections of the article:

But with vocal opposition to the Tánaiste's plans coming from ordinary soldiers it now looks as if the real fighting has just begun.

Surely this is a warning to the Minister for Defence who brought in this Bill to heal the wounds of the last few years where soldiers wives marched to fight for their rights. We are looking for consensus, and it is time the Minister looked to the Opposition benches and listened to the pleas from responsible Deputies of all parties to start the discussions now. If there is to be consultation, let us start in this House and let the elected representatives, including those in the Army whose wives come to clinics and to the homes of Opposition Deputies to outline their case. I will again quote from the article in the Irish Press:

... Mr. Lenihan, looks to be set on a collision course with the unofficial Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association".

That is a warning that he is on a collision course. I am a personal friend of the Minister for Defence. He and I were elected to this House on the same day and we have remained friends ever since. It is not out of acrimony that I say this because I have always liked the man, and I think that feeling has been reciprocated. I know the Minister for Defence will listen to real dialogue and on the strength of a lifetime in politics I am asking him to set up an all-party committee of 14 or 15 Members of the House to debate the matter because if it is to have the support of the armed forces — the soldiers, noncommissioned officers and the wives and families of everybody concerned — and if the goodwill on these benches is to be harnessed by the Minister for Defence, he has to reciprocate and listen to the pleadings from this side, because if he does not, as the Irish Press article says, “the battle has just begun”.

No one wants to go through what the politicians have listened to for the past two or three years from the wives and friends of young men in the Army. We all have friends and relations in the Army. The Minister should read the article on page eight of today's edition of the Irish Press which puts into proper context the views of Members of this House and of the families of Army personnel. There should not be a voice in the wilderness pleading with the Minister to get off his high horse though I acknowledge he is the first Minister to come into this House with real proposals. We should look for consensus in seeking the proper balance in an effort to meet all the arguments being fairly put forward both by those able to speak publicly and on behalf of those who do not have the facility to speak publicly. Those are fair and reasonable arguments and nothing short of what they are looking for is going to satisfy either them or Opposition Deputies.

It is not too late for the Minister to accept that his proposals fall far short of what the soldiers and their families require. Rather than make a political football out of this issue, as Deputy Power has said, we should look at the matter sensibly and ask the Minister to set up an all-party committee who would report before the end of May and consider all the fair arguments being put forward by those who know best. I do not claim to have a monopoly on good ideas and with respect, I do not think any other Member in this House has either. The Minister has a challenge on his hands but if he wants to go down the road of consensus he will be pushing an open door so far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned and given the views expressed by them, an open door so far as The Workers' Party and the Labour Party are concerned too.

Having made those few remarks I will now hand over to Deputy McGrath but before I sit down I would like the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, convey to the Minister my request that he should consider setting up an all-party committee. I think everyone realises that this is the way forward.

Mr. McGrath

At the outset I thank my colleague, Deputy Harte, for sharing his time with me. I wish to congratulate the Minister for Defence on taking the initiative and bringing forward this Bill. Even though this is a move in the right direction I am disappointed with the Bill, given the recent statements of the Minister. We are being asked today to support and pass legislation without knowing its scope, implications and impact on the men whom it is supposed to help. The Minister in this Bill and in the document issued to members of the Defence Forces is asking them to elect representatives to work on their behalf in an unknown and vague framework. This is disappointing given that we are all aware that the Members of the Defence Forces have been facing difficulties for a long time. It also appears that this Bill has been hastily prepared and brought before the House in an effort to rush it through.

A representative body is badly needed to work on behalf of the members of the Defence Forces but this proposed legislation will not provide the structure for such a body or provide for the freedom of expression or the framework to bring about much needed reform. I consider some sections of the Bill to be extreme and repressive. Section 6 (2) would make it illegal for non-military personnel to encourage or invite a soldier to join a trade union or a representative body other than the official group proposed by the Minister. I find this most objectionable. It would appear that the members of NASA who have attended the House both yesterday and today would no longer be in a position to support and encourage their husbands to look for fair play, decent wages, and conditions and the chance to support their families. Is this not the type of repressive legislation that we would associate with other parts of the world and which reminds us of the big brother syndrome or of the KGB who seem to be falling out of favour in the eastern part of the world? I call on the Minister to take another look at that section and in the interest of family harmony and common sense either to withdraw it or amend it.

On Friday last the Minister issued a document to all members of the Defence Forces setting out how elections should take place to elect representatives and what the functions and responsibilities of those elected representatives should be. Some of these guidelines are, indeed, questionable and offend the very nature of democracy and representation. One of the conditions to be fulfilled before a person can become a candidate in an election is that their conduct rating must be not less than good. I wonder how many Senators and Deputies would have found their names on a ballot paper if these same standards were applied to elections for the Oireachtas. Recent revelations add further to the list of notables who would never have even reached the starting line if these standards were applied across the board. Surely regulations such as these reflect mistrust of our Defence Forces and of the men who unselfishly and regularly put their lives at risk on our behalf. Indeed, today in my own constituency of Longford-Westmeath members of the Defence Forces were out searching for arms and explosives. These are the men we are afraid to trust to elect their own representatives. We can be justly proud of the service given by our Defence Forces, be it in patrolling the Border, acting as a back-up to the gardaí on their many hazardous operations or, indeed, the many ceremonial duties they perform.

Our troops have served abroad and have done so with distinction. Indeed, they are the envy of forces all over the world. However, the Minister is doubting the abilities of these very same men to choose wisely their own representatives. Does the Minister question their ability to choose the men they want to represent them or is it the case that he questions their ability to choose the men he might want to represent them?

The Minister suggests that there should be a single non-transferable vote. Why is it that he is proposing to introduce this system of voting which is a major departure from the normal and traditional system of voting in Ireland? Again, is there an element of doubt that our Defence Forces will not elect the right candidate and does this not represent mistrust of our Defence Forces and a backward step in our democratic system? I ask the Minister to urgently review this section and make the necessary alterations.

A further requirement the Minister suggests of the representative body is that all meetings must be held within the particular camp or barracks. I cannot understand the logic of that regulation. Is it that the Minister feels that he must be able to control where and when the meetings take place or is there some more sinister motive? I am a trade union member, a member of the INTO, and I am aware that one of the regulations in our union is that meetings must not take place in the workplace. Yet, if the new representative body is established all meetings must take place within the confines of an Army barracks.

The Minister further suggests that press releases and press statements from a representative body can only be issued from headquarters. I suggest that the Minister is not allowing the representative body freedom and trusting them to behave in a responsible manner. If a body is to be muzzled in this fashion then I ask the Minister what will their function be and to what extent will they represent the men who day after day, week after week, carry out their duties in a professional manner but, unfortunately, do not receive the pay and allowances worthy of their role.

The Minister suggested in his document that subscriptions may be collected from the members of the Defence Forces. However, he did not indicate how this money would be used and for what purpose it should be spent. I suggest that if a representative body is to function in a worth-while manner they require expertise from outside to negotiate conditions, pay claims and so on. There does not appear to be any facility in the Bill to take account of that. Furthermore, if all meetings are to take place within the confines of an Army barracks or unit how will civilian personnel, the paid employees of this organisation, gain access? The Minister has made an error and I should like to ask him to redress it.

In recent media statements the Minister said that PDFORRA were a self-imposed group and were not representative of the Defence Forces. I suggest that even though elections have not yet taken place the PDFORRA group have been authorised by an excess of 8,000 soldiers to act on their behalf, to arrange for democratic elections to take place and to arrange to establish a representative body. Surely a mandate of that proportion does not mean that the soldiers are represented by a self-imposed group.

I call on the Minister to meet the PDFORRA representatives now to discuss the problems. I appeal to him not to wait until the Bill has been pushed through the Dáil. He should not wait until we have a polarisation of positions and a confrontation developing. I ask the Minister to move now before it is too late and to demonstrate his sincerity in finding a just and equitable solution to this difficulty. Only recently I heard the Minister calling on Unionists in Northern Ireland to enter into dialogue to bring about a lasting peace there. I should like to ask the Minister to show his faith in dialogue by immediately arranging to meet with the PDFORRA group either officially or unofficially or, perhaps, through a mediator. The important thing is that he should set up a forum for discussion to bring about an amicable solution to the formation of a representative body within the Defence Forces.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before I call on Deputy Stagg I should like to state that I had hoped at some stage to call on one member of the Independent group, Deputy Foxe, and perhaps Deputy Stagg would consider the position of that Deputy who has been in the Chamber for some time.

Mr. Stagg

With the agreement of the House, I propose to share my time with Deputy Foxe. I should like to preface my remarks by paying tribute to the Permanent Defence Forces who have supported the civil authority faithfully since their foundation. I should like to congratulate them on their peace-keeping role at an international level. I would like to see their role expanded into the social area and that there would be a defensive rather than an offensive policy behind the formation of the Defence Forces.

While I welcome this enabling legislation I regret that the Minister did not grasp the nettle and deal with all the problems concerning the Defence Forces. I regret the restrictiveness of the provisions of the Bill. However I should like to contrast the provisions in the Bill with the position of the Minister's predecessor who, by his repeated statements that no such body was needed, desirable or allowable and by his stone-walling tactics, permitted the morale in the Army to drop to its lowest ebb ever.

The Bill must be viewed in conjunction with the Government's proposals, available in the Library, to produce regulations under the provisions of the Bill. Those too will add up to an unacceptable, restrictive and impotent structure. If the proposals are implemented we will have an inhouse organisation, a tame pet of the gurus of the Department whose teeth have been extracted, who will be under the thumb of the gurus in the Department. This reminds me of the invitation from the spider to the fly to come into his parlour.

The demand of the members of the Defence Forces is an unstoppable one and the Minister, and the Government, would be foolish to attempt to stop it. They want a democratic representative association with teeth that will be an effective voice for the serving soldiers. Nothing short of that will be acceptable.

I should like to reflect on the history of what gave rise to this demand, and the Coalition Government can take no credit for the concessions they are now forced to make. A previous Fianna Fáil Minister blankly refused to contemplate the establishment of such an association. He made false promises prior to the last election of substantial pay increases for the members of the Defence Forces in an attempt to diffuse the situation. Those pay increases were not granted. As a result of the poor pay, soldiers and their families had to resort to borrowing from moneylenders to sustain themselves. That was very prevalent in my constituency. We must bear in mind that there were huge security risks involved in that. Gardaí who work side by side with soldiers on similar duties receive five times the rate of pay that soldiers earn. Soldiers, of necessity, take a greater risk in the security duties they carry out but their rates of pay are miserable.

It is important to highlight that at a time when the pay of our soldiers is very low the Government have paid £1 million on a Ray Ryder System of ground to air missiles. I understand, from an authoritative source, that those missiles are only suitable for use in warm climates. The four missiles we have cost £60,000 each, they cannot be used if it is raining or windy. That type of waste was taking place in the Department of Defence at a time when our soldiers were approaching moneylenders to try to make ends meet.

It is not out of the ordinary for soldiers to have to work between 60 and 70 hours each week. They are not paid overtime, and some of the duties were not described as "duties" with the result that they were not paid duty pay. It is not uncommon for soldiers to work 70 hours in one week for a flat rate of pay. The duty pay is a pittance in comparison to what would be a normal overtime rate. The housing for soldiers is a public scandal. I have no doubt that if health board officials were allowed to survey the living quarters for soldiers and their families, they would condemn them as unfit for human habitation. At the time as money was being wasted on useless surface to air missiles, soldiers were left in such hovels. The health care, minimal as it was, available to soldiers was further restricted. The archaic and muddled contradictory Army regulations were further used by the Department and by those in charge to make life for soldiers unbearable. These are the reasons the demands arose. In desperation the army wives formed NASA.

It was the conditions I have described and the intransigence of the Minister's predecessor and his refusal to accept the realities that caused the Army spouses to take to the streets. It was the gross exploitation of the weakness of the members of the Permanent Defence Forces, without an association, that gave rise to the unstoppable demands for that association. It was the participation of the Army wives in the electoral process which frightened the electoral daylights out of Fianna Fáil — in my constituency — where they could no longer count on the huge block vote when the postal votes were open which forced them to recognise the reality. No credit is due to this Coalition Government because anything they are conceding has been squeezed out of them.

Despite all of this there was continued prevarication and delay. Expectations were raised about an association and about pay, but there was no action. A vacuum was created by the Government. In that situation and in exasperation, the members of the Defence Forces formed PDFORRA. It was established, it exists, and it is a reality that 8,000 members plus of the Defence Forces have joined and given allegiance to that association. While there is no legislative framework for it, the demand for a right to determine the form of their own association is now stronger and I believe should be heard through that association.

Government inaction, Government exploitation, Government stonewalling and Government prevarication led to all of this. At the door of the Government must lie all the blame. The Government's reaction is an ill conceived and hasty attempt not to deal with the situation but to turn back the tide. I am convinced it is the gurus in the Department of Defence rather than the Minister who attempts to turn back the tide. I want to assure them that their chance of turning back that tide is as good as the man with the three pronged fork who tried to do so long ago. What is being done is an attempt to restrict and limit the association, to leave it powerless and meaningless. I want to assure the Minister and the House that that will not be acceptable to the members of the Defence Forces. I also want to assure him that it will not work.

The Bill before this House, viewed in conjunction with the Minister's letter of 20 February 1990 and circulated with the regulations to every member of the Defence Forces, represents an attempt to present a fait accompli without negotiation, without discussion, without consultation. Many aspects of the Bill and the regulations are so restrictive as to make them unacceptable and, in some instances, unconstitutional. I should like to give some examples.

Regulation 7 (a) requires a candidate to be of good disciplinary standard. Due to the selective — I stress the word selective — operation of the antiquated disciplinary code, an exemplary soldier could be found less than good. A soldier can be paraded literally for no reason. Every time he is paraded a black mark is put down against his character even if he is exonerated when paraded. If he speaks to his local TD about a housing matter or any other problem totally unrelated to his business as a soldier that is an offence of which he can be charged. If a button is missing off his uniform he can be put on parade. If an officer decides that he has not the correct hairstyle he can be put on parade. If he has family difficulties, totally unrelated to the Army, he can be put on parade. If he has certain types of loans he can be put on parade. I believe candidates could be excluded from being candidates by being put on parade on these types of non-important issues. I believe that the members — not the officers, or the Department of Defence — should decide who the candidates are and they have a democratic and constitutional right to do so.

Section 7 of the circulated regulations on electoral process demonstrates that the Department of Defence intend to organise, run and operate the total electoral process. I believe that members of the Permanent Defence Forces are quite capable of organising their own election and that they will demonstrate that to the Department of Defence in the very near future. This is a futher attempt by the Department to cling to the type of overall control they had previously. I would be most anxious that any regulations would provide for a PR type election so that no artificial majorities could control the total association. Given the no strike clause, with which everybody agrees, I think it is most important that arbitration on the matters affecting the association would be binding as referred to in annex D of the regulations. In relation to the constitutionality of some of the measures proposed, including the regulations, I support my comrade, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who spoke eloquently and definitively on the matter.

In conclusion, the Bill is seriously flawed, it is inoperable and there are serious constitutional questions about it so that a very serious question mark is placed over the whole process. The regulations circulated by the Minister through the Chief of Staff to the Permanent Defence Forces, are unacceptable and are an attempt to usurp the rights of members and their representatives.

I would ask the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to negotiate with PDFORRA who now represent 8,000 Permanent Defence Force members. I believe an agreed formula can be found if such negotiations were to take place on the structures and the scope of association. There may be technical difficulties for the Minister in actually negotiating with PDFORRA, but there is an independent review body established and in place on which all are represented and which could be used as a negotiating machine. Also the Minister has been offered the good offices of my colleague, Deputy Ryan. If all these avenues were explored it would be possible for the Minister to come back here with agreement on all sides, and that would be welcomed.

I should warn the Minister and the House if he goes ahead we will have another fiasco. Nobody will join the association the Minister is proposing, nobody will run for elections to the body the Minister is proposing, and nobody will vote to elect anybody to that body. These are the reasons the Labour Party put down a considered amendment on Second Stage; we could not support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Foxe

I thank you, Sir, for arranging time and my gratitude to Deputy Stagg for giving me some of his time. At the outset I would like to compliment the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. It is long overdue. Over the last few days a number of Deputies have given many and varied reasons the Bill was introduced. The mere fact that it is here is more important than the reasons for its introduction.

In June 1989 the Army body decided that an organisation, an association, or an affiliation, should be formed through which they would be allowed to express their grievances on two main issues, namely, pay and conditions. In that month their organisation, known as PDFORRA, was set up. In the meantime, out of 11,200 men and officers approximately 8,000 have joined PDFORRA. We should bear in mind that between 700 and 800 men are overseas at the moment and that it is conceivable that if they were free to join, the ranks at the moment would be in the region of 8,600 to 8,700.

The Minister's idea of an association resembles closely the ideas the men had, and while there is agreement on many points there is disagreement on a few major points. The Minister has suggested that there should be three associations, one to represent the officers, one to represent the NCOs and one to represent the men. On the face of it that sounds very democratic. However, the Army men say that what they want is two associations, one to represent the officers and one to represent the NCOs and men. The reasoning there is that the NCOs by dint of the years of their experience may be more vocal in voicing their disapproval of certain matters, whereas the ordinary soldier due to lack of experience, and Army life being what it is, might be a little more fearful in voicing disagreement with a superior officer.

The second point of disagreement is with the way complaints and grievances should be aired. The Minister's idea is that grievances should be aired through the chain of command from the officers right to the top. That would be very unfair. If a soldier had a complaint he could not expect an officer who might have a grudge against him to go and make a case for him at HQ. That would be unreasonable. In PDFORRA there would be three levels, barrack level, command level and national level. If a complaint could not be resolved at barrack level it would go on from there to command level and then to national level and from there representatives would bring the matter to HQ. We must bear in mind that the association designed by PDFORRA would have NCOs and men at all those levels and they would bypass the command chain. It is grossly unfair of the Minister to try and inflict on a body of people an association in which the officers would deal with the complaints before anyone at a higher level heard about them. Human nature being what it is, an officer with a grudge against an individual or unit could take a long awaited chance to get his own back on the unit or individual.

The fact that the Defence Forces were well organised would not mean that their services would be adversely affected. In fact, the opposite would be the case. Men represented by an association they want will be more contented and a better job will be done. The problem in many factories and other work places arises when management tries to use the big knuckle and inflict their ideas on the workforce rather than listening and getting suggestions from the workforce.

If this Bill passes, PDFORRA will be disbanded. Does that also mean that the Association of Army Spouses will be disbanded? That association did trojan work for the menfolk and their families last year. People might say that it would be sexist to disband the association. Be that as it may, it is not a good idea to disband an association the men want just because the Minister decided to inflict another association on them.

Other speakers have gone through the various sections, so I will not bore the House with the details of them. One section says that members on active service may not represent others in the Defence Forces and that those on active service may not be represented by this association. Section 5 bugs me. That is where it is proposed that the Minister may introduce certain regulations which may enable certain ranks to voice certain disagreements and that those disagreements are to be specified by the Minister. If the Minister tried diligently to be vague he could not have been more vague than in that section.

The Army and other Defence Forces have provided many services to the community over the years apart from defence services. During CIE strikes and refuse collection strikes the Army have come to the fore. In times of flooding they evacuate both people and animals from waterlogged areas. Two years ago there was a refuse collectors' strike in Dublin. During that period Ireland sent a senior boxing team to Poland and one of the members of the team was an Army man. Twice in the week during which he travelled to Warsaw that man had to work 24 hours a day and then face a Pole, a man from one of the greatest boxing nations in the world, on the Sunday afternoon. That was demanding a lot from that man. If the Minister has any doubt that an association formed by Army men would lead to trouble in the ranks, he should take solace from the fact that the sense of duty of Army men and of the Defence Forces in general would always outstrip any other demands.

I compliment the Minister for introducing the Bill. There are a few points of difference between what the Minister has suggested and what the Army want. If those points are not resolved we could be faced with a situation similar to the rod licence dispute which prevailed in the past two and a half years. Of a total of 11,200 men, 8,500 men have joined a new association and that shows that that association has the backing of the rank and file. I hope the Minister has more consultation with those men. If he does this there will be less confrontation in the future.

Mr. Belton

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Defence Bill. I want to say at the outset that I regard this Bill as a crossroads in the history of the Irish Army who have served this country well. Since the foundation of the State they have been loyal to our institutions and they have done this country proud both at home and abroad.

Coming from the midlands I am very conscious of the Army presence there. This is mainly due to the military barracks which are situated at Longford, Athlone and Mullingar. The late General Seán Mac Eoin served in the Irish Army and I am proud that after 25 years I have been elected to hold the Fine Gael seat in Longford once held by that famous Irishman.

While it is not directly related to this Bill it would be remiss of me if I did not mention, as I did on a previous occasion, the standing of the Army at Connolly Barracks in Longford. When I raised this issue before I emphasised to the Minister the importance of the Army presence in Longford which has added to the commercial, sporting and social life of the area. I hope that the rumours circulated about the closure of Longford barracks are nothing worse than rumours. I want to again put on the record of the House my total support for the continuation of the Army presence at Connolly Barracks.

I should like to pay tribute at this stage to the duty and service given by our Army. At many times of crisis the Army have come to the rescue and aided civil authorities through their expertise and manpower. In their military role they have given security and aid to the Garda, during the course of their duties. They have also added in many ways to sporting and other forms of entertainment.

Since their foundation the Army have stood by this State and have added to its security. We should not forget the role our Army plays in world peace. Our forces have served with distinction and honour in troubled areas throughout the world on many occasions. We should not forget their loyalty and bravery in bringing honour to themselves and their country and peace to many lands. At all times they have proved, with very limited resources, that they can hold their own with any of the other armed forces in the world. I have no doubt that this is due to the overall loyalty and dedication of the Army members.

I have continually mentioned the word "loyalty" in my contribution which I believe is the key word in this debate. It would be a grave mistake for any Minister or Government to create a situation where this loyalty could be undermined. I plead with the Minister to have the utmost consultation with army personnel in regard to this matter. Like many other Deputies I have been approached in recent days by members of PDFORRA and NASA who have raised their opposition to and misgivings about this Bill. Surely the Government and the Minister are aware of the dangers of bad legislation. I did not want to remind the House of the recent example of bad legislation and the confusion caused by the rod licence issue but perhaps it is necessary to raise the matter and to point out to the Minister how bad legislation, which is not acceptable to those whom it concerns, can create much damage. Therefore, it is very necessary for the Minister to take every issue into consideration at this point.

The requests being made by PDFORRA are very reasonable. For many years the Army members have not been given the recognition and conditions they deserve. Their pay and conditions have been improved but we all want them to be improved further. I want members of the Army to be given the same conditions and opportunities as people in other areas of the public service. While I agree that the framework and operations of the Army are different from those of other services, consultation should be broadened in order to give members of the Army the right to have their grievances aired and their conditions discussed.

The present membership of PDFORRA is 8,000 out of a total possible membership of 9,500. The Minister must be fully aware of the importance of this body in maintaining the normal day to day morale of Army members. I have every confidence that if the Minister avails of this opportunity to satisfy the members of the Army in their reasonable and worthwhile demands he will be going a long way in taking the Army into a new era. If he fails on this occasion to recognise the wishes of at least 8,000 members of the Army he will be making a grave mistake and in doing so will put the morale of the Army into disarray. I know that the Minister is a very reasonable man and has vast experience in public life. I hope that on this occasion he will show an awareness of the importance of the issues involved in this Bill and recognise these necessary demands. If he does this he will be paving the way for the continuation of an Army we can all be proud of and, more importantly, in which the members can have pride.

I hope that as a result of this Bill the wives of Army personnel will not have to picket outside Leinster House as they had to do yesterday and will not have to go from door to door seeking votes for their candidates at election time. This State owes a great debt to the Army and its members. We should honour this debt by ensuring that any legislation introduced here seeks to improve rather than disimprove and has the full backing and support of all Members of the House and of the people concerned.

As this is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Michael Collins who was the founder of the Irish Army, the Minister should go a long way in meeting the demands of the Army in order to keep up their morale.

Mr. Byrne

With the agreement of the House I should like to share my time with Deputy Sherlock.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Byrne

Back in the sixties Bob Dylan sang a song entitled "The Times They Are A-Changin' ". Around the time that song was popular I came in contact with the armed forces through my membership of the FCA. I was a member of the A Company, 20th Batallion, in Griffith Barracks. This was a very important experience for me as a young man. As a member of the FCA many barrack doors were opened to me which gave me an insight into Army life. I attended annual camps at Baldonnel, Gormanston, Cathal Brugha Barracks and Kilbride. There was a more recent visit to Collins Barracks last week by six Deputies from The Workers' Party. There was a 30 year gap between that visit and my initial contact with the armed forces in the sixties. I must say that the times are indeed a-changing, but in some respects only. Some of the incredible conditions of the sixties, low pay, for example, have not changed significantly to this day. Except for the prospect of serving overseas with the UN and thereby earning an exta few shillings, Army life for many of the personnel would be intolerable and many probably would not stay.

The conditions of the sixties in the area of low pay are still relevant today. Many Army men have been reduced to using the services of money lenders. That and the fact that income is so low that many members of the Defence Forces qualify for family income support supplement have been widely publicised. Is this the way we should be treating men who put their lives at risk for this country, particularly when they serve overseas on behalf of the UN and indeed daily in the Border areas, daily assisting the Garda Síochána in trying to keep criminal gunmen and Provisional IRA terrorists under control?

The live-in accommodation available to recruits in Collins Barracks catapulted me back 30 years. The appalling conditions there seem not to have changed since the barracks was built in 1701. In fact in 1701 the conditions were probably far superior to the conditions prevailing today; at least in 1701 it was a new structure. The dry rot-infested floors in the dormitory areas were not a feature then, nor were the miserable conditions, the state of maintenance, the broken windows, the unpainted, shabby walls, the broken and dangerous stairs, the broken tiles in the bathrooms. It is an insult to expect our armed forces to live in such conditions. The sparsely furnished commonroom was more like a cell in Mountjoy with a single television sitting on a table in meagre, miserable surroundings; there was nothing homely about that environment.

It is the total political neglect of the men who spend their days in conditions like this that has resulted in the formation of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association, known as PDFORRA. I would like to ask what real changes have been effected since the sixties when I was familiar with the various barracks in Dublin. Griffith Barracks no longer accommodates those unfortunate enough to be homeless as it did in the sixties when armed guards had to usher away from the barracks the husbands of the unfortunate families as they could not stay with their wives and children after 6 p.m. The Dublin Housing Action Committee put an end to that situation. In Griffith Barracks and in Cathal Brugha Barracks Army men and their families were housed in married quarters in the most Dickensian conditions that I have ever seen in the country. I have vivid memories of the Cathal Brugha Barracks married quarters, as I have of the married quarters in Griffith Barracks. The communal toilets, the communal washing areas, the communal outdoor clothes lines were a sight to politicise any young FCA member.

What has changed is that the men and their spouses have stood together and said that enough is enough and they demand their rights. Minor progress has been made in that Griffith Barracks is now for sale on the open market and the married quarters in Cathal Brugha Barracks have, thankfully, been demolished. One would have to ask what muddled thinking there is in the mind of the Minister that Griffith Barracks remains unsold and that in regard to Cathal Brugha Barracks which was to have been put on the open market in the seventies and the troops moved to Gormanston, only a tiny portion of the holdings, the former married quarters site, has been disposed of? Collins Barracks is now in this limbo not knowing whether it is coming or going because it is reportedly for sale. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on what Government policy is in regard to the three Army barracks and perhaps he would develop this point by telling us what developments he has in mind for modern barracks throughout the country, particularly barracks that will accommodate the troops if they are moved out of Collins Barracks.

We are at a historical crossroads in how we channel the rights and the demands of PDFORRA. The Minister's fears of an organised, modern, negotiating body for armed forces personnel is not sustainable. Modern arms are not enough for our forces. Modern structures with decent wages, decent conditions and decent modern everyday negotiating rights have to be afforded to them. The stated fears of the Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady, that the formation of an association such as PDFORRA, with a system of organisation and control separate from the Defence Forces, would be incompatible with the system of command that is essential to our Defence Forces are totally unfounded.

The Workers' Party visit last week — which I believe was with the approval of the Minister and for which I would like to record my thanks and appreciation on behalf of The Workers' Party — to the GHQ at Infirmary Road and our subsequent visit to Collins Barracks where we were met by the Commanding Officer and his team, illustrated for us the undying loyalty to the State of all ranks within the armed forces. Let me point out in passing that The Workers' Party visit to Collins Barracks was the first official visit by any political party or group of TDs, and it was an experience that should be shared by my fellow parliamentarians in all parties. That The Workers' Party were the first party to visit this barracks, which was built in 1701, which has continued in use as a military barracks and can claim to be the only such establishment still in full use in Europe and possibly in the world, only serves to highlight the total political abandonment that must have been felt down through the years by members of the armed forces.

Mr. Nealon

I was there.

Mr. Byrne

As I have said, the records can be checked. I said a group of TDs from The Workers' Party. Was the Deputy unaccompanied?

Mr. Nealon

I am as good as any group of six TDs.

Mr. Byrne

We are at an historical crossroads. The issues are who will be allowed to represent the men and how independent the Minister will allow them to be. PDFORRA's is the voice the men want to represent them in negotiations on pay and conditions. Deputy McCartan has documented for the House the numbers of the various ranks in the command areas, Naval and Air Corps. PDFORRA have the vast majority of members supporting them, in excess of 8,000. It will be a disaster if my party's reservations about this Bill are not satisfied and I repeat our demand for assurances. We have stated that PDFORRA should be allowed active consultation and negotiations with the Minister on the proposals the Minister has now put before the House. With the consultations involving direct negotiations the Minister will get a formula which he can present to this House in time in regulation form. These men represent the creme de la creme of the armed forces. They have outstanding qualities. The Minister should be careful not to sacrifice them in favour of Department puppets or eunuchs.

The Minister will be aware that good, strong management, welcomes strong representation and from both a strong representative body and a strong management structure he will get the best results. Let the Minister do the noble thing and go out and talk to PDFORRA, sit down and create a climate for progress and conciliation. He should not provoke confrontation. It is ominous to hear reports that at the Whip's meeting tonight the Government intend to apply a guillotine on Committee and Report Stages. That would be a disaster.

It would seem that the Minister and the Chief of Staff have calculated the Government's proposals in the document Permanent Defence Force Representative Groups. Has the Minister already made up his mind? Is he speaking honestly when he suggests he is open to have his mind changed? It is essential that there be two representative groups, one for NCOs and privates and one for officers, not three bodies as proposed by the Minister. PDFORRA propose to proceed with their election by ballot, the papers for which will be circulated on 30 March next and the vote will be counted on Saturday, 4 April. I appeal to the Minister not to interfere, not to try to preempt this election. If he does he will be provoking totally the Forces from whom he expects loyalty in the future and they will have a very important role in future events. I ask him to acommodate them by not imposing a guillotine on this Bill.

Mr. Sherlock

I have always regarded, as I am sure has every other Member of the House, the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, as a man who enjoys the respect and admiration of Deputies on all sides of this House. Now he will require all his considerable political skill and diplomatic experience to deal with the very serious current situation in the Defence Forces. The blame for the appalling mess in the Defence Forces must be shared by all members of the last Government and the responsibility for dealing with the situation lies collectively with all members of the new Government. The greatest mistake the Government could make would be to underestimate that seething discontent or to hope that if it is ignored it will go away.

The Defence Forces have been one of the most reliable and stable institutions in the State, but it is no exaggeration to say that the stability of the Defence Forces is being threatened by the failure of the Government to deal adequately with the problem of pay and conditions. The discontent and dissatisfaction did not originate in the life of the last Government but they came to a head under that administration. Successive Governments have always been quick to pay ritual tribute to the great work done by members of the Defence Forces, but the same Governments have refused to put their money where their mouths were by ensuring that members of the Army, Navy and Air Corps were paid a wage appropriate to the onerous and responsible tasks they are asked to perform. Apart from normal duties the Defence Forces have been asked to perform policing duties along the border, at prisons and at important installations. They are expected to provide air and sea rescue service and to police our fishing grounds. Of course, governments have been quick to call on them to provide emergency services in the event of industrial disputes. Despite this, the Government have failed to ensure that the Defence Forces personnel are paid wages appropriate to their responsibilities.

Most rank and file soldiers earn well below the average industrial wage and an Army captain who might have responsibility for 100 men or more would be earning well below what an executive with similar responsibilities in civil life would make. The poor salaries paid to officers and other highly skilled technical personnel has led to a virtual brain drain and consequent major problems for both the Air Corps and the Naval Service. Clearly it does not make sense for the State to invest large sums of money in training officers if they are offered rates of pay which provide no incentive to stay in the Defence Forces. The majority of soldiers, however, know that with nearly a quarter of a million people unemployed there is no prospect of alternative employment in civilian life and they have, quite rightly, turned to campaigning for improved pay and conditions.

The response of the Department of Defence to the legitimate grievances of the soldiers has simply worsened the situation. The recommendations of the review body were totally inadequate. An attempt by the last Government to present them as something they were not caused considerable resentment. The decision to increase the buy-out rates and to abolish the outpost allowance for certain personnel added insult to injury. In these circumstances and against the background of continued refusal of the Department to consider the establishment of a representative body, it is not surprising that the Army Wives Association should have got off the ground and that the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association should have been established.

The Government will have to accept that there is no action they can take to legally prevent members of the Defence Forces from establishing a representative body. The right of members of the Defence Forces to establish a representative body was explicity recognised in a report of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in 1984 who noted that the absence of any such body in Ireland was based, not on legal prohibition, but on traditional discipline. Given the appallingly shoddy way in which members of the Defence Forces have been treated by successive Governments, it is not surprising that some personnel have taken the unilateral decision to establish a representative association.

Soldiers are simply citizens in uniform and are entitled to the same democratic rights given to other citizens. The Department of Defence should now accept the inevitable, recognise the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks and Representative Association and seek to establish a working relationship with them. The representative bodies have posed no threat to order or discipline in the Garda Síochána and there is no reason for the one now established in the Defence Forces not to play a similar constructive role.

We have come a long way since the establishment of the body by the Garda Síochána. I understand that heavy handed attempts were made then by the Department of Justice to prevent the formation of the Garda representative body but nowadays people, military or civilians, are much more aware of their rights. Soldiers and their families, as the events of the past 12 months have shown, are not prepared to be pushed around. My advice to the Minister is not to push them any further or he will risk a series of events which could lead to confrontation.

The Government and the civilian armchair generals in Parkgate Street should drag themselves into the 20th century and realise that when a man or women puts on a military uniform they should not be expected to surrender all their democratic rights. The sooner they do that the sooner we will have a return to an acceptable level of morale in the Defence Forces. A debate on the Defence Forces should not be allowed to pass without the House paying tribute to the personnel who are serving overseas with various UN peacekeeping contingents, especially those with UNIFIL, who face constant danger. In recent times the Irish contingent with UNIFIL have paid a high price with loss of life in their efforts to bring peace to the region.

I welcome the fact that the Government have at last conceded the principle that there should be a formal association to represent the interests of members of our Defence Forces. However, the Bill as drafted and presented to the House is bitterly disappointing. It is ill considered, poorly thought out and unnecessarily narrow and restrictive. I do not know if this Bill seriously represents the personal and political opinions of the Minister. It may well be that it has been nobbled by the Department's bureaucrats but it is clear that the Minister has failed to match his generous promise of recent weeks with similarly generous legislation.

I warn the Minister and the Government that they should not underestimate the seriousness of the situation. PDFORRA represent the overwhelming majority of enlisted personnel and they are totally dissatisfied with the terms of the Bill which are simply not acceptable to them. The Minister has only two alternatives; he can withdraw the Bill and go back to the drawing board or he must publicly announce that there will be sweeping changes in the Bill when it reaches Committee Stage. If he does neither and persists with this ill considered Bill he and the Government are likely to find themselves on a collision course with a large number of Defence Force personnel, leading to unprecedented conflict and chaos within the Defence Forces.

The Bill clearly reflects a Victorian attitude to the Defence Forces and fails to recognise that soldiers are simply citizens in uniform and entitled to the same democratic rights as others. Under the terms of the Bill virtually all the crucial decisions regarding the organisation's structure and powers of the representative bodies will be made by the Minister for Defence instead of the members. This House and the members of PDFORRA are effectively being asked to give the Minister a blank cheque before he has shown what is on offer.

All the detailed requirements under the Bill will be implemented by ministerial order and, to make matters worse, the format used in section 7 is negative as it says that a regulation made by the Minister will come into effect unless a resolution is passed within 21 days by both Houses of the Oireachtas annulling it.

One of the most essential changes required in the Bill is an amendment to section 7 to ensure that the Dáil will have the opportunity of debating any draft regulations and that a regulation will not come into effect until a motion approving it has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am particularly concerned that the Bill prohibits the proposed bodies from being associated with or affiliated to a trade union or other body without the consent of the Minister. This is a quite unnecessary restriction. The Garda representative bodies are affiliated to the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations and this has not caused any problems. The new Defence Forces body should be free to decide for themselves what body, international or domestic, they want to be affiliated to. Why should they not be free to affiliate to the ICPSA if they so wish or indeed to seek some sort of special relationship with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?

An Ceann Comhairle

I should be grateful if the Deputy would bring his speech to a close as his time is almost exhausted.

Mr. Sherlock

Is the Minister seriously talking about locking up members of the PDFORRA if they decline to go along with the narrow provisions of this Bill? If he is we are on a disaster course because PDFORRA will not quietly disappear into the sunset. The Minister is gravely mistaken if he believes that this will happen.

The crucial issue is that the Minister has the courage and the capacity to break the stifling influence of senior civil servants and Army brass hats who have a rigid and authoritarian position of opposing all changes. If he can do that agreement will be reached between the Minister and PDFORRA on the measures needed to provide genuinely representative structures——

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call another speaker.

Mr. Sherlock

——which will be acceptable to all. If he does not the outlook will be bleak.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Cotter although he has hardly time to move the Adjournment of the debate. However, he may proceed for a minute or two.

Mr. Cotter

The intention behind the Bill is good. The Minister set out in the right spirit with a view to providing proper representation for members of the Permanent Defence Forces. However, as we heard time and time again in the House, things have gone horribly wrong in the meantime. Instead of a harmonious change to a system of representation which is badly needed, the Minister is now at loggerheads with Army personnel. Indeed, I am in full agreement with Deputy Nealon that the Minister should defer consideration of the Bill until such time as the Gleeson Report has been published in a couple of months' time.

Debate adjourned.