Deputy Cotter is in possession and he has some 29 minutes left.
Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Lenihan, on Thursday, 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.)
Given the situation which has arisen the Minister should reconsider his position. He has been requested to do so in a very limited way by the Opposition as we were not given the right to speak. Yesterday an 11-hour marathon meeting took place. We need to know what happened at that meeting in view of the fact that the background to the Bill has now changed. I ask the Minister to make an immediate statement to the House on what happened yesterday, to give us the full facts, to have discussions with the Taoiseach, who is just leaving the House, and suspend forthwith further discussion on this Bill. We have reached the level of farce.
We on the Opposition benches are totally dissatisfied with the way in which this Bill is being handled. The members of the Defence Forces are equally dissatisfied, and the Minister for Defence should now try to regain some of his dignity at this stage and start the whole business all over again. Well he may laugh but the Army are not at all happy with the way he has been treating them in recent weeks. Yesterday he had to send two emissaries to talk to Army personnel to try to patch up a row. Surely in the light of this the House should be given the full facts and be told exactly what happened.
I do not know whether the Ceann Comhairle has any power in this matter or not but as this is such a serious matter he should, if he has such power, use it forthwith and suspend discussion on this Bill to allow the Minister to explain the matter to the House. If the Minister is not aware of the full facts he should permit Deputies Kitt and Hillery, who were engaged in the discussions yesterday, to tell the House what went on. It is unprecedented that such discussions should take place behind our backs. The Minister will have to agree that things have gone horribly wrong for him. He has time to put them right and he should do so. What was intended to be a harmonious change to a system of representation, which was agreed by the Army to be badly needed, has resulted in the Minister being at loggerheads not alone with the Army but with all Opposition Members. On matters dealing with the Army the House should be unified in its approach. This is a very sensitive matter; the security of the State is at stake.
There is no doubt that we should give proper and careful consideration to any changes before we present a unified approach. We should not do anything to upset the very important relationship that must exist between the Minister and the Army and between the Government and the Army. This whole business has been ill considered from the beginning. Last week the Minister was requested by Deputy Nealon to defer consideration of the Bill until the Gleeson report was published. I cannot understand why the Minister did not agree to that suggestion. Before Christmas the Minister was asked to act on what we all know will come out of the Gleeson report. The Minister was requested to make a small interim payment to the Army. Everybody would have agreed to that move because it is obvious that they are badly paid. I have no doubt that the Gleeson report will recommend a change in the pay structure. The Minister has acted with undue haste and without consultation, that is until yesterday. I am sure the Minister is aware of the problems he has created.
Last week when Members approached the House they were accosted by members of the Army wives' association who were trying to make a point. They asked the Minister to give consideration to the views of the Army before he put the Bill through the House. There is no doubt that there is unrest and dissatisfaction in the Army. Indeed, it was as a result of that that the House was chaotic on the Order of Business today. Surely the message has got through to the Minister by now. Why is it that the Minister did not have proper and full negotiations with the Army before this unrest? The Minister did not have to lose face but his capitulation yesterday represents an abject loss of face. Indeed, that is why Opposition Members are clamouring for the Minister to start from scratch and produce a proper system. Why is it that the Minister did not have consultations with the existing pay advisory body? The Minister could have used that group but he refused to do so.
During the course of the debate last week the Minister acceded to point after point raised by Deputy Nealon. We now have a silly looking mess. His ill considered approach and unbelievable haste has resulted in the Army once again losing confidence in the Minister. Yesterday's eleventh hour meeting surely represents a loss of face. It represents a complete about turn by the Minister; a sign of a late conversion. It has led to the creation of a very volatile atmosphere and that is not good for relations between the Government and the Army. This business which last week looked bad looks one hundred times worse today. The background to the Bill has been changed and we have to say that we are not sure if we should believe the assertions the Minister made last week.
The calls today to suspend the debate on the Bill pending proper consultations should be answered by the Minister. We should have a proper discussion on this issue. The Opposition parties should be able to get together with the Minister and agree on this whole business. The House should be unanimous about the content of the Bill.
The Minister agrees and, indeed, he must add, mea culpa, because this is all his fault. He is the person who has caused the confusion. Deputy Nealon forced the Minister to give in on many points last week. The Minister intended holding elections before an electoral process had been set up.
No, I did not say that.
That is clearly written in the document, Permanent Defence Force Representative Groups, that I have in front of me.
It is not. The Deputy does not know how to read.
The Minister protested in a similar manner last week. He spent the entire evening protesting and nodding his head. That was an indication that the Minister was not aware of all the facts relating to this business. The Minister intended to use the single non transferrable vote system and when Deputy Nealon attacked him about that he capitulated. What is the position after yesterday? From my discussions with Deputy Nealon this morning I understand that the Minister has decided that an officer from the franchise section of the Department of the Environment will try to put together an agreed electoral system.
I said that last week.
The Minister did not inform us about that last week.
It was in the speech I made last week.
The Minister did not inform us about that when he introduced the Bill.
It was very clearly stated. I will send the Deputy a copy of my speech.
It was not clearly stated. It appears that this whole business about the lack of consultation is an embarrassment to the Minister. It appears that PDFORRA representatives forced that information from you at yesterday's meeting.
It was in the speech I made in the House last week.
This whole business is shameful. It is wrong that there should have been a lack of understanding in regard to the Bill.
I would prefer if Deputy Cotter made his remarks through the Chair rather than direct to the Minister. That would avoid a lot of interruption.
I am sorry; I am getting a little carried away about this issue.
The Deputy is firing all guns.
The Minister also conceded on the decision he had made in regard to where meetings should take place between representative bodies. The Minister wanted meetings to take place only in military installations and I was in the House when he conceded on that issue. The Minister has conceded on the good conduct rule for representation of the association. Indeed, when we were discussing this privately last week we found it difficult to understand how any person could be a representative of the proposed organisation. I understand that a member of the Army who has 12 years service can leave at any time without pension. I understand that the Minister has decided that a representative under the Bill must have at least one year's service and that a member who is within one year of leaving the Army cannot be elected as a representative. How many people are disqualified because of that? I accept that many people are disqualified under other headings but we do not have any idea of how many are involved. The Minister has not given us his thoughts on that issue.
Section 4 states that members on active service cannot be representatives and that an association may not represent a member on active service. I represent the Cavan-Monaghan constituency and I wonder if "active service" as defined in sections (1) (b) of the 1954 Act means that the Army personnel in the barracks across the Border cannot have representatives on the new association or cannot be represented by the new association. I need to have that matter clarified. Under the terms of the 1954 Act that seems to be the case. In the definitions section a member is on active duty when he is part of a force which is engaged in activity against an enemy. In the same Act, "enemy" is defined as including armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and pirates. At some stage during this debate, can the Minister define the position regarding the units working on the Border? My own view is that they are on active service and, therefore, have no part in this whole process. How far does that line run through the country? How many other barracks and how many other units of the Army are in the same position? We need to have those matters clarified and we do not have the definitions for them.
I conclude by requesting the Minister once again to make a clear and unequivocal statement to this House and to tell us exactly what went on yesterday at the eleven hour meeting because a lot of talking took place. We would like to know the spirit in which the talks took place.
Excellent.
Were the talks acrimonious, because we are led to believe that last week the Army were not in a position to talk to the Minister in a friendly manner? We need to know whether the background to the Bill has changed? Is the Minister proposing in later stages to introduce new sections or amendments? If so, we would need to know about them now. Will the Minister then agree, as Deputy Nealon suggested to suspend the Bill forthwith? Will the Minister sit down with Deputy Nealon and the other spokespersons and try to work out a common approach where reality can be introduced into this debate again so that we can try to patch up the differences between the Government and the Army which are extremely dangerous?
I am very glad of the opportunity to comment on this Bill and I do so in the belief that the situation has changed dramatically given the events of last evening. It is necessary to have some clarification as to exactly what is happening. We have had months of discussions, debate and speculation as to what was going to happen in relation to the recognition of PDFORRA and granting permission to the soldiers to organise themselves. Unfortunately, as things stand at present, the Minister for Defence does not warrant a great deal of credit for the handling of this matter. I say that with major reservations because the Minister, in his political career has been an amazing politician able to bring about reconciliations and he has been involved in varied negotiations. He has a long and very honourable political career but in relation to this particular episode, I am afraid we are sitting slap bang in the middle of a mess. That is regrettable and is something which could have been avoided. I believe the events of last night are an explicit admission that things have been handled badly. The Government seem to have missed the pass completely in relation to the wide ranging debate which has been taking place outside this House for the last number of years.
Obviously one would have to welcome an agreement to recognise PDFORRA but — I have seen the statement and listened to comments made this morning on the radio — and it is far from clear what the Minister's intention is. In relation to the statement issued by PDFORRA and two Fianna Fáil Deputies, one must ask if they were representing the Minister and the Government or were they acting as backbenchers off their own bat. That statement conveyed the impression that the Minister is now prepared to recognise and consult with PDFORRA. If so that begs the question, why are they being obliged to go through a torturous process involving backbench Deputies, and the Department of the Environment and not the Department of Defence? Unfortunately, the manoeuvre of last evening has all the hallmarks of classic Fianna Fáil stroking.
The association is now in a position to say it is being recognised and the Minister can save face by saying he never met representatives of the association — that would appear to be the position — while others have met the association on his behalf. Not only is this a messy and dishonest solution but it makes absolute nonsense of the Bill before the House.
It is possible to argue that the two Deputies who met and negotiated with PDFORRA would have been guilty of an offence if the Bill we are now debating had already been passed by the House. Quite clearly this Bill, as has been said by numerous spokespersons, has to be radically altered before it is proceeded with. I understand that the Minister proposes to make major amendments to the Bill and I look forward to Committee Stage when this House will have an opportunity to discuss very necessary amendments to a badly drafted Bill that does not help us, as legislation, to meet the challenge which this area puts before us.
In the circumstances it is very unwise to proceed with this Bill in its present form. Inevitably, any agreement reached will be reneged on. The nature of the agreement is so tenuous and dishonest that it cannot survive any serious examination. It is absolutely vital that the Minister should come clean and say categorically, whether he is prepared to recognise the right of PDFORRA to exist and whether he is prepared to recognise and negotiate with them even at this very late stage. Anything else is inviting members of PDFORRA to buy a pig in a poke and they would be very foolish to agree to it.
The Labour Party have already put down an amendment to the Second Stage of this Bill in the following terms:
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.
If it was not entirely clear to everyone why such an amendment was necessary before, it must surely be very clear at this stage. The overtures between the Minister and PDFORRA, no matter how else they can be viewed, can only be seen as making many of the features of the Bill entirely redundant. As we have already said perhaps the worst feature of the Bill is the position in which it places people who have been campaigning, perfectly democratically and legitimately, to establish an association. That association is in place, it has 8,000 signed up members and it has a constitution which explicitly recognises many of the Minister' concerns. Its officers clearly are people who have the interests of the professional Army at heart.
From my meetings with the representatives of the association I would say they are men of integrity and that they are concerned about many of the serious problems which face the personnel in the Army. Unfortunately the Minister's reaction and the Government's failure to respond to the overtures being made by this association has led us into a very unhealthy situation whereas the elected officers of PDFORRA had been trying to do things in a very democratic, sensible and restrained manner. At all times they sought the consent and agreement of the Government in setting up a representative association, which is the norm in other armies.
Despite their long and detailed efforts over the past number of years they are in an invidious situation in regard to the Bill before us. It looks like the effect of this Bill will be to outlaw the association as it now stands, to make it illegal and to make it a criminal offence for anyone to seek to recruit members to it. This is a retrograde and regrettable step because the Bill places democratically organised soldiers in the position of being members of an illegal organisation. These people are far from being members of an illegal organisation: they are honest and sincere individuals who are serving this country quite often in bad conditions and circumstances. It is time we faced up to this. Not alone is the proposition which runs throughout the Bill absurd, but it is scandalous.
From my reading of the Bill, I am convinced it will not pass the test under the Constitution. For example, section 2 (4) of the Bill will be in clear contradiction of Article 46.3. of the Constitution unless the Minister can prove to the satisfaction of the House that his association will be in the public interest, while the association which have already been established, are not. That section of the Bill makes it illegal for members of the Army to be members of PDFORRA. This begs the question; what will the Minister do if the 8,000 members of that association believe they have a constitutional right to belong to it and the Minister has no right to deny them their constitutional rights? What will the Minister do if those 8,000 members refuse to resign from PDFORRA? I repeat that these people who are serving our country are very reasonable and have been on a very orderly mission. It is very important, even at this late stage, for the Minister to change in mid-stream and allow these people the recognition they are seeking. If this is not done we will end up with a totally chaotic situation.
There are matters mentioned in the statement this morning which the Minister will have an opportunity to clarify when he is responding to the debate this evening. He may be able to elaborate on the statement issued in regard to the meeting last evening between Deputy Hillery and Deputy Kitt and representatives of PDFORRA. While I regard the framework for those discussions to be a little amusing to say the least, I believe that if the Minister for Defence wants to do business he should do it as the representative of the Government rather than send backbenchers who are not charged with doing business on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the proposals in relation to the ballot, what further discussions will take place and whether he will be meeting with the officers of PDFORRA.
Given the reasonable statement made by the spokesman of PDFORRA this morning, in line with all the statements he has made both at meetings and publicly and for which he has been brought to task by his superiors, it is very important for the Minister to clarify that aspect of the statement which refers to the talks, including the structures, by which the members will be elected and the means whereby open and honest consultations — I have to ask what dishonest consultations are — can take place with all interested parties. I have to assume that the Minister or those appointed people acting on his behalf will only be conducting honest consultations; I do not believe they will engage in dishonest consultations. Perhaps the Minister will avail of the opportunity, when he replies to the debate without interruption this evening to clarify why he did not go about his business himself. As Minister for Defence he is charged by the Government and the Oireachtas to do this. There is a very serious problem in regard to the Minister's failure to meet the representatives of the Army and the National Army Spouses Association. Why, at this late stage, did the Minister see fit to send Deputies, for whom I do not have personal disrespect, to meet these representatives? The Minister and the representatives of the Department of Defence should have shown the courtesy of meeting with representatives from these organisations. It is reasonable to assume that there are still problems behind the scenes, whether in regard to the command within the Army or senior officers. Perhaps what we should be looking at in this very terse and curt statement issued after 11 hours of meetings is what is not said rather than what is.
The questions in regard to the status of PDFORRA and their rights highlight the ludicrous nature of the Bill. Obviously the Minister would not attempt to court-martial the 8,000 members of the Army, put them in jail or cashier them out of the Army, for exercising what they believe is their constitutional right. Obviously these people know the Minister is trying to pass a law which is both enforceable and antidemocratic. I doubt very much if they are going to stand by and allow him to railroad them into an association which does not belong to them. Central to their aspirations is the wish to have a major say in the structures of their organisation. As I said at the outset, they have gone about seeking this in a very orderly and civilised manner. This warrants similar reciprocation by the Minister and Government to their request.
Obviously I have grave worries about the constitutionality of section 6 of the Bill. I should be very grateful if the Minister would, at the earliest opportunity this evening, lend his voice to those which have been raised in this House in regard to the constitutionality of section 6. This Bill is doomed in its present format and if section 6 is passed as it is before us, I do not believe it will stand up to a constitutional challenge.
If we put the best possible construction on what has happened to date and the fact that negotiations and consultation in some form are now under way, the only sensible course for the Minister and Government to take is to withdraw this Bill in its entirety and come back to the House with a Bill which is properly drawn up and which reflects any agreement reached in the discussions which started last evening and lasted for 11 hours. If this could be achieved it would allow for a very quick passage of the Bill through this House, which the Government seem intent on securing. If the Minister takes the opportunity to follow from the discussion of last night and take the lead in discussions with the representatives of PDFORRA, I believe this House would allow for a very easy passage of a Bill which would reflect an agreement reached by both sides.
When the Minister is replying this evening perhaps he will take the opportunity to clarify section 8 (3) which deals with the date on which the Bill will come into operation. Given that negotiations started two to three years later than they should have, I ask the Minister to clarify if there will be a different time scale for the coming into operation of the Bill. If the Bill is passed in its present form it will certainly be subject to constitutional challenge and, given the winds of the Supreme Court at the present time to read into our Constitution far beyond what was thought possible a week or two ago, I suspect that they would quite likely find that this Bill infringes the Constitution.
Obviously my efforts to seek a withdrawal of this Bill will fall on deaf ears, but in the hours available to the Tánaiste before he concludes, I would urge him to reconsider what is in the opinion of the Labour Party a shoddy piece of legislation which will not achieve what it sets out to achieve. We would do a far better day's work if we were to go back to the drawing board. Negotiations have commenced and I would urge the Tánaiste to take a lead in those negotiations himself and set about bringing a conclusion which would meet with the warm approval of this House.