Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Defence (Mr. Lenihan)

This Bill is designed to permit the establishment of representative associations in the Defence Forces. Last July two very significant developments regarding the Defence Forces were announced. One was the establishment of an independent pay commission for the first time ever. The deliberations of the commission, which is chaired by Mr. Dermot Gleeson, senior counsel, are proceeding. The second major development was the announcement that preparations had been initiated for the establishment of a new structure regarding remuneration and related matters for privates, noncommissioned officers and officers. The draft legislation now before the House is the result of the studies and consultations which have taken place over the months since the announcement.

The Bill represents a major development in the history of the Defence Forces. Members of the Defence Forces will, in future, be enabled to elect representatives to associations which will be established for the purpose of giving them a representative voice on pay, allowances, grants, pensions and various other matters. Military personnel will, also for the first time, be given access to conciliation and arbitration. It is important that the new institutions will be put in place, without compromising systems of command and control which are essential in any Defence Force and the Bill provides for the necessary safeguards in that respect.

The main provisions of the Bill, which is essentially an enabling one, are as follows. Section 1 deals with definitions. Section 2 provides for the establishment of associations and the scope of their representation excluding 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 associations 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. This will prevent a proliferation of groups which would be a most undesirable development. The section also empowers the Minister to make regulations to provide for a system of conciliation and arbitration.

Section 3 provides for the suspension of associations during a state of emergency as provided for in section 4 of the Defence Act, 1954. A state of emergency as provided for in that Act relates only to the Defence Forces and is entirely different from a national emergency as provided for in the Constitution. Section 4 of the Bill deals with a situation where the Defence Forces are on active service and section 5 deals with the situation where members are serving overseas.

A person subject to military law is prohibited by section 6 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. Section 7 deals with the laying of regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas, while section 8 provides for Short Title, collective citation and commencement. In regard to the latter, the Act will be brought into operation by order of the Minister and different commencement dates may be fixed for different provisions of the Act.

In considering this legislation it is well to keep in mind the fundamental constitutional consideration involved. The constitutional right to form an association is provided for in Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution. It is not, however, an absolute or unqualified right. The same Article provides that laws may be enacted for the regulations and control in the public interest of the exercise of the right — thus explicitly providing for the limitation of the right.

Under Article 15.6.1 of the Constitution the right to raise and maintain military ar armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

The supreme command of the Defence Forces is vested in the President under Article 13.4 and Article 13.5.1 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.

In a parliamentary democracy such as ours the armed forces are subject to civil control and the controlled and regulated system of command and authority is fundamental to the raising and maintenance of a Defence Force in our democratic State.

It is also important, however, that members of the Defence Forces should have suitable machinery available to them to give them a representative voice in regard to their pay, allowances and other conditions of service. The matter, therefore, required very careful examination in order to get the balance right. We had to find a way to meet the legitimate wishes of the members of the Forces without compromising the system of command and discipline in the Forces.

There is great diversity in regard to representative bodies in other European countries. A report in March 1988 by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe indicates that the number of member states of the Council which permit the members of their armed forces to join associations equals the number of member states which do not. Unlike the majority of other armies in western Europe, the Permanent Defence Force is an entirely volunteer force. It is necessary, therefore, that we should create a system which is best suited to our own situation, a system in which the military personnel themselves will have confidence.

The Bill before the House being an enabling one, the intention is to fill in the detail regarding the actual representative arrangements in consultation with those directly involved. From the very outset I have sought to involve the members themselves in the process of consultation in regard to the new structures. Three teams — one for officers, one for noncommissioned officers and one for privates — were set up for the purpose of making submissions to the Independent Pay Commission and last December I availed of that pre-existing arrangement to address the teams on the question of representative bodies. To continue this process of consultation most effectively, I propose as a first step to proceed with the holding of elections in order to identify representatives of the personnel. These representatives, democratically elected, will be given full opportunity to participate in the drawing up of the new arrangements before the associations are established and before any Defence Force Regulations under the Act are made. In this way we will try to ensure that the arrangements which emerge from the process of consultation will have the confidence of the members of the Permanent Defence Force at all levels. In this connection I propose to use the mechanism in section 8 to postpone the coming into operation of the variou provisions of the Act to allow time for discussion with interested parties.

The first election will be conducted under the general supervision of the principal officer of the Franchise Section of the Department of the Environment. It will also be a matter for him to determine, on the basis of submissions from interested parties, the procedures for the election of representatives and the structures into which they will be elected. In order that the elections can be held as soon as possible the Head of the Franchise Section has already initiated consultations with military personnel.

Once the elected representatives emerge from the election the entire representative system in all its aspects will be discussed fully with them; I have no intention of imposing a structure as this would, in my view, be counter-productive and would not be in anybody's interest. As regards the numbers of associations to be established, there will be separate representation for officers and other ranks. As to whether there will be one or two associations for noncommissioned officers and privates, this depends essentially on what the personnel themselves want. At this stage it would appear that the majority of personnel have a preference for one association for these ranks and this is entirely acceptable to me. When the arrangements have been agreed they will be enshrined in Defence Force Regulations.

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.

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.

The Bill and the arrangements I have outlined will, I suggest, provide the framework for the establishment of representative associations which will meet the legitimate needs of members of the Permanent Defence Force while, at the same time, preserving the system of command and control which are essential and must be maintained.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

As Defence spokesman for Fine Gael in the Seanad I welcome the Minister to the House. The whole question of Army pay and conditions has been ongoing for a number of years. It has had a great deal of media attention and has resulted in much to-ing and froing and agitation, and we hope it will soon be resolved. The issue was badly handled by the Minister's predecessor and, to be fair, by that Government. It was ignored for some time. Perhaps successive Administrations took the Army — and the Garda Síochána — for granted. That must not happen again. The 1954 Act and the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 provide for matters relating to the Defence Forces. I have said in the past that automatically certain Acts should come up for periodic review. If that had been done, perhaps by a committee of either House, some of the problems which have evolved could possibly have been avoided.

I pay special tribute to the members of the Army who have served this country very well both at home and abroad since the foundation of the State. Many of us here have had connections with the Defence Forces in friends or relatives serving with them. It is important that we pay tribute to the great work that Army personnel have done down the years on peace-keeping duties in the Congo, Cyprus, the Middle East and latterly in Lebanon. Because of that the Irish people are held in great esteem and people in many such areas like to have members of the Irish Defence Forces present. From time to time even in the past ten years we have had to resort in times of trouble to the Army to deal with refuse strikes, bus strikes, energy crises and when petrol was difficult to get. The Army have been brought in to assist with prison duties. The Army have continually acted as a back-up to members of the Garda in coping with the ongoing problems and difficulties of Border duty.

Unfortunately, too often the Army were taken for granted. Too often we did not realise what the difficulties were — in fact we did not want to know the difficulties and problems and the poor pay and conditions members of the Army were experiencing. In the past few years the problems began to be critical and when we saw some Army officers trying to support a wife and family on not much more money than we were talking about yesterday in relation to the Social Welfare Bill, yet, they were ignored. It has been a sad chapter, but let us hope that, given the right approach now, belated though it is, we can undo the damage and improve the situation for the future. We had many representations regarding to pay and conditions but, apart from some minor gesture on the part of the Minister's predecessor, little was done by way of any adequate response. As one Member said in the other House, if the Army spouses had not stood for election last year and brought the whole matter to the electoral platform and in the process got quite a number of votes in various constituencies, I do not think we would have done anything about it. It was only latterly, with the formation of the new Government, that the matter was taken seriously.

The Minister mentioned the Gleeson report which is inquiring into pay and conditions of the Defence Forces. He indicated that the report will probably be completed by May. There has been too long a delay because many of the queries, grievances and claims have been well documented over the last few years and the report should have been initiated much sooner so that the recommendations contained in it could have been acted upon. At least if we get it right now it will be a job well done. I hope, when the Minister receives the report, that he will give a clear commitment that it will be acted upon. A commitment is needed to put cash on the table and to ensure that members of the Army, at all levels, will be given the recognition they deserve.

The representative body to represent the Army has been dragged along from an initial stage. I criticise the fact that there was a great lack of consultation at an earlier stage. The Bill was introduced in the other House although there was little or no consultation with anybody concerned. Indeed, people were talking about boycotting the proposed elections. At a later stage we had the spectacle of Members of the other House, acting off their own bat or as a result of a nod and a wink from the Minister, talking to Army personnel. It is unusual for a couple of Deputies to act in this manner and one must again ask why there was not full consultation in advance. Did the Minister and his officials meet representatives of the Defence Forces prior to the publication of the Bill? There is a lot of common ground in this area and, knowing the Minister's capability in the past to listen, to make progress and to get to the nub of a problem, I am sure that if discussions had taken place some of the hiccups and problems would not have arisen.

The Chief of Staff sent a booklet to each member of the Defence Forces and he indicated that the documents accompanying the letter set out the Government's proposals issued by direction of the Minister for Defence for a system of consultation and representation for all ranks. What consultations had previously taken place with members of the Defence Forces? PDFORRA want to ensure that there is a forum for making genuine claims in regard to pay, conditions, education and related matters. I do not know if departmental officials or other people were trying to prevent them from getting what they wanted, but I do not think that the gap between the Minister and members of the Defence Forces was very big. That is why I should like to know what consultations took place at that stage. Thankfully, we have made some progress since then and certain consultations have got under way. However, I should like to know what progress has been made to date so that the ambiguity, distrust and difficulties which arose will be things of the past. It is important to solve these problems so that we can make progress.

The Minister also indicated that regulations will be introduced in relation to the formation of the representative body but it is unfortunate that this House will not have an opportunity to discuss them. They might not be opposed but there should be a proper sounding base in relation to discussions with members of the Defence Forces. Many problems in this area would have been avoided if there had been more discussions and less taking for granted on the other side. I suppose the distrust was born of differences between the Department and members of the Defence Forces.

Great tribute must be paid to many Army spouses who, when their husbands could not make representations, protested themselves. They kept up the fight even when they were ignored. There is no doubt that there was total neglect of the problems within the Defence Forces and I hope the Minister will bring about a situation where they will be solved.

I am glad there will be an opportunity for members of the Defence Forces to discuss matters with the media. I wonder if that right will be restricted because, according to the booklet, it will be at a very high level only. It is important that in matters relating to pay, conditions, education and general welfare, if necessary, members have a right to talk to the media like any other body. I hope the elections will take place as soon as possible. I do not know if the Minister can give any indication of the time-scale he envisages for this and when the regulations will be introduced. I hope things will not be allowed drag on.

I believe it is the preference that there will be one group for officers and a group for men but whatever groupings emerge after the elections, I hope they will be in a position to move immediately to remedy the difficulties. There has been far too much foot-dragging over the years. I had hoped that within a year of the Government taking office last July we would have gone a certain way down the road.

Would the Minister confirm that the legislation will apply to the various ranks of the Defence Forces and to both the Air Corps and Navy as well? I would also like to know what is envisaged for the FCA? They are an integral part of the Defence Forces. We all know people who have served and continue to serve in the FCA and it is important that we know exactly where they stand and what role they will play in the future. I hope that improvements will be made in their section also, as it would be suicidal for us to face the problems we have already faced over the past number of years.

One cannot state often enough the poor circumstances that many members of the Army have found themselves in in trying to raise a family on very low incomes and without having recourse to procedures to improve their lot. The Minister could find himself in the position of Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces at some stage and I hope he will have left a legacy of improvements in the Defence Forces. At some future stage he could say, "When I had specific and direct responsibility for the Defence Forces I consulted with them and after much difficulty we improved the situation". It is important that we do not compound the errors of the past with further errors. It is important that there should be full and frank discussions and consultation. If the Minister is not happy with what his officials are telling him, then he should meet with the Army personnel. Although the gap between them is very narrow, the two sides do not seem to be able to get together.

I wish to ask a few questions on the Bill. With regard to the provision that this legislation will cease during times of emergency, I would like to know if this applies to the Defence Act or to the more general emergency provisions. What arrangements will be made for those who are serving overseas to have their views taken into account? Seven or eight hundred people may be serving in Lebanon for periods of six to 12 months at any time and I would like to know what safeguards there will be to ensure that they have the full rights of persons serving at home. Obviously I presume they will be represented by the representative body but I wonder whether there will be opportunities for full discussion to take place. When will the regulations, which have been promised, be brought before the House? I know an official of the Department of the Environment has been meeting with the officers to plan the elections but I would like to know if there is a time scale for the holding of elections. I would like to know how things stand in relation to that.

I am glad we have reached this stage. I think it is important that full dialogue and discussions continue to take place. I hope that the mistakes made previously will not be repeated. It is important that having come this far we do not hinder matters. I hope the Minister will receive the report on pay and conditions as soon as possible, and that in his own inimitable fashion he will be able to bat hard at the Cabinet table when it comes to getting extra cash for improvements in pay and conditions, and a system of work. As the Minister is undoubtedly aware, it all boils down to money. I think all Members of this House realise we have to look after the people who have served this country well. It is a scandal that for far too long they have been taken for granted. It is important that we give them sufficient backing.

It is high time we took decisions and that full consultations and discussions take place. Many members of PDFORRA have been actively campaigning for improvements and it is important that regardless of what the new associations are called, there is no repetition of the past mistakes. I ask the Minister to make every effort to put the problems behind him and go on from here. Army morale is low. There was a delay in promotions; the chain of promotions was broken and people were stuck at certain levels and could see they would not be able to move. That was very bad for morale. It is important that the Minister does everything to raise morale in the Army and if he does that he will certainly have the support of this side of the House.

Mr. McKenna

First, I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to see him here and looking so well. I also welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the Minister for taking the initiative in setting up the first representative association for members of the Defence Forces. As he said, the main purpose of the Bill is to establish a mechanism whereby members of the Defence Forces have representation with regard to remuneration and related matters. It also — and this is a very important point — provides for access to conciliation and arbitration for the first time and I pay tribute to the Minister for including that clause. That development was at the Minister's own initiative.

This Bill was introduced as a result of a lot of extremely hard work and following the establishment last July for the first time of a completely independent commission to investigate remuneration and conditions of service for the Defence Forces. At the same time, the Minister instructed the Chief of Staff to make preparations for the establishment of a new structure to deal with remuneration and related matters for privates, non-commissioned officers and officers. It has to be accepted that a great deal of research and consultation has already taken place.

Representative groups will be established on the basis of elections by secret ballot and they will be supervised, as the Minister said, by experts in this field. The Bill is to be very warmly welcomed. It is a new departure, showing fresh thinking in relation to representation in the armed forces. I do not think anybody can doubt the Minister's commitment and genuine approach to this matter. I congratulate him on his initiative which is a very positive response to the need to establish a representative structure in the Defence Forces.

As the Minister said, the provisions in the Bill are very similar to those in legislation relating to the Garda Síochána. It has to be acknowledged that the Minister had an extremely difficult job. On the one hand he has to allow a very clear voice from members of the Defence Forces on remuneration and related matters while, at the same time, ensuring that proper controls are maintained in the operational and command areas of the Defence Forces which, in a parliamentary democracy, is subject to civilian control.

As the Minister has said, the Bill is an enabling one and is intended to provide the necessary framework by secret ballots and genuine participation and discussion in which the Defence Forces will have a major say. We must understand that the Defence Forces, as with the Garda Síochána, are in a different position from other sections of the workforce. Because of the nature of their work, both from Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces are subject to limitations on their right to form associations which other citizens would not have to accept. The Constitution recognises the unique position of the Defence Forces and the manner in which the State may provide by law for their organisation and control.

We must take the requirements of national security very seriously. In the Bill the Minister puts forward proposals which are suited to our circumstances. The constitutional right to form associations and unions is subject to public order and is not an unqualified right. Cooperation between the armed forces and the Government is clearly important. As Members of the Oireachtas, we have to behave in a responsible manner and not be seen to fuel confrontation. I think the Minister has made it abundantly clear that he wishes to be as co-operative as he possibly can. His role is definitely not a confrontational one.

The Bill is a very positive response to the demands of PDFORRA for representative structures. As the Minister has said, we must at all times keep in mind that under the Constitution the right to maintain military and armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas. We also have a corresponding responsibility and that is too ensure that we do not erode the essential integrity of the armed forces. Our rights and duties cannot be pre-empted by steps taken in relation to representative structures in the Army.

The Bill provides for the establishment by secret ballot of representative groups in the Defence Forces. This is a major fundamental development and provides the first step towards a formal channel for representation in which there will be genuine participation. It will not be just a talking shop for the Defence Forces. It is obvious from the attitude adopted by the Minister that the last thing he wants is to impose structures. He wishes to provide a legal framework for the setting up of a forum for genuine participative discussions in drawing up regulations. The Defence Forces want a mechanism through which they can express their views and opinions and have a say in pay and related matters and this legislation meets their needs.

As I have said, the Bill also goes much furthert in that for the first time ever it provides for conciliation and arbitration. The Minister and the Defence Forces want a system of effective representation and I assume everyone in the House wants the same. Conciliation and arbitration are seen as very fair mechanisms and those who participate in that system have great confidence in it. No doubt it will prove to be extremely successful in this case. The nearest comparison to this structure is the Garda Síochána representative body. The schemes operating in that regard have been extremely successful in dealing with issues of pay and related matters.

Like Senator Cosgrave, I want to pay tribute to the Defence Forces on the outstanding contributions they have made both at home and in a multiplicity of peace-keeping missions all over the world. Indeed, I had the great honour and privilege of meeting some of those people when on a recent visit to Nicaragua. They were undertaking duties that were a credit to them and their country. I do not think the Defence Forces need have any fears about this legislation. The same opportunities will exist in regard to this body as with other representative bodies. The security of the State is dependent on the Defence Forces. The Minister has formulated excellent proposals which provide for review and change in the light of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements.

The Minister has adopted a very positive approach in relation to this legislation. His attitude can be summed up from the remark that when the elected representatives emerge from the elections the entire representative system and all its aspects will be discussed fully with them. He has no intention of imposing structures. He said this would be counter productive and would not be in anybody's interest. He is prepared to accept the recommendations of the elected members as to whether they want one or two structures. He is telling them to make their own arrangements in relation to the representative body, to decide whether they want one or two structures, and that he will go along with that.

This is a positive approach by the Minister. He has done an extremely good job and he is prepared to explore all avenues to ensure that the structure put in place for representation in the Defence Forces is a good one. All representations will be considered by the Minister.

I warmly welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on his initiative. The Bill is an excellent one.

Mr. B. Ryan

The last time I spoke on defence related matters I got myself into a minor storm and on this occasion I shall try to be more careful with the words I use. It is worth reminding ourselves a little about what armies are supposed to do for us. They get the short end of the stick on everything. Historically, they have been dressed up in extraordinary glamour, full of ambivalences and of quite contradictory perceptions. There is an enormous amount of romanticism attached to armies in terms of uniforms, marching, brass bands and so on to create one image. On the other hand, certain of the more common obscenities in our society were described, at least by my grandfather's generation, as the soldiers world. In expressing this extraordinary ambivalence in our society — in fact, in all societies and we are probably less infected with it than others because we have an all volunteer force and the army has a clearly subordinate role and does not consume an enormous proportion of our national expenditure — it is important to state that it runs through our history. It raises the question about violence, where its role is acceptable in society and where a society is entitled to use it to defend itself. A large part of it is an attempt by society generally all through history to anaesthetise itself against what violence is like and to give a feeling that somehow there are different ways of using violence.

Violence is always brutal, nasty and horrible. The fact that we ask people professionally to be prepared to do that on our behalf behoves us to have a considerable regard for those who do it and not to blink in front of what we are asking people to do. Therefore, we must take every possible step to ensure that we do not ask or allow people to become part of the force which does that for us except and to the degree that is necessary for our defence. I mean "defence" because it is a fact that every major millitary power in the world calls its army a defence force.

No army in the world is called an offence force notwithstanding the fact that the world is now spending the best part of $10,000 billion each year on armaments. That money ostensibly is spent in the name of "defence", defence of the people, defence of a nationality or defence of a patch of territory. It does not matter if two of the super powers, or anybody else, have their forces operating as far away from their own country as is geographically possible, they are still defending themselves. When South African forces were in Angola, thousands of miles from home, we were told that they were defending South Africa. When forces of the United States were in Vietnam we were told that they were defending the United States.

The word "defence", like all the other words that circulate around armies, deserves to be critically appraised. There is a tendency to create a mystique about it. It was pointed out to me, for instance, that if one watches British television news regularly, particularly on the BBC, one will see a nice glossy story each week about the defence forces in the United Kingdom, a nice pastiche towards the end of a news bulletin romanticising armies. I do not think we should romanticise the job. We should respect what armies do. If we accept that the use of violence to defend our society can be justified we should respect the fact that those people, fortunately for us, choose to do it. We should also raise questions about the armies. It is the tradition of non-violence, non-violent resolution of conflict, non-violence as a resolution of conflict within society and as a response to violence that we should look very carefully at what we ask armies to do.

It is understandable that we convey a mystique about armies through the uniform, and all the other things which create a type of separate existence. We create a view of the Army as it is portrayed by all societies. There is something mysterious about being in the Army. There is the romance of the Army. We should remember that until recently it was not just being in an army that was romanticised but war was romanticised. All the recruitment to fight in any war at any stage through history, when people were not shanghaied or press-ganged, was based on a romantic, exaggerated and usually distorted view of what one was fighting for.

Looking back through history at all the wars of the great imperial powers, which were romanticised at the time and in which people were seen to be heroes, it is impossible to look at them without coming to the conclusion that they did not have much to recommend them in terms of the resolution of a movement towards justice. So many of them had to do with power, religion and some of them had to do with sex. They were dressed up in far more noble cloth than that.

One of the great developments of the 20th century is that increasing sections of all societies are beginning to raise serious questions about the romanticism of war and the gloss that goes with it. There is the two-hands view: on the one hand everybody agrees that war is dreadful and on the other hand whenever it is our little patch that is involved our war is different. We have seen it in Central America, in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. What it comes back to is the nonsense of the philosophical basis for a just war. There may be a position where organised killing indiscriminately of opposing forces, which is what war is about, is justified but it is hard to look through history and see a moral justification for those wars.

The role of all the major churches in anaesthetising the consciences of the ruling classes, as they were until democracy took root — I am not picking on one particular church — in giving carte blanche to the established order to effectively determine when it was or when it was not right to use force, is one of the least honourable parts of the history of the churches. The just war theory sounds grand until one reads the last line which is to the effect that those who must decide when all the conditions are met are the lawful authority of a particular state. In other words, if the lawful authority says that the war is justified then no right thinking Christian has any right in conscience to object. Our bishops managed to produce a pastoral on the sanctity of human life without mentioning even the possibility of the right to conscientious objection.

It is a matter of considerable regret, for instance, that four or five European democracies have people permanently in jail for refusing to be conscripted to join the armed forces. Countries that would be paraded as models of liberalism, models of freedom, and in some cases models of social democracy, have extraordinarily draconian laws about conscientious objection. The reason we are so wary about allowing democratic structures to take root in the armed forces is because somewhere in the back of our collective minds is a considerable unease or unwillingness to confront what we expect armies to do. We expect them to do whatever is necessary up to and including killing other people at our behest and on command without the right or the obligation the rest of us have to refer to their consciences. We tell them that their position within the armed forces under command is such that they are not obliged to refer to their own judgment and to hand it over to somebody else.

If a structure is created which gives people the right to be excluded, or to exclude their own personal responsibility from something as serious as that, it is obviously extremely difficulty to accept that in other areas of life they are not going to be inhibited as well. A system and a force is being created which is based on the assumption that what I am told to do on the most fundamental issue of the taking of human life is right, not what I believe to be morally right. I would love to hear many of the moralists who, quite rightly, denounce the use of violence on this island, and indeed in other areas of conflict, address the question of how to deal with the position of individual members of any armed force in the face of serious threat.

Let us remember that the Provisional IRA have done awful things in Northern Ireland which are to be condemned but it was an elite section of the highly respected — in the United Kingdom at least — British forces which shot dead 13 people in Derry on Bloody Sunday. It was not an accident. Nobody who reads the accounts could imagine for one second that a group of paratroopers all suddenly went berserk and all miraculously happened to shoot only people of a particular age and overwhelmingly male, people of what would be called a military age. They did it under orders. People do things under orders and it may well be necessary in the way our society is and in the face of violence that this should be done but we should not bury it in romanticism or mystique and we should not avoid confronting what it is we are asking people to do on our behalf. That is where I would have changed my views from what I said seven or eight years ago here.

The clear responsibility for what an armed force does is with and through society, through the institutions and through the Oireachtas. A considerable part of the harsh reality of the membership of an armed force is that we put people under severe risk but we also expect things from them, but there is the nonsense rhetoric that goes with it, the favourite one being that membership of the Army makes a man out of somebody. I have heard a person who is now a member of the Fine Gael Party in this House suggest that a solution to youth unemployment would be to introduce compulsory military service for our young people on the grounds that it would teach them discipline, make a man out of them, etc.

I am prepared to accept that we need an armed force in terms of the realities of life but I am not prepared to accept that compulsory training in the use of weapons for all our young people will do them much good, will do our society much good, or will be much of a remedy to any problem. There is a lot about service in an army which does people harm, both in terms of the use of weapons and also in the sort of structures that are created. The principle that the Defence Forces should be able to speak on their own behalf, separate from the command structure, is one that is much to be welcomed and I am glad this is being dealt with to some extent in the Bill. The Minister's speech suggests possibilities and I will refer to those later.

I am not convinced that discipline in the Army necessitates the kind of caste system that exists between officers, NCOs and enlisted people. That caste system is an historical anachronism based on the days when the only properly and decently educated people in an army were the officer class and most of the rank and file were illiterate and uneducated.

We have an entirely different situation now where one would hope that all members of the armed forces are relatively well educated, with the officers being overwhelmingly university educated. That should mean changes in internal relationships. That is a matter which impinges on military discipline and it is also a matter which is excluded from the concerns of a Permanent Defence Forces representative organisation.

When looking at the whole question of who should be a member of our armed forces, how they should be represented, how they should be organised and what we should do with them, we would be well advised to keep our feet very firmly on the ground because we have a tendency to let our Army run off in different directions at once. It is, of course, an extremely worthwhile role for our Defence Forces that they should work in peace-keeping in a number of areas. It is a matter of profound regret that an allegedly democratic government in Israel have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of a considerable number of members of the Irish Defence Forces and the matter cannot be adequately condemned. I think our Defence Forces have played a magnificent role and it is a tribute to the quality of their training that they do those jobs well. That is the positive side. I have not yet figured out why certain other decisions had to be taken.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Apr 1990