Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Apr 1990

Vol. 124 No. 14

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Society must not allow itself to be deflected from an unblinking assessment of everything to do with the one body within our society which is set up under the Constitution and which has the right to use force if necessary to defend us. It is a unique body and the drafters of the Constitutions of all democratic societies have recognised that fact in the severe constraints they impose on them. The fact that the Army exist and a job on our behalf should not allow us for one second to ignore what they do. It should not allow us to fudge issues to do with what our Defence Forces are for, and what they need to do to achieve those objectives.

Decisions have been made about defence expenditure, about the purchase of equipment, which are dubious to say the least and do not stand up to serious scrutiny. I have raised some of these matters on a few occasions and they are on the record. The purchase of a surface-to-air missile which, according to authoritive international journals, will not work in wet weather does not seem to make sense given the Irish climate. It does not seem to make much sense to purchase an entire stock of new rifles when the allegedly old rifles are still in use by countries with far more extensive military activities than ours, to purchase Chieftain tanks to serve what purpose I do not know or to purchase certain armour piercing missiles. I could be wrong about those things but what is true is that all those decisions were taken under a cloud of fudge; I do not know if this is because they have to do with national security. I have tried via the Committees on Public Expenditure not to prove myself right but to find out the other side of the argument. The best response I have received is "this was taken on the best advice available and we are satisfied that it is a good idea". That is not an answer; that is an excuse.

If we are going to talk about how the armed forces can be allowed to represent themselves, we must not restrict them in terms of that representative body, to a very narrow agenda. There are many things about Army life that deserve to be scrutinised and the best people, as in every other area of life, to talk about what is wrong with any organisation are the people who work within it. One can pay consultants and get advice from all the experts from outside but (if they are any good) all they will do is properly package the experiences of those on the inside. If they come up with things that contradict the experiences of those who are on the inside, the proposals they make either will not work or will make the situation worse.

I want to identify the realities about Army life which I believe could do with being scrutinised. First, our Defence Forces are poorly paid. One of the extraordinary traits of most countries is that they romanticise, glamourise and do a great job saying wonderful things about the Defence Forces and then almost invariably pay them very badly. I have never understood this but it is part of the ambivalence we have about armies. On the one hand, we think they are wonderful but on the other we seem to have a view of those in the Army, particularly in the enlisted ranks, which does not justify paying them well. The fundamental test of how one group in society treat another group is whether they are prepared to devote adequate resources to pay them well. Even though there has been an improvement I know that many enlisted personnel are still far from happy.

There is an excessively straitjacket caste system in operation. It is very difficult to know what the present position in the armed forces is about the relationship between the different ranks because, by and large, personnel are precluded, except on an informal basis, from talking too much about it. When talking to former members of the Defence Forces one is perpetually reminded about an extraordinarily rigid caste system which people accept, in which the officer caste has not only a sense of hierarchical superiority but also social superiority over the enlisted men. This is not a hostility but is often a very paternalistic system. I do not think the sort of democratic participation or sense of the rights of the subordinate or the junior members of the staff that would exist in most large organisations today has yet entirely permeated the armed forces. Some members of the current unofficial organisation, or perhaps illegal organisation, give a very clear view of the continuing views of senior officers to any sort of a representative body. It is in that context that the Minister's activities are to be welcomed.

There are other matters that need to be looked at. If we invite people to join our armed forces and do this unpleasant job on our behalf, we ought to ensure that when they leave they have acquired some skills that will be useful to them in civilian life. As I have said before in similar debates it is one of the regrettable facts that there seems to be a disproportionate presence of unmarried members of the armed forces in the down and out section of our society. There seems to be a loss of a sense of comradeship, involvement and of participation that affects unmarried members of the Defence Forces when they leave. I am not trying to sensationalise the issue. But a continuing concern is expressed to me that when people leave this structured organisation where their social life and everything else rotates around an Army barracks, they can lose their way in society. This is something we just cannot ignore when people leave the Defence Forces.

A question which is only partially addressed in the Bill is whether there is going to be any attempt to look at the working hours, or working weeks, of members of the Defence Forces. I gather from the Minister's speech, but not from the Bill, that what they will be able to talk about will be, and I quote: "pay, allowances, gratuities, grants, pensions and other matters to be prescribed by regulations".

Having said what needed to be said, I believe we spend far too much money on defence. We spend, as a proportion of our GNP, more than countries of our size which are richer than ourselves. The last figures I saw show that we spent proportionately more than Finland, which shares a border with the Soviet Union, or Austria, which is neutral and also has a border with what used to be Eastern Europe. We spent more proportionately than the other much-talked about neutral country, Sweden. I notice that those from a military background who are inclined to talk about our neutrality always dig up Sweden as an indicator of our obligation to spend a large amount of money on defence. There are other neutral countries in Europe which are, in geographical terms, in more vulnerable circumstances, and which do not have a large arms industry and manage not to spend proportionately much more than we do.

We need to be very clear about the purpose of our Army. We have an Army for a number of reasons. They protect us from internal subversion, a threat I am not persuaded is as severe or as extensive as we are led to believe, but it is there, and they serve the cause of peacekeeping around the world. They are theoretically there to deter an external invader. If I was living in the middle of Western Europe or the eastern extremes of western Europe at the height of the Cold War, or up to three or four years ago, I could understand why people would be worried about deterring an external invader. However, since the end of the Second World War I have never been able to find anybody who could convince me, first, who it was we were thinking might invade us and, secondly, what a small Army the size of ours could do to defend us against such an invader. Since about 1950 the most likely war that would affect this country would be an international nuclear war. As I have said before, in such circumstances our Army or any conventional force would hardly be out of bed, not to mention out of barracks, before we were all obliterated. It is difficult, therefore, to see what objective we can serve by pretending we have an army that is somehow involved in the great plays of international operation.

It is also a matter of considerable worth that our Army is not involved in any international military alliance. There is a tendency now to see NATO in a very clear light. I have never had much time for Warsaw Pact activities because it was essentially an imperialist operation in which a number of small countries were controlled from the centre of the Soviet Union, but NATO tended to glamorise itself. It is worth while remembering that NATO never regarded democratic Government as a credential for membership and quite happily operated for 25 years with fascist Portugal as a member. Neither had NATO any great problems with Greece when it came under dictatorship nor with Turkey when it came under a military dictatorship. The credentials of NATO as the defender of freedom are, to say the least, highly dubious. I am very glad we were not and are not a member of NATO. I sincerely hope that we will not become a member in any way and that we will not have an invitation to have a debate on membership of NATO, which is the usual signal of those who are in favour of us joining NATO. I have never met anybody yet who expressed the usual regret that we are not having a serious debate about neutrality who was not in favour of dumping it. There is a debate in our society and those who say that we have never properly defined our neutrality or that nobody who advocates neutrality knows what they mean, are people who know precisely what I and my political colleagues mean by it, and that includes the Minister who I think, believes in our continuing non-participation in military alliances. We all know what it means and it is only the people who have a different view who dispute that. Again, let me say that some of the more extreme positions on membership of NATO have been expressed by members of Senator McDonald's party from time to time. It is an issue that that party should clarify because they seem to be expressing two different views depending on who says it and where they say it.

Who was saying it lately?

The Senator's colleague in the European Parliament, Mr. McCartin, has a peculiar voting record on the deployment of nuclear missiles within Europe and his ex-Minister for Defence, Mr. Cooney, has made remarks about neutrality as well which are hardly a clarion call to retain it. Those are just two examples off the top of my head. If the Senator gives me a chance, I will dig up a few more.

I am sorry for going on at such length but the issue of the use of violence by anybody in a society deserves to be looked at comprehensively and not just talked about as if there is a difference. We expect armies to do awful things on our behalf. We are the ones who are responsible, not them. It is we who give them the brief, who create a structure and provide the resources for them. We should not duck it by dressing it up in war games, in romantic uniforms and nice music and all the other things.

Given what we ask them to do it is particularly important that those who are asked to do that should be able to communicate with our society about what we are asking them to do and how we ask them to do it. Therefore it is most welcome that we are moving in that direction. The Minister deserves to be complimented. I did say to an active member of the unofficial organisation that they probably had their best chance of getting some significant progress now because of the person who was Minister for Defence at this period. Given the benefit match that the Minister had on Friday night, I do not want to say any more kind things about him than he heard then, lest they go to his head, but it is true that I said that and, to an extent, my faith has been justified.

I know the Minister will argue with me about the term "trade union", but this is essentially a trade-union-type structure which is essentially set up by the employer, which has the activities that it can engage in and the areas of interest that it is allowed to express an opinion on determined by the employer, and which, effectively, can be dissolved by the employer, not just in times of active service or in the case of an emergency — and I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation of the difference between a national emergency and an emergency under the Defence Act — but can be dissolved because a Minister who can make regulations can change those regulations so much as to effectively dissolve it.

It would have been quite useful and quite worth while to put a lot more into this Bill. Many things that are not in the Bill need to be in it. That is one of the issues I would like to address now without going into a Committee Stage discussion. There are all sorts of areas of welfare. I do not mean what the Minister has defined as credit unions and recreation facilities, but the impact on individual members of being within the armed forces with the structure they have and the job they are expected to do. It interacts with discipline and organisation but there is no reason to believe that the views of enlisted men in particular would not, if they were allowed to express them, have a considerable improving effect on how we organise our armed forces. I am concerned that because of the use of the words "excluding matters relating to organisation and discipline" many areas of concern that would be legitimate concerns of a trade union in a different kind of employment will be excluded.

I have a list here which includes things like the trauma that affects members of the armed forces in the event of them having to get involved in a violent confrontation in which some of their own members and perhaps some other people are killed. What exists within the armed forces to deal with that? From what I know of it, I am afraid that the mystique of the armed forces is such that we are reluctant even to admit that participation in the use of violence can be very painful, traumatic and difficult for people, particularly where they or other people get hurt. We cannot pretend that it does not happen. The evidence of other countries is that veterans of war — and I am not pushing the analogy too far — suffer enormous trauma when they come back. In the United States more veterans of the war in Vietnam have died from other than natural causes since the war than died in the war, most of those being arguably related to the trauma of participation in the war. That is an extreme analogy. We ought to allow a body which represents the Defence Forces to talk about the issues that matter to members of the Defence Forces like their training, their ability to deal with the difficulties they face, the stress that being a member of the armed forces and of serving in difficult areas puts on them and on their lives. While it apparently is necessary that a very strict system of discipline must apply within the armed forces, the process of discipline ought to be a matter which would justifiably be able to be addressed by a representative association. There should be a clear insistence that it should not have to come to individuals ending up in the courts to ensure that disciplinary procedures within the armed forces conform with — dare I mention the phrase in this august House — natural justice. It ought to be possible to demand these things. I would be concerned about all of the other things including the quality of training and education that is available to members of the Defence Forces. All of those things ought to be legitimate concerns of a representative association.

The Minister said the associations will represent members in relation to pay and allowances, gratuities, grants, pensions and other matters to be prescribed by regulations. What bothers me is that the Minister's regulations obviously cannot conflict with the Bill and the exclusion without qualification of matters relating to any operation and the raising, maintenance, command, constitution, organisation and discipline of the Defence Forces. How can a legitimate body talk about issues that affect their members if they cannot talk about the maintenance of the Defence Forces, the raising of a Defence Forces, the operation and discipline of the Defence Forces? So much has been put in there that they can talk about nothing except wages and conditions and related matters. Can they talk about the quality of housing available to members of the Defence Forces?

That is part of the welfare area.

As the Minister defines "welfare" there——

It is not exclusive. That is one of the reasons we do not put it into the Bill, that there are so many areas, a whole long list, which come under welfare.

Yes, we will come back to it on Committee Stage and we can have an interesting discussion on it. There are a couple of other things to clear up also. Occasionally it is suggested that there are difficulties within armed forces — not in this country — about misuse of power by superior officers against junior officers, and officers against enlisted men. The way in which different ranks are dealt with by other ranks ought to be a matter for legitimate concern. There is nothing about the operation of a defence force which suggests that the sense of human dignity of any individual should ever be taken away from them or that any sort of humiliating power structure should exist. There is no need for people to be made feel small in order for them to operate according to conditions of extremely strict discipline. There are operations of a non-military kind which need extremely strict discipline. Operation of a large scale chemical processing plant for, instance, requires people to operate to very strict rules, very strict discipline and according to very tight conditions of safety.

We should not let the sort of mystique of an armed force get away from that. How they are trained, what they are taught, what sort of educational facilities are available to them, all of that is a legitimate concern. I do not know how they can deal with the pain and trauma of some of the things that they have to do in the disciplinary processes. For instance, why should a body who are arguing for the best conditions for their membership, if they see waste and inefficiency, not be able to raise this matter with the public? I think it is because of wariness of letting people think for themselves which runs through our society in a big way. This body will not be allowed to affiliate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Why? I suspect I know the answer though it is not specifically stated. The prisons officers can do so although the Garda representative association cannot and I am not sure why. There are knee-jerk reactions. I think all of our bodies, if they wish, should be entitled to affiliate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is quite likely that members of the armed forces will come under the terms of a public service pay deal which will be negotiated by an ICTU who will not have within their body representatives of either the Army or the Garda. It is a pity.

As the Minister said, there are international organisations representing the representatives of defence forces. Will this body be allowed to affiliate to international organisations which deal with international issues and which have been set up and linked to the armed forces in a number of countries? This is not clear and it should be clarified now. I cannot figure out also whether the body would be allowed to have a permanent secretariat.

Yes. That is the subject matter of regulations agreed by the representatives.

I can see why much of what the Minister mentioned needs to be done by regulations but I cannot see why the body should not have a permanent secretariat. I cannot see why it should not be recognised that a number of other bigger issues like housing, the personal well-being of the individuals, like the process of transferring people from one barracks to another should be dealt with. I am quite happy to leave the details. I cannot understand why it is not stated in law what the Minister says in his speech, that spokespersons for the association will be permitted to make statements to the news media. That ought to be enshrined in the law. Without that in the law it is——

That is a constitutional right. We do not want to start clogging up the Bill with all these matters. We want to have a flexible frame work so that we can agree with the representatives and then we can review it from time to time and amend and improve it.

Warrant Officer Martin did not hear that he had a constitutional right to speak to the media.

This is a new situation we are creating here with this legislation. We are legitimising it in the legislation.

The Minister is legitimising the organisation——

But he is claiming that he will determine. I am not disputing bona fides here at all. I said I would put my view of the bona fides of the present Minister on the record. We could argue about many details that should or should not be in, but I think the fundamental right of this organisation is to have a permanent secretariat which would be independent of the command structure, provided it operates within the law, and it should be able to fully participate in any media discussions on matters that pertain to the operation——

That will be the case.

It should be enshrined in law.

That is a difference of opinion. I think it should be in the regulations.

It is a difference of principle; it is a difference of opinion about how a principle ought best go be established. It is a great deficiency that the right to speak to the media should be left out of this Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of what an emergency means under section 4 (1) of the principal Act. This is probably ignorance on my part, but where in law is there a definition of active service as referred to in section 4 and which the Minister referred to in his speech? What does "active service" mean and where in law can a member of the Defence Forces find out when he is or is not on active service? With the exception of the provision for members acting outside the State with an international unit or otherwise, a member who is on active service shall not be represented by the association. The Defence Forces, both the organisation and the membership, are entitled to a fairly clear definition of "active service". It is not, as I recall, defined in the definitions at the beginning of the Bill, I did not go through the principal Act line by line so I may well be missing a definition somewhere.

It is in the 1954 Act, section 5. I will give the Senator a copy.

I thank the Minister. My education is advancing by leaps and bounds.

So is my own, to tell you the truth.

That is why I like the Minister. The Minister on a few occasions so kindly added to my knowledge and obviously intended to be extremely helpful I have just realised that if the right to access to the media is a constitutional right he does not need to put it into the regulations at all. If he is so clear that it is a constitutional right it does not need to be put into the regulations.

The details of it should go in, in the interest of the men themselves.

I think the Minister is on shakey ground there.

That would be a point for Committee Stage.

It would, but the Minister was being so helpful I could not resist coming back to him again about it.

That was the mistake he was making.

That was last week, Senator Honan. We are on much better terms on both sides of the House this week. Since so much of the constitution, operation and the detail will be covered by regulations they must, of necessity, be debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a great pity, therefore, that the Minister proposes the negative control mechanism of dealing with regulations which means that unless they are annulled within the next 21 days they will stand. There should be a requirement that the regulations are debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas which would mean that there would be a process of positive affirmation of regulations. So much of this Bill will depend on regulations that they should be debated. Given that there is a Government majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas it is extremely unlikely that time will be allocated in either House to discuss them unless a group decide to use Private Members' time to debate them.

The trouble with regulations, as the Minister knows, is that they can be only approved or rejected, they cannot be amended. An enormous amount of important detail will not be subject to detailed scrutiny; we can either vote for or against them and if the regulations are considerd appalling, perhaps the Government will allocate time to discuss them. Issues dealing with the fundamental liberties of an important section of society should not come into force before there is an Oireachtas debate. Therefore, the regulations should required the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas on this occasion and in future because, of course, the Minister can amend those regulations as he sees fit. It means that a Government of the day could change these regulations without serious debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

What I said at the beginning of my remarks still holds good, that the Defence Forces are fortunate to have the best liberal in Fianna Fáil as their champion on this issue. I look forward to the setting up of a dreadfully long overdue recognition of the democratic rights of the members of our armed forces. I hope — although I am not optimistic — that we will succeed in improving the conditions in the Defence Forces. Most of all we accept the broad goodwill of the Minister to enshrine in legislation important principles which are not adequately defended by regulations.

I welcome this legislation although I had deep reservations about the Bill. I thank the Minister for introducing it and for his speech this morning. He referred to matters which are not contained in the Bill but, as he told Senator Ryan, regulations will be introduced to cover them.

I wish to pay tribute to the men in uniform who serve our nation. I do so because Derry, who was a long serving Member of this House, also had the honour to serve his country. At a time when he was very low and knew he was dying I asked him — this is the first time I referred to this, whether he wanted a guard of honour or his Army cap on the coffin and he opted for the cap. He joined the Army as a private and if there are problems in regard to privates and NCOs I should be seen as listening to them. If members of the Defence Forces had been consulted earlier we might have avoided the problems and hassle which arose later. In fairness PDFORRA did not set out to cause any trouble or to embarrass the Minister and the Government. I am not saying they were naive but one must correct some of the things that were said about them.

When members of PDFORRA listened to the Minister's speech in the other House their reaction was that they trusted him and they hoped that the provisions in the Bill would benefit them. They used the word "trust" and the word has never been more relevant in public life than here this morning. We talk about the men in uniform proudly serving our country and if they trust us when the legislation goes through the House and is signed by Uachtarán na hÉireann I will depend on Minister Lenihan to see that their trust in us and in him is warranted.

Much of the trouble and hype was caused by lack of communication. I will not point my finger at a former Minister because that is not my style. Mistakes were made by other Ministers for Defence before Minister Noonan took office. It is wrong that one Minister should be singled out and blamed as many Ministers neglected this area. Serving soldiers come back from abroad and are decorated with medals and so on. While it is very important to those men and women, they also have to look after the material side in regard to themselves and their families. As my colleague, Senator Cosgrave said, the Army are called on in strikes and they are at everyone's beck and call.

I understand that Army wages and increases have not been maintained. It was said in the Dáil that increases granted in the seventies have not been maintained. I understand that a man with 12 years' service in the Army brings home £150 per week out of which he has to pay a mortgage of perhaps £45 per week. How is he supposed to live on the rest and maintain his family? PDFORRA have no problem in regard to a properly elected representative organisation and it is wrong for anyone to pretend otherwise.

I hope that the ground rules laid down for them by the Department and the Minister will not be too harsh that they cannot put in place the things they are asking for. It is no trouble to the Department to lay down conditions — and no Department may be tougher than the Department of Defence — for people serving but they must be conditions which can be implemented.

The Minister expressed his good intentions in his speech today, but they may not be in the Bill. I understand also that they are asking for separate groups for NCOs and privates, but as far as I know they do not want to be separated, unless they have changed their minds. One has to be so careful, when talking about Army matters one is supposed to say: "I talked to men who had served, because the men who are serving, who wanted to talk to the few of us who wanted to talk to them, made it quite clear to me that the rules were laid down for them". I sought their opinions when I saw the pitch things were getting to, and they were not being listened to, because as I have already stated, I have great love for the Army, who are serving our nation with distinction. I felt it was my duty to talk to them so that I would know the true story.

I then had to say that I had talked to persons who had retired. It was no bother to say that. There is a change of attitude in this Bill before us today, and in the Minister's speech, and I wish to put that on record. I am delighted that somebody had the good sense to talk to the men and to tell the Minister how serious things were down the road. I am not a bit worried about what TDs went to talk to the men, if at the end of the day it is of benefit to the men and women serving in the Defence Forces.

Senator Brendan Ryan talked about romance — the romance we are supposed to see in the Army today. I can assure Members that the privates and corporals do not see too much romance in the Army they are serving in today.

I thought the Senator said she loved the Army.

I am making a distinction between romance and love. There is a difference. The men are upset about all this publicity and all the hype which is sometimes generated for the wrong reasons. They would have preferred — I have their absolute word on it — if they had been spoken to, without all this publicity and all this hype. Indeed, some politicians may be using them for further down the road but I am not going to point the finger.

I think it is our duty as long-serving Members — those sitting here are long serving Members — in public life to do as these men and women who have talked to us have asked. They have trusted us to put this legislation through. They want to be consulted about their needs. There was some reference to the damage they did in the last general election. Very few Fianna Fáil people would get up and say what I am going to say: they did do us damage. I am not saying the Army wives were right in marching with placards, but I am well aware that families like mine, who would have long associations with the Army, took a poor view of the fact that privates and non-commissioned officers were not being listened to. It is wrong to categorise them as a militant group. In all my years I never talked to more reasonable people.

I am grateful that the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, has put this legislation through the House. I hope he has listened carefully to my worries. In his reply I hope the Minister will pay more than lip service to the people who serve our country today. I do not mean that remark to be taken personally but I want to say how strongly I feel about this legislation before me. I do not have to read the Minister's speech to be aware that 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. I am well aware of the role of our Defence Forces in preserving and protecting this democratic nation of ours and the excellent way they have done so. While I serve in public life I feel it is my duty to bring to public notice the worries of non-commissioned officers.

I welcome the legislation. Like Senator Cosgrave, I hope it will not be a year or two years before the association is put in place with properly elected representatives. The few of us who spoke to the men found they were so careful not to ask for rights. I do not think they even used that word when speaking to me. They said only what they were asking for; and told us what wages they had.

I think it was known that I had reservations about this Bill. I felt there was an onus on me to see that we did not, as we have done since 1977, put the legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas without implementing it fully. I am asking the Minister for Defence to make sure that the legislation is implemented and that the elections are held. I think we will all benefit from doing the right thing in the end. Again, would we have had this long, upsetting episode if people had talked to those involved? I am not saying the Minister should have done it, but somebody should have listened to them. It is strange; nobody could talk to anyone involved some weeks back, and all of a sudden two TDs can talk to them. Much of our trouble in public life today is because of lack of communication. My success, and indeed that of the Minister, derives from communication and talking to people. When I am talking about the non-commissioned officers I am referring to our three forces, the Navy and Air Corps as well as the Army. I know that senior officers did not want these men to have a voice — and I say that as the widow of a senior officer — but they were not listened to. They did not mean to go out on a limb and cause embarrassment, if that is what they did, to the Minister for Defence but they have been neglected. I am glad to hear the Minister say there is more to this matter than is in the Bill. There is more in the Minister's speech today than is in the Bill. I am asking the Minister to ensure that the needs of the non-commissioned men and women, the people whom we praise so much, are considered.

I have just listened to a speech from Senator Honan in the old style and tradition of the House, the kind of straight presentation that has been heard rarely in the Oireachtas in recent times. I welcome this Bill but it is a pity, as Senator Honan so rightly said, that there was not a quicker response to the demands in this area. The Defence Forces are lucky because, since Mr. Donegan's time in that office, this Minister for Defence is the most powerful and certainly the most influential Minister at Cabinet who had dealt with the Army. I sincerely hope he will take the opportunity to bring the service up to 1990 standards.

Is it adequate that we have an Army serving the country, one that was established in 1922 or 1924 and which has changed little in structure and format and in its operation in the intervening years. Insufficient thought has been given to this matter. Surely this is an opportune time to review the structure and role of the Defence Forces. It is crucial that that exercise be undertaken. We should look at whether we require an Army of the old style or whether we should have a militia more designed to supporting the Garda. At present we have an Army in the old colonial tradition but what use does that serve at present?

The crisis in the Defence Forces arose from the time the Army took up duty in the prison in Portlaoise. There were three arms of the State services, first class, second class and third class, doing the same job and there was no difference in pay, conditions, service or hours and that is where the problem arose. The pay of a prison officer, with overtime, is in excess of £20,000 a year while that of a soldier with 12 years' service is £100 a week. That is a stark contrast to a job which could be comparable from a recruitment point of view. It is regrettable that successive Governments did not recognise the problems that arose in that regard.

The amount of adverse press coverage over the past couple of years is a cause of great regret. It is unfortunate that matters have been allowed to slide to such a degree. Recently I read with alarm the scales of pay of the different defence forces serving with the United Nations and I was horrified to find that our men, who stand shoulder to shoulder with forces from countries of four continents, receive roughtly one-third of the salary of soldiers from what are described as Third World countries. This is something of which everybody should be thoroughly ashamed. There are sections of our forces serving in at least 19 countries. I do not know whether that figures is correct — I did not make inquiries from the Army press office because the last time I had occasion to contact them they said they do not give out information and, unlike Senator Honan, I have not spoken to anybody in the Defence Forces in the past couple of years.

Surely if we are going to ask the Defence Forces to take on peace-keeping duties with the United Nations, there should be a special overseas or foreign service allowance to bring their salary on a par with that of members in other countries who are serving alongside them. I think that is not too much to ask. Of course when these people come home, that allowance would be terminated.

There is another anomaly in this area, in that we do not have sufficient officers of senior rank. In some cases a lieutenant colonel could be supervising the work of a major general of another nationality and this puts our people at a disadvantage. If we do not have the complement of senior Army grades from colonel up, there should be some system written into the regulations of allocating temporary postings which would save our people embarrassment. Our Defence Forces have carried out their duties in foreign countries with tremendous skill, success and dignity. That is one of the main reasons the Secretary General of the United Nations is very anxious to have members of the Defence Forces serve in the trouble spots around the world.

There should be some relation between the conditions and pay structures in our three services, the Garda Síochána, the prison service and the Army. I am not suggesting that the roles played by those in the three services are the same but there should not be such a huge gap in the pay of those involved. We have an opportunity in debating the Bill to compliment the members of the Defence Forces on the way they have carried out their duties. They have served the country well down the years. We should bear in mind that it is only in recent years that some of their conditions have improved. For example, it is only recently that those on escort duty travelled in covered jeeps. I have seen soldiers in the heart of the winter travelling around the country in open jeeps. I accept that it is important that they should be able to make a fast exit from the vehicle but I do not think soldiers should have been asked to endure such hardship. I do not know if protective clothing is supplied, and that is another matter that can be raised by the new representative bodies. One could not fail to notice the bad conditions members of the Defence Forces have had to endure.

I do not wish to aggravate Senator Brendan Ryan, but I should like to state that one year ago I would have been advocating that we should be part of NATO on the basis that we have an obligation to defend the community of which we are very much a part, but when I read that one of our sister member states will this year pay one billion Deutsche Marks to maintain 360,000 Russian troops in the European Community, I was taken aback. It is of the utmost importance to this country that we reassess the role we expect the members of our Defence Forces to play. The Minister for Defence, as a matter of urgency, must reorganise the Defence Forces. The time is long overdue when we should redefine the role to be played by them. We have an opportunity to do that and we should not let it pass.

It is my wish that members of the Defence Forces will be able to organise their associations into effective bodies that will argue for better pay and conditions. Those in the Defence Forces should have an exciting and profitable career structure. I welcome the Bill and I intend to raise a number of questions about its provisions on Committee Stage.

It is appropriate that a Member from the town of Athlone, a town with a long Army tradition, should make a contribution in the debate on this historic Bill. Over the years I have made great friends with members of the Defence Forces of all ranks. Some of my happiest days were spent in the gymnasium at Costume Barracks playing basketball with Army personnel. Many of them were international players of the highest standard. Indeed, I played many other sports with them. Down the years Army personnel in Athlone played a major role in the sporting and cultural life of the town. Nationally, the Army have been a great support to the civil authorities. The security of the State largely depends on them proving, if proof is needed, that they are a group of intelligent, competent and resilient people. They have proved their worth time and again.

Internationally, Army personnel have played a major role when on difficult assignments overseas. I am referring to places like the Congo, the Lebanon, Cyprus and on the Iran-Iraq border. We should not forget that many Army personnel were part of the UNIFIL force who received the Nobel Peace Prize recently. There is no doubt that we can be proud of the Army. In my opinion the Army is too important an organisation to be treated lightly. A career in the Army is much sought after. I can recall the time when district justices suggested to many young offenders who appeared before him that they should join the Army because if they did, they would not have to serve a prison sentence. Thankfully, that day is long gone. Today the Army is recognised as an excellent career for young men and women. There has been a lot of talk about low morale in the Army but when the Minister for Defence announced that he intended recruiting 1,000 people to the Defence Forces, almost 7,000 people replied. That is proof that many young men and women regard it as an attractive career.

I welcome the Bill which provides for the setting up of the first representative associations for members of the Defence Forces. Its introduction follows an initiative taken by the Government in July last. The provisions in it arise from discussions with representatives of the Defence Forces. I agree that such a Bill should have been introduced many years ago but now that one has been introduced we must do the best we can with it.

The representative groups will be established following elections by secret ballot which will be supervised by an official from the Department of the Environment. That individual is an expert on elections. I see the Bill as a reflection of the new thinking in regard to representation in the Defence Forces. Nobody can doubt the genuine interest and concern of the Minister for Defence. I support him in his initiative and I see the Bill as a wholesome response to the need and request for a representative structure in the Defence Forces. The provisions in the Bill are similar to the arrangements that exist in regard to the Garda Síochána. It is a middle of the road compromise in that the Minister is endeavouring to steer a middle course and hold that line. On the one hand he is permitting a clear voice in regard to remuneration and conditions while, at the same time, he is ensuring that proper control is retained in the operational, command and discipline areas. In keeping that clear course it is very important to ensure that the Defence Forces carry out their duties properly.

The Bill is intended to provide the necessary framework. That is the first step not alone to provide protection for the Government but especially for the members of the Defence Forces. Following the legislation and the secret ballot, I hope there will be very genuine participation and discussion on the regulations on the shape of which the Defence Forces will have a major say.

Section 3 (2) recognises the right of individuals not to be members or to be represented by an association other than the association that would be formed on the passing of this Bill. It is interesting to note that PDFORRA in their draft constitution make the point that the association shall be a non-political organisation and shall not be obliged to belong to other organisations. Subsection (3) provides that an association shall be independent of and shall not, without the Minister's consent, be associated with or affiliated to any trade union or any other body. This is understandable because we recognise that the ordinary workforce differ from the Defence Forces. We know that the citizens of this country have the right to form associations or unions or to become members of associations or unions. Many countries around the world exclude armed forces and police from associations and/or unions. In Ireland the Garda are not free to join trade unions of their choice. While they have associations — very worth-while and effective ones — they are not allowed to affiliate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

The constitutional right to form associations and unions is subject to public order and is not an unqualified right. Co-operation between the armed forces and the Government is important and therefore, as Members of the Oireachtas, we have to behave in a very responsible way and not contribute to any confrontation. When the Bill was initiated I had discussions with the Minister. I indicated the need to head off any confrontation and, indeed, the response from the Minister at the time was that he did not want it either. He wanted the Bill to be proceeded with and to have full and open consultations with anybody who wanted to discuss the problem with him. The Minister, apart from his role as Minister for Defence, has made it clear that what he wants is co-operation as opposed to confrontation. That is the style of the man.

PDFORRA sought representative structures for the Permanent Defence Forces. The Bill is a comprehensive response to their needs. The issue does not need further mention or investigation. It is agreed that the initiative for a representative structure for the Defence Forces should rest with the Minister for Defence and the Government and not with any unregulated group. PDFORRA are aware of that and they responded magnificently when discussions took place. The Constitution maintains the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces and makes the point that this right is vested totally and exclusively in the Oireachtas. That right gives rise to other responsibilities as well. I suggest that we have a responsibility to ensure that there will be no erosion of the integrity of the Defence Forces. It would be unacceptable if steps were taken in relation to the representative structures in the Army that could in any way pre-empt the decisions of the Oireachtas. That is our right. We have had other cases of that in the House in the past.

I congratulate PDFORRA on their response to this Bill. The provisions of the Bill provide for the establishment, by secret ballot, of representative groups in the Defence Forces. This is a major, fundamental development. Setting up for the first time a proper legal channel for representation means genuine participation as opposed to what would be there if PDFORRA continued as an unregulated group who would be no more than a talking shop for the Defence Forces.

The new machinery envisaged under the provisions of this Bill will provide the opportunity for members of the Defence Forces, including those of PDFORRA, to opt by secret ballot for participation in the arrangement leading to representative associations. On this point, the Minister has gone out of his way to indicate that he will not impose the structures. That will be a matter for full and open discussion.

I want to stress the point that PDFORRA are not moving to the stage of holding their own elections. If they did they would place themselves in direct confrontation with the Government of the day. Confrontation between Government and PDFORRA could be a recipe for disaster. I am delighted that everybody is on the same wavelength in regard to this measure. I am also pleased that PDFORRA, as members of the Defence Forces, will become members of the democratic process in the taking part in these elections. These elections must be fully democratic. We should congratulate Deputy Brian Hillery and Deputy Tom Kitt, who spent 11 hours in the Aisling Hotel some weeks ago talking to the eight members of PDFORRA. Two better qualified people could not have met PDFORRA. Deputy Kitt is an understanding and patient person and Deputy Hillery is a renowned expert in the field of industrial relations. I understand that Deputy Hillery will continue to have discussions with PDFORRA until this Bill is passed.

It is important not to have controversy. Controvery between the Army and the State would impinge on the very core of the authority of the State. If PDFORRA were to proceed as an unregulated association could have very serious consequences for the institutions of the State. I know that when the procedures for the elections come up there will be full consultation with Mr. Sexton of the Department of the Environment. It is true to say that the Army have fallen behind in relation to welfare and pay matters and other areas of medical benefit and family support schemes. This association, when formed, will represent members in relation to pay, allowances, Border allowances, gratuities, pensions, welfare matters, recreational matters, medical benefit schemes and family support systems. The representative group will be entitled to speak to the media once they are established. As we all know the present situation is most unsatisfactory and it has been left to the wives of the Defence Forces personnel to put forward their grievances through the media. They did a very good job but I know the men in the Army would prefer to be able to speak for themselves, which is what this legislation is partly about.

On the question of structures, I think the Minister has made it clear that he has no wish to get involved in a debate about whether there should be two or three associations, whether they should be made up of officers, non-commissioned officers and privates or whether the NCOs and privates should come together as one group. I want to stress that it is essential to establish democratically what the Army personnel want. All members of the Army must be seen to participate in a fully democratic election. These elections must be for all members of the Permanent Defence Force. It has been pointed out that if a member wants to opt out, he has the constitutional right to do so but I do not think too many people will do that. I hope there will be a full, open and democratic election when the time comes.

This is enabling legislation. It is proposed to have full and detailed consultations and discussions after the election so that the regulations can then be agreed between the Minister, the Department, the Army, PDFORRA and anyone else who wishes to make a submission. As provided in the Bill, these regulations can then come before the House for further discussion. That progression makes sense. I know that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Lenihan, was never a sergeant-major or had any rank in the Army, but he knows the thinking of the Army. The Minister and the Army know that trust and confidence is needed on both sides and I have no doubt that that is there in abundance. Not alone is it important that there be trust between the officers and men but there must be trust between the Army as a whole and the Minister.

The loyalty and competence of the Army and members of the Defence Forces are not in question. We all accept this and I think the public at large accept it too. We look forward to the conclusion of the Gleeson Report on pay and conditions because we want to see the conditions and pay of our armed forces improved. It is not good for the morale of the Government or the people to have a disgruntled Army. It must be stressed, that the Defence Forces are the responsibility of Oireachtas Éireann and that the legislation we pass here today will be governing legislation. This legislation was introduced by the Government because there was no legislation governing representative bodies in our Defence Forces and so that any bodies which are in existence or which were to be set up would be legitimate. That situation which existed since the formation of the Defence Forces in 1922 is now being changed.

It is important to remember that this is enabling legislation which provides for consultation with all the personnel of the Defence Forces on structures that will be acceptable to them. The Government have wisely gone down this road, which was the one chosen in the Garda Síochána Act, 1977, which set up the Garda Síochána representative body. This too was enabling legislation and regulations were subsequently brought in after consultation between the Department of Justice, the Garda authorities and the Garda personnel. We are proposing to follow the same pattern in this legislation to enable the Permanent Defence Force to have a voice on issues such as pay, allowances and other conditions of service.

The structures now being established under the Bill will accommodate the need for a representative body for the Defence Forces so that the Army will have an outlet to express their views on pay and related matters. Not alone will the proposed machinery meet the needs of the Defence Forces but it will go further by providing for the necessary conciliation and arbitration machinery. The issue of conciliation and arbitration will be the subject of consultation before it is put into place. I understand that conciliation and arbitration were not provided for in the PDFORRA constitution. The Government have gone further down the road than PDFORRA expected.

Basically our role is to put the proposals on a very sound basis. I believe this is what we are doing. I think that trust and confidence abound in the Army and in the Minister. I welcome and support the Bill.

Like much of the legislation which has come before this House since I became a Senator this legislation is welcomed in principle by the Labour Party but we have a problem with the substance of the provisions in the Bill. What we have before us is a Bill which will provide for the establishment of associations to represent members of the Defence Forces on certain matters. Nobody can disagree with that. Even though this Bill is overdue and is necessary, its actual provisions leave a lot to be desired because of the way this enabling legislation has been drawn up.

This matter should have been dealt with a long time ago. It is about time the Defence Forces had a representative organisation. They are one of the three services representing security forces in this country, that is, the Garda, the prison officers and the Army. Both the Garda and the prison officers have very strong representative organisations. The Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors — two separate organisations, one for the officers and one for ordinary gardaí — have been working very effectively and have improved the pay and conditions of gardaí. The Prison Officers' Association is not just an association; it is a trade union having successfully applied to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for union status. This body is now formally a trade union in every sense of the word. The pay and conditions of employment of both those arms of the security forces are in direct and drastic contrast to the pay and conditions of our Defence Forces. I believe the reason for this is that the Defence Forces have not had a representative body. That is the core of the problem.

If the Army had had its representative body I have no doubt we would not have witnessed in recent years the marching of spouses of the armed forces. Because the Army personnel themselves were not allowed by law to protest, the National Army Spouses Association had to be established to represent their spouses who themselves did not have their constitutional right as citizens of this country to represent themselves. It was a gross anomaly in our society that people could not represent themselves and the only form of representation was through their spouses.

In recent times we saw women marching on the streets protesting against the deteriorating conditions of employment of their spouses. We must congratulate them on the work they have done. It is because of them we are discussing this legislation today and for no other reason. Nothing has been done since the foundation of the State in 1922 and I have no reason to believe that this legislation would be before us today were it not for those courageous women who marched and protested and spoke out publicly and demanded that their menfolk — there are some women who would have male spouses in the Army — be treated properly as citizens of this country. That is why we are here today. Fianna Fáil know that well because they might not be coming here today as partner in a Coalition if they had addressed this matter at an earlier stage. They have brought this upon themselves by not responding to the dire need that existed.

An ad hoc representative organisation was established, the Permanent Defence Forces and Other Ranks Representative Association which has recruited widely and represents some 8,000 members within the Defence Forces. That is the backdrop to what we are discussing here, spouses marching on the streets and members having to recruit without the blessing of the military authorities or the Government and, indeed, in the teeth of opposition by Ministers for Defence in the years gone by.

The question of pay has been a thorny one for some time. The 1988 interdepartmental pay review committee indicated the atrocious nature of the pay of the Defence Forces in relation to other sectors of society, particularly the other security forces, but their recommendations on pay were not translated into money in the pockets of members of the Defence Forces. Now we have the Gleeson report. All of this is the result of the failure of the Government to address a matter that demanded attention urgently.

We have before us a Bill that negates developments rather than addressing the new association. There is more in it that limits the extent, authority and power of representation of this new body than there is about the positive extension of the civil rights that are enjoyed by every other body of citizens in this country. That is a crying shame. On the one hand we have enabling legislation that sets out to establish a representative body and on the other hand is so anxious to restrict its independence that one gets the feeling that is the main purpose of the Bill. That is particularly focused in section 6 where it is stated that a person who is subject to military law shall neither endeavour to "persuade nor conspire with any other person" to join a trade union or other body. That is a most loaded phrase.

It is hardly conspiracy to persuade a member to join a trade union. Under the Constitution every citizen has the right of assembly and the right to organise, and it is wrong to describe that in terms of conspiracy, with undertones of subversion. That is why I am saying that what I perceive as the purpose of this Bill is a negative one, to undermine these developments which should have been dealt with long ago, the organisation on an ad hoc basis by the Defence Forces themselves with the support of their spouses to get their rights. That is what makes this Bill so unsatisfactory.

Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe which has not granted representation or encouraged representative bodies among its Defence Force members. The norm is to have a representative body. We were the people who were out of line in Europe in general and in the EC when the matter was discussed in 1984 in the European Parliament and again last month when it was presented by the Socialist group. That further underlines our political inability to address a major problem which should be addressed as a right for our citizens rather than done under persuasion, under threat and with a negative approach. Effectively the Bill makes it illegal to be a member of PDFORRA. That is the main intention of the Bill. Another representative body is set up but the effect and the intention is to make illegal the existing ad hoc body, and the provisions refer to that.

Let us look at some of the major provisions. In section 2 (1) the Minister is given power to specify regulations but the regulations are to be specified in relation to every area; "matters affecting their remuneration and other such matters". There is only one area the Minister is generous enough to specify that will be covered by this body and that is matters of pay — remuneration. Any representative body have as their primary function to deal with matters of pay and conditions. That is always the core principle of any representative body who are an association representing a membership in society.

I see no reason why the Minister cannot come out from hiding behind this barrier of regulations which he will decide at his discretion, even though he will put them before the House. Why can he not tell us now some of these matters that are going to be dealt with by regulation? Why can he not state categorically the work and conditions as well as the remuneration for this body? Are the regulations going to deal with the welfare of members? Are they going to deal with education matters? Are they going to deal with grievances of any nature beside remuneration?

It is expecting us to buy a pig in a poke in relation to the regulations. They are not specified and they will determine the entirety of what is to be provided, whether we are going to have one association, or three, and then they are going to cover the operation of the powers the extent and the parameters of the body or bodies. All of that is left hanging in section 2 (1) and the Minister seems not to care that we are going to pass the Bill which will hand back to him almost total authority in relation to the nature of the association or associations to be set up.

In section 2 (3) there is a contradiction. The section provides that: "An association shall be independent of and shall not, without the consent of the Minister, be associated with or affiliated to a trade union or any body." How can we have an association which is independent if, at the same time, they do not have the scope to take any actions of their own accord in terms of affiliation to any trade union or any other body? The Prison Officers' Association have affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the prison system has not collapsed. I suppose it was already in dire circumstances, but the prison officers have not ceased to be good servants of the State as a result of getting full entitlements as trade unionists. I see no reason that there should be a categorical statement on the one hand that the body should be an independent body and on the other hand that there can be no possibility of their affiliation or association with any other body.

The same vein of thought goes through section 2 (3), (4), (5) and section 6. In section 2 (4) "members shall not become or be". I would suggest that the wording of that be changed to put the future second and put the present first; in other words "a member shall not be or become", but that is a minor point. The substance is that a member shall not become a member of a trade union or any other body which seeks to influence or otherwise be concerned with remuneration or conditions of service of members. Section 2 (5) provides that the Minister shall determine any question that arises as to whether any trade union body or any other body is a trade union.

There is a tremendous concern in relation to the association's role being very tightly monitored and limited. In section 6 there is an outrageous reference to conspiring to persuade somebody to become a member of a trade union. In relation to the standing of trade unions in this country this is an insult. The trade union movement has a long record of integrity and honour, and here we have a Bill which sets as its primary function to ensure that there is no possibility whereby an association established under this Bill can ever get full trade union rights. The legality of that must be questioned as must its constitutionality, because citizens are equal under the law and there is no constitutional prohibition in this regard. The Constitution, to the contrary, would seem to encourage the establishment of representative bodies. It is the right of every citizen to organise, as it is the right of the State to arm its citizens in terms of a Defence Force.

Section 3 (1) makes the unusual provision that any association shall be dissolved under an order under section 4 (1) of the Principal Act which refers to a state of emergency. Of course we are living in a state of emergency and we have been living in a state of emergency since 1939 when the Offences Against the State Act was enacted. What constitutes a national emergency? I would be interested to hear the Minister's explanation. If we pass this Bill the Minister might feel entitled to dissolve the association as soon as they are established. Section 3 (2) refers to the revocation of that order. Both those areas require some degree of clarification.

In section 5 there is discrimination. It provides that: "the Minister may provide by regulations that an association for members of a specified rank or ranks of the Defence Forces may represent such members" but no members who are not of a specified rank. What is the reason for choosing one rank as against the other? Why should there not be representation in relation to members of the Defence Force who are serving abroad? We have an honourable tradition in this country of the Defence Forces serving under the United Nations in various trouble spots in the world. It seems strange that there should be limitation in relation to the area of representation of somebody who is on active service on behalf of his country irrespective of whether that active service is at home or abroad. These are matters I would like the Minister to address that point.

The measure in relation to our internal affiliation to trade unions is something I find very difficult to accept. It is an insult to the trade union movement in general. Why is this so specifically a point and why is it put in that wording that has overtones of subversion, of conspiracy to persuade anybody to become a member of a trade union? That is totally unacceptable to me as a trade unionist and, I can well imagine, to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions when they see the wording of section 6. We could take it a step further. There is, of course, an international European organisation, EUROMIL, established under the Council of Europe. Are we to say that there is no question of the Irish Defence Forces having any association with European counterparts?

I recognise a danger here in terms of Irish neutrality but that fact did not stop us joining the EC, so I do not see why there should not also be the possibility of certain rights and contacts in the context of representative organisations. I am not talking about an organisation that would discuss military matters; that is not the function of an association. The only matter specified in the regulations is simply one of remuneration, although we hope that that will be extended to a wide range of other social and economic areas concerning members' work and livelihoods.

Why is the possibility ruled out of any link-up between representative organisations? Our Garda force link up with police organisations throughout Europe. There is no problem of contacts there. I am not talking about working contacts in terms of police operations, about fraternal contacts between associations on common matters in relation to pay and conditions. I should like the Minister to address that aspect of it as well, although of course it is not as important as the internal link-up within our own trade union movement.

The Minister again reserves to himself absolute rights to when the last section in the Bill will come into operation by order——

That is to help discussion and consultation.

There is no specific reference to that. Consultation is an important and valid point which should have been referred to. Indeed, consultation could have resolved all of this long ago.

It is resolving it now.

If I may say so, Minister, it is belatedly resolving it in a negative rather than a positive context.

Deputy Bell understands it.

Will the Senator and the Minister please realise that there is a Chair? The Minister will have an opportunity to reply at the end of the Second Stage debate and the Senator has an opportunity of making his observations now.

I am sorry to have engaged in an alteration. I am coming to a close. The lack of consultation has been at the heart of the problem and I am concerned because there had been negligence in dealing with this matter for so long that a veritable Pandora's box opened in relation to it over the last few years. The Minister has belatedly come up with a response but this response is now colouring the Bill to such a degree that it is concentrating on the negative rather than the positive. It looks like a begrudging type of Bill which is saying we will allow an association to be set up because we have no choice but that we will put the boot in strongly against those people who have fought for these constitutional and legal rights for the members of the Defence Forces. While the Bill is welcome in principle many of its provisions are not just undesirable but highly questionable in terms of legality and constitutionality.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is very good to see him here. We in the Progressive Democrats welcome this Bill and I also must say that I very much welcome the tone and the content of the Minister's speech this morning. It contained very many positive aspects and I hope that the Minister is successful in achieving the objectives which he has spelled out in that speech.

I come from a place within a stone's throw of the Curragh Camp. I was born and brought up there, so I can make some claims to understanding a fair bit about the Army; I certainly know very many Army people. When I was growing up it was one of the major achievements to have a pass to the Curragh training camp which allowed one to swim in the pool there, which at that time, of course, we called the baths. The point needs to be made that 20 or 30 years ago the facilities which the Army enjoyed in the Curragh Camp were the envy of those of us who lived around it. Now it is the reverse; the facilities in the towns around the Curragh are the envy of Army personnel.

I have no doubt that the members of the forces accept the Minister's desire to give them a say in their pay and conditions and the reassurances which he has been attempting to give them over recent weeks and months. I do not think that there is any wish on the part of the vast majority of those in the Defence Forces to erode military discipline or to interfere with its process. However, there is a fairly widespread suspicion among them of the political process and they had hoped probably for broader scope and more specifics in the Bill. That is not meant as a criticism of the nature of the Bill but that was their hope. The Minister has gone a long way — much further than his predecessors — in convincing them that many of their reasonable demands will be met.

Senator Fallon earlier spoke of trust, and I fully support what he had to say. At this stage the success of where we go from here depends very largely on trust between the Minister, PDFORRA and the other people who will be involved in forming the associations envisaged under the Bill. We all agree that the Army have fulfilled a very valuable role in the State at very many levels, not all of them just in relation to military matters. In their active duty role it cannot be denied that they have brought immense distinction upon themselves and, indeed, immense credit to the country in the way they have conducted themselves at home and abroad, particularly in relation to their UN duties. It should not be forgotten that they have given their lives in defence of some of the things which we take very much for granted and which are not so obvious in other countries. They have shown a tremendous level of responsibility right down through the years. The State is not very old and one of the points which was not mentioned this morning — and which should have been — is that we can stand up here in a free parliament, unfettered, and give our views freely and openly. That is partially due to the way that the armed forces have conducted themselves over the years. They have displayed at all times an immense loyalty to the State and to its institution, and for that they need to be congratulated. They have also, in my part of the country, contributed enormously to the work and effort of voluntary bodies outside their army duties. There are very many voluntary bodies who owe Army personnel a substantial debt of gratitude for the time and effort they have given in the interests of the community.

I do not subscribe to the view that we do not need an Army. There seems to be a view in some quarters that armies are an unnecessary luxury, but certainly that is not my view. I think we are well served by our Army and we need them. That has been shown in relation to Border and security duties. They play a valuable role at home, and in addition they have shown us what they can contribute in the wider international context.

They have probably suffered because they were so conscious of their responsibilities to the State and to its institutions, over the years that they showed a marked reluctance to get involved in the political process and in some of the areas which I feel they were forced to get involved in over the past year or so. I think they have paid the price for their responsibility. The Army Wives Association highlighted something which needed to be highlighted, because without them we possibly would have gone along congratulating the men but not really addressing or thinking, about the pay and conditions which operated within the Army.

There are people in the Curragh Camp whose living conditions are not fit for human habitation. I think Army personnel tolerate housing conditions which the vast majority of the population would not tolerate. Their basic pay, which has been referred to, is disgraceful. At one time their pay levels were comparable to the Garda Síochána but they have fallen way behind. Senator McDonald mentioned the situation in Portlaoise. I understand that Army personnel serving in Portlaoise over the Christmas holidays need to spend three days there to earn the same amount of money as members of the other services would in eight or nine hours. That is not acceptable, so I can fully understand the underlying grievance and sense of frustration in the Army over the past year, and indeed before that. I think our Army personnel have been badly treated and until the Minister's intervention, the situation had been very badly handled. One of the problems was that we confused the requests for improvements in conditions and other reasonable requests with a challenge to authority that was never there.

Senator Costello has mentioned trade unions. In my view there is no desire on anybody's part within the Army to be a member of a trade union.

That is correct.

To suggest that one would be a member of a trade union is to suggest logically that there is a right to strike. Nobody in the Army wants to strike. It is not acceptable, apart from whether they would want to or not. It is not acceptable that anybody in the Army should be able to strike, but my view is — and I firmly believe it, having spoken to them — that nobody in the Army wants to be in a trade union.

I congratulate the Minister on the strides he has made in resolving some very difficult matters. I realise the diplomatic problems involved in dealing with people who are not in duly constituted representative associations but I think the Minister has made a very reasonable compromise in trying to address that problem and in trying to sort out the difficulties which were there. I congratulate him on that. Army morale had been very low. I would like to paraphrase what the Chief of Staff said in his circular to all members of the Defence Forces in relation to the Bill we have before us and on another matter. He said he was confident that the crucial subject would be approached with trust, a sense of duty, common sense and goodwill by all members of the Permanent Defence Forces, and that the outcome will be in the best interest of the Defence Forces and the State. I do not think anybody can disagree with that sentiment. The conditions which pertained in the past for members of the Army, and I referred to some of them already, were far from satisfactory, and in the negotiations between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil on the formation of the present Government last July, this issue received particular attention. Indeed, in the agreed Programme for Government it is dealt with specifically where it says that the Government state that the long-term objective is that the Army should be restructured with the aim of substantially improving basic pay and reducing overdependence on special Army duty allowances. Those special allowances were the cause of serious grievances and the Army personnel rightly felt badly about them. My information is that as recently as 1987 there was only one rank outside the officer rank which earned more than the average industrial wage, and I understand that in 1988 the average Garda earned more than a commandant in the Army. A private's wages would need to increase by something of the order of £45 a week and a sergeant's by twice that much to restore the parity between the Army and the Garda Síochána. We cannot dispute the fact that we neglected the Army.

There are other matters which are of concern to Army personnel — pension and gratuity rights which were devalued by leaving out increases in military service allowances when calculating those rights, and the non-pay elements of some of the claims which were to be made, such as medical cards and so on. Soldiers should have free travel when they are in uniform. Most countries in the western world do that and I do not see why we should not do the same. All allowances paid to Army personnel should be linked to basic levels of pay. The fundamental problem is with basic pay and not with all these special allowances for special duties which on the one hand, appear to give people money.

As far back as last May I said there was an urgent need for an independent review board to be set up to look at Army pay and conditions, and I also said that those serving in the Defence Forces should be entitled to some sort of representation on it, representation on the same lines as the Garda representative body; that allowing the Department of Defence to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide on pay submissions made by the Army without appeal was not justifiable. I am very glad that the pay committee have been set up and I look forward to their findings. This was a vitally important step to resolving the many problems affecting the Army and the working conditions of the Defence Forces. This Bill provides for the holding of elections to representative associations of the armed forces and this in conjunction with the committee is a tremendous step forward which I am confident will help to resolve the difficulties that existed in the past. Unfortunately, the debate on the proposed establishment of the representative associations has been subject to a good deal of misrepresentation and confusion. My party have consistently supported the right of the members of the Defence Forces to have representative bodies — and I have just referred to what I had to say about that nearly 12 months ago.

The legislation before us is a satisfactory basis for bringing about a settlement to all these problems and I and my party are satisfied that the proposals provide an acceptable basis for the formation of such bodies. The important point to bear in mind here is that this is enabling legislation. Senator Costello seemed to get very concerned about a lot of the words. I thought he was a little pedantic in some of his concerns in relation to the Bill.

Section 2 deals with matters affecting remuneration and such other matters as the Minister may specify in the regulations. I am sure "such other matters" will cover conditions. I note from the Minister's speech this morning that he specifically referred to the fact that 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 and I do not doubt the Minister's intention to deliver on that. The most important point to bear in mind is that this is enabling legislation which provides a mechanism for the holding of elections to the associations and gives members of the Defence Forces a mandate to speak on behalf of the forces as a whole. When these elections have been held, detailed discussions can take place on the regulations which will govern the associations and in that process the elected representatives of the Defence Forces will have their say.

The elections will be held on the basis of a secret ballot, with a single transferable vote. When the Defence Forces have elected the people to speak on their behalf they can sit down with the Minister for Defence and his officials to discuss the structures and the proposed regulations governing the way the association will operate. Nothing could be more open and democratic than that and I reject some of the suggestions to the contrary. The people who will be given a mandate by every member of the Defence Force will be parties to the formulation of the regulations to govern the conduct of the association in direct talks with the Minister and his officials. There will be no pre-empting of the situation and the way the regulations have been drawn up is quite correct. This will be the task of the elected representatives, in consultation and negotiation with the Minister for Defence.

Another concern of the members of the Defence Forces is the question of full, open and democratic discussion. On the point about whether there should be one or two associations and whether it should include NCOs and men together, the need is for flexibility. There should be consultation with the members and nothing should be imposed from general staff. I am sure the Minister will accept that and I do not think there will be any difficulty with it. Another matter of concern is how these representative associations should be organised geographically. That is covered by the communication sent out by the Chief of Staff. Will the associations be based on Army commands or units or in different barracks throughout the country? That is something we need to know. It underlines the extent to which nothing has been preempted. All the key issues affecting the establishment of the associations will be agreed later.

I will come back to the point made earlier that I do not believe there is any desire within the Army to create any type of trade union organisation. What the members want is to have their grievances aired and dealt with and no more. One other matter which concerns them is the question of the level of deduction which will be made to fund the organisation but, again, I suspect that matter would be more appropriately dealt with by the association than by anything we do here.

The whole question of redress of wrongs causes some difficulty in the sense that it is quite possible for somebody who has been wronged to find that a person with a vested interest is dealing with his case. That is my understanding of the matter but i am open to correction on it. Certainly given some of the events that have taken place in this House in the past few weeks, it would be very wise to have an outside arbitrator adjudicate on the redress of wrongs. Possibly people who are very close to the situation are not the best people to deal with it.

When all the facts are conveyed to the various members of the Defence Forces they will realise that the proposed system is fair and reasonable. I think they have gone a long way towards realising it already through the efforts of the Minister. The elected representatives will have a full say in all the pertinent matters relating to the proposed associations, the regulations governing them and the matters which the associations can deal with, including pay, allowances, grants, pensions and conditions in general.

I congratulate the Minister for Defence, Deputy Lenihan, on the way he has approached the task of establishing the representative associations for the Army and for facilitating the fullest consultation possible in doing so. Having considered the proposals in detail and having been sensitive and sympathetic to the legitimate grievances of members of the Defence Forces, my party are satisfied that the mechanisms put in place for the holding of elections and providing a basis for negotiation and discussion on the role and functions of the proposed associations are reasonable and satisfactory. I am sure the fullest consultations will continue in an atmosphere of co-operation and that nobody will take up entrenched positions.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this matter over the past 12 months has been that there was not enough talking. I realise the sensitivities in talking at official level but there was not a lot of talking in this case. One of the things we can learn about the way we conduct our affairs in general — and this relates to Northern Ireland matters — is that the more talking we do the better we understand one another and from there we can make some progress. I was appalled last May to meet ladies whose husbands are in the Defence Forces and to listen to them cry about what was happening to their husbands, the difficulties they were having in trying to provide for their families and educate them and in trying to live any sort of reasonable and decent life. That should be the entitlement of every citizen and most certainly of those people who have served the country well over so many years and still have so much to offer.

At the outset I would like to be associated with the welcome expressed to the Minister on his return to this House. I welcome the opportunity of making a brief contribution on this very important legislation which provides for the setting up of the first representative association for members of the Defence Forces. The legislation is long overdue. It follows the initiative of the Government in July of last year when these proposals were first mooted. Representative groups will be established on the basis of election by secret ballot and full supervision.

I understand the provisions in the Bill are similar to those already in operation with regard to the Garda Síochána. In recent months I have been approached by a number of concerned members of the Defence Forces where, up to some time ago, there was wholesale confusion. I accept the point made by the Minister when he said: "To avoid doubt I wish to add here that the formal establishment of the association and the making of the relevant Defence Force regulations will not take place until after the consultations and dialogue, to which I have previously referred, and the various issues involved have been resolved".

I appeal to the Minister that before finalising the legislation the relevant and positive views of the ordinary members of the Defence Forces be taken into account. It is important that they are satisfied that they have a representative voice in the proposed body. It has been alleged over a long period that no consultation has taken place. I am not satisfied that the Minister has set in train a system of dialogue with regard to this new process and that he is making every effort to involve all those members affected by the new system. I am satisfied he will continue along this line.

Co-operation between the armed forces and the Government is most important. For this reason we, as legislators, must at all times be positive and behave responsibly. Again, I have no doubt that we will. The Minister has already indicated that he wants a co-operative approach to the Bill and has made it clear that the very last thing he wants to do is impose structures which are not acceptable. I hope the structures established under the Bill will accommodate the need for representation in the Defence Forces which will lead to outlets where members can express their views and opinions and have a say on pay and related matters. I am satisfied therefore that the proposed machinery meets the needs of the Defence Forces and also provides for conciliation and arbitration. Provision should be made for further consultation before it is finally put in place.

We can be very proud of our Defence Forces who have already proved their worth both at home and abroad, such as in the Congo and elsewhere. I have no doubt the most intelligent and competent representatives will be selected to represent the ordinary members of the force and that these new associations will prove themselves to be most co-operative and positive and bring honour to the Defence Forces.

In conclusion I congratulate the Minister for the time and effort he has put into this Bill. He has the complete confidence of the ordinary members of the Defence Forces and I am sure he will take into account their many submissions to him before the Bill is passed.

I am very grateful to the Seanad for the very constructive way it has approached this debate in which all the important matters were touched on by various Senators. I would just like to put one or two things into perspective and emphasise my approach to the Bill which I think the Seanad appreciates. First, it is important to keep in mind that this is an enabling Bill, which provides for the type of consultation that everybody agrees is so necessary. If this was not an enabling Bill, incorporating all the various suggestions being made here, it would then be a Bill imposing various matters upon the members of the Defence Forces. What I am seeking to do in the Bill is provide the enabling framework within which the regulations can be made providing for the establishment of the representative bodies. All of the details with regard to the establishment of these bodies should be worked out in consultation with the elected representatives of the Defence Forces personnel. It is they who are the important people to be consulted. We in the Oireachtas have to provide the framework within which the election can take place and the representative bodies can be established. Their mandate can be spelt out in detail in the regulations. The format of the structures to be put in place not just for today or tomorrow but for a substantial period of time, can be embodied in the regulations to be drawn up after consultation. That is the important difference.

Amendments have been tabled here, as in the other House, which seek to incorporate in the Bill matters which will be included in the regulations in the Bill. I do not think they are suitable for incorporation in the Bill. I am giving a guarantee here in principle that these matters will be included in the regulations, the details to be worked out with the representatives themselves. We would do the representatives of the men and the Defence Forces personnel themselves a great disservice if we decide to pre-empt here what is good for them. What I am saying is that we should let them come forward for consultation with the official side and work out the details and when they have been formulated, they can incorporate in the regulations setting up the structures under which the representatives of the Defence Forces personnel will work. That is a much more satisfactory way of doing it.

I wish to emphasise there is no difference between us in principle in terms of what should or should not be included in the mandate of the representative bodies. All matters relating to pay, conditions of service, welfare, housing, health, recreation and credit may be incorporated in the regulations. Such matters are incorporated in the regulations under the Garda code setting up their representative bodies. We are going to do precisely the same for the Defence Forces. They have worked very well in the case of the Garda representative bodies which were established under enabling legislation that is almost on all fours with this legislation.

I want to emphasise that if we start to put matters into the legislation that we feel are good and proper we would be pre-empting what may come from the representatives of the men themselves. In assuming that role here within the Oireachtas we would prevent consultation taking place. What I want to do is provide a flexible framework within which consultation can take place. That was exactly the approach taken in the case of the Garda representative bodies and it worked very well.

I wish to give a guarantee here, as I did in the other House, that the regulations, the details of which are to be worked out, will incorporate all matters which all interested bodies and I agreed should be incorporated in regulations following the establishment of the Garda representative bodies.

There are a number of such matters. I have mentioned the range of welfare matters and services which will be of concern to the representative bodies. There is also the question of whether there should be one body for the men and NCOs and one body for the officers. That appears to be the preferred option. I have an open mind on that matter but it seems that is the way in which the bodies interested in this matter are proceeding, and I would go along with that.

Discussions are taking place at present between the returning officer, Mr. Timothy Sexton, a principal officer in the Department of the Environment, and the interested parties within the Defence Forces with a view to setting up the mechanism for the election which I would hope to have ready in a matter of weeks following discussion. All sides are agreed that after the election the parties concerned, senior Army headquarters people, the Department of Defence and the elected representatives, should get down to working out the details of the matters in connection with which Senator Ryan has put down some amendments. Before Senator Ryan came in I explained that there is no difference between us. We can discuss his amendments on Committee Stage, but it boils down to a question of whether the matters should be incorporated in the regulations or in the legislation. I am strongly of the view that they should be incorporated in the regulations. This would provide a more flexible instrument and would be of greater service to the men who could from time to time, add to the list of welfare areas or amend or improve the existing list of welfare areas. All in all, they will have in the regulations a flexible instrument within which they can operate the administration of their representation mandate over the wide area of pay, conditions and a whole range of welfare areas.

With regard to how they should be run, as I have assured everybody concerned in the other House this will be an independent body within the fullest meaning of that word. They will be independent of Army command when it comes to specific matters within their mandate. Army command, discipline and all these matters are an essential aspect of Army administration but, within their mandate, it is the representative bodies who will have authority. In the other House Deputy Bell was very strongly of the view that command and discipline should be kept strictly apart — and this is written into the legislation — from pay, conditions of service and welfare. PDFORRA have made it quite clear that that is the way they want it too.

Other aspects that will form part of the regulations are the manner in which the secretariat will be established, the freedom to take on outside experts, the idea of having, as the Garda Síochána have, a location in an outside barracks, if they wish, and access to the media. Of course, under their constitution they are guaranteed access to the media and now they will be guaranteed access to the media once this Bill becomes law — there will be no further doubt about that. This access can be decided by way of regulation or part of a regulation. The representatives of the men will be concerned about how, and in what circumstances the appointed spokesman can make his presentation or report to the media on a whole range of issues. They will decide how to do this. I hope they will have the very same authority as the Garda representative bodies when it comes to their spokesmen having access to the media. There can be no question of any curtailment of that right, which is a free right under the Constitution. Details may have to be worked out to the satisfaction of everybody concerned but that matters which come within the compass of the representatives can be worked out in consultation and incorporated in the regulations. This is a matter that cannot be written into legislation and if you try, you will be restricting the regulations.

I want to emphasise that I do not want to write into legislation anything that might pre-empt the process of consultation that will take place with the representatives of the men because it is after that process of consultation that the agreed views will be incorporated in the regulations. If we try to limit that process by writing in a range of restrictions into the legislation, we will inevitably get into trouble, because (a) we will be pre-empting consultation and (b) no matter how brilliant we are here in the Seanad, we will not be in a position to put down an exhaustive list that will cover every option and requirement. Inevitably something will be left out and this will create chaos. It is much more straightforward in legislation of this kind — this was the approach adopted with the Garda representative body — to provide the enabling framework and then to let the consultation process start with the elected representative prior to devising the agreed structures and manner in which the associations can operate. As regards access to the media all these details can be worked out and incorporated in regulations. The representatives of the men are the people best fitted to do this and it would be a mistake for us to get into that.

I know the intention is good. I am not disputing Senator Ryan's intention nor did I dispute the intention of people in the other House who sought to write many of these matters into the legislation. I agree with the Senator but I think in everybody's interests, particularly the representatives of the men, it is much better that they should be party to that because they know best. Irrespective of what may have happened in regard to consultation in the past — I am not going into that — as far as the future is concerned, it is very important that when it comes to the nitty-gritty of how the associations are to be established and the manner in which they will function, the representatives of the men are fully involved.

The same applies to the level of funding. Members of PDFORRA and other people interested in having representation for Defence Force personnel were very keen that a degree of independence would be given to these bodies by enabling them to establish their own funding arrangements. That is conceded, that is sensible. I gave guarantees in the other House that we would help them officially by providing them with accommodation and other facilities. There are plenty of ways in which we can help officially within the Army structure, but without prejudice to their capacity to raise additional funds for additional purposes, this may not be covered at official level. That is the way the Garda representative body work. In some respects they get help at official level and in other respects they get help by way of subscriptions raised by themselves. However, this is a matter which can be worked out in the regulations.

The most important innovation in this Bill — this part did not come in for much comment in the Seanad — is the provision of conciliation and arbitration. If this system was not established at this time much of the good in setting up representative bodies would be dissipated. While the setting up of representative bodies merely to make representations, etc. is desirable in the interests of public relations, letting off steam, as it were, it does not have any concrete end product unless there is a system of conciliation and arbitration in place. One can make all the representations in the world but when it comes to the point of not making any progress, it is essential that there is a system of conciliation in place to try to achieve progress and, if that fails then an arbitration system. In that way there is a guarantee that the end product of all the discussions and the representations will be some findings by way of the ultimate arbitration system. That is exactly how the system has operated in regard to the whole of the public service and, in particular, the Garda Síochána. This system has worked out in a very practical way and is really the most important matter in the legislation. If I were asked to put my finger on the most important matter in the legislation I would say the conciliation and arbitration scheme because it takes out of the Bill the talking shop category and makes it real.

If in addition to a representative body structure or structures we have a functioning system of conciliation and arbitration — that is the whole purpose of the Bill and will be a major part of the regulations when they are established — it will give real teeth to the whole process. This means that this Bill and the whole process will mean something at the end of the day as far as the men are concerned. This right they are now being given has been enjoyed by the rest of the public service for some time. It means that the Defence Forces have now really come under the umbrella of the whole C and A system, which has been accepted as valid for the public service, including the Garda Síochána. This has now been extended to them and they will have their own specific conciliation and arbitration system relating to their requirements.

Another aspect commented on related to the association's relationships with other bodies and trade unions. Here again the association will be independent and that is very important, but it will not be debarred from such affiliation or association provided it is done with the consent of the Minister. It is legitimate that the Minister should be involved in any such approval of their association witho outside bodies because the Minister, on behalf of the Oireachtas, carries the ultimate responsibility of overall authority in regard to the Defence Forces.

The Defence Forces are an important constitutional entity within the State and it is important that if a group within the Defence Forces affiliates with outside bodies such outside bodies should have the approval of the Minister. There are plenty of outside bodies that would obviously get approval automatically, for example, specialised areas within the Army and trades areas. Electricians or engineers may want to be members of outside bodies related to electricians or engineers and that is perfectly legitimate. Any association of that kind would obviously get approval. However, as Deputy Bell pointed out in the other House, there are other areas where association with such bodies may run counter to the national interest. This will be so only in exceptional cases and then it should be for the Minister to look at the matter and tease out whether it is desirable that such an association or affiliation should take place. There is nothing more to it than the requirement of the consent of the Minister which is perfectly legitimate. The independence of the association is emphasised.

I want to emphasise something else. The word that is now used in certain circumstances is "suspension", not "dissolution" as Senator Costello said. We changed that on Report Stage in the Dáil. The Senator may have been looking at an older copy of the legislation.

In section 2 one should read subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) together. They seek to ensure that once these bodies have been established by way of elections, like the Garda representative bodies — we will assume now that it is one body for the officers and one body for the other ranks — that they be given a certain statutory legitimacy, in other words, supported by legislation and regulation. These sections are designed to prevent a proliferation of such bodies after this becomes law. If this is not prevented there is a danger of frustrating the progress we are trying to make. By leaving the way open to all sorts of bodies to establish subsequently one is obviously opening the door to a state of anarchy. However bad it is not to have representation, it would be highly undesirable to allow representative bodies in every barracks and unit in the country.

What is proposed is in ease of the legitimate elected body. Everybody who has an interest in it, including the PDFORRA people who have shown themselves to be interested in it, will see the importance of that. On a first reading it appears to be against civil liberty that we should be legislating here and determining that there should not be other bodies but it is in protection of the legitimate body or bodies we will be establishing that we are setting out these rules. There is no point in having all sorts of other bodies in the Defence Forces and claiming to represent men in relation to pay and conditions and various other matters. The trade union movement have proven the legitimacy of the idea of one big union and have made tremendous progress towards that in amalgamations that are proceeding at present. One of the weaknesses in the Irish trade union movement over the years was a proliferation of unions.

In the Defence Forces it is highly desirable that the bodies that are being established now by statute speak with one cohesive voice, that there is one cohesive organisation speaking for the NCOs and the men on the one hand and one cohesive body speaking on behalf of the officers and that we do not leave the door open to a proliferation of such bodies and a state of anarchy in regard to representation. I want to emphasise that because it has come in for a certain amount of misrepresentation largely, out of misunderstanding. Senator Costello in particular emphasised that aspect. Deputy Bell in the other House has a certain amount of experience in this area. As a member of the Defence Forces of long standing and of a trade union, he understood it perfectly and made some very valuable contributions on this aspect in the other House.

In general the Bill is an enabling one. Issues arising will be dealt with by way of regulations after consultation. I am thankful to the House for the way they have addressed the matter here today because it means we can make progress without rushing the Bill through. Already we have initiated talks on the election with the various representatives who are at the moment discussing the details of the election process with the principal officer of the Franchise Section of the Department of the Environment. Immediately after that we will go into the preparation of the regulations and there should not be too much difficulty in that because over the whole range of pay and the definition of pay and remuneration, conditions of service, welfare matters and conciliation and arbitration, there is very little difference between us and any of the spokesmen for the interested bodies in the Defence Forces. There is practically complete agreement.

As I said initially, we have now practically reached agreement on the fact that there should be one body for privates and NCOs and one body for officers. I would see the regulations being devised fairly quickly and all of this in operation in a matter of months after the election which could take place weeks after the passage of the legislation. That is the sort of timetable I envisage and that, linked with the conclusions of the Gleeson Commission which should be to hand in June, should mean that by autumn this year we should be in a positive position in regard to the representative bodies and the implementation of pay and conditions of service appropriate to our Defence Forces.

I am glad it has taken this turn because for a while, due to misunderstanding, there was a certain lack of communication on the matter. We have surmounted that hurdle now and everybody recognises that we are going somewhere. It is very important that we do so on a totally apolitical plane because this is a national matter rather than a party political matter. I emphasise that here.

The state of health of the Defence Forces is basic to any civilised society and particularly to our own because they have important roles vis-á-vis their aid to the civil power here. They will always have an important role in backing the State on the Northern Ireland problem. They will always be an essentail element here more than in most other countries. There has been a traditional attachment between the armed forces and the community, a traditional regard and mutual respect. Too much that is valuable has been built up over the years to dissipate and we are not going to allow it to be dissipated. It is on the rails now through the process of consultation that has commenced and that will succeed.

I am thankful to the Oireachtas for enabling this Bill to go through in a constructive manner. I can assure them that it will not be long-fingered. Having helped to create the climate that is there now, I am most anxious that the matter be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible and that the matters we are discussing here will be resolved so that the niche which has been established by the Defence Forces for themselves can be there on a permanent basis by having satisfied Defence Forces in tune with the public and not at odds in any way with us here in the Houses of the Oireachtas, with the Government of the day or with the public at large. It is most important that the Defence Forces be integrated into the community and be given due recognition for that fact. I hope when this Bill becomes law and in particular when the regulations come into effect that recognition will be seen to be real and will bear fruit.

Question put and agreed to.

If it is agreed we will suspend the sitting until 3.30 p.m. to allow the amendments to be circulated.

Sitting suspended at 2.55 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.
Top
Share