Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 May 1987

Vol. 372 No. 4

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick West): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Before I deal with the substance of the Bill I should say by way of background that the Bill was introduced by my predecessor as Minister for Defence during the life of the previous Dáil. I would like to acknowledge and place on record that the necessary preparatory work including the drafting of the Bill was undertaken during the period in office of my two immediate predecessors.

The purpose of the Bill is to introduce certain reforms and updating into the existing code of military law as contained in the Defence Acts. The need for such revision has become evident over the years since the principal Act — the Defence Act, 1954 — was passed by the Oireachtas more than 30 years ago. While, in general, the existing legislation has stood the test of time it is inevitable that legislative provisions which were designed to meet the circumstances of a particular time will not all remain adequate for the needs of more than 30 years later.

In the intervening years there has been a number of substantial amendments to the 1954 Act. The first of these was the amending legislation in 1960 which provided for overseas service with the United Nations on peacekeeping missions.

The last major reform in the field of military law was introduced by the Courts Martial Appeals Act, 1983. That Act provided for the establishment of a special court to hear appeals against the findings and sentences of courts martial by persons convicted of offences against military law. The Act also made provision for the grant of free legal aid at court martial hearings and hearings by the Appeal Court, on conditions similar to those applicable to the grant of free legal aid in the civil criminal courts.

The Bill now before the House represents the fruits of a further review of military law which has been under way for some time. Section 1 deals with interpretation. Section 2 updates the level of maximum fines which may be imposed by the District Court for a variety of offences in relation to military affairs and service property.

Sections 3 and 4 provide for increases in the levels of the maximum fines which may be imposed for offences against military law and in the maximum amounts which an offender may be ordered to pay by way of compensation where compensation is appropriate. They also provide for the linking of those maximum amounts to the daily rate of pay of the offender. The maximum financial penalties prescribed in the 1954 Act are now of nominal value only and have little if any deterrent effect. Military tribunals have for some time been faced with difficulty in imposing appropriate punishments having regard to these restrictive limits. The revised penalities proposed are maximum amounts and, as heretofore, the actual penalities to be imposed will be at the discretion of the relevant tribunal.

Section 4 also provides for the introduction of a new punishment of reduction in rank for commissioned officers. Such punishment already exists for non-commissioned officers. This will provide an alternative penalty in appropriate cases between the very severe punishment of dismissal and the lesser punishment of forfeiture of seniority; an alteration in the order of the punishments which may be imposed on men of the Defence Forces so as to make "detention" a lesser punishment than "discharge" or "discharge with ignominy"; modification of the existing total disqualification for State employment of persons dismissed or discharged with ignominy from the Defence Forces. In future there will be a time limit of seven years in so far as civil employment is concerned and the Government will have power to lift this part of the disqualification at any time.

These amendments are designed in the first two instances to avoid, in appropriate cases, the necessity for dismissal or discharge and in the third instance represent a relaxation of the present inflexible provision.

Section 5 provides for the creation of a new offence against military law, namely, that of being under the disabling influence of any drug or volatile substance. It will be a defence to a charge under the section to prove that the drug or substance was prescribed by a medical doctor or was used in good faith for medical reasons. The need for prescribing the offence arises from the fact that military personnel are armed, are liable for duty at all times and must be capable of undertaking such duty at any time.

Sections 6, 7, 9 and 14 deal with different safety aspects of the flying and navigation of service aircraft. The new powers being sought are particularly relevant to the operation of the sophisticated aircraft and helicopters now available to the Air Corps.

Section 6 provides express power for the captain of a service aircraft to take appropriate measures in relation to non-military passengers who may jeopardise the safety of the aircraft or of other passengers or property on board the aircraft. The section reflects powers already in existance in relation to the safety of civilian aircraft.

Section 7 provides power to lop, cut or remove any tree or shrub on land in the vicinity of a military aerodrome which obstructs the safe take-off of landing of aircraft. It will be necessary to give not less than 21 days' notice of such intention to the occupier of the land concerned who will be entitled to undertake the work himself, if he so wishes, and be paid his reasonable expenses for so doing.

Section 9 provides for the extension of the existing powers to erect and maintain signalling apparatus on lands or buildings in the vicinity of a military aerodrome so as to enable such apparatus, if required for air navigation purposes, to be placed on land or buildings in the vicinity of any military post — not necessarily an aerodrome.

Section 14 provides for the expansion of the existing powers to make regulations in relation to the flying of service aircraft and for the certification and maintenance of such aircraft and aircraft material. Section 8 provides for the production of documents by civilians who are witnesses before military tribunals.

Section 10 restricts the protection from imprisonment for debt which has in the past had the effect of lowering the credit rating of non-commissioned service personnel seeking facilities from banks and other financial institutions. At present the protection against imprisonment for non-payment of debt applies to non-commissioned personnel without restriction and to reservists on permanent service. In future in the case of non-commissioned personnel of the Permanent Defence Force it will apply only while they are on active service.

Section 12 regularises the procedure for the prosecution of civilian witnesses before courts martial who are charged with contempt.

Section 13 increases the penalty for wearing, without the Minister's permission, any uniform of the Defence Forces, including any distinctive part of a uniform.

The remaining provisions are self explanatory.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connaughton

First I should like to wish the Minister well in his new office. Indeed we had many a good duel during the term of office of the previous Government on a different topic. I cannot say that I wish the Minister a long stay but that is another matter.

Mr. M. Noonan

(Limerick West): We can have another duel.

Mr. Connaughton

As the Minister has pointed out, the Bill before us is non-controversial. Many of its provisions though appearing minor are important to the overall efficient running of the Army. Military matters are always important and should always be understood to be so. The introduction of this Bill affords us an opportunity to examine how its provisions will affect the overall performance of the Army. Some people seem to take it for granted that there should be no problems encountered in the day-to-day operations of the Army, that no rules should be broken and that it may not be necessary to change many of the procedures relating to their operations. I am surprised at the number of people who are still of that opinion. In any organisation with personnel numbering 13,500 approximately, whether that be in Army or civilian life, there will be problems encountered daily affecting such personnel. Many of the provisions of this Bill are necessary to cover such personnel matters.

It is no harm on an occasion such as this for us to reflect on the main business of the Army in the sense that they provide protection for Seán Citizen against external aggression of any kind. As the years pass one can readily understand why certain priorities must be identified. Of course protection of citizens remains the Army's primary task. Coming second in order of priorities probably would be their contribution to peace-keeping worldwide. As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, substantial legislation was introduced in 1960 to allow our Army personnel take up such peace-keeping duties: it is only fair to say that our contribution in that area has been good. It is acknowledged by the free world that, as a small nation, we have played a significant role in peace-keeping operations all over the world wherever our forces were located. Recognition of that fact is important not alone to our people but to Army personnel, it being seen as an extension of their code. It is important that there be that extension of Army activity.

A major objective of any Army in a civilised society like ours is its back-up service in aid of the civil power. It is now in this facet of Army activity that most people come in contact with the Army in the course of their daily lives. In an ideal world I suppose such back-up service would not be necessary but we are no different in this respect from any other democracy. Over the past five to ten years the presence of the Army on our streets has become daily more obvious. They perform a vital role in this area. At the same time one must express regret that the crime rate has risen to the degree that there is need of this back-up service by the Army in aid of the civil power.

Traditionally the Department of Defence have been an easy target in any cost-cutting exercise. For many reasons I would not share that view, particularly bearing in mind the various check-points sited all over the country, the number of robberies taking place daily in relation to money in transit and so on. Probably ten or 15 years ago we were totally unaccustomed to seeing the Army perform that role.

I find rather disquieting the alarming decrease in numbers in the regular Army. Total Army strength at present is approximately 13,500, decreasing further by approximately 500 per annum. There is no recruitment taking place and, if one is to judge by budgetary figures, there will not be any further recruitment for a long time. In so far as I can interpret budgetary provisions with regard to the Army I am led to believe that there will be much cost cutting.

The provisions of this Bill will place more pressure on individual members of the Army who will be fewer in number to carry out their many tasks. It is against that background that it has been found necessary to update some of the procedures relating to Army operations generally. Bearing in mind the constant haemorrhage out of the Army, currently running at approximately 50 per month, with no recruitment taking place, they will have a high age profile, indeed too high for the modern technology in which all armies must engage. That is something to which I should like the Minister to devote attention not alone in his Department but, more importantly, around the Cabinet table.

I must confess that many things happen within the operations of the Army that I do not understand but I have every intention of acquainting myself with them. In that respect I might thank the Minister and Chief of Staff publicly for having given me an opportunity recently of being briefed on many such matters. It is only reasonable that I place my appreciation on record.

In my view section 4 constitutes the cornerstone of the provisions of this Bill. I was intrigued to ascertain that, in this day and age, soldiers are fined in military courts on the basis of a day's pay; that is the measurement of the fines to be imposed on them. I understand that the actual rate has not changed in the past 30 years. I can well foresee how the various military courts would encounter problems dishing out meaningful sentences based on fines calculated perhaps 30 years ago. I presume the words "a day's pay" are Army terminology. I cannot understand why we do not say a maximum fine will be imposed for a particular offence. The words "a day's pay" intrigue me. I presume that when you are in Rome you do as the Romans do and when you are in the Army, you do as the Army do.

A new punishment of a reduction in rank and a modification of existing total disqualification from State employment are being introduced under the provisions in section 4. A reduction in rank seems to be a most commonsense way of imposing punishment. I cannot understand why it has not been done before now. However, I would like the Minister to explain to the House the disqualification from State employment of somebody who is dismissed from the Army for whatever reasons. Do I take it that until now he would have found it almost impossible to get employment outside the Army if he was so disqualified? I was not aware of that. That is a severe sentence and the soldiers who got this punishment must have committed a very grievous sin. Under the legislation now before us, a person would only have to serve a maximum of seven years in exile, if I can put it that way, or the Government of the day could decide to have that sentence shortened. I hope the Minister will clarify this point in his reply. Most of the sentences seems to be commonsense. They appear to be fair and give greater scope to the person who is at the receiving end. I am sure the people in the Army believe it is a fairer method of sentencing.

The Bill provides for a new offence in military law. It relates to people being under the disabling influence of any drug or volatile substance. Any organisation with 13,500 human beings on their payroll would have all types of problems vis-à-vis personnel matters. In keeping with the rest of society in the western world, obviously the question of drugs has to be mentioned. I mention this because the Army are no different from any other organisation and I am surprised that this was not already provided for. Because our military personnel are on call at a moment's notice and are always armed, it is important that they always be in control of their faculties. Therefore, this new provision is a very important part of this legislation.

The provisions in section 7 in regard to safe landing and take-off procedures at military aerodromes make good sense. I assume some flaw was found in the law vis-à-vis property adjoining aerodromes. I am sure that down through the years every effort that could be made was made to ensure the safety of crews but I would like to know what loophole was found. Obviously if a beech tree is in the wrong place it will have to be removed.

Section 8 provides that any civilian summoned to attend as a witness before a court-martial may be compelled to produce documents as evidence. I am surprised that this provision has not been there for a long time. Perhaps I do not know much about the background to this but I would have thought that any evidence that was necessary under section 8 would have to be made available in the interests of fair play for everybody. It is against that background that I wonder why it has to be introduced at this stage.

Section 13 increases the penalty for wearing, without the Minister's permission, any uniform of the Defence Forces, including any distinctive part of the uniform. The Garda Síochána would have the same problem in relation to this. It is obvious why we should have this provision but can the Minister say if there is any reason as of now that Army uniforms are confiscated or robbed for ulterior motives. It makes good sense to increase the penalties to whatever level seems appropriate. I would have thought this was of top priority so far as the Army are concerned.

There are many other matters I intend to raise on Committee Stage. The sections make good sense but I would like clarification on some of them. It is important that we discuss and tease them out in Dáil Éireann. The Army command respect and so far as we in Dáil Éireann are concerned we want to make sure that what we do is right not alone for the Army, but for the people of the country.

Mr. Clohessy

I congratulate Deputy Noonan on his promotion to Minister for Defence. I hope as a fellow County Limerick man, that our views will always be on the same wavelength.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I want to say that we very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the operation of the Defence Act, 1954, as we believe that military law is in need of major revison. The Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1986, at present before the House is a very limited attempt to update military law dealing in the main with increases in the levels of maximum fines awardable and in certain cases compensation payable on conviction for offences under the Defence Act, 1954. As the fines fixed by the 1954 Act have become quite unrealistic in 1987 money terms it is obviously time to update them and the surprising thing is this had not been done up to now. These fines were fixed at a time when £5 represented almost a month's wages for a soldier. Under the Minister's proposals, the fines in future will relate to a day's pay which is a welcome move as it will eliminate the cumbersome procedure of having to introduce a Bill in Parliament to update money fines.

However, in regard to forfeiture of pay, I would like to ask the Minister if the practice of imposing forfeiture of overseas allowance in addition to pay is being operated for units in receipt of such an allowance. The general rule is that where a soldier is sentenced to detention for any period he must forfeit pay "for every day of detention". In the past, the finance branch of the Department of Defence interpreted pay "as including overseas allowance" and accordingly directed forfeiture of the allowance as well as the pay.

In my opinion, this interpretation was improper. In practice this meant that a soldier sentenced to, say, seven days detention for a disciplinary offence would suffer a disproportionately large monetary punishment as well as the loss of liberty, in this case, perhaps £200 or more. I would like the Minister in his reply to confirm whether overseas allowances are still being forfeited and if so, I would like him to state the exact statutory authority for such forfeiture. In general, however, the Minister can take it that the Progressive Democrats support the new system for assessing fines awardable by courts martial or lesser disciplinary proceedings.

Among the proposals in the Bill with which we would be in general agreement are the proposals in section 12 to revise the law governing contempt of court martial. The present procedures have already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the famous Committee of Public Accounts case. We support the provision in section 8 making an addition to the law governing the summoning of civilian witnesses before courts martial or other military legal proceedings. We also support the proposal in section 6 giving additional powers to the captain of a service aircraft in relation to civilian passengers. This is merely extending the same powers as already exist in the case of civilian aircraft and is a very necessary addition to section 154 of the Defence Act.

Having stated the areas where we are in general agreement with the Minister, I want to make it clear that the Progressive Democrats have serious reservations about a number of other proposals. Among these are, in section 4, the introduction in the scale of punishment for officers of an additional form of punishment awardable by general court martial. This is reduction to a lower commissioned rank. There is the additional proposal in section 4 allowing some relaxation of the prohibition against State employment in the case of persons sentenced to be discharged with ignominy.

We have some reservations about proposals in section 5 which introduce a new disciplinary offence relating to the use of illegal drugs and we also have reservations about the operation of section 10 which deals with an alteration in the Defence Act that exempts soldiers from imprisonment under certain Acts.

The Progressive Democrats are not in favour of the proposal in section 4 of an additional form of punishment. We believe that there is an adequate range of punishments already available. An officer reduced by courts martial to a lower commissioned rank would in a small Army such as ours, be of doubtful value as an officer for the rest of his service. Under normal conditions it is doubtful if he could clear himself of stigma of such a punishment and his authority over subordinates would be seriously weakened. We see no need for the introduction of this punishment.

The other proposal in section 4 allowing relaxation of the prohibition against State employment in the case of persons sentenced to be discharged with ignominy which in itself can be welcomed does not alter us from our views in that the punishment of "discharged with ingnominy" should be abolished. We believe this to be archaic and barbaric. Under the existing military code an officer can be sentenced inter alia to death, imprisonment or dismissal, and we do not see any necessity for this additional sentence of “discharged with ignominy”.

Section 6 introduces a new disciplinary offence relating to the use of illegal drugs. We agree that the introduction of this offence is necessary. However, the second of the statutory defences —"used by him in good faith for medical reasons"— seems to be unnecessary and we believe that it should be left to the tribunal trying the offence to decide whether the necessary criminal intent had been established.

Section 10 proposes an alternation in the section of the Defence Act that exempts soldiers from imprisonment under certain Acts. We believe, however, that the exemption of soldiers from imprisonment under the Debtors Act or the enforcement of court orders, far from being an advantage to them, has had the effect of reducing their creditworthiness, particularly in the obtaining of house purchase, loans and in hire purchase transactions. The exemption in the case of the Debtors Act in this Bill is now applied only where a regular soldier is on active service or a reservist called up on permanent service. This seems to us to be just tinkering with an exemption which has not benefited members of the Defence Forces at all and consideration should be given as to whether it is necessary to retain the exemption.

The Progressive Democrats believe that the proposed Defence Bill as far as it goes is necessary. We have outlined our reservations about some of the matters contained in it. However, we believe that the Defence Bill in general does not go far enough and leaves military law still in need of a major revision. Indeed, it is a sad fact that no action was taken to remedy the greatest defect of all in our military law code, the absence of a system of appeal from sentence of courts martial, until a soldier was charged with the murder of three of his comrades in the Lebanon. It was Private McAleevy who was responsible for the first major revision of military law since 1954. The Progressive Democrats consider that some other matters should have been dealt with in this Bill, for example the promotion of officers. Up to June 1975 the promotion of an officer by the Minister for Defence depended inter alia on his being recommended for promotion by the Chief of Staff. In June 1975 the then Minister, Paddy Donegan, wished to promote an officer not recommended by the then Chief of Staff, the late General T. L. O'Carroll. Rather than operate within the law the Minister, in order to get his own man appointed, changed the law. Under the Donegan amendment, as it became known, it is only necessary now that the Minister should consider any recommendations made by the Chief of Staff and then promote an officer notwithstanding possible objection by the Chief of Staff.

When this amendment of regulation A15 was introduced it was bitterly opposed by the Fianna Fáil Opposition and pledges were given that it would be repealed at the first opportunity. This has not been done. It is the opinion of the Progressive Democrats that the so-called Donegan amendment should now be repealed as it gives the Minister dangerously wide powers in the matter of the promotion of officers, particularly to the senior ranks, and introduces a political patronage in a profession of which the members have sworn allegiance to the State and have sworn not to become members of any political party. I will return to this matter on Committee Stage where we will propose an amendment to cover this point.

The Progressive Democrats believe too, that we should introduce a system of trial of military offences by a court consisting of a legally qualified officer sitting alone, a person who in some armies is called a military magistrate. Such a system exists in the United States army and, more importantly, in the Canadian army on whose Defence Act our Defence Act, 1954, was largely modelled. In the United States army 90 per cent of all trials were hitherto conducted by courts martial. That was an antiquated and time-wasting system inherited from the pre-1914 British army, a system which has changed little since then. I would like the Minister when replying to give his considered opinion on the magistrate system. This will help me to decide on whether to put forward an amendment seeking to have this system introduced into our military code.

Another matter which the Progressive Democrats feel is of great importance is the question of free legal aid. In most armies now the principle of legal aid for soldiers charged with serious offences has been accepted. However, despite some promises to do so, the provision of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act have not yet been applied to the members of the Defence Forces here. This is a disgrace. In fact some special unofficial arrangements had to be made I understand to provide Private McAleevy with lawyers when he was charged with murder.

Another matter which the Progressive Democrats feel should have been dealt with in the Defence Bill is the question of admonishment of officers. There are occasions on which an officer is considered to have committed a breach of discipline or to have been guilty of some neglect but not to be deserving of trial by court martial or by way of summary proceedings. In such a case the practice is to have him formally "admonished" by a superior officer. This is a source of injustice and a procedure of doubtful legality because in practice it amounts to imposing a punishment without the safeguards that would be inherent in a more formal trial. So long as the practice is permitted in this form there is always the possibility that a superior may be tempted, in cases where the publicity of a trial would be unwelcome or where the proof to sustain a charge was not sufficient, to punish an officer by this means. The record of the admonishment is placed on the officer's file and there it remains forever like a timebomb. It is possible that an admonishment for some indiscretion on the part of a young lieutenant may be decisive in denying that officer promotion to a senior appointment 20 years afterwards. The Progressive Democrats believe that this procedure should be revised so as to make provision for safeguarding against possible injustice. We submit that the record of the admonishment or reproof should be given a life of not more than 12 months.

Another matter which the Progressive Democrats feel is in need of revision is the procedures for "redress of wrongs". Section 114 of the Defence Act was designed to give every member of the Defence Forces a simple and direct route to the Minister in cases where a person believes himself to have been wronged by a superior. In practice the administration of this section of the Act has given rise to much complaint by all ranks who feel, and, in our opinion justifiably so, that the original complaint gathers too many opinions from superiors and civil servants before it reaches the Minister, who in fact is given the complaint complete with advice as to how it should be dealt with, which in a few honourable exceptions has been invariably accepted by the Minister. The Progressive Democrats feel that this practice has departed a long way from the spirit and intention of section 114.

The Progressive Democrats also believe that a legal officer of the Defence Forces should be appointed as adviser to the Navy. He should be an expert in law of the sea and fishery law. The work of the Navy is becoming increasingly more responsible and complex and it lacks the assistance of such an expert at present.

The Progressive Democrats also believe there is a need to distinguish in military law between what are strictly disciplinary offences and those of a criminal nature. At present all offences, having regard to the punishments they carry, have to be classified as criminal and therefore the effect of a bad military disciplinary record can have a quite disproportionate effect on a soldier's subsequent career in civilian life and on the type of discharge and reference he gets when he leaves the Army. This is the area in which the notorious black list came into being as soldiers who were being discharged from the Army with what was officially a "bad" record, but which nonetheless contained only disciplinary offences, had his name placed on the list. If this scandalous practice is still in operation we believe it should cease immediately.

In conclusion, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to extend the compliments of my party to the officers, the men and the women of the Permanent Defence Forces who have given such loyal service to this State both at home and overseas in the service of the United Nations in the cause of peace and stability.

Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Mr. V. Brady)

As Minister of State at the Department of Defence, I am pleased to endorse the Minister's commendation of this Bill to the House.

The Defence Act, 1954, was, I understand, the culmination of many years of work on a consolidated measure to replace and update the various Temporary Provisions Acts under which the Defence Forces had been administered since the foundation of the State.

The fact that the provisions of the 1954 Act have — without requiring any radical amendments — served the country and the Defence Forces well for over 30 years is in itself a tribute to the several Administrations which, through the late 1940s and early 1950s were involved in its preparation and enactment.

As the Minister has said, however, no set of legislative provisions can be expected to remain adequate for all time and the review of the Defence Act, 1954, which has now concluded and whose results are reflected in this Bill, is timely and will, I hope, be welcomed by the House.

The Defence Forces are a large organisation and, of necessity, a complicated one. Troops are stationed in a very wide geographical spread from the Border to Haulbowline and the cohesive administration by the Minister for Defence and the civil and military branches of his Department of such a widespread body of diverse units demands that the statutory basis for this task should be the best that the Oireachtas can provide.

The various amendments and extensions of the Principal Act which are now before us represent the changes which those who are responsible for the efficient administration of the Defence Forces consider necessary in the light of experience to meet the requirements of the present day and of future years. I am confident that the Minister will have the goodwill and co-operation of the House in relation to this measure.

There are a number of sections in the Bill which, I think, deserve to be highlighted. Section 4(2)(c) provides for an easing of the very punitive provisions of sections 209 and 210 of the Principal Act which debar forever a person dismissed or discharged with ignominy from serving the State in any capacity whatsoever. I am very glad to see the humane measure now being proposed which will limit the disqualification in the case of civil State employment to a period of seven years, or shorter at the discretion of the Government. While it is appropriate that persons in this category should be regarded as being unsuitable to serve in the Defence Forces again, there are many areas of civil State employment in which they could make a useful contribution, and I welcome the fact that they will now have at least limited eligibility for such public service.

Section 5 deals with a problem which in the times when the Principal Act was going through the Oireachtas was, happily, non-existent in this country. I refer, of course, to the scourge of drug addiction which as, the House is well aware, is in these days a continuing and seemingly intractable problem in almost every country in the world. While members of the Defence Forces are, in common with all other citizens, subject to the ordinary criminal law in regard to drug abuse, it is proper that drug abuse should be made a specific offence under military law so that it can be dealt with expeditiously, in any instances in which it arises, as a matter of internal military discipline. Drug abuse is not, I understand, a problem in the Defence Forces at the present time, and it would be my fervent wish that there will be no change in this situation.

I welcome the sections of the Bill which relate to the safety of aircraft. Section 6 is a very necessary provision. It brings the power of the captain of a military aircraft into line with the powers which the captain of a civil aircraft already enjoys in relation to ensuring that the safety of the aircraft and its passengers and crew will not be jeopardised by unruly or aberrant conduct by anyone on board. While the possibility of this type of conduct occurring on a military aircraft is remote, it is, nevertheless, vital that there should be powers available to the captain to deal with it if the necessity should arise.

Sections 7 and 9 are also geared towards the safety of aircraft and, of course, towards the safety of persons who may live or work in the immediate vicinity of military aerodromes and other locations where military planes and helicopters may take off and land. All the measures concerned will, when enacted, help to maintain the very high and well deserved reputation which Ireland enjoys in regard to safe and efficient air transport operations.

Section 8 fills a gap in the court-martial system which, as far as I am aware, does not exist in the civil courts. It is only proper that where a court-martial requires as evidence any document, etc., it should have the same power to ensure that this is produced as any other court would have in similar circumstances.

Section 12 also relates to the conduct of courts-martial and is, I understand, an amendment designed to regularise the procedure for dealing with persons who may be in contempt of such courts.

Finally — and I know that I can safely speak for all sides of the House in this regard — I would like to pay tribute to all members of the Defence Forces, at all levels for the excellent service which they have rendered to the nation both at home and abroad over the years since the forces were first established.

Since the commencement of the troubles in Northern Ireland, they have been asked to undertake many duties in support of the Garda Síochána in their efforts to counteract the spate of illegal activities mainly arising from the northern situation. The cheerfulness and efficiency with which they undertake these and many other tasks related to service to the community at large should be an inspiration to the general public.

The contribution of our troops to the cause of world peace in the service of the United Nations needs no elaboration by me. Suffice it to say that on all occasions on which the United Nations requested a contingent of Irish troops, there has never been any shortage of volunteers for service and the high standards of behaviour and efficiency to which those troops have aspired and which they have attained are a justified source of pride to the Irish people.

As we are dealing here with a Defence Bill, the scope of the debate is naturally confined in a way in which it will not be when the Defence Estimate comes before the House. The Estimate debate will afford us an opportunity to deal at length with the various matters which impinge on that portfolio. In the meantime I again support the Minister's commendation of the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cooney

I publicly congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to the office of Minister for Defence. I speak from experience when I say that I am quite satisfied he will have a very happy and satisfying tenure in that office because he will have the pleasure of dealing with a very efficient Department of State, on the civil and military side.

The last true professionals are the members of the Permanent Defence Forces. I define a professional as a person giving service who, in all circumstances, puts his client's interest above his personal interests. If we examine the other groupings in society briefly, we will see that none of the so called professionals measure up to that appropriate definition. For example, last year the teachers were prepared to throw their pupils to the wolves because of their pay claim; there have been instances of doctors withdrawing or curtailing their services and the same applied in regard to nurses. Engineers have also withdrawn their services and my own profession is not without fault as barristers and solicitors have refused to co-operate in administering State schemes of legal aid in pursuance of an industrial claim. The result of all those instances was that the clients, whom those groupings were supposed to serve, were put secondary to the particular vested interest of the groups concerned.

Professionals are in an enhanced position in society. They have status by virtue of their profession and their average pay is higher than that of the average industrial worker. Because society puts them in that position, they have a special responsibility which has not been lived up to by any profession in the past. The only profession that can claim to be truly professional is that of the soldier. One can say that it is an enforced professionalism because of the demands and dictates of the disciplinary code. However, that is not a response because that code is voluntarily accepted by these people when they enlist in the Permanent Defence Forces. They are true professionals and, whenever an emergency arises, pace the current emergency, the thoughts of the citizens immediately turn to what assistance they can get from the Army. If we look back over the past number of years they have been called out to do the most varied range of tasks, all of which have been discharged with consummate efficiency and success.

There is a limit to what the Army can do because of their size and resources. They are not capable of dealing with the present emergency and those who look to the Army to be the catalyst to break the present impasse will look in vain. It is no fault of the Army as they do not have the resources to do a particularly specialised task. Again, because we have tended to look on the Army in the role of coming to the aid of the civil power when it is in difficulty, we are glad to overlook their true essential professional nature as a military force. It is because they are a highly disciplined, highly professional military force and they are able to respond to a great variety of contingencies, not necessarily military in character. It is because they are professionals, used to obeying orders, highly organised and efficient in their methodology that they are able to respond efficiently and with success as can be seen in example after example.

In order that that happy situation should continue, it is essential that the morale of the Permanent Defence Forces should at all times be kept high. A number of factors affects morale. The history of the Defence Forces is one and the present incumbents can take pride in a great tradition of service from the foundation of the State when an infant Army had to protect an infant democracy from the attacks of irregular forces. In that connection it is apposite to recall that the father of the Taoiseach was a distinguished officer during that period in the National Army. The Army saw their role then — and continued to play it — as being supportive of democracy. They were secondary to the State and that was the role the Army saw for themselves and played in the letter and the spirit through many difficult times in our political history. The result is that today we have total trust in the loyalty of our Permanent Defence Forces to the institutions of the State. That is a happy position to be in because, should our democracy be ultimately challenged, its last defender will be the Permanent Defence Forces. It is incumbent on us, the guardians of democracy here in this House, to ensure that that ultimate defender is given the best possible ambiance in which to work so that its morale will always be at the highest level.

A proud history is one important factor in the building of morale but there are other, more practical, factors which have to be taken into account. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have been somewhat careless in the resources and attention we have provided for the Permanent Defence Forces. In the matter of pay, while they have got the various increases of the national rounds, nevertheless groups that were comparative with them have gone ahead. I refer in particular to the comparisons that existed between certain ranks of the Garda Síochána and some officer commissioned ranks of the Permanent Defence Forces. The pay and conditions of the former have now gone significantly ahead of those of their colleagues in the Permanent Defence Forces, something which should be addressed at the earliest possible moment. I commend it most strongly to the Minister. I am sure people would argue that one reason for this is the members of the Garda Síochána have the advantage of having representative associations to make their case for them. That has been an important factor in their progress in that regard.

The Army have never sought, and do not want, to have associations representing them because they see them as being antipathetical to their role as total professional, loyal servants of the State. In the absence of any such associations, they have to depend on Members of this House, principally on the Minister of the day. He, of course, needs our support expressed in the House of the importance of the Army and maintaining them as a professional body with high morale, capable of responding to whatever calls the State makes on them within their resources.

It is also incumbent on us to ensure that the Army have the very best of modern military equipment because, by possessing modern, military equipment, they become up to date and top class in their profession. It is also good for their sense of self-esteem that they are as good as any other defence forces or military grouping in the western world. It is important that there should be a proper sense of self-esteem among the members of the Defence Forces because that, of course, is a critical component in the intangible thing we call morale and which we all know is so important.

The conditions of service have to be equitable, fair and satisfying. The Bill touches on conditions of service of the members of the Permanent Defence Forces. As the Minister said, this Bill was initially prepared when I was in office and pursued and introduced to the House by my colleague, the former Deputy Paddy O'Toole. In effect, the purpose of the Bill is to update the sanction which can be imposed for breaches of military and other law by members of the Permanent Defence Forces. When I say "update" I am speaking euphemistically because the measure is increasing the punishments which can be imposed. While I was responsible for initiating the drafting of the Bill I would have some hesitation at this juncture about introducing it when the numbers in the Army are dropping, when the equipment being offered to the Army is being curtailed and when the pressures on the individual members by virtue of the drop in numbers and inadequate equipment are increasing enormously, thereby bringing the possibility of an increased incidence of acts of indiscipline resulting, if this Bill were to become law, in increased penalties.

I do not know if it is a proper time for us to introduce heavier sanctions when the climate is unfavourable for the serving soldier through no fault of his own. I do not oppose the Bill but I mention that point to the Minister for consideration on completion of Second Stage as to when we might proceed further with the Bill. The provisions in the Bill are entirely logical because the original proposals are now literally outdated. In particular, I fully approve of the change made as regards the prohibition on State employment from making it an open-ended punishment to one with a time limit because it was incongrous that people who had been convicted under the Offences Against the State Act for subversion suffered a penalty of exclusion from State employment for a set number of years whereas a member of the Defence Forces having joined to serve his country and got in trouble could find himself excluded. I am glad that change is being made.

Another change which I think is significant is the taking of power to recommend a reduction in the ranks of commissioned officers. We will have to consider this in more detail on Committee Stage if the Minister decides to proceed with Committee Stage. Deputy Clohessy mentioned the redress of wrongs procedure. I have to say to him that he has got it all wrong. I can speak from personal experience that when a file containing an application for a redress of wrongs comes before the Minister it comes in such a way that the Minister can take a totally unbiased view of the case. Obviously, if there are technical matters concerned he will have to have advice from both the civil and military sides of his Department. That is normal in any submission which comes to any Minister in any Department on any issue. That is not to say that the Minister's independence is thereby frustrated, curtailed or inhibited. I am quite certain that Deputy Power had the same experience as I and knows that when a file containing an application for a redress of wrongs is received, the Minister is a totally independent person examining that and he will make his decision on the issues and not to please either the civil or military sides of his Department. That has been the tradition in the redress of wrongs procedure and I am satisfied that it has worked well and will continue to work well in the future. Therefore I would take issue with Deputy Clohessy on that matter. Whatever myths have permeated the Defence Forces with regard to that matter which might have caused him to have been briefed in the way he was, I would like to say that those beliefs are mythical and have no foundation in fact.

Deputy Clohessy also mentioned the black list. I am not aware of this black list. I remember while I was Minister for Justice there was a suggestion that the Department of Justice maintained a black list. That was another of these myths which gets propagated in this country. It is an attractive ominous sounding thing and it is good copy but it is a myth. Likewise, people who are convicted of military offences being put on a so called black list, to the detriment of their employment opportunities is also a myth. There is no such thing and I am glad to have the opportunity to scotch that belief.

In conclusion, I want to repeat what the Minister, the Minister of State and other speakers have said about the Permanent Defence Forces. The manner in which they serve at home and abroad is a great credit to them, to their professionalism and to their traditions. It is very important that we recognise that and we in this House and the Executive of the day, so far as is possible in terms of the resources available, should ensure that the maximum possible resources are made available to the members of the Defence Forces so that the numbers will be kept up and that their equipment will be kept at the very highest level. We owe them a great debt of gratitude and I am glad to be able to acknowledge that here publicly this afternoon.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): First of all, I must thank the Deputies for their good wishes on my appointment as Minister for Defence and for their contributions to this debate. I know that there is a great fund of goodwill, as was expressed here this evening, on both sides of the House, towards the Defence Forces. I look forward to further discussions in this House with regard to defence matters when the Estimates come up for discussion and when we will have an opportunity of going into greater detail. As indicated this evening, the Defence Forces are held in high regard both at home and abroad, and rightly so. I acknowledge the expression of praise and appreciation of the Defence Forces by the Deputies who have spoken in this debate.

As has already been indicated, we hope to have in the not too distant future a more wide-ranging discussion on the Estimates for the Department of Defence on the various other matters which were raised and which affect the Defence Forces — matters such as peacekeeping, aid to the civil power and the strength of the Defence Forces. I will be in a position to put forward proposals on that occasion. As I indicated when introducing the Bill, it was prepared and introduced to the House and brought to its present stage by my two immediate predecessors, Deputy Cooney and O'Toole. As indicated by Deputy Cooney, quite rightly, this is a Bill which has been under consideration in the Department for some time. It contains many important amendments from the military point of view. By way of reply to the points which have been raised in the debate, I wish to make further comments on the issues involved and also on the points raised by Deputies.

First, as regards the level of increases in fines, etc., it is well to remember that the fines which may be imposed for offences against military law have now been in force since 1955. I am sure the House will agree that they are totally unrealistic, having regard to the change in the value of money since then. For example, the amount of £5 which is the maximum fine which a court-martial may impose on a private soldier represented about two weeks' pay in 1955. In present-day terms the average weekly pay for a private would be in the region of £305, so one can see that there is quite a discrepancy.

Mr. Connaughton

Is the pay that high?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): It is for two weeks.

Mr. Connaughton

I was heading for the Army after that.

Mr. Power

I would stay in the Curragh myself.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): The Deputy should stay here. The maximum fine proposed for a private under the Bill is six days' pay, or about £130 in current terms. Fixing fines by reference to so many days' pay also means that the amount of the fines will be self-adjusting.

There are about 35 offences in relation to military affairs and military property which are punishable in the District Court. In the case of 25 of these offences, a tenfold increase in the levels of the fines at present prescribed is proposed. Since the Defence Act of 1954 was enacted, the consumer price index has increased more than elevenfold. In seven other cases the increase is less than, or about the same as, the increase since 1955 in the level of the average industrial wage, while in the remaining three cases the increases proposed are substantially greater. However, these increases are regarded as justified because of the nature of the offences concerned — wrongful sale, etc. of equipment, offences in relation to manoeuvres, including unauthorised entry into places in which arms, ammunition, etc., are stored and, indeed, as I have already stated, the unlawful wearing of military uniform or imitation of the uniform. These offences have obviously more serious implications in current circumstances than they had 30 years ago and there should be no reasonable objection — indeed there is not — to more severe penalties for them.

Deputy Clohessy referred to the punishment of reduction in rank and said this was unacceptable by his party. Punishment of reduction in rank at present may be imposed by a court-martial on a non-commissioned officer. The introduction of a similar penalty in the case of an officer would provide courts-martial with an alternative to the severe punishment of dismissal or the lesser punishment of forfeiture of seniority. It was maintained there is a considerable gap between those two punishments and the new punishment is regarded as an appropriate means of filling this void. This is the purpose of introducing this amendment. We felt that one was too lenient and the other too severe and the occasion might be appropriate to introduce this type of punishment.

Deputy Connaughton referred to helicopters. When the Defence Act of 1954 was enacted the Defence Forces had no helicopters. Now military helicopters land in and take off from military installations other than aerodromes and, therefore, it may be necessary to erect an apparatus for signalling on lands or buildings adjacent to such installations. Section 9 would provide power to do just that. Power already exists, under section 35 of the 1954 Act, to erect and maintain signalling apparatus in the vicinity of military aerodromes. That is the purpose of this provision.

With reference to a point raised by both Deputy Connaughton and Deputy Clohessy, the present disqualification from State employment arising from dismissal in certain circumstances lasts a lifetime. This applied to employment with the State, not to civilian employment. In the case of semi-State employment, it is proposed in the Bill that the disqualification should be modified to seven years and also the Bill gives power to the Government to remove the disqualification at any time. No change, however, is proposed in the disqualification from employment in a military capacity.

A point was also raised in the course of their contributions by several Deputies with regard to drugs. As Deputy Connaughton has rightly pointed out, drugs were not an issue, or not as great an issue, when this legislation was introduced 30 years ago as they are now. Members of the Defence Forces must be fit and very fit indeed to undertake military duties at all times and we must remember that many of those duties are performed under arms. Therefore, one can see the importance of the introduction of this provision. In these circumstances, the abuse of drugs would have extremely serious implications. It is considered that the offence should be made a specific and clearly identifiable offence against military law. I am sure the House will agree that it is important that this be done in the context of this enabling and amending legislation.

Several Deputies also spoke about the attendance of witnesses at courts-martial. The position at present is that a person may be summoned to attend as a witness at the investigation of a charge or at a court-martial. There is, however, no power to compel a witness to produce documents, except where required as evidence. It is considered desirable that such power should exist and there seems to be no objection to this part of the proposed legislation.

Deputy Connaughton was concerned about the lopping of trees on private lands. In the 1954 legislation——

Mr. Connaughton

The trees were there at that time.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): The trees were there but not helicopters, to any great extent. In recent years difficulties have arisen with regard to trees on private lands which pose a danger to aircraft operations. It is desirable that the Minister should have power to ensure that hazards of this type are removed as quickly as possible. The landowner will be invited to do the necessary work himself and he will be paid reasonable expenses. If he is not prepared to carry out the work himself, it will be done by the Department. The section makes it an offence to obstruct or impede the work of removing or lopping trees. I am sure that is acceptable to everyone.

It has also been represented that the protection against legal proceedings which is contained in section 107 of the 1954 Defence Act works to the disadvantage of members of the Permanent Defence Force in that their credit rating can be adversely affected. This protection is now being modified so as to be available in future to Permanent Defence Force personnel only when they are on active service. The protection applies at present to Reserve Defence Force personnel only when they are called out on permanent service. This is the equivalent of active service and no modification is required.

All sections of the Bill will become law on the day it is signed by the President. Sections 2, 3, 4, 8 (4), 12 and 13 relate to offences already provided for in the 1954 Act but increased punishments are being specified. These increased punishments will come into force only when the Bill becomes law and the purpose of section 15 is to make the situation clear. It relates to any court which may, after the day on which the Bill becomes law, be trying an offence committed before that date and to any court hearing an appeal or to any superior authority considering a petition relating to such an offence.

Section 208 (1) of the 1954 Act authorises the president of a court martial to certify to the High Court in the case of a person not subject to military law that the person is in contempt of the court martial by reason of certain behaviour on his part. The corresponding provisions in the civil law have been found to be unconstitutional. Section 12 therefore adopts the provisions of the civil law which were enacted to regularise the position.

Deputy Clohessy referred to the promotion of officers. The promoting authority under section 45 of the 1954 Act is the Minister for Defence, subject to Defence force regulations. Promotions are made following consideration by the Chief-of-Staff in accordance with those regulations.

If there are any matters to which I have not referred, they can be brought up on Committee Stage. I thank Deputies for their good wishes and for their positive contributions. I look forward to a constructive Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): Tuesday of next week, subject to agreement between the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 12 May 1987.