With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to share my time with Deputies Ryan and McCartan.
Adjournment Debate. - Army Officers Representative Association.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity of bringing this very important matter before the Dáil so quickly. Very often the Standing Orders of this House are criticised for not being sufficiently flexible to enable urgent pressing matters to be discussed; no such criticism can be levelled in this case.
A few short weeks ago, Dáil Éireann passed the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1990, which is enabling legislation for the setting up of representative associations for members of the Permanent Defence Forces. All of us concerned with that legislation were astounded to learn of a development in the Defence Forces which is totally at variance with the promises repeatedly made to us in this House. In essence, a group of seven officers, the Gleeson team, were asked officially to draw up ideas and plans for the officers representative association. They did this and produced a draft constitution. The general staff did not like what they produced and the designated officers were summoned to Army headquarters and were told that the tenor of the document was gravely and seriously at variance with the military ethos expected of professional officers. They were asked to withdraw the draft constitution. They were reprimanded and we understand that, not surprisingly, they felt humiliated.
At all stages of the passage of the Bill through the Dáil, indeed at practically every intervention, assurances were given by the Minister for Defence that this would be a process of consultation and nothing would be imposed on anybody. They were seeking the views of members of the Defence Forces and there would be no impositions. They were trying to reach consensus, agreement and accord. We were told this was the reason that it was to be done by regulations and not by legislation. What went wrong? What now of the promises that were given to us across the floor on innumerable times? We argued about this and suggested that the major part of the framework should be in the Bill, by way of legislation. We tabled amendments to achieve that but the Minister wanted to do it by a process of consultation. The core value of the Minister's operation was that it would be done by way of consultation and discussions with members of the Defence Forces. We now see the results of that. We have a defective Act and much sooner than anybody expected, we see the results that has generated. I am afraid to say that we now have a new version of what is meant by consultations, that is you can have them provided that the conclusions of the consultations are the way the general staff like it.
I am not in any way, and I want to make this point very clear, blaming the General Staff for not liking what was produced by the designated team. The commanding officers in charge are very experienced people. They should have, and of course they have, very firm ideas on what is or is not at variance with the military ethos. That is fair enough, but if they do not like the message does that mean that they should treat the people who brought it, in the way these officers have been treated? This team, the experienced Gleeson team, are carrying out the exercise specifically at the request of the Minister and the military authorities. Is that what the Minister meant when he promised us consultations? Is this an exercise of democracy within the Army, which we heard so much about during the passage of the Bill? Are we now discovering the real reason that the Minister was being advised to be so inflexible on the issue of regulations in preference to our suggestions on this side of the House that the matter should be incorporated in legislation?
The Minister is the person who asked this team to stay together to get the officers' ideas on an officers representative association. I ask the Minister what brief was given to this team? I also want to know whether he had been informed, before it became public knowledge through the media, that the team were to be reprimanded and that they were being asked to withdraw their draft constitution? Will the Minister now ensure that the draft constitution will be published and made available throughout the Army as part of the consultative process? Would the Minister not agree that any further meaningful consultation is at risk and will be extremely difficult, in view of what has happened to the officially appointed team of officers who were doing this work? How does the Minister propose to remedy this? I would also like to ask the Minister what input the officers who will be elected through the due process which will be set up will have in deciding the constitution and the structure of the representative association. Finally, will the format of the association be something like what we were told so many times across the floor of this House?
I thank Deputy Nealon for giving me the opportunity to make a contribution on this debate.
I was utterly appalled on hearing of the disciplinary action taken last week against officers in the Defence Forces. I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. These officers, with the consent of the Minister, were employed to prepare a draft constitution for their representative association. It was agreed in this House that this was to be a consultative document, and no more.
I welcomed the Defence (Amendment) Bill although I differed substantially with the Tánaiste on many aspects of it. The Bill left the House with our understanding and the Minister's word that there would be wide-ranging consultation prior to and immediately following the internal election process. During the debate I stated very clearly that, notwithstanding the Tánaiste's stated support for the Bill, it was imperative that we discuss it line by line. I felt strongly about it because it was my firm belief that at the highest level of command within the Defence Forces there would be objections and resentment to the whole concept of representative bodies and I regret that this has been borne out.
Has the previous Minister not stated the opinion of the Defence Forces headquarters on this matter, that the granting of a representative body would be against the whole ethos of the Army structure, or words to that effect? I understand that was stated in this House. I regret also that PDFORRA are finding the same resentment among certain people in the Defence Forces. I would say very clearly that the Minister must immediately take charge and ensure that the full consultative process is not put at risk and that the views of the Oireachtas are carried through. Obstructionist policies cannot be allowed hinder the proper consultation process. I hope that message will be brought clearly not only to the Minister but to the generals at the top.
I join the other Deputies in thanking you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity of raising this very important and fundamental matter. I join with Deputy Nealon in seeking on explanation and further assurances from the Minister and from the Minister of State who is present. The obvious facts seem to indicate that these officers, who were represented in the public gallery here during the debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, clearly did no more than act on what they had heard the Tánaiste say during the debate on the Bill. To suggest that they have committed some form of an offence is an affront to the notion of democracy, debate and discussion and flies totally in the face of what the Tánaiste publicly invited them to do in his remarks during the debate. What has happened vindicates the view taken by the Opposition parties in the Dáil, that we should have written into the Bill basic fundamentals with regard to what the Oireachtas felt should be the direction in which discussions would go and what would be the essential features of the structures when introduced. This is another example where a blunt guillotine applied by Government has produced the type of results that none of us like to see. I hope a lesson can be learned from this by the Minister of State who is also Chief Whip.
In adopting the arguments put by the other two Deputies, I would ask the Minister of State to undertake in the Department the following steps to try to retrieve the matter. The document, as published and prepared by a team of representatives, should now be sought out by the Department and circulated to every member of the officer corps of the Defence Forces in the same fashion as the document prepared by the Chief of Staff before we debated the Bill was circulated with a covering letter of endorsement from the Tánaiste indicating that this was a discussion document and a document that was being circulated for the opinion and advice of the members. I would ask the Tánaiste or the Minister of State to ensure that this is done as a first step, recognising the consultation to follow. I would also ask that he let it be known to the Chief of Staff, officers and others involved that all ideas are open for discussion at this stage and that no one sector should seek to dominate, calling or pulling rank.
There is a very important point to be made here, that reference to the 1954 Act, to regulations or any other earlier notion of ethos or tradition should not be relied on to stifle or hinder discussion or debate on any ideas that are put forward. I would ask the Tánaiste or the Minister of State present to underline that basic principle. We are breaking new ground. New rules and regulations will apply and it is not helpful to harp back to old ideas. If the reprimand represents a mark on the character of the officers I would ask the Tánaiste or the Minister of State to seek to have the reprimand withdrawn and establish again the status quo so that we can progress at least along the lines of the indications and assurances given by the Tánaiste during the debate.
As the House is aware, the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1990, provides for the establishment of representative associations in the Defence Forces. The commitment to the establishment of representative associations stands.
In accordance with the undertakings given to this House by the Minister for Defence, the first election will be conducted under the general supervision of the principal officer in charge of the franchise section of the Department of the Environment. He will determine, on the basis of submissions from interested parties, the procedures for the election of representatives. The process has already begun and in order that the elections can be held as soon as possible the head of the franchise section has invited submissions from individuals and groups of individuals within the Permanent Defence Force on the structures into which representatives will be elected; the electoral system to be used; the constituencies to which the election will relate; the number of representatives to be elected; arrangements for the conduct of the elections; and any other relevant matter. The franchise officer is available for discussions with interested parties. Submissions are to be forwarded to him by 9 May.
As regards the question of a constitution for an officers' association the position is that the franchise officer is primarily concerned with the electoral system to be employed. After elections have taken place, discussions with the elected representatives of Defence Forces personnel will be held to settle the detailed arrangements for representative associations. It is at this stage that issues such as draft constitutions will be considered in detail.
As the House is aware, three representative teams were formed to present the views of privates, NCOs and officers to the Gleeson Commission. These teams have been requested to make submissions to the franchise officer. I wish to emphasise that this process is proceeding as planned.
As to reports in the news media over the past few days about action taken against military officers by the military authorities, I wish to make it clear that no officer incurred a reprimand as such in military terms. A meeting with the officers' team did take place during which they were told, I am given to understand, that in the present context they should concentrate their efforts on the electoral process pursuant to the request for submissions made by the franchise officer. The purpose of the meeting, I gather, was to clarify the situation and to remove any misunderstanding as to the nature of the present part of the exercise and to ensure that issues extraneous to the immediate objective to holding democratic elections would not delay that process.
I wish to emphasise very strongly that the duly elected representatives will be given every opportunity to participate in the drawing up of the new arrangements before the associations are established and before the Defence Force regulations are made. Clearly, that is the best way to proceed to ensure that a system emerges which will have the confidence of all concerned. There is no question of disciplinary action being taken against anyone. Commitments given on behalf of the Government during the passage of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1990, will be honoured in full. I have noted the comments of the speakers here tonight and I shall certainly pass them on to the Minister for Defence. The Minister asked me to assure the House that the commitment given by him during the debate on this Bill will be honoured in full and Deputies need have no fears whatever in that respect.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 May 1990.