Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1990

Vol. 123 No. 18

Adjournment Matter. - Army Pay and Conditions Report.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to thank the Chair for enabling me to raise the important matter of the delay in the report being issued in regard to the pay and conditions in relation to the Army. It is a matter I have tried to raise a couple of times as my party's spokesman on Defence in the Seanad.

First, I would like to welcome the Minister here. I think it is the first time he has been in the Seanad since the election and since the new Government was formed. I would like to wish him well.

He takes over the post at a very difficult and critical time in the history of the Army but it is a time when, hopefully, he will be able to use his persuasive nature and his ability to solve the problems. I hope he will bear with me in the few points I have to raise in relation to the issue at hand.

We are all aware that the question of Army pay, conditions and service, and various matters has been ongoing for quite some time. It goes back to the Minister's predecessor. It is unfortunate at that time it was not reacted to with the quickness and alacrity the issue demanded. Unfortunately, things were left to drag and we had the situation where many people were making representations and given the nature of the force, it ended up that the spouses and the Army wives were making representations on behalf of the people in the Army. The result was that some of them ran in the election. The issue was hot in the press at that stage but it has died a little. While I am not saying nothing has happened, certainly we would have liked to have seen a bit more happening, and more quickly.

Morale is low in the Army in various ranks. The fact is that the Army people have not been paid well over many years. Unfortunately, all too often we pay general lip-service both to members of the Garda and the Army. At times we take them for granted, shout when they are not there when we need them but otherwise we take them for granted. I ask the Minister to try to bring forward the report as soon as possible. We are aware of the timescale.

The commission was appointed last summer with submissions to be received by 30 September. Most of the matters had been well documented and voiced prior to that and I do not think there should be an extension in time in relation to bringing forward the various matters that constitute the issue. We are now almost five months down the road and the expectation is that it will be next June or July before anything is done: given the way things happen, it could be next autumn before things are even brought to Cabinet.

What we want is a simple decision in relation to money, a simple decision in relation to recognising some sort of representative body, recognising that the Army had a low base from which they were starting. We have got to make a decision. We have seen in recent days that there was a will in regard to the rod licence dispute and eventually a way was found out of it, despite all sorts of problems. If that matter could be solved, it should be possible in this equally important issue. Indeed, many people would say it is a more important issue, given the Army situation, the great service the men have given and are giving and the great tradition of the Irish Army and the service it has given in many countries. We have got to make a decision. The money can be found. It has been found before in relation to other areas.

This country is owed something like £19 million or £20 million outstanding following our UNIFIL and other duties. That money should be got in and greater efforts should be made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this regard. I hope the Minister here will communicate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that greater efforts should be made to get that money. It is mainly outstanding from Russia and America. If the boot were on the other foot they would be quick enough to demand it. That money would solve a lot of the Minister's problems for a couple of years.

The Army have got to be taken seriously. Conditions have got to be improved. Pay has got to be looked at. To ask Army men to bring up families and have their wives trying to make an Army salary go a long way is just not on. While there was a certain increase when taxes and other matters are taken into account, Army personnel still lag very far behind in pay. I hope the Minister will give this matter very urgent attention.

Delay is unsatisfactory. The matter has been well researched; there have been many representations, the Minister should ask for the report to be on his desk within weeks rather than months. Then there should be a clear commitment from the Cabinet. The Minister is well able, and is a past master, to fight his corner in the Cabinet to ensure the necessary funds will be provided. Obviously some of them will be a once-off payment but if we expect the Army to do the job we are asking, we have to pay them a fair and representative wage.

I also hope that when the commission reports and when the Minister is looking at the report a representative body will be set up so that this situation will never happen again. Some of the problems probably would have been avoided if there was such a forum where officers of various ranks could articulate their views, could discuss their problems without fear of getting into trouble.

I hope there will not be any witch hunt in the case of any member of the force who has articulated his views and who was only saying what the Minister knows what everyone in the street is saying, what all the Army are saying. If people have spoken their mind, let us listen to them. There is the PDFORRA to which many members are affiliated. Whether it is that body or some other representative body, it should be easy enough to set up a structure. I am sure that the Minister will be able to accommodate Army personnel and that they will be able to respond.

Obviously, given the nature of the Army there are certain matters which cannot be discused openly. I do not think anyone would expect that. Military matters have to be dealt with in a certain way but in relation to the welfare of officers, to their education, to in-service training, the situation that Army officers find themselves on retirement, in relation to the Navy Corps and the Air Corps, there are many matters that could be discussed. There should be a forum; there should be a body; and I hope the Minister can see his way to ensuring he can meet the demands half-way. I am sure that the Army will respond likewise.

We all know what we want this representative body to achieve. It is not if one side is trying to out-do the other. What the Minister should indicate is that he will soon set up a forum, that full discussions will take place with the various bodies. I am sure they can meet half-way in relation to the formation of a new body. It is important that the Minister tries to see that matters are brought to a conclusion. I also hope that if awards are to be made, that perhaps as a gesture they could be back-dated to the establishment of the commission, or to the date it concluded its deliberations or some months.

I had hoped that some sort of a bonus or gift might have been given at Christmas in recognition of the fact that the Army have been working from a very low base for far to long. I hope that the Minister, recognising now the problem and having seen and heard from many people, including various spokespeople, about the plight of the Army wives and the great hardship being incurred by many families, will ensure that this issue will not continue to dog us.

I hope the Minister will be able to say the commission's report will be available at a very early date and when it is that he will react positively to it and have a clear commitment from Cabinet that they will adhere to what they have indicated in the Programme for Government where they said that the long term objective was to substantially improve basic Army pay and reducing the over-dependence of soldiers on special duty allowances. There should be a certain basic wage, so that soldiers are not depending on getting certain rosters or going to Lebanon in order to be able to feed their families and so on. I am sure the Minister is fully aware of the problem. He is a Minister who has responded in the past to solving difficulties and I am sure that he will recog-nise that there is a problem, there has been a problem. Obviously, we do not want a piecemeal solution but want it fully thought out. This problem did not arise just when the Minister took office. He is the person now dealing with it. The problem has been festering for a number of years. We will remember the Minister for many things and I hope that, among other things, we will remember him for sorting out the Army pay problem, recognising the great contribution that Army personnel have made to this country, giving them proper conditions of service and looking after their welfare in the way that they deserve.

I would ask the Minister to address the various points I have raised and once again I would like to thank him for being here.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Lenihan)

I would like to re-echo the sentiments expressed by Senator Cosgrave in regard to paying tribute to the Army and Army personnel for their long tradition of service to the Irish community, going back to the formation of the State. The measures that I have now in contemplation and to which Senator Cosgrave referred are matters that have not really been addressed since the foundation of the Army. That is what makes the whole aspect of this more complex than I think the Senator appreciates. It is not a simple problem.

I would like to divide the problem into two parts, although the motion only refers to the question of the report on pay and conditions. The Senator brought in the other aspect of the representative structures that are now being sought within the Army and I will also address myself to that, as the Senator has, although it is not strictly within the terms of the motion, they are two separate matters.

The first matter which is the subject of the motion concerns what I would call, in short, the Gleeson Commission chaired by Mr. Dermot Gleeson, Senior Counsel, with a small group of members. It was established last July. It was the first aspect of policy initiated by the new Government, and the Taoiseach announced the establishment of this independent commission to look into the question of remuneration and conditions of service and to carry out a major review in this area in regard to the Defence Forces. There were some very prominent personnel to assist Mr. Gleeson in his task, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, Lieutenant-General O'Sullivan, former CQMS, Mr. Patrick McCabe, a former General Secretary of the Irish Council of Trade Unions, Mr. Donal Nevin, Dr. Eugene McCarthy, former Deputy Director of the General Federated Union of Employers, and Colm McCarthy, an economist. That very able, top-class team was entrusted with this job last July and I await their report, which will be very detailed, the first ever carried into this whole area of remuneration and conditions of service for the Defence Force. I might say, just to put it on the record and not in any contentious spirit, that the date for submissions before this commission was put back to November rather than September at the request of Army personnel themselves because they appreciated the importance of the work that was being done by the commission and they wished to present their own very detailed and complex case in respect to each of the sectors of the Defence Forces. They wanted to present their case fully and they appreciated the difficult nature of it. With that in mind, they wished to take on consultants to forward submissions to the commission and I retained consultants on behalf of the three Army sectors who were making submissions to the commission. I retained consultants on their behalf, Stokes Kennedy Crowley, and paid for them as well. That was very much appreciated. The delay has actually been at the request of the Army representatives. We set up three very effective military teams representing the three sectors of the Defence Forces, the privates, non-commissioned officers and officers.

This commission has heard their submissions now. It has heard a large number of oral submissions and it is continuing to look into all aspects of the case. As the Senator has said, we do not want any short-term solution. It would be very easy for me to find a short-term solution to this matter today but what the Army want, and what the personnel in the Army representing the three sectors of the Defence Forces require, the personnel in particular who represented the three sectors in their submissions to the commission, is a comprehensive structure for Army pay and conditions that will not merely deal with the present problems but will provide the foundation for this problem being addressed and met over the years ahead so that for once and all the current anomalies that exist in regard to pay and conditions will be removed. It provides us with an opportunity to solve this problem which has existed since the foundation of the State whereby Defence Forces complaints in regard to pay and conditions were met in an ad hoc way by Government over the years. It is worth waiting for the full commission report on that aspect, and I am confident that when the report comes to hand it will be fully acknowledged by the Government, who will then be in a position to take action. That is on the aspect of pay and conditions.

The other aspect of it, although it is not relevant to the motion, I will deal with briefly because the Senator has raised it. We are in a public forum here and I think we should have an open, frank discussion on matters. I am glad to be able to say here categorically that the Government have approved of the establishment of a permanent structure to provide for representative groups within the Defence Forces. I want to emphasise here that I am not establishing a group to represent the Defence Forces. I am merely establishing a structure that will enable the Defence Forces to elect by democratic vote, by secret ballot, their own members and their own executive to their own representative association or associations, whether it is a matter of one association or an association comprising three groups, men, NCOs and officers. That is all I am doing. They will elect their representatives who will advocate in regard to areas of pay, conditions and what I might call welfare areas such as housing, health and pensions, any form of positive aid they may give to their members under the general cover of welfare. That is an important segment that I would envisage being part of a representative body's duties. Those areas of pay, conditions and welfare are the areas that they would be mandated to work on. These are areas of discipline and policy, separate Army matters unrelated to what their particular mandate would be, and I hope to publish legislation dealing with that aspect.

I want to draw a distinction here. That is separate from the commission's work. They probably will not report until some time in May or June. They are looking into a very complex matter in great detail. That is their area of positive recommendation with regard to pay and conditions. Before that, inside the next month, I will have legislation setting out democratic provisions that will enable democratic structures to be established in the Defence Force structures for the men themselves. I will then meet that representative body or bodies and they can also meet the Chief of Staff or anybody else on matters related to their particular mandate. That is the way to proceed — to have one such group or groups that would be recognised any protected by Statute and by regulation, thus preventing a proliferation of spokesmen and groups, which would be obviously undersirable.

I can assure the House that inside a month it will see the emergence of this Bill and following on that there will be an opportunity in this House to debate it. It is very important that it should be emphasised here and now that this is not a question of the Minister or the Government bringing in legislation because they are setting up their own body. All we will be asking the Dáil and Seanad to do is to approve of enabling legislation that will enable the men to elect their own representatives and their own body, or bodies if more than one is required in respect of different sectors. It is important to remember that in this aspect.

This will also be an independent body of the men themselves, elected by the men — it will not be within any command structure of the Army or anything like that — which will be in a position to discuss and advocate in the three areas of pay, conditions and welfare of Defence Force personnel and of the Defence Forces generally. There would be an ongoing system of conciliation and arbitration — I am talking about the future now — in the event of such a representative group or groups seeking to have matters of pay or conditions arbitrated upon. This system of conciliation and arbitration would be analogous to the system that operates in regard to the public service and the Garda Síochána. Something of that kind would be in place as an end result in the event of a representative body or bodies seeking to have such a matter or matters discussed and arbitrated upon, ultimately if that is necessary, in matters relating to pay and conditions.

I would like this to be clearly understood because all this section has been taken in a fairly brief period of time. I welcome the resolution put down by Senator Cosgrave because it enables me, as Minister for Defence, to respond in this matter. It is particularly important because there is a danger of this issue becoming clouded. The last thing in the world we want in our society — and I make a particular appeal here — is any question of conflict or confrontation vis-á-vis the Irish Defence Forces. There is absolutely no need for that. I assure the House that I will do everything to facilitate progress by way of persuasion and consensus, both in the two Houses of the Oireachtas and in the Defence Forces.

This matter is fundamental to the security and the whole future wellbeing of the State. It is far too important a matter to be left to nit-picking or political point-scoring. I have outlined the position, both in regard to waiting for the commission's report, which, I am certain, will be a comprehensive one by reason of the detailed submissions they have already received, and having that report implemented when it emerges in June. In the meantime I hope to have established a representative group structure for the Defence Forces, which can be done by way of legislation between now and June, so that some progress will be made over the next six months on the two aspects on which the Defence Forces have felt dissatisfied, and to some degree rightly so.

While I welcome Senator Cosgrave's motion which enabled this discussion to take place, I want to say that it is by no means a simple matter and I do not wish to cut corners on it. This has been with us now for nearly 70 years, going back to 1922 or 1923. We can surely wait just a very short period of time — I am only talking about a month in the case of the legislation and about four months in the case of the actual commission report — for these two events and then we can process them fully through the Dáil with the fullest consultation and co-operation. We want to ensure that what we establish at the end of the day in the two areas I mentioned are permanent structures relating to the vital wellbeing of the Defence Forces. We must get it right, to use the modern phrase, and not come in with any ad hoc, top of the head, immediate response. It is in that spirit that I meet the point of view put by Senator Cosgrave here this evening.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 February 1990.