asked the Minister for Defence if he will agree to the establishment of a representative body for the permanent defence force.

25.

asked the Minister for Defence the Government's policy on the formation of a representative body for defence forces personnel, similar to the Garda Representative Body; if there is any specific provision in the defence forces regulations or elsewhere which would prevent members of the defence forces from forming a representative body to represent their interests of pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

(Limerick West): I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 25 together.

I am advised that the formation by members of the defence forces of associations or unions having a system of organisation and control separate from that of the defence forces, would be incompatible with the system of command essential in any defence or military force contemplated by Article 13 and 15 of the Constitution and provided for in the Defence Acts and the regulations made under those Acts. Apart from objections based on the legal considerations involved there would be fundamental policy objections to any development towards the creation of unions of associations in the Defence Forces.

Arising from the Minister's reply I wish to state again that it was never suggested by any Member of the House, and certainly not by me, that there should be an Army trade union. With due respect, a Cheann Comhairle, the Minister is confusing the issue, we were talking about a representative body. There is broad consensus from all sides of the House and within the Army at every level for such a body.

We must proceed by way of questions, Deputy Bell.

Would the Minister agree that this could be done by assigning an officer in each command who would form a group within the Army and be responsible for making representations directly to the Minister, following consultation with the units and that this could be done by setting up a special personnel section? Would the Minister like to comment on this?

(Limerick West): I am not aware that there is a demand from any side of this House for such a representative body within the Army. Certainly, there is no demand within the Army for such a representative body. As I have said, it would be incompatible with Army structures and the systems that soldiers have to operate under. Of course, I know that the conditions of service of members are under constant and sympathetic consideration with a view to effecting any improvements which are regarded as necessary. Indeed, the recent pay review which was set up by the Government is an example of that.

I respectfully suggest that it is not contrary to the DFR. In each country in Europe, of which we are now supposed to be a member, there are representative bodies—even within the UK, our nearest neighbour — within the armed forces to convey their views. The best example of a representative body in European terms is the fact that half the total membership of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster were serving members in the defence forces.

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be imparting information rather than seeking it. He must proceed by way of question.

Let me suggest that NCOs and private soldiers and the lower ranks of Army officers have no means of conveying their grievances under the present system. Will he make some arrangement to change that?

A Cheann Comhairle, before——

Please, Deputy Sherlock, allow the Minister to reply.

If the Minister would say——

It is disorderly of the Deputy to intervene when the Minister is about to reply to a supplementary question.

It is to prevent the setting up——

Please, Deputy Sherlock. I would and will facilitate the Deputy, but what he is doing now is disorderly.

(Limerick West): Deputy Bell is and should be aware that every serving member of the Defence Forces has a right, and nobody can prevent that right, of direct access to the Minister for Defence of the day. With regard to representative bodies existing in other countries, I am aware that certain European countries have representative bodies; but I want to point out to Deputy Bell that in these countries national service on conscription is used a means of recruitment. There is no direct comparison in such cases with the position in this country which maintains a volunteer Army.

Arising from that reply——

I want to bring in Deputy Paul Connaughton and to finalise the matter.

The European Parliament itself has recommended that each country within the EC set up such a body.

Is the Minister telling the House that he is satisfied that the method or medium of representation in the Army is all right now? Does he believe that to be true?

(Limerick West): The situation is no different now from what it was two, three or four years ago.

Is he happy with it now?

(Limerick West): It is no different now.

Is he happy with it?

There is no need for repetition or disorder.

(Limerick West): Does the Deputy wish me to answer the question? Of course, I am happy. As I have said, every serving member of the PDF has direct access to the Minister as of right and nobody can debar him from that.

Thousands would disagree with the Minister.

Would the Minister state whether there are any provisions in the Defence Force regulations or elsewhere which would prevent the members of the force from forming a representative body as has been suggested?

We have now encroached on Priority Question Time.

(Limerick West): Article 40.6 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to form associations and unions. The right is not unqualified and the same subsection of Article 40 provides that “Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right”.

Let us now deal with questions nominated for priority.