Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First and foremost, I served in the Defence Forces myself. Any soldier who was charged during my time had to go before their company commander. A company commander is expected to be independent in the approach they take to a soldier who has been charged with an offence under military law. The corollary of what the representatives are saying is that if the director of military prosecutions cannot be a member of RACO, then neither can any officer who commands a company. Moreover, if one appeals the outcome of a company commander’s decision, one will have to go to the battalion commander, the unit commander, and so on up the line. Therefore, everybody above the rank of commandant - we will assume company commanders are all commandants - could be deemed to be in a judicial position. As such, they cannot be a member of RACO. That is a non-tenable position.

The representatives speak about consultation. Why are they speaking about a written submission from the representative bodies when they are here before a joint Oireachtas committee that is about to start its pre-legislative scrutiny? Surely, the written submissions from RACO and PDFORRA should have been received months ago. The representatives should be engaging with them today. They should not be before this committee and talking to us; they should be with RACO and PDFORRA to try to resolve any issues. It is outrageous to have published the heads of a Bill without having engaged in face-to-face discussions with both representative bodies. Whether the representatives like it or not, they are formally in place, they are a part of the system and they have to be engaged with. Did the representatives engage with the general staff before they published the heads of the Bill?