Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. I thank him for that, and I apologise that I will have to leave in the next few minutes. I expect others will be asking something similar to some of the questions I will ask because I gather from each of the four presentations - I thank all four organisations for being here - that there are three particular elements in the heads of this Bill that these organisations have concerns about. From our initial engagement with the Department, those concerns are broadly shared by the members of this committee.

My first question is around, in particular, the representative organisations. I specifically refer to head 25, in respect of the prohibition of certain position holders from being members of these organisations; head 26, which is around the restrictions on expressing an opinion that would have an influence on Government policy or the objective of that policy; and head 6, in respect of the membership of the oversight body.

Were any of those three issues covered in the recommendations of the independent review group, considering that much of this Bill flows from its recommendations?

Let me refer to the three specific issues. Head 6 concerns the oversight body. The membership organisations had ex officiomembership of the oversight body before its previous incarnation was disbanded. In what way was the organisations' membership of that body useful? What implications, particularly negative ones, do the witnesses' organisations envisage might arise from having an oversight body that does not have representation from PDFORRA and RACO?

On head 25, on the prohibition of officeholders, my question is for the ICTU representatives. Is there anywhere else in Irish legislation where specified employees are debarred from membership of a stated trade union or representative organisation? Perhaps they could clarify that.

My next question is for any or all of the organisations. Head 26 prohibits the making of "a public statement or comment concerning a political matter" or the questioning or expression of "an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such policy". Perhaps our guests will try to outline what that would mean in practice. The potentially far-reaching impact of such a sweeping restriction has already been referred to. Is there any basis on which such a provision could be considered reasonable?

Concerns have been raised about the removal of representative organisations from the membership of the oversight body, even in ex officioterms; the prohibition of some members of the Defence Forces from becoming members of representative organisations; and the prohibition on expressing an opinion on Government policy. Do these concerns indicate a cultural problem whereby the Department of Defence somehow regards representative organisations as bodies to be contended with as opposed to partners in building our Defence Forces, the forces' morale and the ability of the forces to do their job and overcome the obvious internal problems that the witnesses previously highlighted to this committee?