Mr. Gerard Guinan:

I thank the Deputy for the questions. The oversight body was recommended by the IRG. As Mr. King stated, we seem to have been excluded. Our interaction with the IRG at the time in question amounted to one hour or possibly an hour and half, plus a couple of submissions. Therefore, we did not know what was coming down the tracks. Had we known, we would definitely have recommended that the representative bodies be placed on an oversight group.

On the question on the usefulness of membership of the oversight group, early input into decision-making and policymaking is always helpful. If an input is had too far down the tracks, people in an organisation such as ours become anxious and apprehensive about the promotion system. It is important for the representative associations to allay people's fears in the organisation. In an organisation such as the Defence Forces, morale and esprit de corpsare necessary. I am referring to the values associated with membership of a military organisation. You can destroy the organisation very easily by not taking our members' views into account at an early stage. Many commissions and bodies have examined the Defence Forces over recent years. People are apprehensive about what may come from these bodies. Therefore, it is important to have an early input.

I was asked about the language in head 26. The Deputy said it is very sweeping. Indeed it is, and we do not believe it is necessary. In our history of representation, we have not strayed outside the pale regarding what was deemed appropriate. That is not by accident; it is by design. We believe in the State and the democratic values that underpin it.

One could deem it insulting to see that language or that there is a need for that language to be placed on us. I will say that I do not believe it was intentional on anybody's part. It was an accident.

I cannot countenance a belief that the State would seek to gag us. However, I ended up in the High Court before Mr. Justice Sanfey two years ago in relation to a different case relating to freedom of assembly. Words matter. If you allow the general scheme to include the words that are there, I have no doubt that at some point the general secretary of an association will him himself or herself in front of the courts answering questions about why he or she said a particular thing. It is important to get this right and that it is fair, transparent and predictable for general secretaries, going forward. That is why I would implore the committee to remove paragraph (j) from head No. 26. We do not need a situation whereby the representative associations feel constrained in any sense in saying what needs to be said. The situation that might arise could be similar to the application of the working time directive. That directive does not fall within the scheme of the Defence Forces but it is only right and proper for the representative associations to take the stance we have taken over the past couple of years.

The Deputy asked about a cultural problem with the Department of Defence. I do not know if that is a fair assessment. Have we been sidelined in the context of a number of matters? Have we been informed at the last minute in respect of a number of matters? That is correct. I would say that is a true statement and it is regrettable. Is that a cultural thing? I would not venture an opinion.