Mr. Gerard Guinan:

Exactly. On how things worked out, in 2014, I wrote the complaint along with Mr. Jacob, alleging a breach of our rights under articles 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter. In 2018, EUROMIL made a positive recommendation in respect of our complaint under articles 5 and 6. That was a hard-fought campaign to be allowed to associate with ICTU. As my colleague in RACO, Mr. King, has said, the dogs in the street know that it has been a hugely positive thing for members of the Defence Forces. We fought very hard for it. We ended up having to sue the Government in 2018. We felt compelled to at that point in time because it did not appear that the recommendations or findings of the European Committee on Social Rights were going to be implemented and we took legal action.

It came to a head in 2022. Despite the fact that we had fought from 2014 to 2022, that paragraph (j) was in the original mediated settlement that was put to our executive in PDFORRA in 2022. We would not sign that mediated settlement in 2022 with that clause in it. We sweated bullets. We were under extreme stress in 2022 to sign that settlement which provided for what we would say is the gagging of the representative associations. We were told by the Department that if we did not sign it then, it would be gone and the Department would not allow us to associate with ICTU. Our executive let that go for two weeks. We would not sign the mediated settlement with that clause in it. That is how important it was to us. Having fought for in excess of eight years, we were not prepared to allow ourselves to be associate members of ICTU and then have a gagging order placed on us, as we believed it to be.

Consequently, after about two weeks of back and forth, the Department put in a provision. That provision stated that nothing in this agreement would undermine our rights, but Mr. King is perfectly right that if we put this into primary legislation, it is different from a mediated settlement. We cannot allow this to happen. It has to be cut down to political statements only. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Regarding the rush, I have the mediated settlement from 2022 in front of me. I can tell the committee that a provision exists within that agreement that says that the Minister for Defence shall agree to give fair and reasonable consideration to the extension of the above date in the event that the amending legislation is not enacted. If the legislation is not enacted, providing for the general scheme and providing for us to be allowed to enter into ICTU, there is provision for the Minister to extend that timeline for us to be associate members of ICTU until such time as the legislation is correct. That is there in that legal settlement.

A stitch in time saves nine. We want it done right now. We do not want to rush it and have a mistake made that has adverse impacts on the rest of the public sector or on us and our members. We would rather do it right. We implore the committee to make such recommendations as are provided for in our opening statement. They are recommendations to remove that subsection (j). We do not believe head 25 is necessary. We ask for the re-examination of the provision in head 28(d), which states that a member of the Defence Forces shall not "address a meeting of a political organisation or society [or grouping seeking to influence government policy]". Previously, section 103 stated, "A member of the Permanent Defence Force shall not join, or be a member of, or subscribe to, any political organisation or society or any secret society whatsoever." It goes on to provide for various things. It has never gone so far as to completely deny members their right to address any group. As I said, we believe that members should be able to address their local hospital cancer care services and to have no fear about that. That is a body which may seek to influence Government policy but it would not be right for members of the Defence Forces to face military charges arising from a simple statement to say their son or daughter is going to this hospital and they do not believe the Government is right to remove this cancer care service.