Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As it stands, section 24 provides the statutory basis for the Minister for Defence to authorise the Permanent Defence Force representative associations to associate with ICTU. This is very positive and represents a significant step forward. I am already on record as clarifying that the amendments proposed by the Deputies would remove the mechanism by which associate membership of ICTU would be approved and so would undermine a core policy intention of this section of the Bill. I have already spoken about the importance of reinforcing the apolitical nature of our Defence Forces. Seen through this lens, the need for clear statutory provisions to govern any connection between representative associations and external bodies is clear.

It important also to recall the key role the Defence Forces play in providing front-line services, such as, for example, in the event of industrial action in another part of the public service in certain circumstances. There has been some commentary that the provisions authorising the Minister to withdraw or vary consent in respect of associate membership as set out in the Bill are overly detailed. Deputy Howlin made that point. However, any decision to withdraw or vary consent would be a significant matter and would not be taken lightly. It is appropriate, therefore, that the process would be clearly set out in primary legislation, in the event of anything happening. One does not envisage this happening at all but clearly there is merit in setting out the process in primary legislation and that express provision would be made to protect the rights of a military representative association to make representations in relation to any such variation or withdrawal of consent.

I am satisfied that the provisions relating to associate ICTU membership, as facilitated by the wording in section 24, are appropriate and necessary. These amendments would support representative associations in fully representing their members in the context of national pay talks into the future. That is a very positive development.

I must make the point that much of this arose out of High Court settlements originally in the context of temporary association membership of ICTU. Much of what is in that section was agreed between the parties when PDFORRA had taken the case. That was an agreed outcome so this is not a surprise to anybody in respect of these provisions. They reflect what was agreed at that time.

On amendment No. 11, which is in the names of Deputy Cronin and Carthy and which requires that "The Minister shall not seek to prohibit any person from being a member of a representative association on the basis of the post they hold", the Deputies are already aware that the provisions relating to the Director of Military Prosecutions and military judge contained in the general scheme were removed prior to publication. I had signalled that to the committee in the letter of 2 April and I wrote to the committee. The committee had written to me and others had made representations. I spoke to representatives of RACO and PDFORRA about the issue and we had a meeting on it. It is not unreasonable to say that there should be a debate about whether a judge can be a member of an association. It is a reasonable point. On the other hand, there are merits to both sides of the argument. The same applies to a prosecutor. I am satisfied that because a person happens to be a member of an association, it does not necessarily undermine his or her impartiality or capacity in dealing with a case. That is the ultimate call.

The amendment the Deputy has tabled would statutorily bar the Minister for Defence from ever imposing a prohibition on any post within the Defence Forces. That is inappropriately broad in a legislative context. The amendment means the Chief of Staff could be a member. By regulation, the Chief of Staff is not allowed to be a member. It makes sense that the Chief of Staff would not be a member because there has to be management at some level. These matters are best dealt with on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. The amendment is far too broad to be permanently embedded in primary legislation.

See this speech in context