Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will ensure that proposed amendments to the Defence Acts provide for a role for representative associations on the external oversight body, do not infringe on the rights of any Defence Forces personnel to be a member of a representative association and do not excessively prohibit the freedom of expression of members of the Defence Forces. [13143/24]

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to the Defence Acts. The Tánaiste will be aware that we engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill in committee. The representative organisations and members of the committee from across the political spectrum were concerned about suggestions that the Bill would not include a role for representative organisations on the external oversight body. There is also concern that the Bill would infringe on the rights of Defence Forces personnel to be members of representative associations and would prohibit freedom of expression for members of the Defence Forces. Will the Tánaiste ensure that those issues are addressed in the Bill?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his question. The general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill includes a number of proposed provisions, including provisions relating to the membership of the external oversight body. The provisions fully reflect the recommendations of the independent review group, IRG, report relating to the composition of the membership of the body. The recommendation does not include members of the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations. The general scheme provides that the current members of the interim non-statutory oversight body may be appointed as the initial members of the statutory external oversight body. That is an important point. I have said previously that the oversight body is not a representative body. I have said to the representative bodies that it was never meant to be a representative body; it is meant to be a body that oversees radical reform within our Defence Forces.

Regarding the provisions in the Bill to prohibit certain ranks from becoming members of representative associations, it is important to point out that this has been the case since 23 January 2020. The holder of the post of director of military prosecutions, DMP, cannot be a member of a representative association. This is set out in Defence Force Regulation, DFR, 02/2020, section 4(1) and section 6(2). The general scheme proposes to further include the post of military judge, MJ. The DMP and MJ posts are for all members of the Defence Forces and as such, they must be seen to be wholly independent, by all in carrying out their specific duties. Furthermore, the posts of DMP and MJ are open to the public to apply and the terms and conditions for those posts are set out in legislation.

Regarding the proposals set out in the general scheme to prohibit the Defence Force representative associations from making a public statement or comment concerning a political matter, this is provided for in regulation, namely DFR S.6, which states: “No public statement or comment concerning a political matter shall be made by the Association." This position was also confirmed as part of the terms of the 2022 High Court settlement with the representative associations in connection with temporary associate membership of ICTU.

It is important to note that representative associations are entitled to comment on the impact that a particular policy is having on its members. It is intended that the representative associations will continue to have the right to comment on matters as provided for under existing regulations. Similarly, individual members of the Defence Forces will retain existing rights and obligations provided for under regulations.

I met with the representative associations recently.

I have listened to their concerns and given a commitment to consider the points they have made and to come back to them, which I will do shortly.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That commitment might count for more if the Tánaiste had not just spent the preceding two minutes defending the positions as they currently stand. In respect of the external oversight body, if the Secretary General of the Department of Defence can sit on that body in an ex officio capacity, it makes now sense that there would be a reluctance to allow representative bodies to also be represented in the exact same capacity. The changes proposed for the oversight body to oversee depend on the goodwill and buy-in of the representative organisations. The Tánaiste mentioned that the prohibition on certain members becoming members of the Defence Forces is in place since 2020. He did not mention that the Government lost an independent adjudication on that point and is currently appealing. Third, we have to be very clear that any prohibition in terms of political activity or perceived political activity does not in any way prevent representative organisations or their leaders challenging governments on matters pertaining to the rights and entitlements of their members. They are the changes required to ensure a speedy passage and full support for the Bill.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The latter point is provided for. I have made that point. No representative body would be presented in any shape or form from representing their members or articulating on issues pertaining to their members, and indeed they have not been. That is not going to be the position. It is in reference to the broader issues of political commentary that I said I would reflect on the legislation and the points that have been made.

On the external oversight body, it is my view, and I have expressed this clearly and upfront to the representative bodies, that it should be an independent external oversight body, as recommended by the IRG. The Secretary General is there as a conduit, clearly, between the external oversight body and the Department in terms of changes that are going to be recommended by the body. There is a very compelling case for the military judge in terms of the operation of the justice system, any justice system, that the perception must be of absolute separation. In terms of the application of justice, that is the issue there. The military prosecutor and the military judge would not be members of a representative association. That is a reasonable position. RACO does not agree with me. However, it is quite reasonable in terms of how justice is administered.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste is correct that RACO does not agree with him; neither do any of the other representative organisations. Crucially, neither does the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, whose representatives gave evidence to the joint committee that they are unaware of a single other individual in the State who is precluded by legislation from joining a representative organisation. That includes judges, the DPP and everyone else. This would be a new principle established in law where those in a defined category are prevented from joining a representative organisation. Quite frankly, I have not heard a compelling argument. Just to say the Tánaiste does not think they should is not sufficient in that respect.

The oversight body is either going to deliver or it is not. Depending on that will be the actions of Government. If the Tánaiste says it is important to have a conduit with the Department, and I agree there needs to be one, it also stands to reason that there is a conduit to the men and women of the Defence Forces he will be relying on to fulfil all the objectives set out by the oversight body. I urge a rethink on that matter.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy cannot have it both ways, though. When the independent review was published, he was the first in here asking if I was going to accept its recommendations. I have accepted its recommendations in respect of the external oversight body. There was a very clear communication made to me that previous attempts at this did not work and had not worked. There is no point in coming into the House and condemning all of what was covered by the IRG independent review report and then not acting on what the report has laid out in terms of recommendations. It was a key recommendation that there would be an external oversight body. I have met with the body on a number of occasions. There needs to be a transformation of culture within our Defence Forces. It has to happen. There is a lot of work under way now in terms of doing that. The modus operandi the Deputy proposes would not achieve that.