Tom Clonan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister very much for coming in. This Bill has arrived at a very particular moment in the development and transformation of the Defence Forces. From an operational perspective, when I retired back in 2000 the Defence Forces did one thing for one agency, and that was peacekeeping for the United Nations. Now they do peace enforcement, peacekeeping for the United Nations and for NATO as part of our membership of Partnership for Peace, and they also participate and lead in European Union missions such as the first expeditionary mission to Chad and the Central African Republic. Therefore, it is an organisation that has really transformed from an operational perspective over the past 25 years. It is currently at a very sensitive moment in its cultural transformation. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and commend him on his role in pushing forward that agenda of cultural change. That is not a reflection on members of the Defence Forces because the cultural superstructure in place is an historical artifact.

As part of that transformation, freedom of expression and the intellectual tradition of the Defence Forces are very important. They are crucial to the transformation, not just culturally, but in terms of operational efficiency. We must be able to move to an evidence-based intellectual tradition within the Defence Forces. Unlike other armies in the European Union and in the United States, the Defence Forces here do not have an intellectual tradition in the way they do in other jurisdictions. That intellectual tradition is nascent; it is just beginning. One of the key parts of that was the partnership between the military college and Maynooth University to offer a master's degree in military leadership, where officers are encouraged to write and publish dissertations that are lodged to an academic repository and go on the public record and in which they can be broadly critical of any aspect of Defence Forces activity. They benchmark it against international best practice. It is important for the future development of the Defence Forces and its cultural change that all thinking at that senior leadership level should be informed by that. It should be research-informed, research-led and research-orientated based on evidence. I am afraid that some of the very prescriptive elements of this Bill may have an unanticipated chilling effect on that opening up of the intellectual tradition.

We have officers - actually all ranks - publishing dissertations because the Defence Forces are a learning organisation and that is to be encouraged. We also have entities such as the Azure Forum, members of which contributed to the public consultation on neutrality. The forum has as members of its academic council serving members of the Defence Forces who, also through that platform, publish position papers and give expression to ideas and notions around defence that would definitely overlap and intersect with Government policy. Very often, by even engaging in those conversations, they could be construed as being broadly critical because they critique, in some senses, elements of our policy and practice as they arrive in defence. We need to be careful there is not an unanticipated chilling effect in that regard.

We also have a growing community of academics in our universities. They include Professor Ben Tonra in University College Dublin and Professor John O'Brennan in Maynooth University. There are dozens of academics around Ireland who are part of that, if you like, nascent intellectual tradition around defence, security and intelligence. In other jurisdictions, there is a very proactive engagement between those kind of third level academic discussions and research into defence, security and intelligence that is all evidence-based.There is a very proactive engagement with serving members, people in uniform. We just need to be careful that we do not overlap unduly or, in an unanticipated way, push back on what would be a very positive development that would also help with the cultural piece.

I was an expert witness in the case of Martin Bright of PDFORRA v.the Minister for Defence and the Attorney General, about two years ago. It was about the concept of citizen soldiers and the rights of members of the Defence Forces to engage in what could be described as political activities, with a small "p". In his judgment, published in May of this year, Mr. Justice Sanfey writes: "As a concluding observation, I would like to acknowledge the good faith and sincerely held convictions on both sides of the dispute." On Committee Stage of this Bill, unfortunately the Minister had to leave and the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill deputised for him. She made a very interesting analogy in terms of the perception of propriety. She said that if a member of the Judiciary was a member of a community or sporting organisation, as Senator Wilson suggested, she would expect him or her at all times to behave with propriety and the perception of independence and so on, consistent with his or her office. As far as I am aware, there is not a prescriptive set of laws or instructions that require them to do that. The assumption is one of good faith, that members of the Judiciary are good people who will act in good faith. I think that is consistent with what Mr. Justice Sanfey says in his order. He acknowledges the good faith and sincerely held convictions of groups like PDFORRA and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers. It is really important that we do not unintentionally or in an unanticipated, antithetical way push back on their rights and capacities to engage as citizen soldiers, to engage with the political system, with a small "p". It is also important that they be able to advocate for their membership.

On the recruitment and retention challenges, I commend the Minister on the steps he and the Department have taken to address them by way of allowances. However, we need to be careful that nothing in this legislation curtails or curbs that effort. It is often said that perfection is the enemy of the good. This is an iterative process. Nobody can ever come up with absolutely perfect legislation. Everything is subject to existential change and force of circumstances. However, there are one or two elements which my colleagues have pointed out, small imperfections that are the enemy of the good. It would take very little to remedy them. I ask the Tánaiste if it is possible to incorporate or accommodate some of the concerns and observations raised here in good faith. The Tánaiste knows I am not afraid of being critical of the general staff. I am not afraid of critiquing my former colleagues in Óglaigh na hÉireann, an organisation of which I am extremely proud and in which I am very proud to have served. I am coming from a position of sincerity when I say there are some imperfections here that could be very easily remedied. Doing so would serve our common purpose, which is a better, fit-for-purpose Defence Forces with the proper oversight, governance and cultural change that we need, whatever happens on this island in the next 20 years.