The Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (Raco) has criticised the Department of Defence for allegedly manipulating its authority to support draft legislation that bars certain position-holders from membership. A post on social media implies that the department is clandestinely generating laws to undermine freedom of association. Raco argues that the Department’s actions represent an abuse of power in a move they believe to be unprecedented elsewhere in Ireland.
This reproach followed a parliamentary committee hearing last month where Raco, PDForra, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) expressed concerns over certain points of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2023. The government views this bill, alongside another, as instrumental in instigating a cultural shift in the Defence Forces.
The initial presentation of the bill, disclosed in January, includes a clause that the director of military prosecutions or any military judge cannot join a representative entity. The law would further empower the Defence Minister to extend this list of roles.
Raco’s general secretary, Conor King, claims this clause, if made law, would violate basic rights accorded to the affected personnel under the European Social Charter. He cites the lack of consultation with representative bodies during the drafting of the bill as a contributing factor. The groups argue that current legislation grants them a right to such consultation.
In response to enquiries, the Department reported partially basing the proposed law on military management advice and claimed consultation had taken place, pointing to a meeting between the Tánaiste and representative groups that took place on March 7th.
However, according to Mr King, this meeting happened almost two months after the law was made public and he noted that the General Staff seemed unsure about the specific advice offered.
Concerning the contents of the bill, the Department reported that Micheál Martin assured that, generally, personnel rights would be upheld. The department further explained that the proposed membership ban stems from the critical roles these positions play in the execution of military justice, solidifying the independence of such posts.
King questions the reasoning behind the measure which was previously only applied to the director of military prosecutions, a move which was deemed “unreasonable” following a prolonged court deliberation last May. Despite this, it is anticipated that members of the director’s staff and Courts Martial juries will continue to be associated with Raco.
The representations of two key organisations were given to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Defence last month. Gerard Guinan of PDForra asserted the organisation’s belief in the constitutional protection of the right to freedom of association as per Article 40. He further underscored the principle that this right should only be constrained when it’s needed for the preservation of national security or in a democratic society.
In the past, PDForra supported a High Court action brought by one of its members, culminating in a 2022 concession allowing for temporary affiliation of both PDForra and Raco with Ictu. The government’s authorization for this is set to lapse at June’s end, and this pending legislation intends to formalise the situation. However, King thinks this process is being expedited and has written to Micheál Martin suggesting an extension of the 2022 agreement’s provision, thereby allowing for further contemplation of the legislation.
An Ictu spokesperson condemned any action preventing individuals from associating with a representative group, calling it an unprecedented development and certifiably unacceptable. During the committee hearing, Ictu official Liam Berney conveyed the institution’s grave apprehension that the proposed legislation could inhibit staff from joining a union or group.
In the hearing, other issues brought up were reservations about including the Department of Defence’s secretary general on the external oversight body. According to the department, the composition of this body as suggested by the Independent Review Group is being followed by the government.
The External Oversight Body operates autonomously from the Defence Forces, ensuring its independence isn’t compromised by the secretary general’s involvement,” as stated. Mr Berney has expressed dissent towards a stipulation that precludes critique of governmental policies, which he claims exceeds what was resolved after legal proceedings two years prior.