Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I would say it will be something that will be repeated daily by everybody. This new entity is to be responsible for overseeing and monitoring the human resources of the Defence Forces and reporting to the Minister, as the body deems appropriate. Its duties are set out in the new section 322 on page 14 of the Bill. This includes "the recruitment of members of the Defence Forces", which is a critical issue; "the induction, training ... education and performance management of members of the Defence Forces"; "the operation of a competition process for the promotion of members of the Defence Forces,"; "the operation of a complaint or grievance process by or under section 114," of the Act; "the preparation and issue of guidance documents by the Defence Forces relating to the management of human resource," and "any other matter that might reasonably be connected to the management of human resources of the Defence Forces."

That is a very broad and important range of activities - basically - recruitment, promotion, management, training, skill sets - all of that. This external body is an extremely important new entity, as was recommended, so we should take great care in how we construct it.

I want to go back to the commission report itself that we debated last year. In the executive summary of the commission's report, it set out its vision of our Defence Forces. This is what it said:

The Defence Forces will be a joint military force capable of providing the people of Ireland with a safe and secure environment, and enforcing and protecting Ireland's sovereignty. It will uphold national values, reflect the diverse society that it serves, and remain poised to meet the challenges of an evolving and complex world.

The last sentence of that vision could not even have been fully understood by the crafters of that phrase in the context of what has happened in the intervening period. The notion of "an evolving and complex world" is certainly something that has changed remarkably in the short period since the publication of the report. That "evolving and complex world" has become ever more complex, following the invasion by Russia of Ukraine, and attitudinal change within the European Union, as referenced by some other speakers. Any of us who attend meetings in Europe, for example, those of us who are on the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, know the absolute focus within Europe right now on defence and security. We must be very careful and we must look very carefully at what is happening. The proposal is that in the next Commission, depending on the complexion of the Commission itself and the Parliament, there would be a Commissioner for defence. It would involve a merging of the research capacities of the European Union and funding into dual-use research so that everything in research would have the capacity to be part of the defence industry, in order that we would build a defence industry within Europe itself. Things are fundamentally changed. Of course, I do not need to reference the potential of a second Trump presidency looming on the horizon as well, and the implications of that. Given all of that context, we need to focus in very clear terms in this House on what our Defence Forces should be, how they should be constructed, how they should be supported and what equipment they should have.

As I have said, the commission has extensive and broad-ranging proposals for change. The commission also had something to say on the most important issue of people. It stated "From early on this process, it became clear that there were recurring themes and specific HR related issues that are a source of considerable frustration and, in some cases, exasperation."

I will not quote it all but it went on to talk about:

disempowerment and a lack of agency which manifests as an expectation that others are to sort out the issues, allowing the Defence Forces to get on with military operations. This culture can express itself as a strong sense on the part of members of not being appreciated or understood. This is just one aspect of the organisation's culture that needs to change, but there are other far more challenging cultural traits that will continue to impede the Defence Forces unless there is [in the words of the commission] a radical cultural shift at all levels.

That brings me to my first question to the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, who is present. What is proposed is an external oversight body, having the task that I have set out already, which is a fundamental and important task, consisting of between seven and nine people. The Secretary General of the Department of Defence is to be an ex officio member. I did not hear a reference to that in the Tánaiste's speech and I have not heard any compelling rationale for it. For example, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice is not a member of the Policing Authority. We had a long debate on oversight of An Garda Síochána. The Tánaiste indicated that the Secretary General of the Department of Defence would be there for reporting purposes. I am sure he would also be participating and voting, which would actually shape the report to be given to the Minister. I am certainly not convinced that there is any case for that. I would like to hear the Tánaiste's case in very clear terms. The members are to be appointed by the Minister and to include specific skill sets set out in section 323(3) of the Bill. The stipulation for the chairperson is that he or she may not have been a member of the Defence Forces of this or any state. In essence, the chair of the oversight body may not have any military experience or practical membership of any military force to address the issues screaming out of the commission's report that I referenced, namely, "disempowerment", "lack of agency", and lack of appreciation and understanding. Is it possible that those absolutely critical issues can be addressed by an oversight body without the direct participation of the representatives of the members themselves? I pose that question very clearly to the House and to the Minister. I know from what the Tánaiste said that he has given some consideration to that but he has given no explanation to us about how a body of entirely external people, without any evidence of those glaring issues that scream out of the commission report or who have experienced and understand them at first hand is to represent the members.

As I stated, I was involved in the long delete regarding the establishment of the Policing Authority and I am aware that serving members were excluded from the authority, but it strikes me that the reason for this new oversight body is quite different. The Policing Authority has as its main function the oversight of the performance of An Garda Síochána, setting police priorities, human rights implementation and nominating persons for appointment to the most senior ranks of An Garda Síochána. It came from concerns about adequate oversight of the actual activity of An Garda Síochána.

This body that we are now talking about in this Bill, as the commission report so eloquently sets out, is something very different. It is, as set out in the commission report, a human resource management function. A human resource management function, to my mind, should have a representative of the people with direct and first-hand experience of the frailty of human resource management to date or their representatives. Before I leave it, I emphasise I am firmly of the view that the petitions of PDFORRA and others to have representation on the external body are compelling and I would ask that that would be considered. Certainly, I will be tabling amendments in that regard on Committee Stage.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the issue of trade union or professional representation. What the Minister is to allow is set out in section 23. It is a fairly unique proposal in trade union law. The employer, that is, the Minister, gets to set out the cases, the manner, the conditions and the restrictions where the allowed representative association is allowed to associate with a trade union. It is a very odd set of circumstances. The Bill states, "An association shall be independent of, and not associated with, any trade union or any other body outside of the Defence Forces.", and "The Minister may, notwithstanding [that section that I just read], authorise in writing an association to be associated with a trade union or any other body outside of the Defence Forces in such cases and in such manner and subject to such conditions or restrictions as he or she may specify." The employer uniquely gets complete control over the terms and conditions in which the association envisaged by this Bill interacts with other trade unions. Where such permission is given, section 23 further states, at subsection (3B), that the Minister may withdraw that permission by notice in writing or vary or withdraw an authorisation under that subsection. It is an extraordinary spancelled permission by any stretch of the imagination.

The restrictions, in terms of what can be said and the prohibition on activities of the association, are set out in the proposed new section 2A on page 28 of the Bill and include that an association shall not call for or support industrial action in the Defence Forces or in any other body or other sector; shall not encourage members to go on strike or engage in any strike action; shall not encourage members to refuse to follow a lawful order or to pass a picket line; and shall not endorse or support any official position taken, endorsed or supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or other organisation, in support of any industrial action taken by any party.

This is to be a very peculiar trade union, a very limited concession. The Minister needs to think again about that restriction and to have a look at how more progressive countries in Europe deal with trade union membership of the defence forces. It was stated by a previous speaker that we have a proud tradition of non-political involvement of the Defence Forces, as we have of all civil servants. However, I cannot see any civil servant, who we expect to be entirely impartial and non-political, agreeing to this sort of spancelling - that they are not allowed to have a view, not allowed to associate with Congress, not allowed to be an active participant in ICTU, and where they are to be allowed at anything at all, it is to be at the behest of the Minister subject to him withdrawing it by simply issuing a decree to that effect. Our long-standing call for allowing Defence Forces personnel to be members of the trade union movement needs to go an awful lot further than what is envisaged here. This is a begrudging and minor allowance of association that, really, in my judgment, will not meet the needs. We will have time to tease these issues out again on Committee Stage.

I want to refer briefly to a couple of other sections in the Bill. Section 18 of the Bill sets out to protect the term, "Óglaigh na hÉireann". It makes it an offence to usurp that proud title of the Defence Forces which, unfortunately, we have witnessed too often down the years being usurped. This is a welcome proposal which the Labour Party is happy to endorse and support. Indeed, I, too, acknowledge the work of my former constituency colleague, since he has now moved into "Wickford", Senator Malcolm Byrne, in bringing up this matter as an initiative in the Seanad. I mean "usurped", not within this State but abroad as well by others who are using that badge now in the context of mercenaries. That needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The fact that it is still ongoing, despite it being condemned by the Tánaiste, is a matter of grave concern indeed.

On a point of clarification, the Tánaiste has indicated that he intends to amend the law in relation to the so-called "triple lock". I want a clear answer from the Minister at the end of this debate that any such proposals with regard to altering the current legislative basis for the triple lock, which has held sway for a very long time in the State, will only be altered by new primary legislation and that it is not the Government's intention to parachute in amendments to this Bill on Committee or Report Stages. Any such proposal needs to be a stand-alone Bill going to the committee, allowing for pre-legislative scrutiny and to hear the views of other bodies that have a view on this matter. It is of profound importance. It would be extraordinary. I am not suggesting for a second it is the intention. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like absolute clarity from the Minister in his concluding remarks that this will be a stand-alone piece of legislation if it is to progress and is not be parachuted in in some smart way on Committee Stage in a Bill without proper pre-legislative scrutiny.

I was enthusiastic last year when I spoke on the commission report on the Defence Forces. It is an area that, I thought, we could drive with zeal at transformation. I have to say, and I do not say it as a criticism of any individual, the Department of Defence seems incredibly slow in doing things. It takes years to procure pieces of equipment and to do things that others can do much more speedily. I would hope that there is a new sense of urgency, that we will see comprehensive legislation, proper investment, proper ordering and the addressing of fundamentals such as the issue of pay, and that we can have the sort of Defence Forces that are set out so eloquently in the commission report.

See this speech in context