LAST UPDATE | 20 Feb

TWO GROUPS REPRESENTING military personnel will strongly criticise new proposed legislation today as “draconian” and unconstitutional as it will preclude them from publicly questioning or commenting on government defence policy.

PDFORRA which represents rank and file members across the Irish Air Corps, the Naval Service and Army along with the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (RACO) are due to appear before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence this afternoon.

The officials are to deliver addresses that will call into question the legality of new proposed laws that will stop them airing their grievances in public. 

They will be joined by Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and the European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL).

The topic for the meeting will be discussions on the general scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2023.

RACO said that it was not opposed to much of the proposed Bill but did call into questions certain elements of it that, firstly, would prevent some members from joining representative bodies and secondly from speaking in public. 

“The application of the line “shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such policy” is unnecessarily draconian, repressive and restrictive
for a representative association, and should be removed, particularly when it is noted that the Department of Defence has advised this Committee and our association that it is not intended to remove or alter any of the rights or obligations that have applied to Defence Forces representation since 1990,” RACO will tell the committee. 

PDFORRA will echo those sentiments and call into question the constitutionality of such a law. 

In its opening remarks the group will say: “PDFORRA, and its members, have always accepted the need for political impartiality; however, this provision limits the ability of members to speak or give an opinion to any political organization, society or grouping.

“Furthermore, it would make it unlawful for serving members to attend, should they wish, public demonstrations, either in, or out, of uniform.

“For example, should a service person with a sick child wish to demonstrate his
dissatisfaction with local hospital services or anything else arising in his local community he would face military charges for doing so.”

PDFORRA will say that the Constitution provides for the right for all citizens to assemble or meet peacefully – it said such a measure is also present in the European Convention on Human Rights and also in international court judgments.

“Soldiers are citizens in uniform and should be vested with the rights and entitlement of normal citizens while not in uniform.

“PDFORRA and our members have for the past 30 years accepted the restriction placed on us through service without major controversy, and thus cannot understand the reason for the amendment of this section and the draconian restriction that this section places on us and our members,” the group will state. 

Trade union sources said that the proposed legislation will have “ramifications” across the public sector which has led ICTU to attend the committee meeting.  

One key consideration for both PDFORRA and RACO is the move by the Bill to limit membership for some officers.

The proposed legislation will preclude Director of Military Prosecutions, a military judge or any post as may be prescribed by the Minister.

The Journal covered this issue in July last year when Daniel Murphy who is the designated Adjudicator  under  the  Conciliation  and  Arbitration  Scheme  for  the Defence  Forces.

In a robust adjudication he accused the Department of Defence of operating “secret laws” and for having a “silly and facetious approach” to membership of representative bodies by military personnel. 

The comments by Murphy were contained in a judgment which examines the employment rights of an officer attached to the Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP).

The military has its own internal discipline and legal system. DMP is an independent body within defence that determines the discipline regime and courts martial system.

That issue will be raised at the meeting today by both groups.

A statement from the Department of Defence sought to clarify the legislative meaning of the new Bill.

“With regard to the suggestions that the proposed legislation aims to prevent the Representative Associations from commenting on matters of public policy, it should be noted that there are already provisions in place regarding what representative associations or individuals can do in terms of public commentary and it is not intended to change those.

“Under the regulations governing representative associations, they have the right to comment on any matter within the scope of representation, and that is not intended to change.

In essence, the proposed legislation will reflect existing rights and obligations,” the statement said.