Gerard P. Craughwell Demands Answers on CNA and Suspension Rules

Thank you, Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for presenting this morning and thank you for your submission. I want to cut straight to the chase. This is the second time we've had the representative body in here and this is the second time we've heard negative reaction with respect to CNA. Conciliation and arbitration is the lifeblood, I think, of representation. So perhaps, Colonel King, you would describe for us what you expect from CNA and what you're actually getting from CNA because I'm quite concerned that there appears to be no consultation. This is the second piece of legislation to come before a Defence Committee where there had been no previous consultation and the last time it was rammed through despite the concerns of this committee. So that's something that we need to be very careful of. The issue of suspension, I'm personally aware of a person who was suspended for 25 years and retired from suspension on gardening leave for 25 years. Local leave has been misused in the Defence Forces and I'm very conscious of the fact that you're anxious to have a proper suspension system in place. But from the reading, it appears very vague, extremely vague. What is prescribed, what's not prescribed? Will the representational bodies be involved if an officer or an enlisted person, and I know you can't speak for the enlisted people here today, but will an officer be provided with an opportunity to have his representation body with him or her when they're about to be suspended? Will there be clear instructions as to why they're being suspended? And as Colonel King pointed out there a few minutes ago, will there be an end date, an end time? You mentioned Defence Force regulations. Most people, pre the ward report, castigated the young officer that was sent to court in the Crotty case. That young officer, I'd like somebody to explain what the function of that officer was and who was responsible for the DFRs there. And then the final one in this first round, we had the oversight body in here in the last committee. There is an oversight body looking at changes in the Defence Forces. We'd been assured that there would be engagement with the representation bodies. How often have you met with them, and what has the engagement been like? Have you seen some of your concerns being dealt with? So I'll leave it at that, and you can choose who to answer yourself. Thank you. Thanks very much, Senator, for the questions. In preparation for today's meeting, we did review, obviously, some of our recent appearances with previous committees. And going back to 2022, 2023, I think a common trend was a concern regarding dysfunctionality within conciliation and arbitration structures. And that was manifest in a number of manners. Principally, a lack of progress, very slow progress, and a lack of accountability on issues that affect the men and women of Ogligna Heron. And this could be anything from basic stuff like allowances and pay to employment rights, and they're all kind of housed under this lack of consultation that we keep talking about, and I'm sure you're tired of hearing. So if I could give a quick example, for example, you know, we have on paper a very robust mechanism, which includes third-party adjudication and arbitration. We have an arbitration board in place, which is appointed by government, and we willingly submit to that and adhere by the rulings of those. But in 2020, we had a case where a member of ours was disbarred from membership of RACO by virtue of his appointment, the Director of Military Prosecutions. And we fought that case with gusto because it struck at the heart of representation. And you may recall in the last Oireachtas Committee, when we were talking about the last Defence Amendment Bill and subsequent Act, that that was actually in the bill and was taken out afterwards. And that still has not been resolved, even though the Tánaiste, then Tánaiste and now Taoiseach, had said that he wanted to see it come to a conclusion and had said on record in Dáil Éireann that he was quite satisfied that the appointment of a member of the Defence Forces and the independence of that appointment is not affected in any way by the membership of a representative association, which is common sense, we would say. But even though the arbitration board has backed up that opinion, the Department has still sat on it and not moved. And that shows dysfunctionality. If I could say in relation to meetings of the Conciliation Council, which are quite structured, what happens is conciliation arbitration within the Department of Defence, we would feel, has taken a back seat. And when they seek, and they work hard by the way, when they seek updates from other areas of the Department of Defence in the same building, they're not forthcoming. And that's a serious problem for us, because if they are being sidelined, that means we're being sidelined, and our members are being sidelined. So there are just a couple of examples in relation to the conciliation and arbitration scheme. So what we want to see from that is we want to see a better resourcing of it, better support for it. And at our last conference, we would have called on the Taunish, the Michal Martin, now Taoiseach, to pay more attention to the conciliation and arbitration scheme. And that kind of neatly comes on to the oversight body, and I'll hand over to my colleagues in a second. But just to talk about that, we are having good engagement at the moment with the oversight body. We're meeting with them next week, for example. And their primary role, they have told us, is to look at the, firstly, the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces in relation to HR matters. And there are a lot therein. But what we have asked them to do, and what they've readily agreed to do, is to provide oversight over the conciliation and arbitration scheme. And we are awaiting to see the outcome of that oversight, because it's badly needed. Do you want to come in on that? Senator, you asked about the DFR, Defence Force Regulation, and who is responsible for that. A DFR is similar to a statutory instrument, an SI, and the Minister ultimately is responsible for that. But within that, you know, within the scope of representation, there's areas where we should be consulted on. And I think that's really the point that you're alluding to, that where amendments are being made to the DFR, that there should be some form of consultation. But it is the Minister's responsibility to answer your query on that. And the role of the court liaison officer was the other question. It may be a little bit historical, but back in the day, it was always a requirement that the officer was attending court when a member of the Defence Forces went down. On the day as such, I would record the outcome of the case, and then report back through the chain of command. But over time, that role has kind of evolved. And more and more often, I think, Defence Councils would have called the court liaison officer to the stand, because they would know that that officer would have the personal H.O. file of the individual, and would look for narratives in that were positive. And this would be then portrayed as a character witness, you know, for the defendant. And that would be, we would see in our eyes, kind of a, you know, a misappropriation of that file, in a sense that it's not meant, it wasn't meant for that purpose. But the officer was following instructions in that regard. And it's unfortunate then post, you know, the trial, that this is then showing that the Defence Forces are coming out here in support of someone who's been convicted of a serious offence. But that was not the intent. So that's probably enough to say on that. I suppose, just to add to that, thankfully, the ward report addressed and made some recommendations that we fed into in terms of the attendance of officers at court in the future. So, first and foremost, I suppose, the requirement to wear a uniform going to court was always drawing probably unnecessary attention. And that was a concern that has been flagged now in the ward report and recommended that that would no longer continue. The practice then as well of having to take the stand, you actually were required to take the stand. And what it was was to give the conduct rating of the Defence Force member that was facing the court on the day. So, by the very nature of giving a conduct rating of what the conduct rating is and what it was, their last conduct rating, saying their last annual appraisal report, that is what led to then, I suppose, the speculation that you're defending someone. So, again, it's been recommended that that practice would no longer continue. And the defunction now was not about the reporting record anyway of the court of the day is what is required. It's not actually the report that the officer used to do when they were attending. So, again, that should be the report of fact. So, we look forward to hopefully to see that implemented and more recommendations from the ward report that might avoid that scenario that was very unfortunate for one of our members last year having to face such criticism publicly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.