Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. Regardless of whether the Tánaiste read the pre-legislative scrutiny report before preparing the legislation, my understanding is that he could not have done that. However, the fact is that one of the key component points raised throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny phase of these discussions is not reflected in the Bill that has been brought before us.

I am speaking to amendments Nos. 3, 5, 20 and 22 because they are all related. There is an essential prohibition on members of the Defence Forces engaging in essentially anything relating to a political matter or a matter of Government policy. This puts a restriction on members of the Defence Forces that goes way beyond anything that any other person in our society has to deal with. There is a rationale for restrictions being placed on members of the Defence Forces. We all accept that and the historical and contemporary reasons why it would be the case. However, I agree that it is imperative for the Dáil to ensure that such measures and restrictions, as they pertain, are not ambiguous or open to question and do not prevent members of the Defence Forces from being recognised as citizens of the State. Regardless of the fact that they serve the State, they are still serving members. This was one of the key areas that representative associations of members of the Defence Forces have raised beyond us. I do not think the Tánaiste has yet clarified why, in the context of this legislation, we need to go beyond existing legislation and Defence Forces regulations. It has already been mentioned that the term "Government policy" is so open to interpretation that matters could become quite bizarre. It could be argued that this would prevent members of the Defence Forces from attending meetings of their representative organisations.

The Tánaiste was at the PDFORRA conference last week. Throughout their deliberations, those present spoke about Government policy in terms of how it affected them. If we were to prevent them, through legislation, from engaging in discourse on Government policy we would have a situation where technically the Chief of Staff could not advise the Tánaiste on a proposed policy change because it would be Government policy he is talking about. It would be a situation whereby, were we to expand that to attendance at protests, mobilisations or whatever the case may be, if a member of the Defence Forces local school decided to call a public meeting because it was looking for a school extension, that individual would potentially be in breach of this Bill.

Therefore, we need to agree an instrument to actually deal with this. It is also important to note that earlier this month, or late last month, a member of the Defence Forces won a court case against the blanket ban on personnel attending protests. I note that the judge described the prohibition as a "blunt instrument". It would be useful if the Tánaiste would inform the committee as to whether he agrees with the judge that it is a blunt instrument.

On the amendments before us, Deputy Howlin has tabled amendments that would replace the phrase "political matter or matter of Government policy" with "a matter of political controversy", which is fine. To my mind, and taking on board what has been said, the deletion of the term "Government policy" is the core one. Of course, we do not want members of the Defence Forces engaging in political activity as all of us in this House would know it to be but the prohibition on engagement on matters of Government policy is excessive in the extreme. Therefore, we would support any of the amendments before us in this grouping. It is imperative that the Tánaiste inform us which wording he finds appropriate or whether he is bringing forward alternative wording that acknowledges the very real concerns that are there and puts to rights what is a glaring deficiency in the Bill.