Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, lines 10 and 11, to delete "in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy" and substitute "in relation to a matter for political controversy".

I wish to discuss amendment No. 2 and all the amendments that are related physically and, I suppose, transubstantially, in various ways. Amendment No. 2 is an important amendment and it relates to a discussion we had on Committee Stage on the notion of restrictions being imposed. The legislation states that without prejudice to the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990, a member of the Defence Forces, "while in uniform or otherwise making himself or herself identifiable", may not, without prior authorisation from his or her commanding officer, "make a public statement or comment in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy" or "attend a protest, march or other gathering in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy". That is a very broad net to be casting. Everything is a political matter. Any number of things, such as a climate change march or a crisis on which people would have a view, could be regarded as such. However, the Minister has imposed extraordinary restrictions. My amendment, to which alternatives have been proposed, would replace the Minister’s broad proposal with one whereby the restriction would apply in regard to "a matter of political controversy". When I proposed that on Committee Stage, the Minister was adamant that it was a very vague notion. I suggest that a political matter is a much more vague notion.

I have gone back to the root of the words I used, namely "a matter of political controversy". I do not believe the term is vague, uncertain or incapable of being used in a statutory context. I say that because I have lifted the phrase from a legislative instrument that the Minister himself signed last year – SI 371/2023, Civil Defence Act 2023 (Code of Practice) Regulations 2023 – which provides under the heading "political activities" that volunteers who take part in an outside activity that involves the disclosure of official information or use of official experience must not discuss "matters of current or potential political controversy in respect of Civil Defence Code". Therefore, the Minister believed the term "political controversy" could have meaning and could be anchored within a statutory instrument, which, as he knows, is secondary law. I do not see why it is unacceptable to house the term in the legislation before us or why it is regarded as so vague. I believed there was some element of agreement or, at least, acknowledgement regarding the net of restriction the Minister is throwing, whereby one cannot make a public statement or comment in relation to a political matter. The phrase is so open. It does not state "party-political matter"; it refers to any political matter. Ultimately, when people tell me they have no interest in politics when I knock on the doors, my argument is always that everything is political. All the things we deal with, including education and health, are political matters. Is it political if a member of the Defence Forces wants to be involved in campaigning for a new school, extension or autism unit? Is that a political matter on which the member would have no right to express a view if he or she could be identified? Again, it is vague. The legislation states "otherwise making himself or herself identifiable". I ask that the Minister think a little about this and not try to throw such a broad net around anything that is political. I hope he has done so since we had our discussion on Committee Stage. The term "political" is all-encompassing. Maybe the Minister could replicate the phrase he himself signed into law, such that the debarring would relate to matters of "political controversy". It is right and proper that members of the Defence Forces should not be identifiable if engaging in a partisan or political way, or engaging regarding controversial matters. The net the Minister is throwing is far too wide and restrictive and I hope he will give some leeway.

See this speech in context