Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister and this Bill. My principle reason for contributing to this debate is to express my respect for the role played by the Defence Forces and the pride that I and practically every other citizen take in them. To the best of my knowledge, historically, and certainly since the mid-1920s, they have never disgraced the name of this country. Discipline and its maintenance are a very important element of the high regard in which they are held. As Senator Minihan said, when serving abroad they are, in a sense, ambassadors of this country. There have been contingents, even of our own Defence Forces, in which isolated individual soldiers have not always behaved well. However, if a soldier is trying to re-establish the rule of law and prevent conflict, impeccable behaviour is necessary.

In the context of domestic security, it is important the public sees a disciplined force and has confidence in it. Conditions may have become more difficult in that regard. We no longer live in an hierarchical society. Most organisations do not rely on the issuing of orders and instructions; persuasion and motivation are used more. I am sure this change has spread to the Defence Forces. I remember the debates that led to the establishment of RACO and the other representative organisation. I am glad that difficult bridge was crossed because it has worked well.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have not expected blind obedience to orders. Rather, we expect an enlightened carrying out of reasonable instructions and people, right down to privates, to take responsibility for their actions and to exercise discretion responsibly in many situations.

The term "persons" becomes "men" in the language of section 58. While there may be a good reason for this, I do not understand it. As we have seen on parades, such as at the 1916 commemoration, women serve in the Defence Forces. I understand that legislatively speaking, "men" may be taken as comprehending women, but why is it necessary to phrase it in a gender-specific way given our contemporary Defence Forces?

My next point may be more fundamental, but I do not know whether it has been considered. We are discussing modernising military law and the Minister used the phrase "military courts" several times in his speech. Should we consider modernising our language? As a member of the public, the term "courts martial" conjures an image of summary justice and executions at dawn.