Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I echo the comments made on all sides of the House in welcoming the Bill, which is significant in terms of its content and how it updates legislation dating back to the Defence Act 1954.

I have no wish to keep the House from hearing the Minister's reply on Second Stage, but I would like to trail on the historical coat-tails of my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Mansergh, in respect of the imagery the Bill conjures up among those of us with an interest in military history. In reading the Bill, I agree with Senator Mansergh on the language used to some extent. For those of us involved in the Shot at Dawn campaign, the language conjures up images of young Irish men being taken out and shot. While those images are far removed from the reality of today's legislation, I am influenced by them.

One section provides that sentences cannot be passed unless legal representation is provided for the defendant, which is welcome. I could not help but reflect on how many young Irish lives would have been saved had such legal representation been mandatory under the rules of courts martial before the establishment of the State.

I do not expect the Minister to give me a lesson on military jargon for slow learners, but there are references to "court martial" and "courts martial" in the same sentences. What is the distinction?