Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I knew a clever Member would tell me, but will the Minister put it on the record? I know the latter is plural, but it sometimes can be confusing for a lay person. It is not a significant issue and I am grateful that my colleagues corrected my inadequacies in that regard.

It is proposed to change "ignominy" to "disgrace". I presume the original Act referred to a dismissal from the Defence Forces with ignominy. Speaking as a lay person, why did the Minister not include the international phrase "dishonourable discharge" in the Bill? Perhaps I watch too many Hollywood movies and it is a uniquely American expression, but "dishonourable discharge" carries a cachet understood by everyone. I appreciate that "disgrace" carries a similar cachet. I may be corrected on whether the former is an international norm, but I have been always of the opinion that when dismissed from the defence forces or army of any country, it was a dishonourable discharge as distinct from with disgrace.

Section 42 refers to the various offences treated by a general, limited or summary court martial, namely, manslaughter, rape under section 4 within the meaning of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 or aggravated sexual assault within the meaning of the same Act. Will the Minister indicate what sentences would be imposed for those offences? I could not find a specific reference in the Schedules. I presume those offences would be outside the normal military discipline, namely, those that can be committed by anyone whether he or she is a member of the Defence Forces. Would they be dealt with differently because the people in question are subject to military law?

In the legislation, the president referred to is the president of the military court, but what is the role of Uachtarán na hÉireann, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces under the Constitution? She is not mentioned in the Bill and there is no reference to any role she may have. I am showing once more my lack of intimate knowledge of the operation of courts martial but in an ordinary appeal, procedures are in place while the procedure here appears to be limited to within the military court and its president. Could a convicted member of the Defence Forces appeal directly to the President, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

The lasting feeling in most people's minds following the spectacular commemorative ceremonies we witnessed last year, for both the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising and the subsequent 90th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, is the pride we felt when the Irish Army marched proudly down O'Connell Street and when it rightly took its place with the armies of the allied nations that fought in the First World War. There is to this day a division of thought about whether Irishmen fighting in a British uniform in the First World War achieved anything much and I have strenuously argued with some people that they did not serve any great purpose ultimately. Having said that, they did it for the noblest of reasons and, in the context of the Defence Forces today, I could not help but reflect on the continuum. There are those in our society who suggest that our Defence Forces are not the legal, legitimate army of this country but no one who saw the displays last year would have any doubt that not only are they the legitimate Defence Forces but they make up an army of which we are all proud.

The point has been eloquently made about our overseas commitments and the Army is a matter of pride to those of us who travel a great deal and engage in dialogue with those from other countries. Our Defence Forces act as a benchmark for peacekeeping operations throughout the world.

I commend the Bill to the House.