Michael McDowell (Independent) | 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 of political controversy".

This proposal is to delete the words "in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy" and substitute "in relation to a matter of political controversy". The relevant section, section 11, proposes to exclude a member of the Defence Forces:

...while in uniform or otherwise, making himself or herself identifiable as a member of the Permanent Defence Force ... [and making] without prior authorisation from ... [his or her] ... commanding officer, a public statement or comment in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy.

What is Government policy? I can see that some things are a matter of Government policy and others are not. It is difficult to state what is Government policy at any given time. One cannot expect every member of the Defence Forces to read every policy document and to know what is or is not Government policy, or what has changed in the latest U-turn, variation or press statement on an announcement of a change to Government policy. This provision is vague. It uses the term "political matter or matter of Government policy".Is the strength of the Defence Forces or the provision of married quarters or housing for Defence Forces personnel a political matter? Has the Government a policy on those areas? Those kinds of things are extremely vague. There are many things a member of the Defence Forces might want to comment on. I will give an example. A member of the Defence Forces might, while identifiable as such, comment on the CSPE curriculum in a school and might differ from the views of the current Minister for Education or the curriculum body on these matters. It is a strange position that such people are being asked to muzzle themselves in a manner which is wholly unnecessary. The width and breadth of the prohibition is grossly excessive.

If the phrase "in relation to a matter of political controversy" was put in, at least members of the Defence Forces could consider whether there is a controversy about a matter. Do they identity themselves as a corporal in the Defence Forces if they ring Joe Duffy? Do they identity their occupation if they comment on an issue to do with education, social welfare or whatever? Do they have to, if asked the question "What's your job?" by Joe Duffy, say they cannot answer that because they are talking about a matter of public policy about which they are prohibited from speaking? I am happy that people should not attend protest marches and the like in uniform but if there is a protest march on the quality of drinking water in Roscommon or something like that, is a Defence Forces member permitted to participate? If that person is known to be a member of the Defence Forces, is he or she effectively muzzled from doing so?

I pointed out, and do not know whether it has been taken up yet, that section 11 in its current form prohibits a member of the Defence Forces from canvassing on behalf of or collecting contributions for any political organisation or society but it does not seem the wording of the section prevents them doing any of those things in relation to an Independent candidate. It only prohibits them from doing them in connection with a political organisation or society. There are Members of the Oireachtas, in particular of Dáil Éireann, who are Independents and not members of an organisation or society. I do not know why this should be drafted in such a way as to say it is fine to collect for candidate A because he or she is not a member of an organisation or society but it is utterly wrong to do so if the candidate is a member of even a microparty. I pointed this out on Second Stage and do not see a Government amendment to deal with it, which is disappointing.

In general terms, our amendment is aimed at making people in the Defence Forces free to act on matters which are not the subject of political controversy. They can protest about potholes in their road, which could hardly be described as political controversy, or about water quality in their area or what curriculums should or should not be taught to children attending their local school. Those kinds of issues should be open to them to participate freely as citizens without in any way compromising the Defence Forces.

Without going back over whether members of the Defence Forces should be held to a higher standard, I believe they have to be seen to be neutral. I accept that proposition politically, but I do not believe that means they have to be gagged on virtually everything. I do not know the extent of Government policy in respect of a whole heap of areas. I am sure there are Government policies on fisheries, agriculture and other things that would not occur to somebody living where I live, namely, Ranelagh. Prohibiting a member of the Defence Forces from commenting on something which is almost unknowable is too wide a prohibition. On the other hand, a member of the Defence Forces should know whether something is a matter of controversy. If something is not controversial, I do not see why they should not be able to comment on it or should have to desist if anybody identifies them as a member of the Defence Forces.