I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Command of the Defence Forces 6. Command of the Defence Force is exercisable as follows: (a) the supreme command of the Defence Forces vested in the President is exercisable by him or her on the advice of the Government; (b) under the supreme command of the President and subject to the provisions of this Act, command of the Defence Forces is exercisable by the Government and, subject to such exceptions and limitations as the Gover…

-----but the command structure is fundamentally the same. Obviously the primacy of civilian authority over the military remains a critical one. That is understood and a matter of law, as it should be. However, those arrangements and that primacy must have practical application. I think the Tánaiste will agree we need to fundamentally alter the long-standing current provision and give that autonomy in administration and oversight to the Chief of Staff, make the Army headquarters a proper, autonomous headquarters of …

Good.

I very much appreciate what the Tánaiste has said and I look forward to the debate but perhaps we might just have a modicum of democracy about it. Would the Tánaiste not present the discussion paper in the House before it is actually presented to us as a fait accompli in legislation so we can actually have that sort of discussion? I know it is a radical suggestion that Parliament might actually discuss these matters in an open way. Obviously the fundamental questions will be determined by Government and it will bri…

Tús maith, leath na hoibre.

I thank the Tánaiste for that. I am no wiser on his intentions in relation to that. It will be a debate on a paper that is being produced but I would like the Oireachtas to be part of that debate, not after the decisions are made by way of being presented with heads of a Bill but in the sort of complication of debate the Tánaiste has just outlined. I fully accept the amendment I have proposed is far from the finished article in the context of the reforms that are necessary, but the notion that the Chief of Staff of…

Okay, well-----

Well, let us have that discussion and see how we can do things better. I do not intend to press my amendment. I take on board exactly what the Tánaiste has said but would like to hear from him whether he might share with us his ideas when they are fleshed out a little bit better and before they are presented to us and we are told that amendments are wonderful but are not accepted and this is the final article. It would improve the way the House works on a lot of issues like this where we all have something to contr…

Could the Tánaiste respond for one minute?

In truth, that will be the Department of Defence presenting it because other Ministers will not really be involved in that. As the Tánaiste has said, I have some experience in Government.

The Tánaiste will present it to his colleagues and there will not really be the type of scrutiny I would like.

After the Tánaiste has decided what is going to happen.

I thank the Tánaiste. I will withdraw the amendment.

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 prejudi…

Yes, they should not be party political.

The Bill also refers to members of the Defence Forces who are otherwise identifiable as such.

The Bill states "identifiable".

Nobody is going to argue against the proposition that the Defence Forces should be apolitical, should be perceived to be apolitical and should not be involved in any political controversy. That is a given. However, we are not still in 1954. In other developed countries, such as the Netherlands and others, there is a more participative discussion with defence forces personnel as workers on matters such as the application of the working time directive, which was not to apply to members of defence forces because they …

Yes but that is not clear.

No, "without prejudice to the purpose of the association" is fine. As the Tánaiste said, that is a catch-all phrase but it has no right. If we look at the prohibited activities of an association under section 2A on page 28, it cannot make a public statement or comment concerning a matter of Government policy. That is black and white, as opposed to the catch-all the Tánaiste is speaking about whereby it may have rights. I am anxious that the Tánaiste is clear that if we are going to give proper rights to a represent…