LAB
2024-06-12 · Dail
Defence (Amendment) Bill 2024: Report and Final Stages
Or making themselves identifiable.
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 88 of 640 decisive votes (6 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAB | Labour | 970 | 2020-02-20 – 2024-11-07 |
| CC | Ceann Comhairle / Chair | 5 | 2021-11-17 – 2021-11-17 |
Membership spells on record: LAB 1983-02-23–1987-04-03 · LAB 1987-02-17–1989-05-25 · LAB 1989-06-15–1992-11-05 · LAB 1992-11-25–1997-05-15 · LAB 1997-06-06–2002-04-25 · LAB 2002-05-17–2007-04-30 · LAB 2007-05-24–2011-02-01 · LAB 2011-02-25–2016-03-09 · LAB 2016-03-10–2020-01-14 · LAB 2020-02-08–2024-11-08
Or making themselves identifiable.
The Tánaiste is right that the view of the Attorney General is there is a saver clause that allows discussion but there is an explicit prohibition that overrules it, as the Bill states they cannot engage in a matter of Government policy. If anybody looks at the Bill, they will see it is explicit that they cannot do it. The Tánaiste may state there are other undisclosed matters they can discuss but the explicit prohibition trumps this general catch-all in my view and in my experience. I am interested to hear the Tán…
If it were Government policy not to give-----
I move amendment No. 4: In page 9, lines 12 and 13, to delete “in relation to a political matter or matter of Government policy” and substitute “in relation to a matter for political controversy”.
My amendment No. 7 is in this grouping. As the previous speaker said, these proposals concern the membership of the very important external oversight body. The recommendation to establish such a body to oversee the operations of the Defence Forces really is the kernel of the Bill. The Tánaiste agreed, both at committee and again in our discussions on my first Report Stage amendment, on the need for a structural separation between Defence Forces management and the Department of Defence. Pending that, Defence Forces …
What has that got to do with anything?
We are all in agreement with that.
Absolutely not.
Where is it in the ether?
It is-----
Independence-----
-----and control.
Nothing in my mind would say that.
It is not my intention.
We are not suggesting that.
It is unworthy of the Tánaiste to suggest that nobody from this side of the House mentioned victims. The whole focus of establishing an oversight body is to address the concerns of victims.
There is no hierarchy of concern with regard to victims. That should not have been said. The central point I want to make in the amendment is that, objectively, and I have dealt with many bodies and reviews and so on, it is not appropriate to have the Secretary General of the Department on it. That is not anti-Secretary General; that is daft. It is nothing to do with the personalities. It is a matter of what is the correct procedure. Would we put in any oversight body somebody who had an executive function in terms…
I move amendment No. 7: In page 14, to delete lines 34 and 35.
I move amendment No. 9: In page 25, line 27, to delete “other than the Secretary General,”.
I move amendment No. 10: In page 27, to delete lines 10 to 38, and in page 28, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following: “(ii) by the deletion of subsection (3).”. These amendments deal with the prohibition by the Minister of certain actions by the recognised associations. Prima facie , they appear very draconian in the context of the restrictions that are there. Section 24(a)(iii)(3A) states: The Minister may, notwithstanding subsection (3), authorise in writing an association to be associated with a t…