The Tánaiste is not correct in saying that if my amendment were accepted, it would debar the association of the representative bodies with ICTU. What I am proposing is the deletion of a swath of the restrictions he has included and the substitution of "by the deletion of subsection (3) [of the principal Act]". My concern is only that it is overly prescriptive if management, that is, the Minister for Defence, can terminate the right to association simply by writing a letter. Again, as in all legislation, we are not …

It is quite clear. The great advance the Tánaiste has included in the Bill is as follows: (3A) The Minister may, notwithstanding subsection (3), authorise in writing an association to be associated with a trade union or any other body outside of the Defence Forces [this is the catch.] in such cases and in such manner and subject to such conditions or restrictions as he or she may specify. I do not know of any arrangement that allows one to be involved in a trade union in such conditions and in such manner as the em…

Could the Tánaiste just respond to that?

I would just like to hear the answer.

It is a very draconian framework.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 28, line 22, after "members" to insert "as provided for by subsection (1) ".

I move amendment No. 15: In page 28, lines 23 and 24, to delete "concerning a political matter or matter of Government policy" and substitute "concerning a matter of political controversy".

I move amendment No. 17: In page 28, lines 27 and 28, to delete "concerning a political matter or matter of Government policy" and substitute "concerning a matter of political controversy".

This is an important and timely debate on two issues that matter to the Irish people and I commend People for Profit-Solidarity on tabling the debate. I want to deal with each issue separately, the first of which is the announcement by the Tánaiste, which I have to say was a surprise and I was in the House the time it was made. He stated that it is his intention to alter the long-standing mechanism to authorise the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on overseas missions. That mechanism, as we all know, is the t…

I will start with a technical matter I raised previously. I have been critical of the Department of Justice in its treatment of this House regarding the transposition or adoption of EU directives. This is a really important matter. Standing Orders require motions to reach the Clerk of the Dáil at least four working days before they are scheduled to be taken. The Business Committee was able to publish the agenda for this week last week saying that this was to be taken but it was only yesterday that the motion was ad…

As the Minister of State told the House, this is the latest in a series of motions. One has passed through this House every six months since 2021. The purpose of the motion is not controversial - to allow for a continuation of the current outdoor seating and drinking regime. Some such regime of some order would and should be an ordinary part of our ordinary regulated life. Until the Covid pandemic, outdoor drinking raised issues both under licensing legislation and planning law and the practice was that it was not …

We are on very shaky ground now.

I thank Sinn Féin for tabling this motion. The Labour Party welcomes it. There is not a word in it that we would have any reservations about supporting. All the asks set out are reasonable and sensible and I see no reason the Government would not accept and implement it. Housing, as Deputy Bacik has said repeatedly, is the civil rights issue of our time. It affects every family and individual. It is the single greatest issue holding us back from the real progress this country is capable of achieving. It is the reas…

Some get a minute-----

-----and some get a second.

I said some get an extra minute and some get an extra second.

What about an earlier version of it?

Will the Tánaiste set out the specifics of the mechanism he is proposing to deploy Irish Defence Forces overseas when he removes the triple lock? When does he propose to introduce legislation to bring that about?

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. I am still no wiser about the specifics of the proposal being drafted. Obviously, the Tánaiste has given instructions to his Department and the Office of the Attorney General on what exactly will replace the triple lock. Is it to be a double lock in simply removing the requirement a UN mandate? Is it to be an altered mechanism with some substitution for the third leg of the current stool, if you look? I would welcome clarity on that. The long-standing triple lock principle has…

It is a double lock.