I take the point Senator Wall makes, which is reasonable. The Tánaiste says some of the things that are now proposed are in line with the report by the Commission on the Defence Forces, but we presume that we will be notified if there are going to be deviations from that or if some aspects of the report are not going to be followed. We are entitled to that kind of general information.

I do not see why we should wait until the Bill is published.

No, I do not accept that at all.

With respect, and through the Chair, if I stood up when I was a Minister and said I was going to reform An Garda Síochána and brought a memorandum to the Cabinet saying that, and then a debate on An Garda Síochána took place in the following days in Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, and I went in and said that Members would find out in the fullness of time what my proposals are when I table a Bill or send the heads of a Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny – it did not exist in those days-----

-----but I imagine that I would at least inform each House of Parliament what it was that the Government had agreed. That is all I am asking for.

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 identif…

Unknowable.

With respect, that means that somebody who is not a member of such an organisation cannot comment even on his or her organisation in public statements. If RACO says it opposes X, Y and Z, and that is permitted under section 24, 2A and 3A, it means that somebody else in the Defence Forces cannot even publicly disagree with his or her own representative organisation on the matter because he or she is not an officer of those organisations. Somebody cannot say that position does not represent his or her view or his or …

Yes, but, as I see it, the amendments made by section 24 of this Bill accord to members of a representative organisation the right to publicly articulate, in good faith, a position which could be a matter of public policy or not, but which concerns the activities of that representative organisation. What worries me is the right to comment or to contradict that is taken away from individual members of the Defence Forces who may disagree with it. If a member of RACO says “We fully support the Tánaiste’s view on A, B …

He would not be a member. A person who is not a member or a spokesman of the organisation would not have that standing.

That is fine at a general meeting, but if people are listening to what goes on the RTÉ Radio 1 “Morning Ireland” programme, they cannot comment in response. Going to a general meeting and waiting for that to be convened is a different matter. If you are a member of the Defence Forces and a representative organisation says something about a political matter or Government policy that you disagree with, you are not entitled to say that is the case.

Yes, and can claim to represent its members.

No, but as I read what the Minister is proposing, somebody on behalf of a representative body is entitled to comment on the proper subject matter of the things that that representative association gets involved in, such as service conditions, accommodation, pensions, you name it. If they do so in public, the consequences of this amendment that we are now proposing is that an individual member of the Defence Forces cannot write a letter to the newspaper saying "I disagree with what RACO, or PDFORRA, is saying on my …

I take it that the Tánaiste will confirm that these restrictions only apply to members of the permanent Defence Forces and do not apply to reservists. I think that is the case, although the number of reservists has dwindled to practically none.

I will believe that when I see it. It is interesting that reservists seem to be in a position to attend marches and parades in uniform whereas others are not. This section needs to be thought out again. It is strange that reservists could do the things set out in paragraph (a) of this new subsection while permanent members of the Defence Forces cannot.

Yes, and we all know that the Leader of this House, Senator Chambers, was a member of the Reserve Defence Forces.

She was in no way inhibited by that status from being a political person, and a very fine one. Will the Tánaiste confirm that none of this applies to reservists?

Are they then deemed to be members of the permanent Defence Forces?

Subsection (g) of the new section 2A states that a representative association may not: (g) without prejudice to the purpose of an association of representing members— (i) make a public statement or comment concerning a political matter or matter of Government policy Someone who does not like the stance of his or her representative organisation is gagged because he or she will be caught by the new section 1A. The association is entitled to make public statements with which he or she disagrees under the proposed sect…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 11, to delete “or matter of Government policy”.