I move amendment No. 124 :—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), page 58, to delete sub-paragraph (ii), line 26.

Would the Deputy deal with amendment No. 127 in the discussion also ?

Very well. An officer of the Reserve might be permitted to wear uniform at a particular function. It is going too far to make him then subject to military law simply because he wears the uniform to the function.

Why not? What is the hardship ?

An ordinary officer is liable to military law at all times, which is a very serious responsibility. The only occasion when a Reserve officer would be in uniform is when he is permitted to wear it outside the period when he is in training or called up on service. The fact that you permit him to wear uniform for a couple of hours could not possibly make him subject to military law. It brings the whole conception of military law into question.

If a Reserve officer gets into uniform and is associating with other officers, should he not be amenable to an order if he conducts himself in a manner prejudicial to good order and military discipline ? If he is at a function and his superior officer gives him an instruction, should he be able to say : " You cannot catch me now " ? Would it not be an impossible situation? Where is the hardship in this? If he goes to a function, questions of military law and practice just will not arise and he will not be subject to inconvenience. When he takes off his uniform, it is finished. You come to the border-line cases. It may affect the F.C.A. I can think of the type of thing we had in the old days, when you had Voluntary Reserves. An officer would get his men to do some training inside barracks and under the benediction of the military authorities, but it would be extra and voluntary training and he would not be technically required to do it. If he is in barracks doing it, he should be subject to military law. I would disagree with Deputy Cowan strenuously on this point.

Deputy Cowan might consider the changing conditions as compared with bygone days ? The F.C.A. and the Slua Muirí are continuously out on the streets in uniform. If any of these men when in uniform were to do anything that would bring it into disrepute, I am sure Deputy Cowan would be one of the first to strongly object to the fact that there were no means of dealing with it. These men are members of the Reserve. They are covered by this Act. They are members of Óglaigh na hÉireann, and while they are in uniform they must be amenable to military discipline, and must at all times conduct themselves as officers and gentlemen and good soldiers. It is for that reason that it would be absolutely necessary that we should have this provision in the section, and I am sure that, with that explanation, Deputy Cowan will be satisfied.

I am afraid I have been misunderstood. I agree that if an officer of the Reserve does anything prejudicial to good order, if his conduct is bad, if he disgraces his uniform, obviously there is only one thing to do with him, and that is to remove him from the Reserve, which the Minister has complete and absolute power to do. If he is a disgrace to the uniform, the Minister can dispose of the case in that way. The difficulty that I see is : Supposing under regulations or because of some express permission an officer of the Reserve is in uniform at a function and he is subject to military law while at the function, and some superior officer has words with him that are not very friendly, by making him subject to military law while wearing the uniform you subject him to liability for trial by court-martial within three months of the date on which he attended the function. That is a very serious matter. I understand what the Minister and the Chairman say. You can deal with these things, but you are leaving him subject to be tried by court-martial within three months of the date upon which he attends a particular dance, say, in uniform.

You are stressing it a bit now. There is hardly likely to be anything at a dance that will necessitate this. There is always an opportunity for comrades to save his honour, so to speak, by taking him out, but there might be certain conditions, certain circumstances which Deputy Cowan described here to-day in which it might be necessary that a man should be subject to military law.

An interesting point could arise here. While he is in uniform at the function, in the case that Deputy Cowan made, he could be removed under arrest but I am wondering if, once he got out of the uniform, he will be liable for the court-martial.

He would.

I wonder would he?

Section 119 says :

" . . . such a person shall not be tried for such offence unless his trial commences within three months after he ceased to be subject to military law."

It is that section that is worrying me. In other words, if he is subject to military law, then the poor fellow, for three months after the dance, is in fear and dread that he will be arrested and court-martialled for something at the dance. That is too serious.

I agree with you that if that were to happen it is too serious, but this is one of the cases where you can fairly well rely on common sense. I am very sympathetic with Deputy Cowan's anxiety to safeguard the soldier in most cases. In this particular case, while you might want power there for a serious matter, the danger of it being abused in a trivial way is extremely improbable.

I only know of one case of a man being brought back after he had gone home. We had a famous State case. I think the Chairman remembers that case of a Reserve officer being brought back within three months of his leaving Reserve training and being court-martialled.

There was a very serious charge involved.

Was it for an offence committed while he was actually in the Force ?

Yes.

It is because I remember that case that I can see what might happen. I admit that military law will be administered with common sense.

Quite possibly if a senior officer were to throw his weight about the junior officer could eventually reach the Minister if he did not get a fair crack of the whip.

I would give the general advice to Reserve officers to keep out of uniform unless when on duty.

That could be the remedy.

That is a sensible one.

I move amendment No. 125 :—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (e), line 46, to delete " a pass " and substitute " an authorisation or permit."

I do not like that word " a pass."

It is a military term.

It is a good enough term for a regulation but not in an Act of Parliament which might have to be interpreted by our Supreme Court. You might have a judge saying : " What is a pass ? " Has the word been considered as to what it means ? What does it mean ?

I think it is used in every army in the world.

I would say that it is not unknown.

I move amendment No. 126 :—

To delete sub-section (2).

We have been advised that it is necessary to have this in the Bill.

I want to know why it is there in view of Section 5.

I take it that the Deputy thinks the sub-section unnecessary in view of the earlier definition of " active service " in the Bill. My difficulty is that, where the draftsman has thought it well to insert a definition like this in a particular section he has considered it and thinks it necessary. Therefore, I do not like taking it out without the draftsman's agreement.