I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8—
(i) line 10, to substitute "a unit" for "members";
(ii) delete lines 13 to 16 inclusive and substitute "a unit of the Defence Forces commanded by an officer or a non-commissioned officer";
(iii) lines 17 and 18, delete "a member of the Defence Forces" and substitute "the officer or non-commissioned officer";
(iv) line 21, delete "A member" and substitute "An officer or non-commissioned officer";
(v) lines 32 and 35, after "search", to insert "or order a member of the unit under his command to search";
(vi) line 41, delete "A member of the Defence Forces" and substitute "The said officer or non-commissioned officer";
(vii) line 49, delete "a member of the Defence Forces" and substitute "the said officer or non-commissioned officer or any member of his unit".
There are two purposes in this amendment. This section is probably drafted from a Garda point of view rather than from an Army point of view. The Army would understand a request drafted in the way which I have suggested rather than in the way in which the section stands at the moment. The Garda are accustomed to acting as individuals whereas the Army, generally speaking, acts as a unit. Consequently, the request should be for a unit of the Army and that does not necessarily mean a very large unit of the Army. It could be a section, which is an NCO and six men. Consequently, my amendment is a technical one. The section should be phrased in a way in which the Army would appreciate, understand and act on. That is the way in which the Army operates as a unit.
Of course, this is another indication that the Army is being used in an unusual way. The Army thinks in relatively big numbers. It thinks in terms of units. The things it normally is asked to do it does as a unit, and being asked to do this kind of thing is somewhat unusual for them. Nevertheless, the way in which they normally operate should be preserved and the Army should be asked to place a unit, an officer or NCO and unit at the disposal of the Garda. The Army would understand the request better this way and would be happier to act in this way. It has another entirely different aspect and that is from the point of view of the public. The public might be, and are, slightly apprehensive of the idea of a member of the Defence Forces acting in the way that is envisaged in the section. They would be unhappy that a soldier acting alone and apparently without being under the control of an NCO or officer should be permitted to arrest a person or should be permitted to stop and search a car and so on. No matter how high their regard is for the Defence Forces generally, people have the idea, possibly unfounded, that an individual soldier is not the kind of person who should be given the powers which are contained in this section. From the point of view that the Army would rather get a request in this way and act in this way and from the point of view of the public who would be rather apprehensive of one individual soldier appearing to act on his own, this section would have been improved if it was drafted in the way in which I suggest.
