Vol. 622 No. 2
6 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the deployment of ten military personnel to the Congo to assist in national elections; the type of work the personnel will be engaged in during their time in the country; when they will be deployed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23794/06]
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1671 of 25 April 2006 authorised the EU to deploy a European Union Force, codenamed EUFOR RD Congo, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, in support of MONUC during the electoral period in the Democratic Republic of Congo for a period ending four months after the date of the first round of the presidential and parliamentary elections there. The DRC authorities have welcomed the EU military support to MONUC during the electoral process. On 25 April 2006, the Council of the EU adopted a joint action to launch the EU mission in support of MONUC.
On 9 May 2006, the Government authorised me, as Minister for Defence, to despatch up to ten members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the EUFOR RD Congo. Ireland offered up to ten staff officers for the headquarters. However, the mission is oversubscribed and, therefore, only seven of the ten will be deployed, five in Potsdam in the operational headquarters and two in Kinshasa in the force headquarters. The five Defence Forces officers assigned to the operational headquarters for the mission in Potsdam in Germany have been deployed. The deployment of the personnel to Kinshasa will take place shortly.
The key tasks of the EU mission are to support MONUC to stabilise a situation in case MONUC faces serious difficulties in fulfilling its mandate within its existing capabilities; to contribute to the protection of civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in the areas of its deployment and without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo; to contribute to airport protection in Kinshasa; to ensure the security and freedom of movement of the personnel as well as the protection of the installations of EUFOR RD Congo; and to execute operations of limited character to extract individuals in danger.
This reflects the discussion we had earlier on Deputy Timmins's query about establishment. It is well covered in the new legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
Section 1 [of the Bill] amends the definition of "International United Nations Force", as provided for in the 1960 and 1993 Acts, to reflect the changes in the organisation and structure of forces deployed on Peace Support Operations under a UN mandate, in particular, the use of regional organisations to provide forces for peace support operations. It also reflects the variations in the language used in UN Security Council Resolutions, such that, the Permanent Defence Force will not be precluded from participating in a UN peace support operation, solely on the basis of the specific language used in a resolution.
Once again, the language used was "established". This mission was not established by the United Nations. It is a EUFOR operation. The United Nations was not responsible for establishing it but it authorised it. The same situation arises in this case. Are seven people deployed in the Congo for whom there is no strict legal basis under the 1960 or the 1993 legislation? We cannot pursue the matter any further until we examine the Attorney General's legal opinion given to the Minister but there is a question mark over it because the purpose of this legislation is to rectify that situation.
As I indicated to Deputy Costello in reply to an earlier question, the Attorney General's advice was given at a time before I came into the Department, because this matter had happened before that. Nevertheless, I have to accept the advice of the Attorney General. The Government acts on the advice of the Attorney General whenever troops are being deployed abroad. When we are deploying troops abroad, we do so in accordance with our domestic legislation. Successive Attorneys General have advised us that if the wording of the resolution says "authorised", we are covered.
We might as well not have this legislation if the Attorney General is so sure about it.
Not really, because the legislation covers other matters as well.
I am speaking in relation to this matter.
Is there not much stuff in this legislation?
The legislation has to cover other matters as well. I should be glad to debate the legislation with Deputy Gormley at any time.
I shall be waiting.
I am acting on the Attorney General's advice, which is that we are within the terms of the legislation. If Deputy Costello has a different opinion, he is entitled to it, but the person who advises me, as the Minister for Defence, is the Attorney General.
It is definitely precautionary legislation that is trying to close the loopholes.
The Minister is taking all Stages on one day. For God's sake, that is not a debate.
7 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will take steps to amend the time limit in the Defence Force’s regulations governing the awarding of posthumous medals and decorations to allow four members of the Air Corps, who died in County Waterford in July 1999 while carrying out a dangerous rescue mission, to be honoured with medals for their courageous service. [23958/06]
I take this opportunity to once again acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of the Air Corps personnel who so tragically lost their lives in the Tramore helicopter crash and to extend my renewed sympathy to their families, friends and also their colleagues in the Air Corps. We all recognise and appreciate the nature of the tragic loss occasioned by their deaths. I also fully understand that the question of acknowledging their service in a tangible lasting manner is of great personal importance to the families concerned.
The award of medals, including the Distinguished Service Medal, is governed by Defence Force Regulations, A9. The regulations set out the procedure for the award of medals, including that the award is made by the Minister on the recommendation of a military board appointed by the Chief of Staff. The recommendation must be made not later than four years after the performance of the act in respect of which the recommendation is made. I am advised by the military authorities that in spite of the tragic nature of this accident, it was not considered appropriate to initiate a recommendation for the award. Consideration of an amendment to the regulations to lengthen the timeframe within which a recommendation can be initiated does not therefore arise.
Recognition of the devotion to duty and loyal service to the Defence Forces of the personnel who lost their lives has been marked in a very fitting and personal way by their colleagues in the Air Corps, who commissioned and installed a special memorial window in the church at Casement Aerodrome, dedicated to the memory of the four Air Corps personnel killed in the accident at Tramore on 2 July 1999. A permanent memorial was also erected by the Air Corps to their memory at Finner Camp in Donegal, where the crew had been previously stationed.
Official recognition of this tragic loss of life was marked by my Department's close involvement with Tramore Town Commissioners and Waterford County Council who erected a memorial in honour of the memory of the four Air Corps personnel. My Department contributed £10,000 towards this memorial and also assisted the town commissioners in the organisation of a formal ceremony in Tramore on 4 September 2000 where the memorial was unveiled by President McAleese. This ceremony was attended by the families and colleagues of those who died along with the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, the then Chief of Staff and senior officers. This memorial and those in Baldonnel and Finner are a fitting public acknowledgement of the crew's devoted service to the State and to the esteem in which their service and sacrifice is held.
I have a problem with the regulations. If an investigation has occurred, as in this case, until it is completed, which can sometimes take a number of months or years, the time limit is being eaten into because of the short four-year period within which a recommendation can be made. I ask the Minister to request the military authorities to look again at making a recommendation that the men be awarded a medal. They went out in very bad weather, risked life and limb in an incident which involved the rescue of a child, among others. Not making a recommendation to honour them suggests that something untoward happened. The State, while contributing to the monument that was built, has so far not taken any initiative in its own right to honour their memories. It has participated in initiatives, but has not put in place any initiative itself. It is important the sacrifice which Captains Dave O'Flaherty and Michael Baker, Sergeant Paddy Mooney and Corporal Niall Byrne made be recognised fully by the State. In the past the State has made posthumous awards. In particular, I do not know how many people in this the 90th anniversary of 1916 managed to get medals for their families, posthumously. It looked as if everybody was in the GPO at one stage. I am not saying we should demean the Distinguished Service Medal in such a way, but there should be some slight leeway. Perhaps the close of investigations might be taken for the start of the timespan rather than the date of the incident. Some way should be found to ensure the families get the medals the four men deserve for their courage on that day.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh makes a very valid point as regards the time. The four-year period should not include the time during which an inquiry is taking place. I shall certainly examine that. It is even more relevant as regards the other type of medal, for gallantry, because there is only a two-year timespan there. As the Deputy has rightly said, these inquiries can take a long time. That is a very valid point.
As regards the award of medals generally, there is no reflection whatsoever on those young men. Their sacrifice is well recognised. I want to be as sensitive as I can, given that there are families involved. The fact is that medals are awarded by the military. My function is merely a rubber stamp in these matters. As a result of the military board of inquiry the recommendation comes to me and I simply sign off on it. I am certain there has been no case in the history of the State where the military decided to either award or not award a medal, which was totally within its own power, where the Minister for Defence intervened to question such a decision. That is the reality.
However, in view of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's interest in this matter I will take a look at the criteria used internationally as regards medals of this type. I will discuss those criteria with the military. The procedure, as regards the awarding of medals, is that the recommendation must come from within the Defence Forces, to the Chief of Staff. He must be persuaded there is a case. He then appoints a military board to establish whether there is a case. I shall look at the international situation to determine whether norms exist about which I can talk to the military.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point is well made and I support it. Will the Minister say whether any outstanding issues remain as regards the families concerned? I know the Department of Defence was in discussion with one or more of the families as regards outstanding liabilities. I wonder whether these matters have been finalised.
Finally, will he consider re-establishing the Air Corps search and rescue service? It is a terrible loss. I know it was not lost strictly for political reasons and that there were internal difficulties. I ask him to review the question of re-establishing the service. It was lifeblood to the Air Corps.
As regards Deputy Timmins's first question, I understand that all the civil matters have not been settled, awards of damages etc.
As regards the search and rescue service, we have discussed this matter in the House previously. The reason the search and rescue service was replaced in the only place where it remained, the north west, was because it could not guarantee a 24-hour service. My understanding now is that the new service put in place in the north west, similar to that for the rest of the country, is working very well. I assume that is what the Deputy is referring to. My advice is that it is working very well. If the Deputy has any information to the effect that it is not, I would appreciate him drawing it to my attention.
I extend my sympathy to the families of the four members of the Air Corps who died in such tragic circumstances. Will the Minister say why there should be a time limit as regards the awarding of posthumous honours to somebody? Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the Dreyfus affair. Many years go by before certain matters can ever be resolved. I do not see that it serves any purpose. Would it not be best to eliminate the time limit?
In any legislation with a time limit, the reason given for it will be to bring finality to a situation. In cases where people have died, the Deputy may well have a point. I will give some thought to it.
8 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence when Irish troops will commence training in the EU established battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23963/06]
10 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the mechanism under which battle groups will be established by the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council so that Irish troops can be deployed as rapidly as the troops of other countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23728/06]
11 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Nordic battle group’s headquarters will be located at British Operation headquarters in Northwood, England; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24147/06]
21 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his address to the Forum on Europe on 11 May 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24144/06]
25 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the latest contacts he has had with his counterparts in Sweden regarding Irish participation in the Nordic battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24136/06]
33 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Defence if troops from foreign armies can train here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23965/06]
35 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which military training or manoeuvres has taken place or will take place with EU, NATO or other forces in preparation for participation in an emergency response or EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24110/06]
41 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Defence if the battle group which Irish troops will participate in has been decided; the extent of this participation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23962/06]
49 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence if it is proposed to send Irish troops to train in other countries for the purpose of forming battle groups; if it is proposed to allow foreign troops to train here for the purpose of forming battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23734/06]
54 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence the number of members of the Defence Forces to be deployed to the Nordic battle group formation in which Ireland will participate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23782/06]
59 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if he or his officials have had further discussions with Finland or Austria regarding co-operation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24145/06]
60 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the range of missions that the EU battle groups will be participating in; if they are broader than the Petersburg Tasks adopted in the Amsterdam treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24137/06]
66 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Defence if members of the Defence Forces can engage in joint training missions with forces from other countries within the territory of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23772/06]
70 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a response from the Swedish Government regarding the approach made by the Irish Army to participate in the Nordic battle group; the details of the negotiations between the Swedish and Irish representatives; when a final decision will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23795/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 10, 11, 21, 25, 33, 35, 41, 49, 54, 59, 60, 66 and 70 together.
Discussions with like-minded states have begun regarding battle groups. A delegation consisting of representatives from the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces met our Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 9 and 10 March to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battle group. Our representatives outlined Ireland's position on battle group participation and international peacekeeping, and gave a presentation on the capabilities which Ireland can make available to a battle group. These range from smaller niche capabilities to an APC mounted light infantry company group of approximately 200 personnel, plus support elements.
Further consultation between the Defence Forces, the Swedish armed forces and officials from their respective ministries are continuing, including technical discussions and a memorandum of understanding on the specific nature of our contribution. Pending completion of these discussions, I am unable to state the nature or extent of our contribution to the Nordic battle group. However, any decision on a specific contribution to a battle group will be subject to formal Government approval. It will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time, as set out in the White Paper on Defence.
The Nordic battle group was organised some time ago and most of the core elements are already in place. In addition, battle groups covering the period through to 2010 have already been announced and on this basis, I expect that our contribution in the period to 2010 is likely to be limited. However, this will be a matter for ongoing discussion with other member states over the coming months, in particular, with Finland and Austria with whom we have also had some initial informal discussions. The discussions with these countries have been of a purely exploratory nature, as the main focus is on concluding arrangements with Sweden regarding the Nordic battle group.
Most training for the battle groups will take place in the contributing member states, that is, Irish troops will mainly be trained in Ireland. However, some level of joint training with other battle group elements will be an imperative. The extent of any such joint training and whether training will extend to exercising is a matter for decision by battle group participants. No such training has taken place to date. The Attorney General has advised that there is a constitutional impediment to training foreign troops in Ireland. As such, there are no plans for training foreign troops in Ireland. However, as we are not a framework nation, this should not be a problem. As a framework nation for the Nordic battle group, Sweden has confirmed that there will be no requirement for joint training or exercises by the Nordic battle group in Ireland.
When fully operational, the EU will have two battle groups available and on stand-by to respond to crises as they arise. As in the case of the forthcoming operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN may request the EU and, thereafter, authorise the deployment of an EU force to undertake a peace support operation on its behalf. It will be a matter for the EU to decide whether the battle group is the appropriate response, having regard to the circumstances pertaining to the operation. Battle groups will not be established by the UN. The UN will authorise the deployment of a force and the EU will decide whether the battle group or some other force is to be deployed.
The decision to use Northwood as the operational headquarters was taken by the current participating states in the Nordic battle group and is obviously a matter for them to decide. I can only assume that it is because Northwood has all the necessary infrastructure, communications systems, facilities and support which may not be otherwise available within the member states currently participating in the Nordic battle group. The establishment of an operational headquarters is not a simple matter. There are only a small number of such facilities in Europe, mainly in the larger member states. For example, Germany has such a facility in Potsdam, which is currently being used for the EU operation in the Congo. I welcome the contribution of the UK to the development of EU crisis-management response capabilities by making available the technical and support facilities at Northwood.
I am fully satisfied that our participation in the battle group concept in no way weakens or undermines Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. On many occasions, I reiterated that our participation in peace support operations will continue to require UN authorisation. Participation in battle groups will not diminish this requirement in any way. Ireland's basis for participation in missions undertaken by the EU is grounded in the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council. That will not change. The triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will remain in place.
I welcome the decision by the Government to participate in EU battle groups, which was a long time coming. Will the Minister confirm that the troops will likely train in England?
No.
One of the reasons the battle group was formed was to have a cohesive network. Prior training would be required for this. Will the Minister give an indication where they might train? It is most unusual that Irish troops can go abroad to train, but foreign armies cannot train here. Does the Minister agree? Are there any intentions to hold a referendum?
Section 8 in the new Act is at the hub of the sham debate we have had about neutrality in this country. It represents an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Irish troops may be somewhere in Europe, waiting to cross the start line. They may have Dáil and Government approval, but cannot move until the Americans, Russians and Chinese solve their old problems and come forward with a UN Security Council resolution. This is farcical. Does the Minister agree that the triple lock is dated? It is time that we in the Dáil——
It does not exist.
I agree with Deputy Gormley on that, but it does exist unfortunately. The Minister is caught between two stools. I am telling him that he is not going far enough, while DeputyGormley tells him that he has abandoned neutrality. He has not abandoned neutrality, whatever that may mean. I would like to see the Minister address this in a logical way. We will bring forward an amendment to this on Committee Stage of the Bill and I hope that others support us. I believe that the Irish public supports the Fine Gael position on this.
I am caught between several stools. I will do my best to resolve these fundamental differences——
The Minister is in the trenches.
——between different components of a potential future government.
He should put on his hard hat.
There is no need to be offensive. The Deputy should keep it at a reasonable level.
I did not say anything offensive.
I do not agree with Deputy Timmins's final point. We will have to agree to disagree.
With regard to his technical questions on training, the troops will not be trained here. If we join the Nordic battle group, we will not be training in the UK. The training usually takes place in the framework state, which for the Nordic battle group is Sweden. It is 99.9% probable that the training will take place in Sweden. The Deputy also asked about a referendum to change the Constitution to allow foreign troops to train here. It is not high on the Government's list of priorities at the moment, but I do not think it is necessary in any case. The practice in multinational battle groups is that training usually takes place in the framework state. In this case, the framework state is Sweden. If we decide to join another battle group after 2010, it is most unlikely that we will be a framework state at that stage either. There are other issues on which we could hold a referendum that the Government might regard as more urgent.
At the moment, it does not seem that any Irish troops are serving abroad legally.
My question was about the establishment of battle groups. The Minister is saying they will be authorised, rather than established, by the United Nations. How will the troops involved train and how will they be deployed for training outside this country if they have not been established by the UN? This raises serious questions about section 3 of the new legislation. That section bypasses the triple lock mechanism by providing that a contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force may, with only the sole prior approval of the Government, conduct or participate in training, undertake monitoring, observation or advisory duties abroad, and participate in or undertake recognisance or fact finding missions. Does that appear to provide for the deployment of troops abroad to be trained in various military exercises that may or may not become a battle group authorised by the United Nations at some time in the future?
How can the Minister manage to authorise a battle group, which is a rapid response mechanism, if he must wait for authorisation from the Security Council and UN General Assembly? They meet only on a regular scheduled basis and do no have urgent meetings to consider matters of that nature. What will happen in this regard? If an engineering section or signal section of Irish troops are to be deployed, will the battles take place and the war be over before they are deployed? There is nothing in the legislation that indicates how the Minister will get such an authorisation in time to effectively operate a battle group.
All this is germane to a Bill we will debate next week and the week after. With regard to what Deputy Gormley said, I do not have any say over the time allocated for the taking of this Bill. I am simply told the Bill will be debated in the Seanad and in the Dáil at a certain time. If Deputy Gormley is on this side of the House after the next election, he will find that is the position. The Minister does not have any input on the allocation of such time.
The Government does.
The Minister asked that this Bill be dealt with before to the summer recess.
I did.
The Government has a say in that.
I asked that it be dealt with before to the recess but I did not allocate the specific time for taking it.
We will not get an opportunity to debate it.
I asked that the Bill be dealt with before to the recess because discussions are taking place with the Swedes and the other possible participants in the Nordic battle group and time is of the essence. The fact it must be passed before the recess means we could spend the next two weeks debating it, and I do not decide on that.
It is to be debated in the Seanad but it was tabled for the Dáil.
I am not clear about where we are at in dealing with these questions. I do not see Deputy Costello's name on my list.
I asked the Minister a number of questions but the Minister answered different questions.
I will answer the questions the Deputy asked me. If he is right in saying we have no authority to send out forces which are only authorised by the United Nations, a point on which I do not agree with him, he would still be wrong in his statement that there is nobody abroad serving legally because the force in Liberia, which is our largest force, was established by the United Nations.
That is the key point. I am glad the Minister admitted that. We have one force established under UN mandate.
With regard to the other matters concerning training and whether there will be training and exercises, that will all be dealt with on Second and Committee Stages of the legislation. The Deputy's point about a force being authorised rather than established is not relevant to battle groups because our contribution to a battle group will take place only after the legislation has been passed, and the legislation will clarify that.
My colleague, Deputy Boyle, was informed that this legislation must be done and dusted by 7 July and that is the reason it is being rushed through. Will the Minister confirm that to the House?
I did not hear the Deputy.
The deadline for the passing of this legislation is 7 July and that is the reason the Minister is rushing it through the Houses. The legislation must be passed by 7 July — that is the problem and the reason the debate will be guillotined and we will not have real debate on the issue.
The Bill will go to the Seanad first.
No, this has nothing to do with the Seanad, it has more to do with operational matters. That is the issue.
Will the Minister agree there is a broad remit in the provision of the legislation dealing with battle groups where it states the international United Nations force means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned? Will the Minister agree that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have said their troops are in Iraq because their mission there has been otherwise sanctioned by the Security Council? In other words, this legislation has become meaningless — it is such a broad stroke, and it is a stroke.
With regard to what Deputy Costello said, I am interested in section 3(f) of the legislation which deals with the undertaking of humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency.
The Deputy's time has concluded.
No Dáil approval is required for such a mission. If our troops were out in the field and fired upon, would they be entitled to return fire? Is it the Minister's understanding that they would be entitled to do that because that is my understanding if they were under attack? Similarly, if they assembled or embarked upon a mission——
The Deputy has spoken for two minutes and other Deputies are offering.
——and were fired upon, would they be entitled to return fire or engage in battle?
We are now debating sections of the Bill.
No, I am talking about the questions before us and the question I asked is relevant to them.
Other Deputies are offering and I want to try to facilitate them.
I assure the Deputy we will have ample time to debate all these matters next week and the week after.
We will not, that is the problem. The debate on the Bill will be guillotined.
I ask the Minister to answer my question.
On the question of the deadline of 7 July, we are literally the last into the field in terms of a contribution to a battle group, about which I have taken a certain amount of criticism.
We should not be in that field at all.
That is not our fault.
It is not our fault.
We are not excluding the Minister in this respect.
It is not the Government's fault either. We had certain legislative and technical difficulties to overcome and we have done that, and people are literally waiting for a decision. On the last occasion I answered questions in the House, I gave an undertaking that this legislation would be through the Houses hopefully by the summer recess. I could not guarantee that but I said that was my ambition. There is still a fortnight before the summer recess. I do not choose the times for the taking of legislation.
On Deputy Gormley's question as to whether participants in a humanitarian mission can return fire if they are fired on, my understanding is that if troops are on a humanitarian mission, generally speaking, they would be unarmed.
The Minister is saying troops will be unarmed if they are part of a battle group.
It will depend on the circumstances of the mission.
In regard to what the Deputy said about a force being endorsed, supported, sanctioned and so on, the law provides and will continue to provide that we will only commission troops on international peacekeeping operations if the United Nations directs that we do so. Everybody knows the United Nations want troops to keep the peace or to prevent people from being murdered in various regions but we cannot contribute such troops because of a technicality. The wording of the United Nations resolution does not meet the requirements of the Irish Defence Act, and it is not as if the Security Council of the United Nations would have a copy of the Irish Defence Act before it whenever it draws up a resolution. That would be absurd.
The Minister did not answer my last question.
I call Deputy Timmins
My question is about troops who have embarked on or assembled for a mission who are fired upon.
If the Deputy does not cease to interrupt, I will move on to the Adjournment.
The Minister has not answered my question.
Deputy Timmins has been called.
The Minister has not answered the question. This is typical.
We spoke earlier about Irish personnel who participated in Partnership for Peace and that the legislation is being brought in to confirm their legal status. We have also established that foreign armies cannot train here and for them to do so would require a referendum. Could it logically be said that foreign military personnel who are based here, be it as a military attache or people who come to the UN school on courses, could be operating here illegally?
The advice on that matter has been given by the Attorney General with reference to a particular article in the Constitution. The advice is that those people are not unconstitutionally allowed to come here whereas contingents of troops coming here bearing arms would be unconstitutional.
Perhaps I could get a copy of that advice before the legislation is debated here the week after next.
Deputy Costello has already asked me for that and I have told him I will try to procure it.
We must move on to the next question.
The Minister has not answered my question. We have no accountability.
Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that there is no proper debate here when Members continue to interrupt.
I would like answers to my questions. That is all I am asking for and it is not much to ask.
9 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence the actions his Department has taken following a judicial decision in 2005 that fair procedures had not been followed in relation to the retirement of a person (details supplied) from the Army. [24138/06]
78 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied that a person (details supplied) was correctly dismissed from the Army; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23982/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 78 together.
There is no judicial decision of the courts relating to the compulsory retirement of the individual concerned from the Permanent Defence Force in 1969, nor is there a judicial decision that fair procedures were not followed with regard to the retirement of the individual from the Permanent Defence Force in 1969.
The High Court judgment of 27 July 2005 related to a report completed by the civilian Judge Advocate General in September 2002. The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Quirke, held that the report should be quashed because fair procedures had not been applied in the compilation and production of the report and in the timing of the release by the Department of Defence of certain documents. He concluded his judgment by stating: "The decision made in 1969 to recommend the Applicant's retirement from the Defence Forces remains unaffected by any Order made in these proceedings."
The individual concerned was retired by the President, on the advice of the Government, with effect from a date in June 1969. The retirement was effected pursuant to section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954 and Paragraph 18(1)(f) of Defence Force Regulations A.15, which provide that an officer may be retired “in the interests of the service”. The House will appreciate that a decision to retire an officer in the interests of the service is only taken for the most compelling reasons. The Government advice to the President in 1969 was on grounds of security. I am satisfied the matter was handled in an entirely appropriate and proper manner in 1969 and that the decision was taken only after detailed and due consideration.
The individual concerned initiated proceedings in the High Court in November 1998 with regard to the circumstances of his retirement some 29 years earlier. The High Court found in favour of the State in June 1999 on grounds of inordinate delay in the bringing of the proceedings. The individual appealed to the Supreme Court in September 1999 and it refused that appeal in January 2001.
In early July 2002, arising from a newspaper feature article on the case published on 29 June 2002, the then Minister requested the Judge Advocate General to examine and review the case. The Judge Advocate General, a civilian barrister, carried out a detailed examination and review of all the historical documentation relating to the decision to retire the individual concerned by reference to the entirety of both the civil and military files in the matter. Her report was submitted to the then Minister in mid-September 2002 and published in October 2002.
In December 2002 the individual applied to the High Court for an order quashing the report of the Judge Advocate General. As I have already said, the High Court found in favour of the applicant for reasons enumerated in the text of the High Court judgment. It should be emphasised again, however, that the High Court judgment in the matter of the report of the Judge Advocate General specifically related to the actual procedures utilised by the Judge Advocate General in the course of her review and examination of this matter in 2002 and to the release by the Department of Defence of certain documents to the individual only after completion of the report. The individual concerned specifically did not seek an order for mandamus from the High Court and, therefore, did not request the High Court to remit the matter, or to direct a resumption of the Judge Advocate General’s original inquiry, or to direct that a new inquiry be held by the Judge Advocate General or by any other person.
The substantive issue, namely the Government decision in 1969 to recommend the retirement of this individual from the Defence Forces by the President, remains unaffected by the judgment of the High Court, a point specifically emphasised within the text of the judgement. All the issues raised by the recently published book in connection with this case are being reviewed and I will consider whether any further action is appropriate in due course.
I am disappointed by the Minister's response, apart from his last line which offers some encouragement. The Minister's predecessor felt there was a need to get a report together because the Judge Advocate General's report was found not to have followed proper procedures. There was an attempt——
There is one minute remaining. If the Deputy has a question, we will hear it. He may not make a statement on this occasion.
Will the Minister follow the example of his predecessor and find a means through which this injustice can be corrected? As Deputy Costello pointed out, yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the Captain Dreyfus affair and this case has striking parallels. Will the Minister put on record his intention to solve the issue in the quickest possible time?
The fact somebody is dismissed from the Army does not automatically mean he or she was unfairly dismissed.
He did not get due process.
The Judge Advocate General's report was quashed on the basis that proper procedures were not followed. It would be impossible to reconstitute that procedure because the nature of the court decision was that the type of inquiry necessary is not appropriate. It would be an inquiry where, on one side, the applicant gives oral evidence, but on the other side, we would have only the dusty archives or people too old or ill to give evidence. Very few people have been dismissed by the Army in the interests of the service because that is a serious matter. The issue in question was taken seriously for that sort of action to be taken.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
