Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Defence (Amendment) Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 15, after “army” to insert “or air corps”.
I referred to this matter in my earlier contribution. I wish to ensure that the Schedule makes reference to the existence of the Air Corps. It is nothing more and nothing less. I want to see Air Corps mentioned alongside Army.
I will not accept this amendment but I do not think we disagree on much in respect of this issue. It may well be the case that when we review and amend the Defence Acts broadly we make some changes in respect of the Air Corps. Technically, the Army and the rank structure within the Army cover the Air Corps fully. For many years, until some years ago, the Air Corps was referred to as the Army Air Corps. The Army does already cover Air Corps. It is just not spelt out, as the Deputy is spelling it out now. It would not be appropriate to add unnecessary words because the ranks currently covered under the Army are part of the Air Corps ranking system already.
The only reason for a separate pillar for naval ranks is that there is a different rank structure in terms of name. I understand what the Deputy is saying and I value the distinction the Air Corps brings to the Army but it is part of the broader Army and rank structures. To separate them and say Army and Air Corps ranks suggests that the Air Corps is not part of the Army as regards ranking system and it is. In terms of legal accuracy, what is in place in the legislation is right. There are other aspects of the legislation that may need to be changed but that aspect is probably better left alone.
There is obviously-----
We are splitting hairs.
We are splitting hairs. The Minister is saying there is merit in doing this but we should not do it now. One reason for bringing forward this amendment is that we are conscious of the fact that we have a very small Air Corps. Whoever is in government in the future needs to do something about that and it will take time to address it. It seems to be a weakness in the legislation generally that the existence of the Air Corps, in so far as this schedule is concerned, is not even recognised. I take the Minister’s point about the command structures and so on but I cannot see why there would be any difficulty in making reference to that in the legislation now that we are amending it. There is an opportunity now to mention the Air Corps and, other than what I can only describe as a stubborn rejection of an Opposition amendment, I do not see any reason to say no to this.
The sense I get is that the Deputy wants the Air Corps to be mentioned to give it a boost.
To recognise its existence.
I can assure the Deputy we recognise the existence of the Air Corps. We announced a permanent air ambulance service with the Health Service Executive just before this debate started. It is to be located, ironically, in a location that some people have expressed concerns about, concerns that, in my view, are not founded. I am more than aware of the role of the Air Corps and its professionalism and we want to invest in it and will be doing so in the years ahead. That is very much part of the White Paper process. Today, however, we are talking about the legal accuracy of legislation, which is a different matter. We are talking about whether or not we make a distinction between Army and Air Corps when it comes to ranks. The title in terms of legal accuracy is that this is Army ranks, which covers Air Corps and Army because the Air Corps is part of the Army. If the wording is changed to Army and Air Corps rank it distinguishes between the two, although they have the same ranking systems. That is the advice I have.
We should consider how we mention the role and specifics of the Air Corps in a broad review of the legislation and I am happy to have that discussion, whether at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, here, or in the Department but the advice I have is that the Deputy seeks to replace Army ranks with Army and a subsidiary of the Army in the same title. I understand the point about recognition of the Air Corps and the distinctive role it plays in the Defence Forces, which is separate from the Army, and I accept that absolutely. In terms of ranking structure they come under the one heading. The advice I have is that we should keep it that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 is out of order.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 20, after “army” to insert “or air corps”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, line 27, after “army” to insert “or air corps”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 31, after “army” to insert “or air corps”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, to delete lines 6 to 8 and substitute the following:
|
Reference No. (1) |
Army and Air Corps Ranks (2) |
Naval Ranks (3) |
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 is out of order.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question proposed: “That section 3 stand part of the Bill.”
I thank the Minister for his comments on Second Stage about Custume Barracks. It is welcome that he has reiterated and clarified that commitment. It provides the reassurance we need because the questions being asked are genuine. We can debate them further when we discuss the White Paper. I also welcome the announcement this morning regarding the aeromedical service to be based at Custume Barracks in Athlone. That is a very positive and welcome development, not only in respect of the Defence Forces but for patient safety across the country.
Specifically on section 3, I tabled an amendment to the naval ranks which the Ceann Comhairle has ruled out of order because of the potential cost to the Exchequer. There is an anomaly in the legislation. While the Defence Acts provide for a general in the Army ranks there is no equivalent rank of admiral in the Naval Service. Under the Defence Acts there is a provision for the role of inspector general. We have never had an inspector general within the Defence Forces but there would be a presumption that if we were to appoint an inspector general that person would be at the rank of general. If that individual were to come from a naval background we would have to bring forward more amending legislation. Until today, there was the anomaly that we did not have the rank of vice-admiral. This amending Bill has been brought forward to facilitate that change. It was an anomaly in the original primary legislation that it did not make that provision. We are creating a further anomaly here today by not having the rank of admiral. If we have a general within the Army and Air Corps why should we not have the rank of admiral in the Naval Service? I ask the Minister to amend that anomaly and provide for that rank.
The sense of what Deputy Naughten has said is self-evident. We are here because there is a lacuna in the legislation. It was not anticipated that we would need to create this particular position of vice-admiral and we are here to do that today. We are looking to the future and saying God knows what will happen, perhaps there may be a general at some time in the future and perhaps there may be a need to appoint an admiral. We need to be far-thinking when we set about the job of legislating.
It should not just be about facilitating what is happening today; it should also be about looking to the future and providing for all eventualities. Why not do what Deputy Denis Naughten is suggesting?
I had the opportunity to speak about the White Paper and welcome what is being done today. I also very much welcome the Minister's commitment to Custume Barracks and the air ambulance service that will be based in Athlone from today.
I thank the Deputy. I can see sense in what is being proposed. The amendment has been ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle because of the potential cost involved and that is a ruling with which I cannot argue. To be honest, I am not sure there would be any cost implication any time soon, but that is the judgment of the Ceann Comhairle's office. We had a long discussion before coming into the House this morning on whether we should accept the amendment. The only way I could do so is by introducing an amendment myself. We have decided not to do this on the basis that we need a complete review of the legislation.
There is a need for completeness in the ranking columns included in the legislation. Ireland is, however, unlikely to have a general any time soon. If one looks at the Israeli army, for example, one will see that it has a lieutenant-general, despite its size, scale and financial muscle. As I said, Ireland is unlikely to have a general or an admiral in the near future, although, that said, if we include the rank of general in the legislation, we should also include the rank of admiral. In fact, the advice we received was that we should perhaps remove the rank of general, but that would be seen by some as insulting, understandably so. If we look back in history, we had, for example, General Michael Collins. Therefore, the rank of general should remain in the legislation. In the future we should upgrade the naval ranks to also include the rank of admiral. Realistically, we will have time to change the position and there is no immediacy to the issue. We should use the time to review the Defence Acts generally and look to modernise them in a way that would be consistent with the White Paper. Certainly, if I am there when it is being done, we will include the rank of admiral to match the rank of general, even though we are not using either and are very unlikely to do so any time soon. Nonetheless, for completeness and balance, it should be done.
The problem in doing so now would be that we would have to send the legislation back to the Seanad. We could do this and if it was a really important issue and important to do it now from a timing perspective, I would do so. However, I am anxious to have this legislation completed before the House breaks in order that in September we can have a smooth transition. In the meantime, we are already looking at defence legislation generally in terms of its consistency with the White Paper and what we are planning to do in the future. In the context of the review, this is certainly a change I would be very open to making. It is a sensible suggestion from Deputy Denis Naughten, but it is not necessary to do it now. If Deputies could work with me on it, that would be helpful.
I have listened to the Minister and he is correct that it is not necessary at the moment to make the amendment. However, it creates a further inconsistency in the legislation. The reason we are here is there was an inconsistency in the Army and Naval Service rankings. At the time the relevant legislation was brought through the Houses, it was never envisaged that there would be the need for the rank of vice-admiral. That is why this Bill is before the House today having been brought through the Seanad. What we are talking about is the inclusion of a very simple table which would include the rank of admiral. I accept that the Bill would have to be brought back to the Seanad tomorrow, where it would take ten minutes to put it through. However, we would at least have consistent legislation. From my experience, it is important to act where there is a discrepancy. We all accept that there is a discrepancy and an inconsistency in this legislation. For the sake of a few hours, therefore, we should amend the Bill to include the rank of admiral.
During the discussion on the White Paper and earlier today we all commended the Naval Service for its tremendous service in the Mediterranean, yet here we are further enshrining in legislation a lower upper rank within the Naval Service than that within the Army. While this is technical in nature, it creates an inconsistency and an anomaly. We have time to deal with it. I, therefore, ask the Minister to draft an amendment and bring the Bill back to the Seanad tomorrow. It could then be brought to the Áras for signing.
I have outlined my position. I can understand and have some sympathy for the arguments being made. However, if we were to look for discrepancies in the legislation, I am sure we could find others, too.
That is our job.
It is, but it is also our job to have this change made in a timely manner in order that we can have a seamless transition from one Chief of Staff to another and that we can have the ranking structure that is appropriate. We need to take our time and look at, review and update the legislation which has been in place for a very long time. I am sure there will be multiple suggestions on how we should update the Defence Acts. What I am saying to the Deputy is that I will look at this issue and that we will make the appropriate changes in that context. As I said, the legal recommendation was that we remove the rank of general as opposed to adding the rank of admiral, but I am not willing to do that. I am willing to consider adding the rank of admiral, but rather than push this Bill back to the Seanad and thereby attach significance and importance to a change which is not timely, we should look at the legislation in place afresh, engage in a broad review and make multiple changes, if necessary, including this one. We will do this in a way that is not rushed rather than with a sense that things have to be done before the summer. What we are doing is what it is necessary to do to make sure we will have a smooth transition from one Chief of Staff to another. We will have an opportunity to engage in a broader review of the legislation in place, at which time I will be very amenable to the amendment proposed by Deputy Denis Naughten.
What we have is a conflict between what is practical and the principle. The Minister wants to do something practical-----
On principle, I will change it but not now.
The Minister is saying we will leave aside the principle and address it at some time in the future. The problem is that, as he and I both know, it will be a considerable time before the matter can be tackled. The key principle is that, notwithstanding the need to deal with the matter expeditiously, when scrutiny of legislation throws up a discrepancy, an inadequacy or an inconsistency, it is not good enough to say we realise there is a problem but we will deal with it at some time in the future. Can we not get it right now in dealing with legislation? As Deputy Denis Naughten rightly said, the issue of time is not problematic. We will facilitate the Minister in every way possible. He could come back to the Houses with this legislation tomorrow and we would pass it straightaway. I do not see any difficulty in that regard. However, for him to say he accepts that there is a problem but that it can wait to be solved-----
I did not say there was a problem.
-----is the wrong way in which to do business.
There is no immediate problem. For the purposes of accuracy and balance, what I am saying is I have sympathy for the arguments being made.
There will be an opportunity to review this legislation as a whole, which we have committed to, and an opportunity to change it. There is no perceived pressure coming from any direction, including from the Opposition benches, to do this before tomorrow. That is the only point I am making. Apart from that, the Ceann Comhairle has ruled the amendment out of order. We have a procedural problem. Even if we wanted to do it right now, I am not sure we could. I have not proposed any amendment in this regard. It was an Opposition Deputy who proposed the amendment, which has been ruled out of order. Procedural clarifications would be required from the Ceann Comhairle's office as to how we could do it.
I am trying to be helpful here in giving the Deputy an answer to an amendment that has been ruled out of order, which we should not even be debating. I ask people not to be unreasonable. I am taking the point the Deputy is making. Before we began the debate this morning, I asked whether we could accommodate it. I was told it was ruled out of order and I am just giving the Deputy my view for the benefit of the House. While this is something I would be open to accommodating, asking us procedurally to do it now poses practical difficulties.
Just to clarify for the Minister, it does not pose practical difficulties. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled the amendment out of order for the technical reason that is has come from the Opposition. It is possible for the Minister to propose an amendment on the floor of the House now using the wording we have already proposed. This would allow him to put in the Irish and English translations and can be accepted. It has been done in the past and the procedure exists to allow it. If the Minister so wishes, he can propose an amendment orally and allow for it to be adopted. That is just to point out that it is possible.
There we go.
With respect, I am being told that not by the Ceann Comhairle but by an Opposition Deputy.
An Opposition Deputy who has seen it done here before.
My position is as follows. There will be an opportunity to do this in the context of a broader review of the legislation and we will do it at that stage. I do not think there is any reason it has to be done now. What I am asking people to facilitate is the amendment of this legislation in order that we can get on with the transition from one Chief of Staff to another. We should focus on that. I am happy to consider other amendments that may be appropriate when we review the Defence Acts at a later stage.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
A message shall be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.