Vol. 442 No. 5
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference of the appointment of a person (details supplied) who is from New Zealand to advise in regard to changes in the Defence Forces; the basis on which the appointment was made; the total fees, expenses or other remuneration which will be paid to this person; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The person referred to has been made available through the good offices of the New Zealand Government to provide advice to the Steering Group overseeing the current review of the Defence Forces. No fee or other remuneration is being charged for his services but travel and accommodation expenses are recouped. I would like to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the ready co-operation afforded by the New Zealand authorities in making such expert assistance available.
I asked for the terms of reference of the review. Can the Minister of State tell the House something about the parameters of this review? Will he address the question of whether this country's possible entry into the Western European Union forms any part of its terms of reference.
The Deputy appears to be going far beyond the subject matter of the question which deals with a person associated with the Army.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I cannot permit a debate.
Having had four different questions refused by your Office, over the past half hour, I find it a privilege to ask any question of the Taoiseach. I am surprised you should try to preempt me from putting a relevant supplementary.
If there were questions disallowed by me, and indeed there were, they were disallowed for good and cogent reasons.
They were refused in one case on grounds for which there is no precedent in this House.
We shall not argue about it, Deputy Rabbitte. Let us adhere to the subject matter of the question tabled.
You refused a question today to the Taoiseach on fees paid in respect of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry on the basis that the matter is before a committee of this House. There is no precedent——
If the Deputy does not adhere to the question tabled I will have to proceed to other questions.
That was precisely what I had been doing before you interrupted me.
You may not go beyond the subject matter of this question, Deputy.
My question asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference and so on. I am merely asking the Minister of State whether he will expand on the terms of reference of this appointment; whether this country's potential membership of the Western European Union is being examined within the terms of that review, and are there any other considerations.
That is another matter, Deputy.
Why are we engaging in this review at this time then?
The question asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference of the appointment of a person, details supplied, who is from New Zealand. The terms of reference to which Deputy Rabbitte refers — the terms of reference of the Steering Group on the overhaul of the Defence Forces which were published previously — are well known at this stage. The reason the person concerned came forward and was used by the Steering Group is that the Steering Group felt it was necessary for them to have an independent military adviser on the matters which the group and their consultants were addressing. There is no question of policy matters being addressed by the Efficiency Audit Group. It is addressing the efficiency of the military and has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Is the Minister aware of the concern at certain levels within the Defence Forces regarding the implications of this review? Will the Select Committee on Legislation and Security be afforded an opportunity to consider the findings of that review in due course?
The military and civilian side of the Department of Defence, in addition to the other Departments involved in this process, are working very closely and harmoniously. A number of newspaper articles about levels of anxiety bear no relationship to what is occurring within the review group.
The Minister of State indicated that the review would have nothing to do with policy. How can this review group operate effectively without addressing how the Defence Forces are to be deployed from a policy point of view?
Matters of policy do not arise now.
The Minister referred to it.
That may be so.
Last September the Government reviewed the roles of the Defence Forces, which review was made public and discussed. Within policy decisions taken by the Government, we are now endeavouring to establish the most efficient and effective way of fulfilling those roles, which is a separate issue altogether.
Can the Minister of State inform the House whether people from countries other than New Zealand are assisting this review group?
The consultants have a person from Canada. That person is the only other foreigner I am aware of who is assisting in the review group.
May I clarify whether the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, the Foreign Affairs Committee or any other committee of the House will have an opportunity to consider in detail the thrust of the findings at the end of the day?
That matter will be decided when the report is finalised. I imagine that once the report is finalised there will be areas of interest to Deputies and the general thrust of the report will be discussed, but I cannot say definitely until such time as the report is finalised. Some aspects of the report will obviously have security implications and I will have to reserve a position on those until the report is published.
Question No. 2, please.
On a point of order, can you give any advice to the House, Sir, on whether there is any precedent for refusing a question to the Taoiseach on the grounds that the subject matter is being considered by a committee of the House?
It is quite disorderly to challenge the Chair in such a fashion, Deputy. If the Deputy wishes to have any further elucidation of the matter my office is at his disposal. He may not raise it in the House.
I do not wish to challenge it, Sir, but a question about fees was put down properly to the Taoiseach——
I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, you are questioning my ruling and I cannot have it.
——and the reason you have given for refusing it is that the Committee of Public Accounts is considering it.
Deputy Rabbitte, you may not persist with this challenge.
There is no precedent, I suggest.
Resume you seat.
I do not wish to challenge you but I promise I will avail of the opportunity to visit your office on the matter.
The Deputy has rights in this area. Question No. 2, please. These are priority questions for which 20 minutes only is provided for in our Standing Orders. I beg the co-operation of the Members concerned to allow us to deal with these five questions within the time stipulated.
