Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 2001

Vol. 540 No. 1

Written Answers. - Proposed Retirement.

Bernard Allen

Ceist:

191 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether, in his reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 133, 134 and 135 in October 1997, he quoted Defence Force Regulation 18(1)(f)(2), which was amended on 14 February 1985; if he will inform a person (details supplied) of the reasons for this person's proposed retirement in the interests of the service; if he will list the substance of those interests; his further views on whether the Act as written in 1969 was unjust and therefore required amendment; and the reason he will not give this person access to his files in order that he may clear his name. [19779/01]

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

The position is that, on the advice of the Government, the individual concerned was retired, by the President, 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". In my reply to the Deputy in October 1997, the extract from Defence Force Regulations A.15 quoted, incorporated amendment No. 93, which was effected on 14 February 1985. However, in any event, the precise relevance, if indeed any, of the terms of the 1985 amendment referred to is not clear as regards the specifics of this particular case.

A decision to retire an officer "in the interests of the service" is only taken for the most compelling reasons. Given that the Government decision and advice to the President concerned military security, I am not in a position to comment in further detail. However, I can say that I am satisfied that the matter was handled in an entirely appropriate and proper manner and that the decision taken was taken only after very detailed and due consideration.

Moreover, the person concerned would have been fully aware at the time of the circumstances giving rise to his retirement in June 1969. He had been previously interviewed by officers of the intelligence section of the Army on three separate occasions in April 1969 in relation to a number of serious matters that had come to their attention.

At the third of these interviews, the person in question volunteered to submit a statement in relation to the matters raised, but did not do so. Given the serious nature of the situation presented to the military authorities, they were of the opinion that to retain the person in service would be contrary to the interests of the Defence Forces and the State.

The Deputy Judge Advocate General was requested to advise on the matter and he conducted a personal interview with the officer concerned in May 1969. The Deputy Judge Advocate General informed the officer that he had been asked to advise the general staff regarding the case and that he wished to give the officer concerned an opportunity to submit any statement he wished to make in relation to the issues raised in the April interviews. The officer advised the Deputy Judge Advocate General that, following the April interviews, he had consulted a solicitor who undertook to correspond with the military authorities on his behalf. The Deputy Judge Advocate General informed him that no such correspondence had been received.

The Deputy Judge Advocate General took the officer through the issues raised in the April interviews, explained the gravity of the situation, advised him to consider the situation, and arranged a further meeting for the following day, at which the officer was to submit a statement. The officer raised the question as to whether he could consult his solicitor and the Deputy Judge Advocate General made it clear to the officer that there was no objection to such a course of action. When the officer returned the following day, he then advised the Deputy Judge Advocate General that he would not in fact be making any statement.

With regard to the question of access to files, the person in question applied to the military authorities in May 1998 under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, for access to copies of all documents in relation to his retirement from the Permanent Defence Force and in relation to his period of service in the Permanent Defence Force.

The military authorities issued their decision on the application on 12 June 1998. They advised him that the records sought did not come within the scope of relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, except in so far as the request related to "personal information", as provided for in the Act. In this regard, he was advised that he could have access to all personal information contained in his file for the period in question and could photocopy the documents to which access had been granted.

In accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, the individual, through his legal representatives, exercised his right to appeal the decision to the designated freedom of information internal appeals officer in the Defence Forces. The appeal was considered by the relevant officer, who decided to uphold the initial decision. This decision was issued in writing to the applicant's legal representatives on 20 July 1998. Copies of the records which were deemed by the military decision makers to come within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act were forwarded to the then legal representatives of the person in question in July 1998. When conveying his decision in relation to the internal review of the decision, the internal appeals officer advised the applicant of his statutory right of further appeal to the information commissioner. The information commissioner functions as an independent officer with statutory powers to review decisions made by public bodies in relation to freedom of information applications. I understand that, in July 1998, such an appeal was lodged with the office of the information commissioner, as such appeals concern that office. However, I understand from inquiries to that office that the case was suspended in July 1998 at the request of the applicant's then legal representatives, and was subsequently discontinued by the information Commissioners office in 1999 due to the non-pursuance of the matter by the individual concerned and his legal representatives at that time.