I am very pleased to present this Bill to the Seanad. It is the first item of legislation to be brought before the Seanad in my defence capacity. Anyone seeking to join the Defence Forces chooses a very challenging and demanding career but one that is also very fulfilling and rewarding. Each member takes a solemn oath to be faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution, marking them out from every other profession. In addition, each member undertakes to obey all lawful orders issued by a superior officer and to submit to the unique code of discipline that is an essential ingredient of military life. The men and women of our Defence Forces have from time to time been asked to undertake dangerous and difficult missions on our behalf, both within the State and while engaged in peace support or humanitarian missions abroad. I do not need to remind anybody of the high regard in which our military personnel are held at home and overseas. Indeed, our military personnel are widely admired for the outstanding commitment and professionalism they exhibit. Ireland is currently contributing some 560 Defence Forces personnel to 11 missions throughout the world. Also, approximately 150 additional personnel who have been on standby for rapid deployment as our contribution to the Nordic battle group were stood down at the end of June.
The Defence Forces are now planning and preparing for Ireland's participation in the Austrian-German battle group, which will be on stand-by for the second six months of 2012. In November 2010, the UN requested Ireland and Finland to contribute a mechanised infantry battalion amounting to 500 personnel to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. The Defence Forces deployed an advance group of the 104th Infantry Battalion to southern Lebanon on 30 May 2011 and the main contingent deployed on 23 and 27 June 2011. The Irish battalion, comprising 437 personnel, is based in sector west of the UNIFIL area of operations, centred on the major towns of Tibnine and Bint Jubyal and the blue line, which separates Lebanon and Israel. The Irish contingent will be joined by the Finnish armed forces early next year to form a joint Irish-Finnish contingent.
A contribution of 560 personnel to overseas missions is a very significant contribution in the context of the reduced resources available and reflects the Government's continued commitment to international peacekeeping and to the ongoing development of the Defence Forces. Over many years our Defence Forces have continued to evolve through an ongoing process of modernisation, organisational restructuring, enhanced training and with significant investment in new equipment. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces have spent the last decade progressively improving the quality of services provided to client organisations at home, to the security of the State and enhancing our peacekeeping capacity overseas. Prior to the current economic difficulties, the modernisation agenda and the associated development strategy outlined in the White Paper on Defence in 2000, delivered significant efficiencies in the defence organisation. Since 2000, new capabilities have been developed throughout the organisation, even though civil and military staff levels have been reduced significantly. The Permanent Defence Force has reduced in size from 15,201 members in 1981 to 9,650 members on 31 May 2011, the latest date for which figures are available.
The ability of the Defence Forces to continue to maintain the high standards demanded of them requires complete clarity with regard to the exercise of command authority, whether at home or abroad. In order to maintain standards and rise to the challenges of a military environment and all of the associated tasks, it is important to uphold a chain of command that is clear and unambiguous at all times. This is critical to the maintenance of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. The importance of upholding an independent, effective and efficient system of military discipline cannot be underestimated. Discipline is the essence of a military force. Commanding officers are responsible for discipline within their units. They exercise authority primarily through leadership and by inspiring the confidence, loyalty and trust of all those they command. This is underpinned by the legal authority given to commanders in respect of soldiers under their control.
In that regard, it goes without saying that the Defence Forces must retain the power to enforce discipline through its own unique code of discipline within the military justice system. This disciplinary code must support operational effectiveness. It must be efficient and effective and above all else, it must be fair to the individual. The system of military discipline is provided for under Part V of the Defence Act 1954. Following the enactment by the Oireachtas of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2007, military disciplinary procedures were brought up to date in order to reflect developments and innovations both in Ireland and internationally and ensure that members of the Defence Forces have an effective and modern disciplinary and judicial system. The 2007 Act created a system that reflects the civil legal process to the extent possible in a military environment. The Act radically overhauled the procedures for the investigation, summary disposal or trial by court martial of offences against military law committed by persons subject to military law. In summary, the 2007 Act provided for the summary disposal of charges against military law; the establishment and jurisdiction of the summary courts martial; the appointment of a courts martial administrator, a Director of Military Prosecutions and a military judge; the constitution of courts martial and membership of a court martial; matters of procedure before courts martial, including the award and execution of punishments and the suspension of sentences; and the establishment of a courts martial rules committee and the making of court martial rules.
The first case to be tried under the new military justice system was held on 9 September 2008 in Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines, Dublin. Since then 39 cases have been heard before the military judge. There are currently 22 cases awaiting dates for court-martial and in total there have been three appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. The new military justice centre in McKee Barracks in Dublin was officially opened on 6 July 2009. This facility boasts a modern courtroom with built in digital audio recording system, waiting area, consultation rooms, and related administrative and office facilities.
The Bill before the House is technical in nature and seeks to address a number of issues identified subsequent to the enactment of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2007 which need to be addressed to ensure the smooth and continued operation of the military judicial system. As with any new system there is always a period of bedding down as an organisation adapts to new processes and procedures.
The first of these issues concerns the provisions in the Act of 2007 relating to the posts of director of military prosecutions and military judge. These provide that to qualify for appointment to these positions, a person must be an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who is a practising barrister or practising solicitor of not less than ten years standing. These qualification criteria mean that there are limited qualified personnel in the Permanent Defence Force for these posts. It is essential that those eligible for these important posts have the necessary experience to discharge the duties of the position. However, the current criteria result in there being a very limited pool of officers who are eligible at any one time to compete for these posts. Given the small pool of legal officers this issue is likely to continue into the future.
In the context of the continued modernisation of the Defence Forces disciplinary and judicial system, in my view it is essential that competition exists for any appointment to either the post of director of military prosecutions or as a military judge. One of the key elements of the Bill under consideration seeks to ensure that this will be the case.
The second issue relates to the post of military judge. Given the scale of the military justice system one military judge is deemed sufficient to undertake the case load that arises. However, concerns have been raised that if an officer appointed as a military judge had a previous involvement in a case, is ill or absent or otherwise unable to carry out his or her functions, this may give rise to the need for the availability of an alternative judge. For example, given the small cadre of legal officers there are significant possibilities that the judge might have knowledge of persons who come before him or her. Such a scenario is not currently provided for under the Defence Acts and this Bill seeks to address the issue.
The final issue being addressed in the Bill relates to the fact that there are a number of personnel within the Defence Forces who are either qualified barristers or solicitors and use these qualifications as part of their day to day duties but who do not work within the Defence Forces legal service structures. Although the Defence Forces are introducing more clarity in regard to job specification for such posts, which will make clear whether being a barrister or solicitor is a requirement for a particular job, the fact remains that some individuals have been undertaking such work over many years and some clarity needs to be brought as to whether this service meets the service requirements for appointment to the post of director of military prosecutions or as a military judge.
To address the aforementioned issues, the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2011 provides for amendment to the Defence Acts 1954-2007 to expand the potential candidature for appointment to the posts of military judge and the director of military prosecutions to persons other than members of the Defence Forces and for an amendment to the powers of the section committee to determine a candidate's qualification for appointment to these posts. In regard to the alternative judge, it also provides for the appointment of a Circuit Court judge to perform the functions of the military judge where the military judge is not available for whatever reason.
I move to the specific provisions of the Bill.
Section 1 outlines the definitions for the purposes of the Bill.
Sections 3 and 4 provide that the committee established under section 184(D) of the Defence Act 1954 for the purposes of identifying candidates and informing the Minister of their suitability for appointment to the post of director of military prosecutions, may determine a candidate's qualification for the post. In addition, the existing legislative provisions mean that there is an extremely limited candidature from within which the post of director of military prosecutions can be filled. In this context sections 3 and 4 also provide for an expansion of the potential candidature for appointment to the posts of the director of military prosecutions to persons other than officers of the Permanent Defence Force.
Sections 5 and 6 provide——