Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. It is useful for us, as lay people, to get their perspective on the Bill. However, the committee has several members who were formerly military people, including Deputy Callaghan and Senator Craughwell.

I read the witnesses’ opening statements very carefully and noted some of the issues raised. It is very disappointing that there has been not only a lack of meaningful consultation but also a lack of consultation of any kind with the witnesses on what has been proposed. They have highlighted several risks and dangers related to the wording. Heads 21, 22 and 23 were mentioned specifically as areas of concern. If in any organisation there is vague language or something left fairly open-ended, it can be abused. Mention was made of the use of vague and subjective language, but vague procedures can also be an issue. Concrete evidence can be put into the bin and even personal agendas can come into play. I can speak with a little bit of authority on that matter, suffice it to say. The existing legislation clearly requires amendment in several areas. This issue has been highlighted already and I do not intend to go over it in any detail, but I am particularly concerned about heads 21 and the associated areas.

Reference was made to the length of the appeals process, in particular, and the length of suspensions. Are we talking about months or years, typically? Obviously, there is a huge effect on a dismissed member of the Defence Forces if he or she has a suspension or appeals process hanging over him or her for months. It was said that a suspension can become a form of punishment. Could Mr. King state from his experience roughly what timeframe we are talking about?