Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)

I am sure the Minister thought he was going to have an easy time of it today. However, as was the case when the Bill was debated in the Seanad, certain circumstances have been referred to and particular accusations have been made. I will return to that matter later.

When I first read the Bill, I was of the view that dealing with it would be a simple matter but that is not the case. The White Paper on Defence published in 2000 has provided the main policy framework for the Defence Forces during the past decade. It outlined ways in which we could modernise the Defence Forces by downsizing them and reorganising their structures. As the previous speaker indicated, the number of personnel within the Defence Forces has decreased dramatically in recent years from in the region of 15,000 to approximately 10,500. With further reductions, it is hoped that this can be decreased further to 9,600.

I have no doubt that it has been a challenging exercise for the Department to try to remove that many personnel from the Defence Forces while maintaining the latter's operational effectiveness and discipline. Such a process cannot be easy for anyone involved, including the Minister and the Defence Forces themselves. However, the greatest challenge that arises is probably that of reducing numbers while maintaining the professionalism we expect of the Defence Forces.

Discipline is the rock upon which any military organisation is built. Without discipline, there is anarchy. In order to maintain high standards, it is important that there should be clear lines of responsibility and command. Operational effectiveness and cohesion cannot exist if those lines are blurred. In the context of discipline, it is extremely important that those who rule on cases of indiscipline must meet the highest standards, must apply the rule of law in an impartial and fair way and must ensure that human rights are always to the fore when carrying out their duties. In essence, that is the purpose of the Bill. We are setting down in legislation mechanisms to allow the Defence Forces to avail of the talents on offer from the best legal minds.

The reduction in numbers experienced by the Defence Forces as a result of their reorganisation has put pressure on them to maintain their high standards of military law. In 2001, the review of the existing law was carried out by the military law review board. That review led to the passing of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2007, which completely overhauled the old system of military justice in the State and applied civil and legal principles to particular aspects of the military legal process. The Bill attempts to further improve and clarify matters in that area. Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, amend the 2007 Act to expand the scope of the candidature for appointment to two posts, namely, those of military judge and Director of Military Prosecutions. If passed, the Bill will allow individuals who are not members of the Defence Forces to be eligible for consideration for appointment to these posts.

I listened to the debate on the legislation in the Seanad and there was a great deal of discussion with regard to reducing the requirement relating to experience from ten years to eight. I agree with the Minister that it is important to retain a ten-year requirement. There are two reasons for this. First, a similar requirement applies in respect of the appointment of District Court and Circuit Court judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions and, second, as the Minister pointed out, even if it were reduced to eight years, the cohort of people who could be considered for appointment would not be expanded. It would not, therefore, make sense to lower this requirement to eight years. The Minister's proposal in this regard is correct.

Section 7 provides for the appointment of a Circuit Court judge to perform the functions and duties of a military judge where the latter is not available. The section also outlines the circumstances in which a Circuit Court judge can be asked to perform those functions. As already stated, following my initial reading of the Bill I did not have any problem with it. I was of the view that what is being done in this regard represents a prudent move on the part of the Minister, particularly when it is placed in context with the decreasing numbers of personnel within the Defence Forces. That is why I was surprised by the nature of some of the debate which took place in the Seanad. The previous speaker echoed certain aspects of what was stated in the Upper House.

I read with interest the contributions on the Bill by Senators Denis O'Donovan and Rónán Mullen. Both Senators raised various questions with regard to the reasons why the Bill was brought forward and queried the motives of the Minister. For example, Senator Mullen stated:

With all the talk about widening the pool and ensuring competition, the back-story to the legislation raises the suspicion that the provision is not simply about ensuring competition in the future but is designed to eliminate the competition in the present...

while Senator Denis O'Donovan stated:

Let us remove the fluff from the Bill and get rid of the notion that the Bill contains measures to expand the pool of people who are entitled to be appointed as judges. If we take away the flesh and get down to the bone, we can see the truth of the contention I made that this Bill is primarily to facilitate a particular individual and to ensure the Department and the new Minister are not sued in the courts...

I do not know the back story to this matter. I do not even know if there is a back story to it. The Minister clarified the position during his contribution but it is regrettable that this matter was raised during the debate in the Seanad. If individuals had concerns about the Bill when it was published, they could have approached the Department and the Minister without airing this matter publicly. That would have been the proper way to proceed.

As the Minister indicated, some 22 people are awaiting courts martial. It is important that a degree of clarity be brought to the situations of these individuals. That this is what the Bill is designed to achieve. Section 11, as a result of the amendment, will ensure that the position will be rectified. In such circumstances, it is regrettable that we are discussing side issues rather than the substance of the Bill.

I accept that the Minister provided clarification. However, if there is additional information available, I ask that he consider sharing it with Opposition spokespersons by way of a briefing session. This would ensure that everyone would be comfortable in respect of the Bill. I am not trying to muddy the waters but this matter was raised in the Upper House and it was referred to again by the previous speaker. I would not be fulfilling my role as an Opposition spokesperson if I did not comment on it. However, I will say no more on the matter.

The Bill is needed and is welcome because we need to bring clarity to the situation for those awaiting court martial. Therefore, Sinn Féin will support the passage of the Bill without amendment.

See this speech in context