Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

7. To ask the Minister for Defence in view of the fact that only two officers were ever retired under section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954, as prescribed by Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1)(f) in the interests of the service, the only clause denying a court martial or right to make a defence, which was removed in 1985, if he will initiate a full independent inquiry into those cases, in the interests of natural justice. [1204/15]

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question refers to a clause in the Defence Act and subsequent regulations which were overturned and amended 30 years ago whereby the President could forcefully retire a person without that person having any right to a hearing or court martial or even knowing the circumstances against him or her. In light of the fact that the Minister has furnished me with the information that in the entire history of the Defence Forces only two individuals were ever dismissed under this clause and that it was amended 30 years ago, would the Minister revisit those cases on an independent basis to achieve justice for the people at the heart of them?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would first like to correct the records of the House. As the Deputy will be aware the military authorities previously advised me that 12 officers were retired from the Defence Forces between 1954 and 1985 under the provisions of section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954 as prescribed by Defence Force Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1). This was communicated to the Deputy in response to Question No. 112 on 11 December 2014. This response reflected that two of these officers were recorded on file as having been retired “in the interests of the service”. I am now informed that further investigation has shown that while these officers were in fact retired under the provisions of Defence Forces Regulation A15, they were not retired “in the interests of the service”. The officers in question were retired under a different provision of the regulation for failing, during courses of training, to maintain satisfactory progress. I have been advised by the military authorities that these two cases date back to the 1950s and involve two officers who failed essential flying tests and were unsuitable for transfer to other branches of the army on age grounds. This being the case, I can see no necessity in initiating an independent inquiry into those cases.

I can therefore advise the Deputy, based on the information now provided by the military authorities that only one person has been identified as being retired “in the interests of the service” as per Defence Forces Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1). This case was the subject of a resolution adopted by Seanad Éireann on 10 March 2010. The Seanad resolution included a provision that the Government would ask the Judge Advocate General to select a nominee to carry out a review of the documentation on file to determine “whether on the basis of the documentation and information available to the Defence Forces at the time, the decision to compulsorily retire” the officer “was a reasonable one.” The individual in question was also offered the opportunity to make written submissions to the reviewer based on the relevant documentation. The Government remains willing to carry out this review within the terms of reference of the Seanad resolution and subject to the person’s agreement and co-operation.

I would like to clarify for the Deputy that none of the clauses of paragraph 18(1) of Defence Forces Regulation A15 were removed in 1985. An amendment was added to the regulation in 1985 to require that the reasons for a proposed retirement in the interests of the service be communicated to an officer and that he or she be given a reasonable opportunity of making representations.

Finally, can I say-----

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry; we are way over time on this.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I just say-----

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are over time. I call Deputy Daly.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not mind. I am dying to hear-----

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to be helpful.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all very well, but Deputies Wallace and Murphy have questions as well. I am against the clock here. It is not my fault.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. It is difficult when extra time is taken. There was a huge amount of detail in the Minister's reply. The bottom line in terms of this regulation is that nobody can be dismissed from the Army now on the basis on which this individual was dismissed. We now know that he was the only individual to be dismissed in this way. He has spent a lifetime dealing with the shame of being dismissed without knowing the reasons for his dismissal, without being given the right to have his good name vindicated, without any evidence being given against him and without having the right to attend a court martial. I am a little thrown by the correcting of an error in the Dáil record. I find it surprising that this has happened yet again. Would it have been corrected if I had not tabled this subsequent question? I am reminded that when this individual went before the courts, a document that was of key strategic importance to his case was found to have been missing for 32 years and was not presented to the Supreme Court. This document would have shown that before this man was forcibly made to retire, he made legal representation through his solicitors to the Defence Forces but did not receive any reply. This 70-year-old man has spent his life seeking justice for a decision that was made. We now know he is the only person in the history of the State to be dismissed in this way. He has carried this for 45 years.

I am not clear on the resolution to which the Minister has referred. There was a great deal of detail in his answer. Is he now saying he will give some opening to a new independent evaluation of this matter, given that the High Court has said on the record that the man in question, who is aging in years, did not receive fair procedures?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to begin by correcting something the Deputy has just said. It is possible that somebody could be forcibly retired from the Defence Forces under this article now.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would have a right to reply.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be likely to happen in very exceptional circumstances only.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have a right to the evidence.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have a right to appeal.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I spoke to the Deputy about this matter outside the Chamber, I told her that I was anxious to be helpful. However, I am somewhat constrained in terms of what I can say and commit to on the record here and in terms of what I can legally do. I am anxious that we treat this case with fairness. I am keen to ensure any possible review of this case is consistent with what the Seanad called for a number of years ago. Obviously and more importantly, the review should be welcomed and accepted as fair by the individual concerned. I intend to write to him to outline what is possible at this stage. I hope we will be able to make progress in this regard.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comments. I emphasise that if we are finally going to do this again, it should be done properly after all this time. I hope it will be done in the spirit of getting a fair result. I am grateful for the Minister's indication of his willingness to do that. I hope there can be a resolution.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important not to predetermine an outcome.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two sides to this story. That is why I think any process that is proceeded with now should be fair and should involve a full assessment of the case, in as much as that is possible, given that this happened quite a long time ago. As I have said, I intend to write to the individual concerned to outline what I consider to be a fair way forward that is consistent with everything I have outlined. I hope we will be able to progress on that basis.