Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey. Senator Harris has been working on this matter for some time and he discussed it with me on many occasions during the past year. For both of us, it has almost become an affair of the heart. It takes a great deal of courage to place a public apology on the record in the way Senator Harris did during his contribution. The Senator is of the view that he made mistakes in respect of this issue in the past. What I like about Senator Harris, and this brought me back 30 years, is that he is still able to quote Karl Marx.

The most important aspect to recognise is that we took a great deal of time to frame this motion. The Minister of State will note that the motion does not contain allegations against anybody. No one is rushing to judgement in respect of anyone else. No reflection is cast on either the authorities or the President of the day. It is extremely important to Senator Harris and me that this be made absolutely clear. When reading the background material to this case, I was struck by a saying my grandmother used to use which goes: "Show me your friends and I will tell you who you are". Like all old sayings, there might be an element of truth in it but it rarely tells the whole story.

I would like the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, to cast his mind back to the day we first met in September 1965. He was shown into room 103 or 102, I cannot recall which, and I ended up in room 120. We had many colleagues in that very lively and vibrant house; we were in the habit of bringing all types of people to our common room and we had all types of arguments. It was where I learned that the only good day was one when we all argued. One of the people in the house at the time was Conchubhair de Róiste, as the authorities called him. The Minister of State will recall that he was a colleague of ours and we knew him as Con Roche. During the course of the years 1965 to 1967 we might have had John Healy in our common room to speak with us, but characters - as we called them - also came in and out as did friends. I remember two in particular, whom we referred to as "the dog" and "the duck". The person referred to as "the duck" is the man at the centre of our discussions, Dónal de Róiste. I have to confess a personal acquaintance with the Roche family, as the Minister of State and I knew Con Roche very well and to a lesser extent we knew Dónal de Róiste.

I want to confirm, having been there, that there is no doubt there were shady characters at the time. During those years, the price of a pint was 2s 5d and I had 10s to spend on a Saturday night. That was the price of four pints on Merrion Row, in either O'Donoghue's or Teach Uí Néill across the road from it, and the 4p bus fare back to Drumcondra. All of these people were in that milieu. O'Donoghue's pub was the heart and soul of all that was going on in Ireland at the time. The Wolfe Tones, the Dubliners and Saor Éire were there as were various groups of republicans. I was as guilty by association - I do not remember if that is the case with the Minister of State - as anyone in those locations. The Minister of State understands that I am making a fair point.

What comes around goes around. The judgment I have to offer my colleagues is that I do not believe Dónal de Róiste was in any way a subversive undermining the State. Do I think he mixed in the wrong company for an Army officer? Yes, without a doubt. Were the Army authorities rightly concerned? Yes. These issues are beyond discussion so what are we speaking about? The Government's amendment is fair but I have two points to make on it. In order to know the man and make a judgment an interpersonal contact is crucial, but the amendment states the Judge Advocate General will nominate somebody to review the case and that Dónal de Róiste will be entitled to make a written submission. To get a true feel of what this is about, an engagement between the nominee and former Lieutenant de Róiste should be allowed.

My second point on the amendment is crucial. Even though it is 40 years later everybody thinks people are on trial. The Army feels that if it goes the wrong way it will reflect badly on it. Let us go beyond that; this is not what anybody is interested in. I am sure the Minister of State shares my view on this so I ask him to ensure that whoever we nominate for this job has no connection, is no way tainted by, and is no way under the influence of the Army in any way. This is no reflection on the Army.

Earlier today, one of my colleagues asked me whether it was fair to assign the attitudes, principles and mores of today to what happened 40 years ago. We have to do this regularly such as when discussing child or physical abuse. It is not fair to do so. Senator Harris and I have confined ourselves to the principles of natural justice in dealing with the matter because they would have been live at the time. We noted in particular that Dónal de Róiste was denied any opportunity to rebut or answer the charges made against him either at trial or at court martial. A court martial, being under the auspices of Army, has slightly different rules of court and perhaps slightly different burdens of proof are required. However, at least it provides a hearing. He was refused any fair opportunity to present his case at the time. He was refused access to legal advice and denied access to the files of the case. He was never informed of the allegations made against him. He was never given the right to be heard in his own defence. The law has been changed to ensure this can never happen again and in that sense we are looking at what we would do were it to happen now.

I would like this matter to be resolved without assigning blame to anybody. Time has passed; perhaps things should have been done differently but we are not saying anybody was wrong. For instance, perhaps it will turn out during the investigation that former Lieutenant de Róiste was organising an auction of Army vehicles in a Dublin barracks, which was critical in terms of the ammunition and armoury kept there, and there is a very strong possibility that the people he drank and played the tin whistle with in the pub suggested that they would go and have a look at what was for sale but were interested in gathering intelligence.

As a former Superintendent of the House stated many years ago, what this young man needed was a kick in the backside and a strong mentor or, as Senator Harris stated, he should have been told to gather evidence against the people. It should have been dealt with differently. This career went wrong unnecessarily. More than that, what concerns us is that it is a life destroyed and a family split. This hurt will not go away and I would like the Minister of State to deal with it in such a way as to relieve a hurt that has been there for more than 40 years.