David Norris (Independent)

I congratulate Senator Harris on raising this matter and, particularly, on scoring a notable triumph. Senator Boyle raised this issue in the Lower House, as I did several times in this House, but neither of us was successful in having the case re-opened. Senator Harris, through his motion and ably supported by Senator O'Toole, has handled the issue in such a particular manner that he has been successful.

We should put on the record our recognition of the important role played by the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey. This matter could easily have been brushed under the carpet again. These steps took moral and political courage and decency on the part of the Government. I am pleased that Senator Harris has accepted the Government's amendment, which is a major step forward. Securing the re-opening of a case that was, in my opinion and that of many others, a travesty of justice is a considerable triumph for Seanad Éireann. The first note must be a positive one, a note of congratulations to Mr. de Róiste.

I compliment Senator Harris on his openness about his marginal involvement in the 1997 presidential election. He did no wrong. When he was contacted by a newspaper, he told the truth. I have no doubt that it was unpalatable to the de Róiste campaign and that sinister forces were around, but they did not include Senator Harris. Rather, they were the major parties, which behaved in a disgraceful way. They hauled this alleged skeleton out of the closest and dangled it in front of the hungry media. I agree with Senator Buttimer that Adi Roche is a remarkable, fine, talented and courageous woman. The media fomented division in the Chernobyl Children's Project. I do not want to strike too much of a negative note because this is a positive evening, but the 1997 events are remembered and must not be allowed to sully any future presidential elections. The motion and its amendment are framed in a careful, well crafted and judicious way, as were the speeches of Senators Kieran Phelan and Boyle.

The facts are stark. Former Lieutenant de Róiste committed no crime and was neither arraigned on nor accused of a crime. He was denied access to legal representation and the possibility of representing himself. He was denied access to documentation that would have been helpful. Each of his human rights was trampled. One cannot argue with the Army, which had the right at the time to do what it did. What it did was morally wrong, but it was within its legal rights.

It has been stated by both sides of the House that this situation could not recur, but I am sorry to tell them that they are wrong. This situation, described so eloquently by Senator Harris as Kafkaesque, is occurring repeatedly on the instructions of Ministers against asylum seekers, not Irish citizens. I have raised a number of cases in which people applied for asylum. The principle is exactly the same. They were denied, but they were told that they could appeal. To do so, they were told that they would need to include the reasons for the original refusal. When they asked to be told the grounds for their refusals, they were denied those reasons. It is the same thing, in that they were tried and convicted behind closed doors on rumour, gossip and scandal.

Each of us could be convicted in this way. As the Minister of State indicated, Senators Harris and O'Toole mix in bohemian company. They could have been held guilty by attainder. All of us could. God knows, I was never a singer of republican ballads or a fan of the Wolfe Tones, but I knew Ronny Drew well and I occasionally attended O'Donoghue's. Among my close personal friends were two extraordinarily talented artists who were very much on the fringes of the most extreme republican movements, including Saor Éire. I disagreed with and disdained their views, but they were valued friends and fascinating people. Could I have been held guilty of the same offence? Perhaps I was foolish to mix in bohemian circles, but it is what literary people did in those days.

It was unfair and wrong that former Lieutenant de Róiste was found against in that manner and summarily cashiered out of the Army. The only parallel I can think of would be the unfrocking of a priest, which occurs rarely despite the possibility of there being many times in which it should happen. As a result, he was not invited to reunions of the mess. He told me this because I have been involved in the case and have discussed it with Senator Harris in recent months. Former Lieutenant de Róiste was frozen out. Tragically, his family was divided and his relationship with close family members fractured. It must have been appallingly painful for him to become a negative element in his sister's presidential campaign.

I share the admiration for Mr. Don Mullen, who wrote a good book on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

A point has already been touched upon, but I wish to emphasise it. The provisions in the Government's amendment are fair and reasonable. The amendment calls for "the Judge Advocate General to select a nominee to carry out a review of the documentation on Mr. de Róiste's file to determine". This sounds like an academic, legalistic exercise, which is appropriate, but Senators Harris and O'Toole have superbly pointed out that there is a human element. Shocked by his dismissal from the Army, former Lieutenant de Róiste entered an unusual mental state and was not capable of dealing with the situation. He is a highly artistic and unusual person, perhaps an inappropriate person to have chosen a career in the Army. It is possible that, unless the strong suggestion that former Lieutenant de Róiste be interviewed is included in the brief of the Judge Advocate General's nominee, the process could remain at the level of an arid and futile legal exercise. I hope not, as I am sure that whoever is chosen will be a person of eminence and intelligence, but will the Minister of State ensure that this distinguished person will be requested to include a direct interview with former Lieutenant de Róiste among his or her activities so he or she can get a feeling for Mr. de Róiste's personality and the case's background?