James Heffernan (Labour)

I join with previous speakers in welcoming the Minister to the House and I thank him for his speech. I would like to take this opportunity to give my continued support and best wishes to all of our peacekeepers abroad. Many of my friends have served abroad in places such as Chad and the Lebanon and I wish them continued success.

As the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has outlined the legislation as it stands does not provide for persons who are not members of the Defence Forces to be appointed to the posts of military judge or Director of Military Prosecutions. Hence the need to enact the Defence (Amendment) Bill which is before the House. I contend that as is the case for any other job in the State, a person who is suitably qualified should be allowed go forward for consideration for the post. In many workplaces an employer must go outside some of the criteria laid down to find the best candidate for the job. This is a long established and widely accepted practice, particularly in the private sector.

The Bill proposes that by expanding the criteria beyond membership of the Defence Forces, the potential pool of talent available to the Department will be greatly increased. In doing so, the Bill will make it easier for the Minister to make a more informed decision on who is best to do the job of a military judge. I welcome this measure.

The Bill gives power to the Minister to request that the President of the Circuit Court may temporarily appoint a Circuit Court judge to perform the functions of the military judge in circumstances where, first, no person has been appointed as a military judge, second, if a military judge is unwell and unable to carry out his work and, third, where a military judge appointed cannot properly deal with any matter before him or her by reason of the fact that he or she has a personal interest in the matter or personal knowledge of the facts or the parties that may prejudice the hearing. Will the Minister provide an example of when this third scenario could come into play? I would have taken as given that a person with a personal connection in a particular case would not be allowed to preside over the case. Have problems arisen in this regard?

A case which was reported at around this time last year caused me to wonder about this matter. A trooper serving in a barracks close to me who had been in the service for 13 years arrived at work one hour late on 14 January this year, in the middle of what has become known as the "big freeze". As a result, she was fined and given a severe reprimand, the most serious judgment below a jail sentence or dishonourable discharge. She was also asked to consider whether her future lay in the Army. Another individual travelling with the trooper was also late but was not punished.

I am concerned about the back-story discussed by Senator Mullen. I hope the Bill is not a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If it introduces a fairer and more transparent approach in the legislation governing the Defence Forces and the manner in which individuals are appointed to various positions, I will welcome it.