Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

That was the former Minister's concern. My concern was not to address the position of any individual but to put in place coherent legislation in respect of which there could be no confusion as to eligibility criteria and to go further than it appears the former Minister proposed to do, namely, by extending eligibility to a broader pool of people. I did not wish simply to address the circumstances of one individual. As to why I did not refer to the individual in question earlier, while his circumstances indicated a problem in the legislation, contrary to what is being suggested by Independent and Fianna Fáil Party Senators, the Bill I produced was not designed to hand this post to any particular individual.

The former Minister also said something else that was important. He referred in his letter to the appropriateness of amending the current legislation and re-running the competition on the basis of new legislation. He then stated it would be left to the new Minister to consider the nature of the legislation that should be enacted. At least the former Minister had some sense of decency and concern for the plight in which the individual in question found himself. He recognised the inadequacy of the legislation and the need to remove any uncertainty as to the eligibility criteria. He did this in February 2011, which was six months after the decision made at the beginning of the previous September in which it was apparently indicated there was confusion about eligibility.

I cannot fathom the reason it is being suggested that what I am doing is in some way inappropriate or that anyone has led me up the garden path, nor I can fathom the reason officials of my Department and RACO have been subject to criticism. I reiterate that I have met with representatives of RACO and all associations in the Defence Forces, as any good Minister for Defence would do. I have not discussed the appointment in question with RACO or asked it who it believes should be the military judge. I have not specifically discussed with RACO the circumstances of the man in question, nor have I consulted it on the detail of the legislation. This Bill was drafted with the assistance of the Office of the Attorney General and published. RACO did not have sight of it any sooner than any Member of the House, either in its drafting or completion under my watch. I make that clear.

Senator O'Donovan should apologise to the gentleman who found himself in this position last summer for bringing his predicament into the public domain in circumstances where it did not serve any public good or benefit. He should also apologise to RACO for suggesting it has done something wrong or inappropriate.

Yesterday, Senator Mullen stated: "In any contact I have had with any person to do with these issues, any interests have been fully declared to me." A small number of individuals, four in total, have an interest in this matter. Perhaps the Senator will state with which individual he was in contact and the nature of the interest he or she declared to him. Is it one of the individuals who would benefit from the approach he has taken on this issue? Is it one of the individuals who believes their possibility of eligibility to be selected as the military judge would substantially increase if for some reason I did not do what I want to do, namely, significantly extend the eligibility criteria? I have absolutely no doubt this legislation is in the public interest and in the interests of both the Defence Forces and the individuals who are awaiting the determination of their cases by the military tribunal. It is in the public interest that we bring this issue to a sense of closure, allow the Defence Forces to get on with what they do best and let the House get on with dealing with other legislation.