Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

The Minister did not make the matter clear. He should listen to Senators rather than doodling with his iPhone.

The Minister came into the House because Senators dragged information out of him. He could have made this issue much simpler. As I stated on other legislation, if Members and spokespersons - I am my party's spokesperson on justice and defence - were properly briefed and informed of the purpose of legislation, circumstances such as these may not arise. We are swimming in the dark. While the Minister could have indicated what issues were at play, he chose not to do so.

I have stated at all times matters of fact which have come to my attention. I expressed deep concern about RACO's involvement in this matter. The Minister has not, by any means, allayed my fears in this regard. He indicated that Senator Mullen and I are pursuing a particular agenda because four people stand to benefit from the position we have taken. Hundreds of people in the Defence Forces, including junior members of RACO, and many retired members of the Army are concerned about this matter. I would like the issue to be resolved as I am deeply concerned by the manner in which it has come before the House. The Minister referred to Punch and Judy. What has occurred is more akin to a game of smoke and mirrors. Legislation was introduced without the Minister providing the background to it. As I stated, if I had been fully briefed about the full circumstances surrounding the Bill, I may have been amenable to it being pushed through the House. However, having tabled a couple of amendments in good faith, the Minister chose to be insulting and denigrated my attempt to bring some logic to the issue. In his contribution on Second Stage the Minister said that while the Defence Forces are introducing more clarity on job specification for such posts which will make clear whether being a barrister or solicitor is or is not a requirement for a particular job, the fact remains that some individuals have been undertaking such work over many years and some clarity needs to be brought as to whether this service meets the service requirements for appointment. That would stick closely to the CV of whoever the Minister is talking about.

The Minister did not address the issue of whether his Department was concerned about a possible action if this individual does not succeed. An eminent senior counsel has said this is important because we are in a financial predicament - we can blame ourselves or the banks - but is it likely that an action will be taken by that individual? According to this opinion he has what is determined as a legitimate expectation. This would be a very serious case and a financially damaging one for the Department. The Minister may not be aware of such intimation. If I was representing a person whether in the case of an accident, riparian water rights or whatever, I would suggest we obtain eminent senior counsel opinion before taking a case to court. That eminent senior counsel - I have no doubt this is in the public domain, given that a journalist was able to tell me he or she had a copy of it today - was not doing this for the sake of a shot in the dark. The Minister has not allayed my fears. As I said earlier the incoming secretary comes with clean hands. The Minister came into the House and after much dragging and kicking gave us some information that is helpful at this stage but I am not satisfied with the response. The Minister is trying to blame this side of the House. I feel no shame or guilt for having raised these issues in good faith and, at least, the Minister accepted that.