John McGahon (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has delivered on his commitment and I thank him for that. Several months ago when he stated that the report would be initiated, he gave a clear and definitive timeframe in respect of when he would come back to the House and he has fulfilled that commitment today. I thank him for that. I also thank him and his officials for the engagement they have afforded me and every other Senator. He is one of the few people in recent years who has put a significant effort into this issue and that is to be commended. As regards the report, on one level it is quite disappointing that it is 480 pages long as it is difficult to delve into a document of that length and be able to debate and give a considered response on the issue five or six hours later. I am sure the Minister will accept that.

I was struck by several issues in the report that I wish to address briefly. The first relates to An Bonn Jadotville and the concept that some veterans or the review group itself believed Senators were trying to diminish its seriousness. I wish to take this opportunity to put on the record that that is absolutely not the case. An Bonn Jadotville was awarded in 2017, perhaps as a result of political pressure led by Senator Craughwell and other Members of this House several years ago who decided to get the issue back on the agenda. That was a great job done well. We were not trying to diminish the record of that medal in any sense; rather, we were trying to ensure that the other medals recommended by Commandant Quinlan in the 1960s were awarded and that all those involved get proper recognition. It does not sit easily with me that parts of the report state that there was the potential to create a two-tiered system of veterans because that not the case. I wish to take this opportunity to state that I certainly do not believe that claim to be accurate.

Another part of the report into which I delved in detail relates to the views of the group on the debate that took place in the Seanad on 11 November 2020. The presentation of that debate in the report is quite selective. It paints several Senators, including all those currently present in the Chamber, as glorified ambulance chasers pushing some sort of political agenda. I thought about those words before I used them. I have never had any political agenda whatsoever on this issue. All Senators have political agendas but this is the one issue on which no Member had a political agenda. It was a great example of coming together across party lines. There was no one-upmanship or political agendas; it was about trying to just get this issue back on the table for discussion. We did so and, thankfully, the Minister then instituted the review group, which is what all Senators sought. I take offence at some of the language used in the report in respect of Senators and this House. For example, it states:

rather unwittingly the Seanad debate seemed intent on sowing renewed division by creating two classes of Jadotville veterans ... [it] seemed to ignore An Bonn Jadotville, and showed little awareness that to award further medals would be a divisive act amongst the veterans still living.

Another point that struck me appears towards the end of the report, where it states: "No politician cared enough about the Jadotville veterans to even discuss with the Independent Review Group the possibility of talking to the group or making a submission on behalf of any veteran or veterans." That view is contradicted three sentences later, when the report states that no political parties or outside influences should have any input on this in the first instance. All Senators who contributed to the debate last November made the point that the Government and politicians have no role whatsoever in deciding what medals are awarded, though I can understand how that may not be the view of the layman or the public. Decisions relating to the awarding of medals are totally within the remit of the Army and the wider Defence Forces, which is the proper way to go about it. Never in a million years would I have thought it acceptable for me, as a politician and a Member of this House who tried to advocate for an independent review group to be established and who, to be perfectly truthful, has little or no military experience, to decide whether the correct military procedure was followed. I am not a military historian. It would have been wrong or inappropriate for me or another politician pushing this issue to make a review or a submission or to appear before the committee. I was more than happy to leave that to the professionals, namely, the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of Jadotville or to campaigning on this issue.

However, I would like to have made a submission after what I have read about myself or Senators Wall and Craughwell in the report. I would love to have had the opportunity to respond to some of the points made in the report. I have studied history. I love history. If I was not a politician, I would love to be a historian. The references in the report to the Seanad debate would give a Martian or someone from outer space reading the report in 20 years the impression that the politicians involved did not know what they were doing, muddled the whole thing up and were motivated by some sort of nefarious political reason. With all due respect, that is the view I got from reading the section of the report dealing with the Seanad debate.

The report includes quotes from veterans in respect of the debate and they are entitled to hold those views but the review group used selective quotes taken from hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of interviews to back up the narrative that what happened in this Chamber six months or seven months ago was wrong. I would be more accepting of the section if it included a negative quote in respect of the debate followed by a positive quote. I know from my own experience the number of people to whom I have spoken who were directly involved with Jadotville or have family members who were so involved and were delighted with and appreciative of what happened in the House last November. It is perfectly acceptable to include quotes from people who did not like or accept what happened here last November but, in the interests of transparency and fairness, the views of those on both sides of the issue should have been presented for posterity so that historians or others looking at the report in the future can see it is a clear and balanced presentation of the issue. That is my view on how the Seanad is addressed in the report. Some of the language it uses in connection with the debate is politely condescending.

Another point I wish to note is that the report states, "as evident in the Seanad debate and the political pressure coming from County Councils, and other bodies and individuals". There was certainly no county councillor or anyone else pushing me to bring this issue forward; I just believed it was absolutely the right thing to do.If we had not pushed this nine months ago, we would not have this independent review board in the first instance. I said in November, which is not acknowledged in this, that if the independent review board turns around, having acknowledged all of the information, and still says it will not award or recommend anything, that is fair enough. I said it then and I say it now. The Minister has done everything he can today. On page 10 it states: "The veil of silence cast over the Battle of Jadotville for decades, and the stigmatising at all levels of those who fought bravely and survived Jadotville, does the Defence Forces no credit whatsoever. This must never happen again.".

Let us pray to God that is the case.