Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

246. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the steps he has taken to respond to the issues raised by a person (details supplied). [28810/16]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ex-Lieutenant Dónal de Róiste was retired by the President, acting on the advice of the Government, with effect from 27 June 1969. In the period since his retirement, Mr. de Róiste has continued to assert that the reasons for his retirement from the service were never made clear to him.

Following on from a full debate on 10 March 2010, Seanad Éireann adopted a resolution which included a provision that the Government would ask the Judge Advocate General to select a nominee to carry out a review of the documentation on Mr. de Róiste’s file to determine whether, on the basis of the documentation available to the Defence Forces at the time of the decision to compulsorily retire him, that decision was a reasonable one.

Following advice from the Attorney General, the then Minister for Defence twice wrote to Mr. de Róiste, via his solicitors, indicating that he proposed to establish the review on the basis of the Seanad motion and enclosing a copy of the proposed Terms of Reference. His solicitors replied indicating that they were concerned by what they termed the restricted nature of the draft Terms of Reference.

In 2015 following a review of the file, the Department sought further advice from the Attorney General. Based on the advice of the Attorney General, the Terms of Reference of the original review were revised. The then Minister for Defence, Mr. Simon Coveney, T.D., contacted Mr. de Roiste’s solicitors in this regard, who have not accepted the revised Terms of Reference.

The Private Secretary of Minister Paul Kehoe, T.D., wrote to Mr. de Róiste on 22 July 2016, requesting that he reply, through his Solicitors, within 21 days with a view to reaching agreement on this matter. In the absence of agreement on the proposed Terms of Reference, it is not practical to advance the matter any further.