Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1962 > Select Committee on Statutory Instruments (Appointed 21st March, 1962) > Report No. 01 (1963) - Statutory Instruments [11]

MIONTUAIRISCÍ NA FIANAISE

(MINUTES OF EVIDENCE)

Dé Céadaoin, 21 Samhain, 1962.

Wednesday, 21st November, 1962.

The Committee sat at 4.30 p.m.

SENATOR G. O’BRIEN in the chair.

DEFENCE FORCE REGULATIONS

Mr. P. J. Kilcullen (An Roinn Cosanta) called and examined.

17. Chairman.—Mr. Kilcullen, you know that what is under consideration is the question of Defence Forces Regulations?—Yes.

18. Senator Sheldon.—The question has arisen about the lack of any proper citation of authority. I gather from correspondence with the Department that their view is that there are two aspects of the matter. One is that Commanding Officers, I take it, understand the position and, secondly, in the case of a number of new regulations or amending regulations, quite a number of sections of the Act come into play. I should like to hear you, Mr. Kilcullen, elaborate these points. My view would be that the sole purpose of putting into an Act the requirement that regulations shall be laid before the Houses is that it shall be clear to the Houses what is happening. That is the only purpose of putting such a stipulation into an Act, and there is no doubt that the absence of any citation of authority makes it more difficult for the members of the Houses to know on what the Department and the Minister are relying for their authority. As far as this Committee is concerned, it means that the officials of the Committee have to browse through an Act searching for the authority, and I think that is undesirable. I think the Department must be aware of what sections give them the authority, and there does not appear to me to be any real difficulty in citing the relevant sections. I wonder, Mr. Kilcullen, if you can elaborate the Department’s point of view, as to what their difficulty is or why it should be administratively difficult for them to quote the authority they have for making any particular regulations?—I think, Senator, that we stated in the memorandum which we forwarded on 21st August last that there are 61 sections in the Defence Forces Acts, 1954 to 1960, under which the Minister may make regulations which are exempt from presentation, and there are 53 sections under which the Minister may make regulations not so exempt. This point was raised originally in 1956 and the Department adverted to the difficulty in a comprehensive regulation of citing all the sections, and suggested that it would not be of any great help if they all were cited. If the regulation opened in the normal form “that pursuant to . . .”, and then went on to cite possibly 30 sections of the Act, you would still have to go back to the Act to find them.

19. That may be true, but at least would you not know where precisely the statutory authority was to be found?—Having read the regulation you would still have to go back to the Act to relate the paragraph to the particular section. The Act contains, as you know, in the Fourth Schedule a series of matters under which the Minister may make regulations not inconsistent with the first part of the Act, and, thereafter, it provides, under various parts of the Act, that regulations may be made under this part of the Act in relation to the matter in this particular part of the Act. If we went on to cite all these sections at the outset of the regulations, which is the point that you have mostly in mind, due to the fact that that is the normal form of Statutory Instruments, we would be citing possibly 30 or 40 sections for you and you would not be any further on.

20. Senator Ryan.—We would be considerably further on because we would know at least the sections that you purport to rely on in making a regulation. At the moment, if a regulation is made and there is any doubt as to whether you have authority to make it have we not to start at Section 1 of the Act and go through the whole Act?—Not necessarily, because the Act is divided into parts and a regulation will on its face show whether it is a matter of discipline, whether it is a matter of pay or whether it is a matter of organisation. You would not necessarily have to work all through the Act to find it.

21. Perhaps I am over-stating that position. It is necessary to go through the Act and go to a great deal of difficulty to find out what section you might be referring to. If the sections are referred to, will you not at least know that it is one of the sections quoted?—I take it the fear in your mind is that the Minister might make a regulation for which he had no authority.

Senator Ryan.—It is a function of this Committee to ensure that Ministers do not purport to make regulations for which they have no power. It makes it extremely difficult, as far as the Department of Defence is concerned, to know whether the Minister is keeping within his powers. You do not even purport to say where he has the authority. In most other cases the regulation refers directly to where the authority is. It is quite easy to fix where a Minister has the authority.

Mr. Kilcullen.—If the over-riding consideration is that in the making of Defence Force Regulations this Committee is to be satisfied as to the form and the manner it should take there is not any answer but if it is taken into account that this Committee is one of a number of interests——

Senator Ryan.—I appreciate fully that the Department has its own point of view and, that that is to put things in the simplest way possible and with the least trouble. That is quite understandable but the Members of the Oireachtas itself have a duty to ensure that the Government do not exercise more power than in fact it is given by the Oireachtas. The duty of this Committee is to keep a watch and make sure that that is done. In this Committee we are merely making sure that any particular Department or any particular Minister is not exercising power he does not have. I know it would be very much easier for all Departments if they did not have to cite their authority, and so on, but they have to do that.

Mr. Kilcullen.—It is a comparatively simple matter with Statutory Instruments in the S.I. series; there you will find that pursuant to Section 6 in such and such an Act the following order is made, but if you have to start off by saying that pursuant to Sections 17, 18, 26, 27 and 28, subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) then it is not a very simple matter.

22. Senator Sheldon.—Mr. Kilcullen, you have mentioned the possibility of 30 or 40 of these sections being mentioned. There are 318 sections in the Act and to reduce the search from the point of view of this Committee to one-tenth of the sections, is that not at least worth something?—It would be. Out of 318 sections there are over 100 under which regulations may be made. The particular matters are cited in the Fourth Schedule.

Senator Sheldon.—My view of the matter is that at the time of making the regulations the Department should cite where they get their authority so that it is on record. It appears to me to be a relatively simple matter to put it in writing. It must be in writing anyway. When regulations are made the authority is cited for the satisfaction of the Department itself.

Mr. Kilcullen.—Not necessarily. When a regulation is being drafted, the officer drafting it will have the Act in front of him. He will not necessarily record on his draft that the regulation is made in pursuance of, say, Section 17(3). He would be satisfied about that before he started to draft.

Senator Sheldon.—The senior officials in the Department must be much less curious than this Committee.

Mr. Kilcullen.—When the regulations reach me, for instance, I have the Act in front of me and I know from looking at the matter as set out in the regulation how I can refer very easily to that part of the Act and say that it is a matter which may be regulated.

23. Senator Sheldon.—In these regulations even part of the Act is not cited. There is no indication where in the 318 sections it is. The sole purpose of putting into a statute the provision that it should be brought to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas is to let the members see that their authority has not been exceeded. Whatever the internal troubles of the Department may be, are they not obliged to satisfy the Houses of the Oireachtas on that point?—Would the Senator go that far? Out of 104 sections, regulations may be made under 61 sections which do not have to be presented to the Houses.

Senator Sheldon.—They need not be cited, of course.

Mr. Kilcullen.—They are exempted from presentation. Are they any the less important on that account?

Senator Sheldon.—That is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide.

Mr. Kilcullen.—It was the Attorney General who exempted them.

Senator Sheldon.—The Oireachtas must have agreed that they need not be presented.

Mr. Kilcullen.—The Oireachtas agreed that exemption could be given.

Senator Ryan.—The very fact that there is a distinction made means that in all the more important regulations the sections should be cited.

Mr. Kilcullen.—One regulation is as important as another?

Senator Ryan.—That is a matter of opinion. The fact is that the Oireachtas decided that certain regulations must be presented and others need not. It is implied in that, that where it is necessary to show the authority, it must be shown.

Mr. Kilcullen.—You said the Oireachtas decided that.

24. Senator Sheldon.—There is a slight misunderstanding here. I understand that the Attorney General’s certificate has nothing to do with presentation to Parliament. It has to deal with the publicity to be given to the promulgation of Statutory Instruments and with whether or not they should be printed. If Parliament insist that they shall be laid before it, its intention is to assure itself that the regulations are made in accordance with the statute passed by it. The Attorney General’s certificate has nothing to do with that. He cannot over-ride the Parliamentary prescription laid down in the Act.

Mr. Kilcullen.—Has he authority under the Statutory Instruments Act to exempt?

Senator Sheldon.—From printing and publicity requirements in the case of instruments of purely local or limited interest. As I understand it that point has nothing to do with presentation to Parliament. What we are concerned with is that the document presented to us shall be clear to us in its authority. There is the point that some of the documents presented here are vague in themselves, e.g., D.F.R. A.7—Amendments. Amendment No. 21. D.F.R. R.5—Amendments. Amendment No. 82 and D.F.R. R.6—Amendments. Amendment No. 22. They may be quite understandable to Commanding Officers to whom they are issued and who know that you take out “of 3/9d.” and put in “prescribed in paragraph 344 of Defence Force Regulation S.3”. That leaves this Committee quite vague as to what is happening and as to what the authority is for it, since there is no citation of authority; there is no clear indication of what the intention is as there is no explanatory memorandum to tell us what the Minister is doing when he makes, say, Amendment No. 22. The instrument purports in regard to paragraph 109, which we probably have not seen, to delete in subparagraph (3), line 4, the words “of 3/9d.” and substitute “prescribed in paragraph 344 of Defence Force Regulation S.3.” It also refers to “amendment 22, W.E.F. 9/10/62” and states when it shall come into effect. What Parliament is to make of that I do not know.

Mr. Kilcullen.—The form of the Defence Force Regulations has not changed in forty years. They have always been made in this form and it is a form which, incidentally, is common to all armies in all countries. For instance, I have here the British Regulations and their amendments. There is one Regulation for allowances in the British Army; the amendments follow the form just mentioned. They delete a particular number or a particular amount and another number or amount is substituted therefor. The only other way of doing that is to recite the entire section. For example—“Delete paragraph ‘X’ and insert new paragraph as follows”. In that case every officer in the Army, on getting that regulation, would have to read the paragraph in full, compare it with the existing paragraph to see where the change is, but in this way you get to the paragraph and to the amendment saying—“Delete 3/9d. in line 7 and insert 3/10d.”, and that is what he does and then the paragraph is amended and clear.

25. Senator Sheldon.—If he did insert the 3/10d. he would have a certain amount of sympathy, for I do not think it would affect the major issue. But he does not know whether it is 3/10d. or 3/11d.; he must look up the other one.

Mr. Kilcullen.—So far as he is concerned, he turns to paragraph 3. What does that amendment say?

26. Senator Sheldon.—There are two. This adds to our confusion. You get amendment 22 and amendment 82; one gives a reference to paragraph 109 and the other to paragraph 100. The purpose is to delete 3/9d. in line 4, subparagraph 3. Would he put in his amendment under paragraph 3(a) in Defence Force Regulations S.3?

Mr. Kilcullen.—That is an “R” regulation, is it not?

Senator Sheldon.—Yes—R.5 and R.6.

Mr. Kilcullen.—What we were trying to do there was to make it easy for everybody by simply referring to the cost of the ration at 3/9d. They would refer to S.3 only, instead of repeating it over S.3. R.1 (The Reserve of Officers), R.2 (The Reserve of Men), R.4, 5, and 6 (An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and An Slua Muirí), and so on. In future they refer to the one paragraph for that information. Ordinarily, the cost of the ration is under S.3. and it is revised every six months. There would be an amendment for that say—“Delete 3/9d. and insert 3/10d.”—or 3/7d. if it went down.

Senator Sheldon.—To make it easy for everyone? When Mr. Kilcullen says “everyone” he means everyone in the Department.

Mr. Kilcullen.—And the Army. The Army particularly.

27. Senator Sheldon.—Our function is to ensure that these things are being done in accordance with the statutes.

Mr. Kilcullen.—You know that the original regulation is made in accordance with the statutes.

Senator Ryan.—Do we?

Senator Sheldon.—Do we know that? I doubt it.

Mr. Kilcullen.—For instance, its title—D.F.R. S.3—Pay and Allowances—is sufficient to show to what it refers. There is authority to provide for pay and allowances of the Army. You know that is made in accordance with the statutes. Every amendment after that must be in accordance with the Act.

28. Senator Ryan.—Is there a citation at the beginning of it?— No. The citation is at the end— under the provisions of the Act.

Senator Ryan.—As far as this Committee is concerned, it is absolutely incomprehensible, and I have reason to doubt whether it is very much clearer for the members of the Army. I have some practical experience of being in that position. This kind of amendment——

Mr. Kilcullen.—Is not clear to the Army?

Senator Ryan.—It is a constant business of “delete line X and substitute some other line”. This goes on and you substitute again and again. Only a genius could really follow it—whether in the Army or in this Committee.

Mr. Kilcullen.—I know now what you are getting at; that amendments become so numerous and paragraphs are amended so often that it is very difficult to say what is the current position. As you know, what we do there is reprint the whole regulation periodically, citing at the beginning that it includes all the amendments with the dates. Every so often you get a clean reprint of the regulation.

29. Senator Ryan.—What about consolidation?—Consolidation is like this regulation I have here. This is D.F.R. R.5—An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil. We now have a clean print of the position as it stands at the moment; but in two years’ time we will have to do that again, possibly.

30. Is this a consolidated statutory instrument or is it merely a document prepared for reference in the Department?—It is a reprint of the original consolidation. It is the third reprint actually.

31. Senator Sheldon.—Is this a reprint of something which was presented?—The document itself was not presented but it is a reprint of various regulations presented which incorporates the subsequent amendments listed at the beginning of the document.

Senator Sheldon.—If it is consolidated there is no citation that I can see.

Mr. Kilcullen.—There is not but the sections are indicated there to help you.

Senator Sheldon.—They are written in.

Mr. Kilcullen.—They are just written in for this meeting—to give you an idea of the number of citations involved.

32. Senator Sheldon.—They were not in the regulations presented to the House?—No—this was done purely for the benefit of this Committee this evening in order to show you the extent of the citations.

33. Would there be any great administrative difficulty in printing that, instead of writing it in after? —You are at the point, Senator, that when that regulation was being drafted this question had not arisen. That was in 1956 and it has been shelved until now.

Senator Sheldon.—I am referring to the question of the citation.

Mr. Kilcullen.—The Committee accepted the situation in 1956 but you are now raising it again.

34. Senator Ryan.—There are two distinct points about which we are concerned. One is not citing the authority; the other is legislation by reference—that is, continually referring back to previous sections and thus amending them to such an extent that it becomes extremely difficult to know what the original section as amended, and as amended again, adds up to. I understand from the Clerk to the Committee that this point was raised with the Department before. Is that not so?—This might be the point. I quote from a minute received from a previous Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which is dated 9th March, 1956:—

“The Committee appreciate that frequent emendation of some delegated legislation may be necessary, particularly in regard to Defence Force Regulations, the statutes governing which have only recently been codified. They are, however, anxious that each statutory regulation should be easily identifiable and as far as possible should be an entity in itself capable of being construed without reference to any previous instruments.”

Senator Ryan.—That would be the point. It might be difficult to do that every time but the Department has gone very far in the other direction. It seems to me the reason that is being given for not citing the authority and for not codifying the regulations is that it would merely be a great deal of trouble. While it seems to be quite true that it would be a great deal of trouble I do not think it is a reason for not doing it. It so happens that the Department of Defence has possibly more regulations than any other Department and they are very conscious of the amount of trouble involved but we cannot allow a principle to be set aside in the Department just because it happens to be a great deal of trouble to comply with that principle.

Senator Sheldon.—It may be the reason but it is not necessarily an excuse.

Mr. Kilcullen.—I do not agree with that at all. The amending of Defence Force Regulations must be taken into account, first of all, in considering this whole matter. The Army is governed by the Act and by the regulations. Every soldier and every officer—possibly more so, judging from my experience—is conscious of his rights and his entitlement. While the Oireachtas decides to make legislation for the Army in the form of regulations, the soldier and the officer will require that everything affecting him is under a Defence Force Regulation. Defence Force Regulations affect a soldier and an officer from the time he gets up in the morning until the time he goes to bed at night. While you have that system of administration for those things you will have a plethora of regulations. You cannot get away from them and they must be stated, because a soldier is liable to be charged at any time with a breach of the regulations and he is entitled to know what the regulation is.

35. Senator Ryan.—We are not objecting to the number of regulations.

Mr. Kilcullen.—And amendments.

Senator Ryan.—We are objecting on the grounds that the citations are not given and that you are addicted to amending amendments and making the regulations very difficult to follow.

Mr. Kilcullen.—The form of the amendments was the point raised— delete so and so, insert so and so. That is not a principle.

Senator Ryan.—No, it is not. Personally—I cannot speak for the Committee—it seems to me that some amendments should be omitted after a certain stage has been reached. I have seen the Defence Force Regulations at a given time when the book was so full of amendments that it was just incomprehensible to anybody except possibly a few geniuses in headquarters who made them.

Mr. Kilcullen.—I find the officers in the units are never at a loss either and I have a lot of experience of them. We try to get over that by reprinting periodically so that a clear regulation will be in front of them.

36. Senator Ryan.—When was the last date upon which you had a consolidation of all the regulations?— You may not understand this question of consolidation as we understand it. Originally, up to 1937 all regulations in the Army were issued in a yearly series. Take 1928, the first regulation in that year was numbered D.F.R.1, the next D.F.R.2, and so on. Each of these was a separate regulation. You are making the point now that each regulation should be identifiable. These regulations were identifiable in the sense that No. 10 of 1928 might be an amendment of No. 1, but it was a full regulation in itself. It was found that we had thousands of these regulations over the years and latterly it was impossible to keep them up to date. Any officer or anybody, even in the Department who did not religously keep his regulations amended never had a complete set of regulations. The Army complained about the fact that they could not say at any given time what regulations were or were not in force. A committee was set up to go into this whole question and the recommendation of the committee was that the regulations should be grouped under A—Administration, S—Pay and Allowances, R—The Reserve, Q—Quartermaster General’s Branch, and that the regulations should be so grouped. It was also recommended that consolidation of the various matters should be made, that everything under clothing for instance should appear under one regulation and not under a series of regulations. The result of that was that we got a limited number of regulations under the various branch headings—as I said, A— Administration, S—Pay, Q—Quartermaster General. That is what we mean by consolidated regulations. In a moment of aberration somebody promised at some stage that all of these would be put into one volume, but personally I cannot see when that will happen.

37. This was done in the case of the F.C.A.?—That is a complete regulation in itself.

38. Has it been done in the case of any other branch?—Yes, the Reserve of the Men, First Line, the Reserve of Officers, First Line, An Slua Muirí and a new one for the new branch of the Observer Corps. Each of these is self-contained. It contains everything—discipline, pay, clothing, everything you can think of in relation to that particular Corps.

39. Senator Sheldon.—This is a very complex question. What baffles me is that even where consolidation in some form takes place the rules are still not kept. For instance, there is a consolidation as from the 26th July last dealing with telegrams, telephones, etc. There is no citation in it as to what the authority is. How many sections of the Act are concerned? Mr. Kilcullen is making this point and keeps talking about 40 or 60 sections. I may be wrong but I think that many regulations do not require citations like that. Is that not so, Mr. Kilcullen? —Naturally there are some which would require only one.

40. Yet there is no citation in connection with authority at all. Would not the preparation of a consolidated instrument provide an opportunity to re-organise the whole thing?— The Senator is going a bit beyond the position. The position was that the Select Committee raised this in 1956. We furnished a memorandum giving our views and we have not heard anything from the Committee until now. Therefore, we took it that we were to proceed as before.

41. What was your reply in 1956? —In 1956 our reply gave our reasons why we would not cite the sections and again we repeated that last August. This is the first we have heard since.

Senator Ryan.—We are not suggesting that you were not complying with something you were required to do at that time. We are merely reviewing the position again.

Mr. Kilcullen.—Senator Sheldon asked why we had not done it again.

Senator Sheldon.—I am only stating the views of the Seanad. I had not the opportunity of being on this Committee before.

42. Senator Ryan.—Senator Sheldon’s point is that the Department of Defence must cite its authority on every occasion. Surely when consolidating it is a good opportunity to cite the authority? Because the Department got away with not citing the authority on certain occasions, do they consider that it is something which they need not do now?—I do not agree at all. The matter has been periodically at issue since 1956 but there has never been any definitive ruling or any firm conclusion about it.

Senator Sheldon.—I understand that since 1956 the Committee has reported its views particularly in the matter of codification. I would be interested if Mr. Kilcullen would give me the reference where a Committee of the Senate gave what you might call a blank cheque to the Department of Defence to go ahead in this regard. I also understand that what happened in 1956 was that the Department had difficulty in regard to staff and codification but that this would all be put right when codification took place.

Mr. Kilcullen.—They did not say that. What they said was that due to shortages of staff they had difficulty in completing consolidation. That is one thing. That was so. The second thing is citation and the third thing is form.

43. Senator Sheldon.—May I take it, Mr. Kilcullen, that you are making the point that a Statutory Instruments Committee of the Senate actually gave its opinion to the Department that they need not make any citations or codifications?—That it need not make any citation.

Senator Sheldon.—I understand the Department had been given time to consolidate its regulations and that if there has been no follow-up it was in order to give the Department time to get this rather difficult job done and not for the purpose of giving them a blank cheque.

Mr. Kilcullen.—The question of citations was not understood at any time to have been decided, or that the sections should be cited in the regulation. I do not think your reports would reveal that.

Senator Sheldon.—The Clerk to the Committee is getting the reports at the moment.

44. Senator Cole.—Was it very difficult to put in the citations in this consolidated regulation?—As you can see, they are written in the margins for the benefit of the Committee.

Was it very difficult?—It was. It meant taking the list right through to relate each section and writing them in.

45. Surely if we take any one of them it would relate to a separate regulation?—No, that is one regulation made as it stands.

46. Were they all made at the same time?—Yes.

Senator Ryan.—I thought these were regulations where each section incorporated amendments.

Mr. Kilcullen.—That is a reprint of the original regulations, incorporating amendments. The point you are making about our regulations so amended is that you find them difficult to read.

47. Senator Ryan.—The instrument, therefore, is not as it originally was, and is amended?—It incorporates the amendments. It is not as it originally was. It incorporates that list of amendments at the beginning.

48. It was possible, although apparently difficult, to prepare that for the benefit of the Committee this evening?—I thought it might be of some help to you.

49. We appreciate that; but, if it is possible to do it for this purpose, why not have it done when they are being printed—and you would have your citation?—The question had never been definitively ruled on.

Senator Sheldon.—As I understand it, in 1955 a general opinion was given by this Committee that these things should be done in all cases. In 1956 the Department of Defence made a point that it would take time to put their affairs in order and get everything collected, and time has been given to them.

Mr. Kilcullen.—I do not think the second part of that is correct. Senator.

50. Senator Ryan.—What did the Department say in 1956?—The Department stated—

“. . . there are a number of practical difficulties in the way of its implementation. A completely new consolidated Regulation takes a very considerable time to have promulgated …”

That was the reason given. It was merely a reason of difficulties.

51. It might take a little bit more time and give a little more trouble, but was there any good reason why it should not be done?— What was said was a question of the form of Defence Force Regulations, and their codification has been referred to under (1) of “Memorandum from Department of Defence”. We started by saying—

“(1) (a) The form of Defence Force Regulations is prescribed in Part II of Defence Force Regulations S.I (copy enclosed). This form was decided upon in the Department of Defence many years ago when it was found that Defence Force Regulations in group consolidated form were essential to eliminate the difficulties in the matter of ready reference inherent in the old system of Defence Force Regulations in the yearly series which have grown to an unwieldly number. Army administration is, of necessity, effected by numerous regulations and, if these are not to hinder rather than to assist administration, they must be in such a form and so grouped that they are readily accessible to those required to operate them. Although copies of all Defence Force Regulations are issued to every officer or the Permanent Defence Force, officers whose appointments are concerned with administration, for example, retain specially and make themselves fully acquainted with Regulations in the ‘A’ group. Similarly with officers employed or quartermaster duties who concentrate on Regulations in the ‘Q’ group, etc.

(b) The grouping system referred to at (a) above is itself also but a temporary one. The intention is, eventually, to have all Regulations produced in the form of a volume, or volumes, somewhat on the lines of Queen’s Regulations in Great Britain. The different Parts will, it is contemplated, be arranged somewhat on the following lines:—

Part I—Organisation.

Part II—Officers—Conditions of Service.

Part III—Men—Conditions of Service.

Part IV—Cadets—Conditions of Service.

Part V—Pay and Allowances.

Part VI—Leave.

Part VII—Medical treatment.

Part VIII—Discipline.

Part IX—Regimental Duties.

Part X—Messes, Welfare Boards, etc.

Part XI—Documents, Orders, etc.

Part XII—Dress.

Part XIII—Courts of Inquiry, etc.

Part XIV—Military, Educational and Recreational Training.

Part XV—Clothing.

Part XVI—Medals and Decorations.

Part XVII—Deaths and Funerals.

Consideration will also be given to producing the proposed volume or volumes bilingually as in the case of the South African military regulations.

(c) Considerable progress has been made since 1947 in the work of consolidating Defence Force Regulations into the groups indicated. The work is necessarily slow in as much as consolidation is not simply the amalgamation of existing old Regulations in the yearly series (many of which are faulty in a number of respects) but involves extensive and sometimes complicated revisions and the incorporation of new material in the light of experience, not alone in the Irish Army, but in other Armies as well. All these must be considered by the military authorities, the civilian staff of the Department of Defence and, in most cases, by the Department of Finance as well before an agreed consolidated Regulation can be produced.

(d) In the foregoing circumstances, it is considered that no very useful purpose would be served at the present stage by jettisoning the grouping system at present employed in Defence Force Regulations which is designed specially for the purpose of easing military administration. When the final stage in bringing Defence Force Regulations up to date has been reached, consideration will be given to the extent to which the proposed volume or volumes of Regulations can be made to conform to the general form of Statutory Instruments outside of the Army.”

We have not reached that yet.

52. Have you produced the F.C.A. one since then?—No. That will not be done until the final stage of printing out-of-date Defence Force Regulations. We are not dealing with a grouping stage at the moment, but with the final form of one volume.

53. I thought you said that would never happen?—I expressed a personal opinion—that I cannot see it happening for a number of years yet.

Senator Ryan.—With reference to what we said at that time and the Department’s reply, it seems to me that we expected the Department, when consolidating regulations in the individual sections, to comply with the citation of them.

Mr. Kilcullen.—Your last minute to us on 12th July stated—

“. . . In the course of its deliberations the Select Committee considered the omission from Defence Force Regulations of a proper citation of authority including an indication of the precise section or sections under which they are made. In the absence of such information the Committee is finding it impossible to discharge its orders of reference in relation to such instruments as D.F.R. A.7— Amendments. Amendment No. 27. The Committee has had regard to the views expressed in your memorandum (3/12004) of 20th March, 1956 but was inclined to the view that the difficulties of bringing the Regulations into conformity with statutory instruments generally in this respect were not insurmountable. Accordingly it directed me to seek the further observations of your Department in this matter.”

Senator Sheldon.—The Committee thought they were not insurmountable.

Mr. Kilcullen.—That was last July.

54. Senator Sheldon.—I am relying on the report of the Committee in 1956, which was the essential matter. The Committee had six points to which the Department replied. The Committee’s report to the Seanad on this was—

“On the information available the Select Committee feels that the steps now taken by the Department will bring these regulations as much into line with ordinary statutory instruments as the circumstances permit. The Select Committee will await the issue in due course of the codified instruments in volume form.”

The point I want to make is that after six years the Committee is still waiting. It was not because the Committee was satisfied that all was well that they allowed this time to pass. The Committee has continued to give the Department as much latitude as possible, in that the Department promised the regulations in codified form under the seventeen heads now referred to. All I want to do is put it on record that we cannot be satisfied when for six years the Department has been heading for its misdoing. The Committee was satisfied to wait a time, given that it might take time, and now staffing problems are mentioned as an added difficulty in production—this was not raised in the first instance. The Committee has been lenient in the matter but I would not like this leniency to extend to bringing the matter up again.

Mr. Kilcullen.—We are still adhering, Senator, to what the Department said, which was—the present grouping of regulations is temporary; that, eventually, it is hoped to have them produced in one volume under seventeen heads; and that consideration will also be given to producing that volume, or volumes, bilingually, as in the case of the South African military regulations. On the question of citation we said in 1956:

“The Select Committee’s views as to the indication on each individual Regulation of the precise section or sections of the Act under which it purports to be made have been noted, and the question of giving effect to them has already received some examination in the Department of Defence. In small amending Regulations dealing with a particular aspect of military administration, e.g. deductions from pay, this would not present any difficulty. In large consolidated Regulations, however, e.g. Defence Force Regulations R.5 and R.6, the number of sections of the Act which might require to be indicated might be unduly large and so cumbersome as to make the revised procedure little better for the purpose for which it has been recommended than the existing procedure. Again, when the Regulations in volume form referred to at (1) hereof are eventually produced, the new procedure suggested would involve the indication of every section of the Act (and they are many) under which it is possible to make Regulations. For these reasons, it is felt that Defence Force Regulations do not lend themselves to the treatment recommended.”

55. Senator Cole.—But this regulation which you have just shown to us has been so treated. Would it not have been of great assistance to this Committeee and surely to members of the Defence Force too generally to have in the margin the sections referred to as was done in this case?—Yes, Senator. Do not misunderstand me about this. I quite agree with you that when the regulations were being produced originally if this point had been adverted to and decided upon then I have no doubt that the job would have been done. But the regulations had taken form before it was raised. It was raised after the regulations had been made, two years after the passing of the last Act. If the Committee decide this has to be done no doubt it will be done. It simply means that every one of the regulations will have to be re-done again.

Chairman.—I wish to thank Mr. Kilcullen for attending.

The witness withdrew.