Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I always have the privilege, although I do not know if it is a privilege, of being the last speaker on Thursday afternoon. The Bill has 24 sections, three Parts and one Schedule. Ostensibly, it sets out to do four things. One is to establish an external oversight body on a statutory basis. There is already a body in place but it is not on a statutory basis and it is a good thing that this Bill will put it on a statutory basis. That was one of the key recommendations of the IRG which I will come to in a minute. It creates a statutory framework for the Minister for Defence to grant consent to the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations to associate with the ICTU. I fully support what Deputy Howlin said earlier about that and the reservations he has regarding the term "will grant consent". This is most unusual. I would like to go into it. I am just raising concerns about it because I will use my time to look at the external body mainly.

It provides a statutory basis for drug testing. This has been in place and will now be on a statutory basis, which is good. It protects the term "Óglaigh na hÉireann", which is very welcome. I reiterate what Deputy Pringle said. I thank the Library and Research Service. On the last page of its digest, it tells us that the publication of the Bill before the completion of the pre-legislative scrutiny process is not the intention of pre-legislative scrutiny. Of course, we do not need the Library and Research Service to tell us that; we know that. Standing Orders allow it but it is against the whole spirit of pre-legislative scrutiny. Equally importantly, the Library and Research Service tells us that it was not in a position to assess the impact of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill so there is a big gap. We rely on that. We rely on them going through the traffic light system with the different colours but we do not have the benefit of that here so we struggle on. Next October, it will be 100 years since Óglaigh na hÉireann was formally established with the Executive Council of the Free State formally establishing Óglaigh na hÉireann on 1 October 1924.

What the Library and Research Service has pointed out to us is important. Again, I am praising the service but for the first time, I find a little fault with the narrative. It is very unusual for me. It is worth remembering that regarding the supreme command of the Defence Forces, the power is vested in the President. Some people have had a difficulty with that in terms of what he may or may not have said but he is the supreme command. Civilian authority over the Defence Forces is provided for by legislation. We have the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and Reserve Defence Force. Most of the ordinary members of that are underfunded and under-resourced. I note that for the record.

I also note that they are the aid to civil power and we relied on them, for example, for the Volvo Ocean Race in 2009 and when the Army was called into South Park in the Claddagh when South Park, which is really a swamp, proved its usefulness and became a swamp. It serves a purpose.

Unfortunately, the organisers did not realise that at the time and the Army had to come in and save the day. We have multinational peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. Peacekeeping missions are decided on a case-by-case basis on the basis of the triple lock. I am horrified by what is happening. Earlier on, Deputy Howlin asked a question. If the Government is going to go ahead with the foolishness - but foolishness does not quite capture it - with the disastrous decision to get rid of the triple lock, will it do the honest thing and do it openly and accountably with separate legislation or is it to be sneaked in here somewhere along the line? I respect the Minister of State's bona fides. I hope he will be outspoken on this matter of doing away with the triple lock.

That is the background. I know the Tánaiste had to leave and while I never like talking behind somebody's back, I am talking publicly. He gave a seven-page speech earlier. I have looked in vain for a mention of the Women of Honour. We are here because of them. We are also here because of a lot of other steps along the way and findings that were ignored. We have almost seven pages of a speech but not a mention of the Women of Honour. We are here today as a result of an external oversight body that will be set up on a statutory basis. That came from the independent review. We have an ongoing tribunal as we speak and we will be very careful in relation to that. How could a speech be given and not recognise what the Women of Honour did on behalf of men and women in our Defence Forces? How could that happen? Let me write them back into history because it really is very important.

The proposal for the external oversight body in this legislation is a very good idea. It will contain between seven and nine members and a chairperson. However, the greatest concern is that they will all be appointed by a Minister. From what I have read, that goes against what the cross-party committee wanted and what the representatives who came forward wanted. Every single member of the committee will be appointed by a Minister. Various things are set down for their terms of office and so on.

Let me just quickly go through the background of how this has arisen today. It is important to give the years and the perspective and then ask how could we be standing here today without recognising the Women of Honour. The Gleeson commission report outlined inadequacies in the grievance procedure, the victimisation of people - this was back in 1990 - who applied for redress and the urgent need for a more effective system of redress.

Tom Clonan, now a distinguished Senator, almost a quarter of a century ago published research entitled: "Women in Combat: The Status and Roles Assigned Female Personnel in the Permanent Defence Forces". I understand that he suffered huge harassment, abuse and victimisation in relation to this research. The research was anonymised interviews with 60 female officers, 59 of whom suffered abuse or discrimination. Twelve of the respondents said that they had been sexually assaulted or raped. Bullying, sexual harassment and assault, including rape were cited by the respondents. Initially of course, there were huge attempts to discredit Senator Clonan's research. Later, Senator Clonan - who was not a Senator at the time - thought that the Defence Forces had taken his research on board and made the necessary changes. He wanted to believe this had happened. He was led to believe this was the case. He has since been disabused of this notion, following the broadcast of the documentary about the Women of Honour, which was in relation to his PhD.

In March 2001, we had Dr. Shirley Graham's submission to the Commission on the Defence Forces. She was doing PhD research on gender. What did she find out? She was sexually harassed by a male member of the Defence Forces, while on a field commission. Her submission outlines sexual assault taking place on a peacekeeping mission. One chapter was never included, largely due to her concerns over potentially exposing women in the Defence Forces to backlash. This is from 2021. I have jumped forward and back in relation to this to give a taste of what went on.

In 1996, the independent monitoring group was set up. It produced three reports. The final one was published in 2014. It noted that from 1996 there had been concern among senior management in the Permanent Defence Force about some level of unacceptable work practices, though the extent was unresearched and uncertain. It also noted that references to gender inequality are often accompanied by the caveat that these issues are not exclusive to the Defence Forces, but exist. There was an effort to minimalise, marginalise and not look at what was happening. This was from 1996 on. Some measures were put in place to address discrimination but they were in name only. There was a designated contact person and so on.

In the Defence Forces annual report from 2020, gender, equality and diversity got one page in a 100-page document. The Women of Honour got scarcely a mention. At face value, the independent monitoring group that was set up, seemed to do a good job and produced reports. What happened to that? It was disbanded or ignored completely. There were no more reports after 2014. Up to that time, nothing had happened.

In between, we had a University of Limerick, UL, research paper entitled, "Workplace Climate in the Defence Forces". This noted that many respondents expressed reluctance in using the redress of wrongs systems. We have a system but we do not use it. We must bear in mind that we have a tribunal of inquiry set up to examine whether the grievance process worked or not. We know well that it did not. We have double and double layers of evasion, hypocrisy and avoidance here all of the time.

The independent review group published its report on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces on 28 March 2023. The final report contained recommendations under 13 headings. It noted that we need an oversight body and the establishment of a mechanism to establish the number of deaths by suicide among current and former members of the Defence Forces. It also recommended the establishment of a restorative justice process and so on. I am not sure where any of those recommendations stand at the moment and I did not see any of them outlined in the Tánaiste's seven-page speech. As I said, the report contained 13 recommendations with 55 sub-recommendations. It is very comprehensive. However, it makes it very difficult to follow and this allows the Government off the hook in monitoring that set-up. What I have selected to mention from the report is not biased. I read it in its entirety. On page 16 it states, "Notwithstanding the role in the Defence Forces, neither men nor women are working in a safe working environment".

On the inadequacy of the complaints' process, and remember we have a tribunal looking at it, rather than the abuse and the failure of the complaints' process. On page 53, the report states:

Apart from the horrendous nature of the alleged rapes and sexual assaults suffered and described in great detail to the IRG-DF, what happened afterwards is of equal concern. Instead of delivering a proper, modern, streamlined, and skilled response to the complainant, the individual was often told to bury the complaint or they were asked whether they seriously wanted to follow up on that complaint. Bungled investigations that lasted for years are the order of the day.

On page 16 the report states:

Survey respondents cited a clear lack of trust in the current procedures for making a complaint; the majority of respondents stated that they did not make a formal complaint of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or sexual assault, and the main reason given for this failure to report was that there was no point.

Furthermore on page 16 the report also states: .

The prevailing workplace culture is one that is disabling when it comes to supporting dignity and respect in the workplace. The IRG-DF’s analysis reveals a workplace where self-worth and value are negated and disrespect is a dominant feature in an organisation resistant to change.

The tribunal that has been set up is investigating complaints.

It was entirely unclear to us on this side of the House whether those who did not make complaints would come under the terms of reference. It was never specifically set out. We have it on record that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have repeatedly said it will allow for people to come forward who did not make complaints. I have no idea why this was not set out in the terms of reference. I have no idea why we have to use our energy to repeatedly ask questions to get this finalised. I have no idea why the Women of Honour were not included in the terms of reference, at the very least to acknowledge the work they did.

I am here again in trouble with legislation that I want to support. I will support it at this Stage, with a view to amendments being made during the scrutiny on Committee Stage. We should not be in this position with regard to the Women of Honour, and I use them to mean all of the courageous people who fed into that group and gave the women the strength to go forward and do the radio show with Katie Hannon.

This takes me back to the Bill digest. Usually I have no gripe with the Bill digest, and I am not making any allegation at all as it is just something that strikes me, but the narrative in the Bill digest is the same as the narrative from the Defence Forces. I think that just happens to be the case. As opposed to recognising what happened we are told in the Bill digest, which is very good, that, "In the intervening years, which have seen the introduction of a regulatory framework for the Defence Forces that underpin the policies, systems and procedures [...] it has been acknowledged officially that more work was needed in this area." To say that more work is needed in this area is, I would say, the greatest understatement I have ever read in my life.

The next paragraph goes on to say:

Following discussions between the Secretary General of the Department of Defence and the former Chief of Staff, which took place in 2021, it was decided "that there should be a "back to basics" external and independent review to assess whether those policies, systems and procedures are fit for purpose".

On that basis, and also on foot of engagements, we got the ING process set up. I have a little difficulty with this, and it is not personal. It completely minimises the effort and it gives the impression there was a proactive movement by the Government with the Defence Forces - management of course - to do something when that is entirely wrong. I am sure it has being done inadvertently but I could not let it go because I want to balance the narrative of what it took to get the changes we have seen. Those women had to do a documentary with Katie Hannon. Like many other things in life where you remember where you were, there were four of us in a car coming back from Sligo and there was not a word as we listened to what the women related on the Katie Hannon documentary. There was absolute silence. Somewhere in this narrative we have to acknowledge this and acknowledge what was behind them leading to this. No woman I know would have done that unless she absolutely had to do it. We are here today following all of this. We will have an oversight body that is not independent, or certainly there are questions about it. All of its members, including the chairperson, are going to be appointed by a Minister.

I will finish by making a few general points on what our Defence Forces are 100 years on. The clue is in the title. They are defence forces. I am very proud of them and we have a barracks in Galway. I am very proud, as is every Member of the Dáil, of our Defence Forces. We all stand fully behind their most basic demands in terms of money and conditions. What is happening under the Government's watch, and I do not wish to personalise this, is truly shocking. This is not an army. Ireland will never be able to have an army. We do not need an army. We are an independent, neutral, sovereign country. Our strength lies in our independent voice. Our strength lies in making the UN institutions function better. It is utterly misleading to say changes to the triple lock are necessary and we need to tinker with them. It is dangerous, disingenuous and unacceptable. The Minister of State's party will be in serious trouble if it persists in going down the road of changing the triple lock.

We need transformative action. The one phrase the Tánaiste has used repeatedly is "transformative action". We also need transformative action to stop wars. We cannot be cheerleaders for wars. There is nothing to be gained by joining up with the military-industrial complex that Europe is in the middle of, with a European Defence Fund, a European Defence Agency and Partnership for Peace, which is a travesty of the English language because it is a partnership for war.

Our voices should be used over and over to stop the war in Ukraine and to stop what Israel is doing and the genocide going on. I would like to hear our voices used for this and not sidelined into tinkering with the triple lock, which is simply unacceptable. It is an insult to the Defence Forces which have served us well. If anything captured this lately, it was the announcement of the withdrawal of our peacekeeping forces from Lebanon, or the Golan Heights, to have them ready for a battlefield. They cannot participate in it but they have to be ready for the day they need to go into battle at the helm of von der Leyen and Borrell who have talked about Europe as a garden and everything else outside of it as a jungle.

See this speech in context