Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome all present to the public session of our meeting this evening. I will read some formal notices as it is a requirement.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Our next business is our engagement with Mr. Justice Alan Mahon, Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, and Mr. David O'Connor, head of office for the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces.

Before we start, I must explain some of the limitations of parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose that we publish their opening statements on the committee’s website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses. Mr. Justice Mahon will read out an opening statement which will be around ten minutes. We will then have questions and comments from members. Each member will have around ten minutes but we can be flexible. I now call on Mr. Justice Mahon to begin with his opening statement.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend and for the opportunity to highlight some aspects of the work which I, as Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, and my office do. As members will be aware, my office was established by the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 and commenced its business in late 2005. The role of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is, essentially, to provide serving and former members of the Defence Forces with a free and independent complaint resolution process. The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent from the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. While the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces cannot make binding decisions, he or she can make findings and recommendations. In practice, over 95% of recommendations are accepted by the Minister for Defence.

My office is relatively small, with just three staff members and myself. Our offices are based on Earlsfort Terrace, having moved there from Lower Hatch Street early last year. Our budget from the Department of Defence is a little over €400,000, including my salary and those of my staff. The Secretary General of the Department has indicated to me on occasion that any request for an increase in my budget would be favourably considered. However, to date no such increase has been required or sought. While my office is usually busy, and sometimes extremely busy, currently it can manage reasonably well on its current budget and without additional staff. In general, most complaints are processed and reported on within four to eight weeks. A small number of more complex complaints, or cases where difficulties with the collection of information arise, may take a little longer to conclude. All new complaints receive immediate attention and all investigations commence without delay. Complaints of an urgent nature are always given priority.

I note that the committee’s primary focus is the annual reports for 2022, 2023 and 2024. These annual reports, which include case summaries, provide quite a detailed account of the work of my office over these 12-month periods, including an insight into some of the types of cases that are investigated, having due regard to the strict requirement for confidentiality as provided for in section 10 of the 2004 Act. The committee will note from the annual reports that, over the three years, directly referred complaints, as distinct from complaints that are initially referred to, and investigated by, the Defence Forces’ internal grievance process, have steadily increased in percentage terms. In 2022, less than 10% of referrals were directly referred to my office. In 2023, this increased to 50%, while in 2024 the figure was 80%. I believe it likely this percentage will further increase this year. In my annual report for 2023 I speculated as to the cause of this rapidly increasing number of directly referred complaints, stating:

A possible explanation is some decrease in confidence that the internal Section 114 process is yielding satisfactory outcomes for complainants. Additionally, the IRG Report over 12 months ago did little to create confidence in the internal investigation process.

In addition, the option for a serving member to directly refer a complaint to my office prior to 2021 was unavailable.

However, I am aware that significant strides have been made within the Defence Forces over the past 18 months or so to improve their internal investigation processes, including better training of their investigators, and indications so far this year suggest that there is an increased use of the Defence Forces internal grievance processes when compared with last year. Importantly also, the Defence Forces have appointed a civilian head of strategic HR.

There is a significant variation of complaint subject matters in any one year, or over a number of years. Complaints relating to promotion and course selection continue to make up the largest category. They comprised 35% in 2022, 50% in 2023 and 50% in 2024. Interpersonal-type complaints, which cover a variety of issues including bullying and exclusion, are small in number, relatively speaking and, including the trend so far this year, are decreasing in number as an overall percentage of complaints. I do not have figures for this category of complaint which have been, or are being, investigated under what is referred to as the chapter 1 internal Defence Forces’ process or, indeed, the recently introduced and revamped Defence Forces’ internal investigation process for bullying-type complaints under the management of the interim grievance manager, IGM. I am of the belief that the publicity afforded to the historical cases of bullying and inappropriate behaviour, over the past three years, including the issues highlighted by the so-called Women of Honour group, the IRG report of 2022 and the establishment of the current tribunal of inquiry, have helped to highlight the misery suffered by some within the Defence Forces from such behaviour and historical issues relating to complaining about such behaviour, and the need to have a fit-for-purpose investigation process for such complaints.

I also believe from anecdotal reports that this publicity and the steps taken as outlined have served to reduce the incidence of such behaviour in the Defence Forces. Personnel engaging in such behaviour are now much more likely to be exposed and disciplined than might have been the case previously and this fact obviously acts as a deterrent to such behaviour.

The committee will see other interesting statistics from the three annual reports, such as the fact that there was a noticeable increase in complaints from officers as compared with enlisted personnel. In 2024, for example, complaints from officers represented 40% of the total, whereas in the previous year that figure was just 10%. In general, over recent years, complaints from female personnel have been roughly proportionate to their number in the Defence Forces. Over the past three years, there were no complaints from female personnel of alleged gender discrimination, whereas there were two such complaints from male personnel. In this three-year period, I have not received any complaints of what might be described as inappropriate sexual behaviour.

I am also happy to report that I continue to receive excellent co-operation from the Department and from the Defence Forces in relation to requests for information and documentation. In particular, the Defence Forces’ grievance management office is always helpful and efficiently responds to the frequent requests from my office for such assistance.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am going to open up the floor to members for questions in the following order: Deputy Buckley, Deputy Brendan Smith and Senator Craughwell.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the ombudsman for his statement today. It would be remiss of me not to draw attention to the following from the opening statement:

A possible explanation is some decrease in confidence that the internal section 114 process is yielding satisfactory outcomes for complainants. Additionally, the IRG report over 12 months ago did little to create confidence in the internal investigation process.

The ombudsman went on to mention the Women of Honour and I think that it frightened the living daylights out of people when they found out what was happening.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes, that is the point I made.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I like what the ombudsman said. I do not envy him in his job. Over the years we have worked with the Defence Forces and I do still feel for people who come to me with regard to protected disclosures. Has the ombudsman ever worked with protected disclosures or had protected disclosures sent to his office?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact the ombudsman said at the end of his statement that he is happy to report that he continues to receive excellent co-operation from the Department and from the Defence Forces. Things have improved, therefore, but going back to the Women of Honour, while complaints have increased in percentage terms, the complaints are not so severe. Is that right? There are no sexual allegations being made any more.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

No, and I think I can recall, over a number of years, only one case where there were allegations of sexual misbehaviour. In fact, if my memory is correct, that was from a male complainant but that person was, unfortunately, out of time. There is a 12-month limitation period to get a complaint into my office from the date of the event complained of. We have not had complaints of sexual misbehaviour. The interpersonal-type complaints that we get relate mainly to bullying. "Bullying" is a big word and it takes in a lot of different sorts of misbehaviour. As I explained in my opening statement, the only complaints of gender discrimination over the last couple of years have come from male complainants, not from female complainants.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Finally, following the story of the Women of Honour breaking, does the ombudsman think people are now more open to making a complaint? Has it made people in the Defence Forces more responsible? Is it the case that people now know that such behaviour is not right and that they should not do it any more?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome our witnesses, Mr. Justice Mahon and Mr. O'Connor, to the committee. It is heartening to hear the positive, upbeat report from the ombudsman. He paints a picture of an office that is adequately resourced. Generally when we meet groups in the Oireachtas or in our daily work, they refer to a need for additional financial resources, so it is good to hear of one particular office where those heading it up believe it is properly resourced. The witnesses also paint a picture of a positive interaction with the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, which is good from the point of view of dealing with the issues that need to be dealt with.

Like Deputy Buckley, I commend the Women of Honour group on the great work they did in highlighting those particular very serious issues. We had the opportunity to speak on those issues in the Dáil on a number of occasions and I again commend that work. It was very important that those issues would be addressed.

Regarding the types of issues that come to the attention of the ombudsman's office, we heard that the Minister and the Department accepted 96% of the recommendations made by the office. I presume that is a high percentage in any governance between an ombudsman and Departments and Ministers. Some years ago, as a member of the then foreign affairs and defence Oireachtas committee, I visited a number of barracks. My colleague Senator Joe Flaherty represents Offaly and Westmeath and I represent Cavan-Monaghan, both of which have a strong military tradition. We had barracks in Monaghan and in Dún Ui Néill in Cavan, which unfortunately are no longer open. I am very familiar with the great work our Permanent Defence Force have done over the years at home and abroad, representing our country with great distinction. One thing that annoyed me and others on the committee was the poor quality of living accommodation in some barracks. Has that come to the attention of the ombudsman as an issue? We need to recruit more personnel into our Permanent Defence Force and to improve retention levels.

On those visits, the living accommodation for young adults, both female and male, was just not good enough at some of the barracks. By and large, people nowadays live in reasonably good accommodation and a lot of people live in very good accommodation. People are used to good standards, when they are leaving home to go off on a career path. The type of accommodation provided in some of the barracks would not encourage anyone. I sincerely believe proper accommodation should be provided for people who are serving our State and representing us. I know that during the past few years, with Deputy Micheál Martin as previous Minister for Defence and Deputy Simon Harris as current Minister for Defence, there has been substantial ongoing capital investment and I am sure there is a need for more. Has the issue of inadequate accommodation been brought to the ombudsman's attention by serving members?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I had one case where the numbers for a course were determined by the accommodation for male and female personnel because they were staying in the barracks for a week. As the section for women personnel was used less frequently because there were very few women personnel engaged in this particular course, they had rooms that were free. I think there was a complaint about the fact some male contenders for this course were deprived of the opportunity because there was no overnight accommodation for men. That is the closest we have had. That was not a complaint about the accommodation; that was a complaint about the fact more could have been done to divide up the accommodation so more male personnel could have participated on the course. A lot of these courses would have a ceiling of -----

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Participants.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

-----who could actually participate on the course. The somewhat long-winded answer to the Deputy's question is, we have had no complaints about the accommodation, either the lack of it or the state of it.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just one further question about courses. Sometimes there is a considerable delay in young privates getting on to particular courses. Does that arise in the ombudsman's work?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes, course selection would be involved in a lot of the complaints we get but it would be more to do with somebody feeling he or she should have gotten a place but did not. There is a huge emphasis in the Defence Forces on doing courses and getting qualifications because that is all linked with promotion and so on.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the ombudsman.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry; I have to defer to members. I call Senator Flaherty and then Senator Craughwell if that is in order.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the ombudsman for his very comprehensive report and excellent work over the past 20 years. It is probably a statutory issue but I will raise the 12-month time limit. Given someone is in the military and that it is very structured and leadership-oriented, the 12-month period probably seems very tight for submitting a concern but is that a statutory restriction?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes, it is contained in section 6 of the Act. It is two months from the date of the event or 12 months from the date someone becomes aware of the event, incident or whichever comes later. That issue was a big concern of mine up to two or three years ago. In fact, in meetings I had with the Department going back a few years I always made the case that, if and when there was amending legislation they might consider extending that period. Then we came up with a sort of formula where we now write what we call a three-month letter and a nine-month letter to all would-be complainants, warning them that they have X amount of time left within their-----

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does every serving member get those letters?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

No, every complainant who starts their complaint within the Defence Forces does.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fine for them but not for someone who did not do that, for instance, if I had an issue and the 12 months has passed and I have not engaged with the ombudsman's office.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Since we introduced that practice, which is only a bit of office administration for us, I do not think we have had anyone who has missed out. There could be people who have not bothered to contact us because they were outside the year time limit but we did have a few cases before we introduced that new system of people who were losing out by a few months and there was nothing we could do about it because there is no discretion allowed for extending the time. Since we introduced these new practices, we have not had any such cases. The odd one we have had would be years out so it would not have mattered whether it was there or four years. We get the odd referral like that. I am much less concerned now about the 12 months limitation period being too short than I was in the past.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will defer to the ombudsman's experience on it. He said a lot of his findings - I think it is 96% - are accepted by the-----

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So the findings are accepted, does the ombudsman see follow-through in subsequent policy? Does he actually see a change in direction?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I would not make a recommendation in every case. In some cases, there might be two or three recommendations and they usually relate to changes in how things are done in the Defence Forces. That may take time because it may require administrative instructions being rewritten or amended. It can take quite a while from the time I would make a recommendation to seeing this. As a general rule, the recommendations are followed through and changes do take place. Occasionally I hear of an instance where a recommendation which was stated to be accepted sort of died a death somewhere along the way, perhaps because of a change in government or whatever. As a general rule, recommendations are followed through because they involve, while I make a recommendation-----

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just concerned about recommendations as a general rule. If the ombudsman makes a direction or an observation, it has to be followed through.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I was just going to say, as a general rule the recommendations I would make to the Minister require the Minister to liaise with the Chief of Staff and perhaps with other senior people in the Defence Forces.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Chair, I have one final question.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator can take his time and disregard the clock. He has ten minutes.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a new position within the Army, which is the head of transformation, Mr. Brian Molloy. It is an important function and he is trying to oversee a lot of changes. Has Mr. Molloy engaged with the ombudsman's office?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

No, the only sort of new appointment that has engaged with me is the head of HR, who is a civilian.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Molloy is also a civilian. Given the office of the ombudsman's 20-year volume of work, it has probably seen the nooks and crannies and what was historically wrong in the Defence Forces. It would be very important that the ombudsman would feed into Mr. Molloy's work. He will hopefully guide or provide the pointers for seismic changes in our Defence Forces so it is very important there is an engagement.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I am sure there will be because there are a lot of changes.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will Mr. O'Connor undertake to make contact with Mr. Molloy and make available to him those findings over the 20 years. I commend the ombudsman on his work.

The report was very impressive. It is great to see a 40% reduction on prior years, which we have to take as a positive. Most things are going the other way so we will take the positives out of that.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have some questions of my own, which I will come to when the members have had a chance to question Mr. Justice Mahon, but I will add my voice to the request that there be early engagement with the head of transformation. In light of the functions of both offices, it strikes me that this person will have a lot to learn from his experience. There would be great value in such an engagement.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Justice Mahon for his report. As always, it is an excellent report covering a wide range of things. I will deal with a few issues. I will put them all to the ombudsman and he can decide how to handle them from there. The first one I will speak about is the IRG report. For me, this report was extremely distressing. One simple line said that a prima facie case had been found that further inquiries would have satisfied. Instead, the report led to a sense of "Hang him high; get the lynching posse together" in these Houses. To my horror, senior politicians started to make allegations about the Defence Forces not being a safe place to work in, not being a place they would allow their daughter to serve and so on. I found that extremely distressing in light of the fact that the ombudsman's office had not been approached by a number of these women. The reasons or rationale for that is something that neither he nor I can go into in great detail but it created a very negative view of an employment opportunity in Ireland that is truly wonderful. The Defence Forces offer a great career and tremendous opportunities to those who enter them. I am deeply distressed by the IRG report and the level of detail that was given on untested evidence. As a former judge, I am sure Mr. Justice Mahon would like evidence to be tested.

The ombudsman's report refers to the increase in complaints from officers. I am mindful that, a few years ago, the 27th battalion in Dundalk was managed by one captain and three lieutenants. We made a bit of an issue of it in the Seanad and suddenly a commandant was despatched overnight, who was told they were in charge in Dundalk from now on. On the level of work placed on commissioned officers, many carry out two or three duties. It may have changed now that the numbers have increased but a young officer would be sent to barracks and be expected to write a report on the men serving under him or her a week later. It put an extraordinarily amount of pressure on young commissioned officers, who may have been at the rank of second lieutenant or lieutenant, to have to appraise people they did not actually know and with whom they had never worked in the field. Has that issue manifested itself in complaints to the ombudsman?

There is direct contact with Oireachtas Members by serving members of the Defence Forces. The members have representative bodies at their disposal, both RACO and PDFORRA, which do a wonderful job for those they serve. The chain of command is also available to everybody. Is there a problem that people are not comfortable with the chain of command? These members also have the ombudsman's office. My colleague Deputy Buckley mentioned protected disclosures a little while ago. Many of those that come in do not meet the criteria to be deemed a protected disclosure. People feel they can come to Members of the Oireachtas. That would have been - I am sure it still is - repugnant to good order and discipline. It is a disciplined organisation and there should be very clear guidelines as to how to approach a particular problem. I may be giving the ombudsman too much. Will I keep going?

On bullying, having led a trade union for a number of years and having been a trade union activist in my time, I know that bullying is, as the ombudsman said, a very strange word. What might be bullying to you might be robust management to me. I recall from my trade union days being called by a teacher and told about the horrendous bullying she was suffering. I was only newly into the job of president and I said that I would go down and teach this guy a lesson. I went down to County Mayo and met the teacher in question. I asked her to give me the story and she told me that, every morning, when she came into work he was standing there. I asked her what time she came in at. She said she was always in by 9.15 a.m. I asked her what time school started. She said she had issues and that school starts at 9 a.m. but asked whether he had to do what he was doing. It was really a situation of robust management rather than bullying. Bullying is largely misunderstood. Perhaps education as to what constitutes bullying is needed. I do not know if that has crossed the ombudsman's desk.

The other thing that bothers me - I do not know if the ombudsman has had a complaint about this - is that, when I joined the Defence Forces in 1975, I joined for life. You could stay and do your 21 years, 31 years or 40 years. The contract places soldiers under extreme stress to get overseas service, to carry out courses and all of that stuff. Given the chain of command, if you happen to come across somebody who is not easy to deal with, he or she may sideline you for a training course or not select you to go overseas. Has that issue come before the office of the ombudsman? I will leave it at that.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I will start at the end and work back. Bullying obviously means different things to different people. Bullying that I might think of as very minor might be very significant for someone else, particularly somebody who might be categorised as vulnerable. Particularly in the military rank-and-file set-up we have in any defence forces, bullying can be a greater problem, if it exists, than it might be in Guinness or some other large employer. When dealing with bullying, you always have to try to put yourself in the position of the victim. You also have to be very careful. It is a very serious finding to make against somebody accused of bullying in the Defence Forces because it is a very black mark on their record. We can be thankful that I get a relatively small number of bullying complaints. They comprise the smallest category of complaints. The Defence Forces have introduced a very interesting new system for dealing with interpersonal complaints. Kevin Duffy of the Labour Court is the final arbiter. Those cases have nothing to do with my office. Members can use this new system, which is informal and user-friendly. If they then want to make a more formal complaint, they can come to my office. The fact that they have been through this new internal system does not prevent them coming to my office. I do not know how many complaints are in that system. It may be that, if there are any complaints, the majority are being dealt with there. Bullying is sometimes thrown in as an add-on. Somebody will complain that he or she was not selected for a course and then might say he or she did not have a chance because Captain so-and-so bullies me. The main complaint is not being selected. Such complaints are relatively few in number but they can be significant enough in the sense that the person is obviously suffering.

I remember officers years ago saying to me it was not the done thing for an officer to go outside the institution to make complaints. You did not wash your dirty linen in public, so to speak. About three or four years ago, we introduced a direct referral option for personnel. Before that, they had to start their complaint within the Defence Forces under section 114, which the Senator would have some familiarity with, and they could come to us at a later stage as long as it was within the limitation period of one year. Now that they can come directly to us, that has attracted more officers to complain. I am not suggesting they necessarily have more to complain about but they feel more comfortable about coming to my office with a complaint than going internally. When you go internally, it will be a fellow officer - someone you have coffee with every Friday morning - who has to sit in judgment of you. There are also issues related to recruitment and retention. Many officers are under pressure, as are NCOs and so on, because they are often doing two or three jobs where before they had to do one. I imagine that produces issues as well but I think the reason we get more officers now is they feel more comfortable coming directly to us.

The Senator talked about women in the Defence Forces. I meet female personnel at functions or while visiting different barracks and have always been impressed by the extent to which they feel comfortable in the Defence Forces and the praise they heap on the Defence Forces. I do not get a sense from talking to them that they are in any way under pressure or feel excluded or discriminated against. Only about 7% or 8% of the Defence Forces are women. I was particularly impressed when I visited Haulbowline a couple of years ago. Some of the top officers in the Naval Service are women. They are very much into their careers and will say they are completely relaxed in their relationships with male personnel. I do not get a sense from talking to them that there are issues, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Things have probably improved a lot, thanks to all the publicity over the past two or three years. I do not know whether I have answered.

Mr. O'Connor is reminding me there is a big push on education in the Defence Forces, in terms of bullying and interpersonal behaviour. I think they are very much on top of it now compared to three or four years ago, but then the Army is the Army, so it can be tough, I suppose, but I think-----

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to stray into an area that may become an issue of litigation in the not-too-distant future.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would really caution against doing that.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just interested that Mr. Justice Mahon spoke of officers investigating and of the need for greater training. Has he had a positive response to that? I do not want to go into the actual issue.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will Mr. Justice Mahon confine his response to what Senator Craughwell has asked directly?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

The investigators within the Defence Forces are officers. If you bring a complaint into their internal system, an officer will do the investigation. There are huge efforts and great improvements in recent times in their training. I do not think they got any training in the past, or not much. There is a complete change. It will take a little bit of time to see the results of that.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And the five-year contract-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious of time. There are no other members indicating but I ask the Senator to make this his last question.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is it, yes. On the five-year contract, has anybody complained they are coming to the end of their contract and have not had an opportunity to go overseas or do a course and their career is about to come to an end?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I have not had that type of complaint but there are occasionally complaints relating to signing on because their contract has come to an end. I cannot think of a complaint where somebody said they did not have enough time to do different courses. There are huge numbers of courses in the Defence Forces. It is a terrific training ground for any young or youngish person. They do great work in terms of training.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will finish on that. I thank Mr. Justice Mahon and his team for the meticulous work they do in supporting the Defence Forces and ensuring those who feel aggrieved have a final port of call without going down the route of litigation or anything like that. I thank Mr. Justice Mahon and his team for their time.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My experience of barracks is very different from Mr. Justice Mahon's. From speaking to people in barracks, they speak of the poor-quality accommodation - sometimes, not often. How often does Mr. Justice Mahon visit barracks? Does he do it routinely as part of his work or on an as-and-when-required basis? Does he go to address specific issues? He mentioned being in Haulbowline. What causes him to go to barracks?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I just take a view I would like to see a particular barracks. It is really just to see what life is like in the Defence Forces in different barracks. I have been to a number of them, including Haulbowline. They are almost PR visits. They would arrange for me to meet the representatives of RACO and PDFORRA. I get to meet people from different ranks. It is really just to-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

More for information than investigation or inspection.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes, and to emphasise our existence. We have investigations - Mr. O'Connor would be more involved in those - where a number of individuals have to be interviewed in relation to a particular complaint. There would be visits to the barracks in question. It is often more practical for somebody from the office to go down there than to have-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Justice Mahon would not look at the quality of the accommodation when he is there.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

No. As I said earlier, I really have not had any complaints.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason I pursue the line of questioning is it does not chime with interactions I have had with members of the Defence Forces. I am just interested to know that.

I want to pick up on a point made on the position of women in the Defence Forces. Mr. Justice Mahon said he had had no complaints of inappropriate sexual behaviour. That is brilliant if it is an indication there is no inappropriate sexual behaviour but I do not think any of us is naive enough to believe that. Before being elected to this House, I served as a trade union official.

I would be shocked to my core if any organisation could state with certainty, and I am not suggesting the ombudsman said this, that there were no complaints of inappropriate sexual behaviour or that there was no inappropriate sexual behaviour. The ombudsman referenced the changes that were made because of the publicity. Those changes actually came about because of the women themselves, their courage and determination. We in the Dáil and Seanad have spoken at length and expressed our thanks to those women for coming forward. I am referring specifically to the Women of Honour. The ombudsman referenced the change and the new atmosphere. Would he say the Defence Forces are now a better and safer place for women than they were two or three years ago? The ombudsman is obviously monitoring the situation more closely than most people. In terms of what is coming to his desk, would he suggest that is the case or is there a lot more work to be done?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

There is probably more work to be done. I do not monitor the situation very closely. My ability to monitor is based on how many complaints we get. Anecdotally, I have heard reports of things being much improved in the Defence Forces in terms of interpersonal behaviour. While five, ten or 20 years ago, victims of sexual misbehaviour, in particular, were probably not facilitated in making complaints and were perhaps told that this type of thing does not happen in the Army, I think and would expect that has changed hugely. I know everyone now takes interpersonal misbehaviour seriously.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that. However, the same people who the ombudsman says take it seriously now did not take is seriously previously. The hope is that lessons were learned by those people. I do not believe there has been a massive churn of personnel at the higher end. That happens mostly at the NCO grades.

We have been told that there is a recruitment issue within the Defence Forces. It would not necessarily be considered a great place to work. They cannot recruit people at the moment. My understanding is that some efforts have been made to address pay and other issues, but recruitment into the Defence Forces remains a problem. Has the ombudsman any advice as to how that might be improved? He is telling us that things are different and much better. The Defence Forces got a bit of a going over in the press, probably with some justification, having read the reports and spoken to some of the personnel involved. Does the ombudsman think there is anything that can or should be done or that we, as legislators, should be looking at to improve the situation?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

A lot of this is just what I hear from different sources. A lot of work is being done to improve recruitment. I have seen the pay scales for recruits, which are hugely improved compared with two, three or four years ago. They are comparable with anything on the civilian side. There is a lot of third level education available for personnel. I recently read that the Defence Forces are recruiting slightly more people than they are losing. It was the other way around.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was very much the other way around. I thought it had just about caught up but not quite yet.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

The Defence Forces are still under strength by approximately 2,000. It was always traditionally more difficult to recruit for the Army during boom times.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that the wages have not kept pace with rising rents and so on. There is probably a job of work for the Government in that regard. What level of engagement would the ombudsman have had with the Women of Honour in terms of engagement with his office? Some of us would have been aware of them anyway, but the general public are now aware of very serious issues within the Defence Forces because the Women of Honour made those disclosures. They did not by all accounts make those disclosures to the ombudsman's office. What kinds of interactions were there? It is a sort of set-up group. The Women of Honour is not a disparate group. It has a core group with which the ombudsman could engage. Is there regular engagement or how does that work?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I have had no engagement with the women as a group. I am restricted and cannot disclose anything about complaints I might have received. One reason they might not have come to the ombudsman was that a number of years passed in many instances before they had the courage to make a complaint. I am sure they would have been told there was no point in going to the ombudsman because-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They were out of time.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

-----more than a year had passed and they were out of time.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is where I share the concern expressed by Senator Flaherty. For victims, what the ombudsman termed "inappropriate sexual behaviour" or the sexual violence experienced by women - not only women but mostly - in their workplace can have a massive traumatising impact on individuals. A person might not even be able to acknowledge that for years, much less make a complaint. As the ombudsman says, his office is independent of the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. That should be the place to which people can go. We have referred to the limitations on investigations that can take place internally. Does the ombudsman think there is scope for that 12-month timeframe to be revisited? It is probably fairly obvious from what I have said that I do think there is such scope, specifically in cases where we are talking about traumatised victims who, for very good reasons, lose faith and confidence in the mechanisms that are available to them, who have in the ombudsman an independent person, office or entity which is independent of their bosses, the Department and the Defence Forces but to whom they are going to be barred from taking their issue because of that 12-month limit. It is not a feasible timeframe for victims and survivors of that kind of traumatic abuse.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

It would require amending legislation.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I would have no difficulty if some formula could be found to facilitate people who have those sorts of complaints. I would have a slight preference for a time limit. The 12-month limit is simple, as it would be if it were extended to 18 months. Section 114 of the Defence Act provides for a system for internal investigation. There is no time limit to that.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

There is a time limit for the new Kevin Duffy process. The limit is six months or 12 months. It is very short. For any complaint that is made in the Defence Forces internally, there is no time limit.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is something we will have to look at as an Oireachtas. I did not read all the reports but I read the two that were sent to me, including the most recent one.

A lot of the complaints and issues the office handles are what I would call industrial relations, IR, issues. As I previously said I am a former trade union official. It is not all of them, but a lot of them are. Some of the cases cited, such as the one related to sick leave, that is straight up an industrial relations issue but it has been escalated to the level of the ombudsman, which is a step up, for what would be an IR issue that should be resolvable through the processes. Are the internal procedures not there? The ombudsman said when he visits the barracks, he sometimes sits down with representatives from PDFORRA or RACO. I commend them and the work they do. Why can they not deal with the issues, specifically in relation to a sick note and sick leave? It is obvious if people get a letter from a doctor that states they cannot go to work, then they have a letter from a doctor. It cannot be superseded by somebody because they are a high up person or middle management person within the Defence Forces, yet that person saw fit to fight that case all the way. That is straight up an industrial relations issue, but it got escalated. It is on page 23 of the report. Am I missing the point that many IR issues get resolved through the procedures within the Defence Forces and only a very few intractable ones leave that process and come to the ombudsman?

On the example of the period of 12 months in the case of sick leave, let us say that matter dragged on internally because there was some internal back and forth and took a person past the 12 months’ timeframe, would the ombudsman take it from the date of the last interaction or incident or does it go back to the actual date of the original issue?

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

The Act is quite clear. It is from when the incident occurs. If a person is denied their sick leave today, he or she has a year to complain to my office.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The clock starts ticking the day it happens.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

In relation to the other points the Deputy made, far more cases are sorted out in the internal complaints system than ever come to my office. It does work. Mr. O'Connor has reminded me that last year out of 18 complaints that went into the Defence Forces internally, only one came to my office. It is important there is a robust internal grievance system because a lot of complaints get sorted at that level. If they come to my office, people are defensive and it is less likely it will get sorted out. A lot of the complaints get sorted out within the Defence Forces' complaints system.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the ombudsman's office conduct surveys to see how satisfied people are? He said 17 out of 18 of those complaints got solved at local level. Happy days.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

We have not.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would the ombudsman consider that? People going to his office is indicative of a failure of the procedures somewhat. Whatever grievance was there could not be resolved using the internal procedures and it was necessary to go externally to his office as the independent person. Perhaps it might be worth having a look at the internal procedures. He provided me with the figure that 17 out of 18 were resolved at local level. On the face of it, that is happy days, and the internal procedures are working. However, that is just 17 out of 18 that did not progress to his office. There could have been 15 cases that were out of time. If the office is not investigating that, it might be missing a trick.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Under the Act, my office can only spring into action if the event is referred to us as a complaint. That does not mean we cannot conduct surveys of that nature. That might be interesting.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be good, particularly because of that 12-month timeframe. I have a concern that people would find themselves out of time. When the ombudsman is next before the committee he might be able to provide us with some information relating to that. It would be valuable information to have.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

A lot of those 17 out of 18 complaints would have been very minor but they are still complaints.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very important to the person who is taking them.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Yes.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My dad was also a trade union official. He used to tell me that. He said something that might seem very trivial to one person could be the whole life for the person who is bringing it.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

Absolutely.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is minor, but major in a person's life as well.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

A lot of them would have been relatively easily solved.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand what the ombudsman means. I was making the other point to quote my dad.

Deputy Buckley is indicating he has a question.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have a question. We have discussed the topic and a lot of it has been negative. However, we have to note what our Defence Forces has done over the years. It has been amazing. I had an unfortunate bereavement in the family two weeks ago. They were an ex-member of the Defence Forces, and my God, did they go above and beyond with their respects. We have to remember that we are dealing with human beings in uniform. I have never seen so much respect or honour. I can understand where the discipline can come from.

Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I am a big fan of the Defence Forces.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is safe to say we all are. We all absolutely join with Deputy Buckley in commending those men and women in uniform. We are all here because we want them to be working in the very best environment that they can and have access to the very best facilities and career opportunities.

As there are no further questions, I propose we bring this session to a conclusion. We will suspend for a couple of minutes. We will then resume to consider the four petitions we have in front of us for the remainder of this session.

I most sincerely thank our witnesses not just for their evidence today, but for the work they do and continue to do.