Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 19 March 2026
Joint Committee on Defence and National Security
Statement of Strategy 2026-2028: External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces
2:00 am
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Apologies have been received from Deputy Eamon Scanlon.
The joint committee is meeting today in public session for engagement with the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces, EOBDF, in relation to its 2026-2028 strategy statement. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Patricia King, chair of the body; Ms Josephine Feehily, member of the body; Mr. Pat O'Doherty, member of the body; and Ms Marianne Nolan, head of the executive to the body, principal officer. They are all very welcome
The format of the meeting is that I will invite Ms King to make an opening statement. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee and each member has a seven-minute slot to ask questions and for the witnesses to respond. I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
Both members and 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. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting.
I now invite Ms King to deliver her opening statement.
Ms Patricia King:
Táimid buíoch den Chathaoirleach agus de bhaill Chomhchoiste um Chosaint agus Slándáil Náisiúnta as an gcuireadh dul i gcomhrá leo inniu maidir leis an ráiteas straitéiseach den Chomhlacht Formhaoirsithe Seachtrach Óglaigh na hÉireann.
I begin by thanking the Chair and committee members for their invitation to members of the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces to come here today to discuss the body's first strategic statement, which covers 2026 to 2028. I was appointed by the previous Minister for Defence, Micheál Martin TD, to chair the statutory External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces, which was put onto a statutory basis on 1 December 2024. I am joined by two of my colleagues from the body, namely, Ms Josephine Feehily, chair of the governing body of the Technological University of the Shannon and, among many other roles, former chair of the Revenue Commissioners and former chair of the Policing Authority; and Mr. Pat O'Doherty, chairperson of the board of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and also, among many other roles, former chief executive of ESB. Our other colleagues from the body, Ms Julie Sinnamon, Mr. Liam Doherty, Mr. Jim Breslin, Ms Jacqui McCrum and Ms Sam de Forges are, regrettably, unable to join us today due to prior commitments but they have asked me to convey their apologies to the committee. We are also joined here by Ms Marianne Nolan, principal officer. Mr. Eoin Tighe from the executive is also with us.
Before I speak on the body's strategy statement, I would like to provide some background to the establishment of the body which may be of use to the committee. The origins of the body date back to the findings of the independent review group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces, IRG, which was established in 2022 to examine issues relating to allegations of discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and any other form of sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces. The IRG report, which was published on 28 March 2023, had its findings accepted by the leadership of the Defence Forces, which also committed to implementing its recommendations. The IRG recommended the establishment of the oversight body of the Defence Forces. Accepting the recommendations of the IRG, the Government established the body, initially on a non-statutory basis, in April 2023 to oversee the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the IRG report, to increase transparency and accountability in the Defence Forces and to bring about necessary changes to the workplace culture and behaviour in the Defence Forces.
The non-statutory body submitted three reports to the Minister for Defence during its non-statutory phase. They are available on the body's website. The body continued to meet regularly on a non-statutory basis until November 2024. Legislation was brought forward in 2024 by the then Minister for Defence to place the body on a statutory basis and the statutory body came into effect on 1 December 2024.
Section 322 of the Defence Act 1954, as inserted by section 21 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2024, outlines the high-level functions of the body to oversee and monitor the management of human resources of the Defence Forces by the Defence Forces and to advise the Minister on matters arising as the body considers appropriate within its remit. It is important to note that the body is independent in its functions and is forward looking. The body does not and cannot discuss matters relevant to the ongoing tribunal of inquiry set up by Government to examine a range of matters pertaining to the effectiveness of the complaints processes within the Defence Forces. In addition, it should be noted by the committee that the body does not have a role in the area of pay and allowances.
The statutory body generally meets monthly and has met 15 times since its establishment. In carrying out its functions, the body has, from the outset, engaged with the Chief of Staff, along with members of his senior leadership team, the representative associations of the Permanent Defence Force, senior management of the Department of Defence, the chair of the Department of Defence audit committee and other relevant stakeholders. In addition, the body has visited a number of the Defence Forces facilities around the country to speak with and learn from Defence Forces personnel directly on their lived experiences working in the Defence Forces.
The statutory body submitted its second six-month report, covering 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2025, to the Minister for Defence for her consideration last month and that report is now available on the body's website.
Last month marked an important milestone for the body, in holding its first meeting in public to discuss culture transformation in the Defence Forces, the zero tolerance approach in the Defence Forces, work planning, civilianisation plans and related issues. It was an opportunity for the body, the Chief of Staff and his senior leadership team to contribute to transparency and accountability in the oversight and monitoring of the management of human resources of the Defence Forces by the Defence Forces. It was also an opportunity for members of the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence, Members of the Oireachtas, other interested parties and the public to observe engagement between the body and the Defence Forces on these HR matters.
In carrying out its oversight and monitoring role, the body has focused on and continues to be guided by matters that are recognised as key levers in the transformation of culture within the Defence Forces. In this regard, the body has made clear to the Defence Forces, the Minister and all stakeholders it has engaged with to date its strategic objective, which is the implementation of chapter 8 of the 2022 Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces on human resources, titled "People as the Defence Forces' Key Strategic Resource".
As we convene today, we are approaching the third anniversary of the IRG report and the acceptance of the Government and senior Defence Forces leadership of the report's findings and commitment to implementing its recommendations. Looking at the IRG recommendations and the HR matters contained in chapter 8 of the commission's report, it is clear that some progress is being made by the Defence Forces in implementing those recommendations. The body and I want to acknowledge that progress and work being delivered by the Chief of Staff and across the organisation on implementing many of the recommendations. However, we wish to see accelerated progress on implementing the recommendations in line with timelines set out in the new strategic framework.
Reform of the Defence Forces' complaints' processes is well under way. In our latest report to the Minister, the body reiterates its support for ongoing reform of the complaints process and for placing the independent grievance management system on a statutory basis. Progress is being made on the reform of the redress of wrongs system and the introduction of a complaints process for civilians in the Defence Forces. We understand that progress is also being made on reform of the Defence Forces' promotions process and reform of the Defence Forces' performance appraisal and career progression.
The Defence Forces has advised the body on progress being made on developing a workforce plan for the organisation, which will include further civilianisation to free up members of the Defence Forces for operational roles. This is due to be completed by the end of next month. The body acknowledges this progress. The recently published strategic framework sets out the timelines. As already stated, we wish to see accelerated progress on implementing the recommendations in line with timelines set out in the new strategic framework. Our oversight work will include questioning the substance of those assurances and changes once the plans have been advanced.
The body continues to urge the Defence Forces to pursue a meaningful zero tolerance policy in the handling of inappropriate behaviours and in ensuring a safe workplace for all. The body has noted the findings of the 2025 value our people survey, which contains a very concerning level of respondents indicating that they have experienced unacceptable behaviours in the last 12 months. The body is also concerned at the level of progress on implementing measures relating to gender, diversity, equality and inclusion matters. The level of female participation is still too low and the level of female participation and input at all decision-making levels of the organisation is not adequate.
The body is committed to playing its part in the essential culture transformation in the Defence Forces, in ensuring the Defence Forces reflect the culture and values of Irish society today and in establishing the Defence Forces as a workplace of choice in the future. The body's strategy statement has been produced with that commitment. The committee may wish to note that a public consultation on the draft strategy was undertaken and the submissions received informed the body's final strategy statement. On behalf of the body, I thank those who sent in submissions on the draft strategy. As set out in the body's strategy statement, the body places a high value on communication and engagement with stakeholders and in transparency of its work.
The body recognises that its strategy statement is a challenging one as we travel the journey of oversight and monitoring the culture transformation in the Defence Forces. The body considers it essential that a more modern and strategic approach to the management of its people is developed and applied by the Defence Forces. That essential approach is captured in the body's vision to foster a culture of accountability, transparency and continuous improvement, enabling the Defence Forces to get the best from their people, thus supporting operational effectiveness. It is captured in the body's mission that, through independent oversight, monitoring, meaningful engagement and informed recommendations, the body drives necessary cultural and behavioural change within the Defence Forces, reporting progress to the Minister for Defence. The body is committed, in carrying out its work, to being governed by the values of independence and integrity, respect, fairness and professionalism. These values are set out in the body's strategy statement as are the body's high-level goals and objectives, key actions and expected outcomes, on which we look forward to elaborating at this morning's meeting.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms King for her comprehensive statement. I will now go to members who will have seven minutes each to ask their questions and receive the answers.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was going to take a little bit more time to consider the issues but it seems members are a bit shy this morning. I thank the witnesses for coming in to us. I would like to get my head around how all this relates. The external oversight body is not a creature of the Department. To come at this another way, the external oversight body is intended to be the key oversight body of the Defence Forces, not of the Department but the latter is represented on the external body. I want to get an understanding of the rationale. It is not the fault of anyone in this room but I have a slight concern as to how the machinery is set up and formulated. We have the Defence Forces, the Department and the external oversight body, on which the Department is represented, through the Secretary General who is a very capable woman whom I respect but who is obviously part of the external oversight body. One of the key concerns that I think people would have in terms of the Defence Forces, and which I think anyone would expect the Defence Forces to address, is the manner in which it is struggling to meet the targets in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, for example, around recruitment of personnel. We are going to fall a long way short of the 2028 target levels under level of ambition 2. Ms King said it is not in the body's remit to talk about pay and allowances, and that is fair enough. Is the external oversight body in any way constrained in holding the Defence Forces or the State to account, generally speaking, for its failure to meet those targets, which will probably be a key marker for the Defence Forces in the coming years?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In that specific regard.
Ms Patricia King:
The membership of the body was a decision of the Government, so we had no input into the rationale of who was appointed or not appointed. That goes for those appointed on a non-statutory basis and on a statutory basis. That is the first thing to say. The Secretary General at the Department of Defence is an ex officio member of the body and, quite candidly, I believe the body is well capable of maximising the value of that in terms of not having to wait any length of time for answers. As to whether that in any way, shape or form curtails us in our perusal, oversight and monitoring of the HR function of the Defence Forces, which is our role, no, it does not. I would say it probably allows us to have a quality engagement. That also does not mean that we do not invite others in. We invite the most senior people in the Department who, on a day-to-day basis, engage with the Defence Forces. They come and speak to us in the very same way that the most senior people and leadership teams in the Defence Forces and the representative associations come. To be candid, it would be the view of the body that it does not curtail us in our work.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Assuming, therefore, that it is not curtailed, what then is the external oversight body's reaction to the fact that 43 objectives in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces are delayed and 29 of them have been delayed for over two years?
Ms Patricia King:
As I said in my opening statement, our remit is set out in section 322 of the Defence Act, as amended, which is to oversee and monitor the HR function without any remit at all in relation to pay or allowances. That gives us a narrow enough function and we are very much of the view that we stay in our lane.
I am very familiar, obviously, with the recommendations that were made in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces about a whole variety of things. The Deputy mentioned the issue of recruitment.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
An awful lot of them, although not all of them, are in relation to things like HR, culture and operational stuff as well.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They are not all about pay and allowances by any manner or means.
Ms Patricia King:
No, they are not. Chapter 8 of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, which is a very comprehensive chapter, deals with all of the matters relating to culture. It deals with the matters in relation to what should be changed to enhance the HR function within the organisation. It deals with recruitment and training. Chapter 8 of the commission report is, therefore, very comprehensive and we believe deals with and basically brings us to a place where we have said we want to see the full implementation of all of the matters raised in chapter 8 of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. We have put that down. On three of those items, namely, promotions, career progress and performance management, we have spent a considerable time in the last year working with the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence and the representative associations. Our view is that quite a reform needs to happen in relation to performance, promotions and career progression. We have then succeeded in having those included in the strategic framework, which means that the deadline of 1 November for those changes needs to happen. We have in a very intense way engaged with the parties to ensure that what we are looking for is not a bit of what the Commission on the Defence Forces said; we want what it said implemented. We have gone through a fairly strong process with it on those three items. For the next two items we are currently dealing with this year, in 2026, we have selected the training item, which is dealt with in that commission report, as well as the issue of recruitment and retention. We are dealing with these and we spent quite a lot of time on engagement with it. Our judgment is that we are really not happy to accept anything less than is set out in the commission report.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms King. I might return to that if I get a second opportunity.
I have a brief final question on a separate area. In terms of HR, does that include issues of health and safety? I do not mean in a retrospective way but in a current way. Does it include that? I want to highlight something that has been reported recently in relation to air purifiers at Baldonnel. An issue of concern has been raised about a piece of equipment that was meant to be serviced,monitored and so on. The Defence Forces said that, yes, it was. RTÉ subsequently contacted the contractors that had supposedly serviced this and they said that had not been the case. Obviously, the health and safety of the men and women in the Defence Forces is paramount. It seems to me that is a HR function not to do with pay and allowances. Is this something that has come up on Ms King's radar? Does she have a comment on it?
Ms Patricia King:
The particular issue the Deputy mentioned has not come to the table via HR or via the Department. However, I will say to him that, yes, we have dealt with issues. For instance, the whole issue of culture change in terms of the safety of the workplace where there is a multiplicity of serious inappropriate behaviour brings into question the health and safety aspect of that. For instance, we did have engagement with the Health and Safety Authority at the earlier stages when we were on a non-statutory basis related to all of the customs and practices around the culture change and so on. Therefore, yes, it is about health and safety, but we are overseeing and monitoring their management of certain issues. It has not been brought to our attention in relation to a particular issue on the HR, but as I said, we do have the constant engagement with the strategic head of HR in the Defence Forces and the Chief of Staff, COS, so there is every reason to believe that we can raise these things if they are brought to our attention.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms King.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Whose responsibility would it be to bring that to Ms King's attention?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the Defence Forces, not in-----
Ms Patricia King:
Yes, in the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces manage the Defence Forces. They liaise very closely with the Department on the overall management. However, the Department has its role and the Defence Forces have their role. Our function is to oversee the management of the HR function by the Defence Forces of the Defence Forces. That is where we have to keep our focus.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If they do not bring something to Ms King's attention that is as significant as that, what happens then?
Ms Patricia King:
It is not just a question. Obviously, we have other parties that could bring matters to our attention and when they do, we raise it with them. I am merely factually saying to the Cathaoirleach that it has not been brought to our attention by a member of the Defence Forces, a representative association, the Defence Forces management or the Department of Defence.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The oversight body is not disallowed from receiving information from-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. So, somebody from the Defence Forces could do so.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I, too, welcome everyone here this morning. I thank them for their time. They all come at this with a great deal of experience across different fields and they have different expertise to bring here, which is very useful. What are the witnesses' initial thoughts on their work to date? What is the initial reaction from each of them as to what they have found and the body of work with which they have been tasked? Is there a timeline for their existence within this role, if I can put it that way? Will this be an ongoing role for them or does it have a specified time period?
Reference was made by Ms King in relation to the representative bodies, whether that be RACO or PDFORRA. What level of engagement has she had with those representative bodies? What feedback did she get back from them and what is her reaction to that?
Ms Patricia King:
I will answer the last one first. The engagement with the representative associations is working out to be on a quarterly basis at the moment. Obviously, we are always very pleased to hear from them. The engagements are comprehensive and they give a good overview of where they are at. The engagements with them have been positive to date.
Second, there is no timeline that I know of in the legislation that talks about the non-existence of the body. The body is set up on a legislative basis. I do know the members have either a three-year or a four-year basis, the same as the normal timeline for any State body minus four years, I am very happy to say. Then, obviously, on the issue of recurring, the same limits apply. It is the same basis as any State body. From that point of view, that is how that works.
As for the time period, Ms Feehily and I both were on it when it was on a non-statutory footing to Mr. O'Doherty joining it for the statutory period, so it will be interesting to get a comment from both of my colleagues in relation to that. We have a very clear action plan in relation to what it is we want to achieve. If we look even at the strategic statement, as we have, there are a whole lot of elements here that come together but, ultimately, by 1 November of this year, for instance, we would expect, and this is set out, that we would have a reform of the promotion system and a satisfactory reform of the performance appraisal system and of the career management system. A lot of time was put in developing an independent grievance management system, which would be totally independent. We have that now set up. It is on a non-statutory basis. It is subject to review after 12 months. We expect to begin that review process in April. I hope it does not take too long because all the feedback to us is that should be on a statutory basis. That would mean it would be very effective if it went on a statutory basis. Given the outcome of the independent review group, that independent grievance management would be a really important piece to see. We hope the legislators will put that on a statutory basis.
The whole issue about the culture and so on is dealt with by us. One of the stand-out points during 2025 was that a survey called Value Our People was published.
It brought to everybody's attention some very serious issues regarding inappropriate behaviours and the level of people's feelings working in the Defence Forces. For instance, it said 24% of people had experienced or observed inappropriate behaviour, while 78% of the respondents - which was 60% in the survey - said they would not bring a complaint and did not feel comfortable with bringing a complaint. Some of that is quite frightening in terms of the culture, being candid. There is a big job of work to be done there.
We hope the elements we are working on will knit together in the overall culture, and we hope that will improve over time Culture change is one of the most difficult things to do in an organisation. This is an organisation that has a command-and-control structure and very embedded structures that are difficult change. Senior management tell us they are adopting a zero-tolerance approach. Our job is to make sure those two words are meaningful, in what that means and how it will change. I am talking about this to the extent that it is very dogged work in that you have to continue to pursue the same pieces to try to see if you can get that change over a period.
Obviously, there are workforce plans. There is the whole issue of civilianisation, which my colleagues will talk about. From that perspective, we have a wide and broad approach, even though we have a narrow lane in relation to HR functions.
Mr. Pat O'Doherty:
There are three components to the question here: what my thoughts are, the timeframe for the existence of the body and then the representative associations. My initial thoughts, and I came in later than some of my colleagues in that I was not involved in the earlier stages, are that the challenge is huge. I was shocked by some of the stuff that came out of the Value Our People survey. I have to be candid about that.
I came from a background of a lot of change, that is, decades in change and complex transformation. This is very different. As regards all the constructs around change, transformation, leadership, purpose and values-driven leadership, traditional non-military organisations are trying to move away from command and control to more collaborative structures. The challenge with the military is you must have a command-and-control structure, and how you get that to overlay with all the best practices around leadership, management and collaboration. There is a fascinating challenge in there somewhere, and we have engaged with the Defence Forces' senior leadership on that.
I see this as a huge opportunity. As we grow our Defence Forces to LOA 2, and as we tackle the major culture transformation, along with the wider capability that is needed to build a defence force for the future, there is a real opportunity to do something very different that excites me. If I was a senior leader in the Defence Forces, I would be genuinely excited about that. Those are some thoughts. Eventually, we do ourselves out of a job and I suppose that is called success. Somebody else has to decide how long we are in existence.
With regard to representative associations, again, I spent half a lifetime involved with representative associations on both sides of the table. There is a real role for representative associations to play here, but in a genuine spirit of partnership and consultation. I would question whether that is there right now. It is more them and us. For consultation to really work, there cannot be any dogma about it. It cannot be, "I will make a decision and tell you when I have my decision made", that is, consultation on the one hand and then on the other side, there cannot be a veto.
A representative association should go in and put its views on the table as an input into decisions before they are made and are being formed. If it then does not like those decisions or has an issue with them, it can get to negotiate them later. That to me is what genuine partnership is about. Again, there is a real opportunity for the representative associations and for the senior leadership of the Defence Forces to come at this in a different way. This would bring about the transformation and culture change that is needed, and to do it in a way that is separate from the conciliation processes that are in place in the Defence Forces. Those are some thoughts.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is very interesting.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome Ms King and the witnesses from the oversight body. I commend them on their work and on what they are doing.
First, Ms King stated that the body has visited several Defence Forces facilities around the country to speak with Defence Forces personnel directly on their lived experience within the Defence Forces.
How is that structured? By the sound of it, it does not allow for anonymity if somebody has an issue. If somebody had put complaints up the line or they were not happy with certain issues within a barracks for example, it does not allow for anonymity for that person coming forward to speak with them. How is this structured?
Ms Patricia King:
I thank the Senator for the question. The way it is structured is we first spend a day there. We ask that provision is made for different groups in the various tiers and layers, so that we can meet them privately. There can be up to 20 or 25 people who come in and have a conversation.
We are very clear that we do not break our commitment to them, which is that any comment they make is non-attributable. We cannot have a situation where anybody who makes any comment to us has that in some way, shape or form finding its way to a place they do not want, so we have to keep that. Even for our conversation here, it would be a general description.
We find this valuable because to date, people have engaged in quite a deep way. It is a task in itself to ask people whom we do not know - and they do not know us - to take us at face value that we are safe, we can have a conversation with them and it is going to be non-attributed. That in itself is a task for us as the listeners, because we do a lot of listening. So far, we have found them to be good quality engagement. We have had engagement on pieces where, when we were going in the door, we did not know we would be engaging on a particular topic. When we come out the door, we have heard things that are new to us, and that is good.
We do not know what conversation happens between the senior people and the people who come in and meet us. We do not know what conversation they have when they are arranging which group is going to meet us first and so on; we do not have any access to that. We take it at face value that we are going into a room, and as I said, we explain our mission and so far, we are quite pleased.
We are absolutely squeaky-clean regarding adhering to the non-attribution of any comments people make because that is important. However, it apprises us as a group and body that goes outside of the general conversation with senior management people. We are apprising ourselves of tone, content, what people are telling us, atmosphere and all that sort of stuff. It is not something we are doing because it is good to be able to say we went. We are genuine about listening and hearing, and that is why it is quality engagement. People pick up on that.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is good to hear. Was there commonality between the different groups on particular issues, or were they more specific to individual locations?
Ms Patricia King:
There were differences in locations and in what people told us but certainly, on the whole culture piece, there was commonality. There would even be differences in the years in that what you met in 2024 might have moved on in 2025. You hope to hear that and we hear a little bit of that. There is some commonality in the themes. We do not set the themes. We do not walk in and say, "We want to talk about this today." We do not do any of that. However, the Senator is right that there probably is commonality in the themes that come up to us.
Even within that, different groups will have a different focus. People at middle management level will have a different focus from people who are not at that level and so on. That is something you would expect in any organisation. You could hear from the perspective of people who are coming from different places.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms King. She has also stated that the oversight body is concerned with the level of progress and implementing measures relating to gender diversity, equality and inclusion matters and the level of female participation is still too low. There is good female representation here. The Minister for Defence is female. The Secretary General of the Department is female. The Cathaoirleach here is female. That is good in terms of a balance outside of the military itself.
Based on international standards, what would be an acceptable level or a level we should strive for? Obviously, we want to strive to increase the levels. From discussions with serving female members, what issues are they coming back with in terms of why they think others are not joining or why people have left?
Ms Patricia King:
The target was really set by the Commission on the Defence Forces which said it wanted to see a 35% uplift in terms of female participation by 2030. I can say that it is nowhere near achieving that. It has moved upwards from when we started. Female participation was 7.2% and has now moved to 8.9%. That is very slow movement.
As the Senator knows, this is a very holistic piece. It is not just any one thing. It is actually one of the more difficult things to shift in terms of doing this. There are all these elements including culture, how the operation runs, the whole training piece, access to training and how training is organised. For instance, training is very related to promotions. It is organised as five days in training away from home. It involves making all of those changes you need to make to ensure all of those pieces more accessible to people, male and female, and that is not necessarily simple. It is not simple for the senior management people who have to organise it.
However, the first place you have to get to is for everybody to recognise those things have to change. Then, you have to try to accelerate the speed at which they change because any of us who have worked in big organisations will know what people want to see and how certain factors influence their decisions as to whether they want to join an organisation or not. In our case, the culture will influence people so that needs to be improved, along with how females progress and the various elements that operate in the organisation. Do they operate in a way that will help females make a decision to join? In other words, it is about all of the things that are important from their perspective. They will make judgments and ask whether we are improving all of those elements as we go through.
This is fairly complex and it is comprehensive. All of these things together will make the Defence Forces a place that has a tip-top working culture where females really want to work and can see their opportunities will be executed in that particular place. We are not there yet by any means, as members can see.
The other piece is the level of interest. Last year, something like 16,000 people applied to come into the Defence Forces. A total of 832 came in because there are various stages. The figure of 16,000 is a very prosperous number of people who are interested in coming in. Does the committee know the point I am making? It is not all as dark as portrayed. Part of our task is to work with HR management to make sure they maximise from that level of 16,000 applications and see whether we can get more. Can we facilitate more? Can all of the pieces that need to happen when you are inducting people happen? That is all part of the objective of our exercise.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Let me put my cards very much on the table. I believe that any sort of sexual assault, sexual violence or anything of that nature that happens in any organisation needs to be stamped out and stamped out quickly. There is no room for bullying and harassment in any organisation either. As Ms King rightly points out, the Defence Forces are very structured organisations with structured ranks, etc.
Having said that, I believe the publication of the independent review group, IRG, report was appalling. It put the organisation into the public domain in a most horrible light. The IRG report quite rightly led to the establishment of a tribunal, which will deal with evidence that is tested in the public domain, whereas the IRG report presented as evidence something that was untested. I need to put that on the record. I believe some of the oversight body's own members have stated they have seen no organisation in more need of reform than the Defence Forces. I would love somebody to explain to me where is the empirical evidence for that? How can you say something like that when no other organisation in this country has been subjected to a study similar to the IRG report? Indeed, we recently saw the HSE continued to employ a doctor who raped a nurse for several months after the rape took place so-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On a point of information, it is incorrect to say before the committee that no research has been carried out. My doctoral research was carried out over four years from 1996 to 2000. It was then followed by the study review group which was set up by the Government to independently investigate my research. All of those findings, conclusions and recommendations accord precisely with the findings, conclusions and recommendations as set out by the IRG.
As a committee, we have to be very careful to make sure whatever is put on the record is factually correct.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Senator Clonan.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not for one moment questioning Senator Clonan's doctoral thesis. I fully respect the work he carried out and I fully respect the fact that it led to the establishment of an independent monitoring group with oversight of the Defence Forces. That group included members of the representative bodies who are not included in the external oversight body. During the debate that took place on the legislation for the external oversight body, the committee was almost ad idem that the Secretary General of the Department of Defence should not a be a member of the oversight body. We were assured at the time by then Deputy Charlie Flanagan who said making the Secretary General of the Department of Defence a full member was something he saw as a conflict of interest. This was on 27 February 2024. He went on to outline why he thought it would be a conflict of interest for the Secretary General of the Department. It is available in the public record.
The strategy document of the external oversight body is very clear on the integrity and independence of the organisation. The Secretary General of the Department is the Accounting Officer of the Department of Defence and as such, the paymaster for the Defence Forces. Any implementation that needs to take place - we talk about chapter 8. The oversight body says it does not touch pay and it has no remit in pay. It has a remit for specialist pay. It has a remit in the establishment of the lance corporal rank. It has remit in respect to long service. It has a remit in respect to training.
All of those are issues that have to be paid for. It does not have a remit in pay per se, but the final outcome will be a pay differential as somebody gets promoted. We have to be honest and straight about that.
The independent review group has coloured every discussion on the Defence Forces because it was published in the way it was. If the tribunal finds exactly the same thing - I have no reason to believe it will not - that would have been the time to talk about where we go from here. After Senator Clonan's doctoral piece was done, there was some work done on reforming the organisation - clearly, it was not enough at the time.
I am concerned that statements are made about the Defence Forces being appalling without any empirical evidence to show they are different from hospitals, the Prison Service and so on.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Perhaps we will allow the witnesses to address some of the issues the Senator raised.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am asking where the empirical evidence is to support the fact the Defence Forces is a worse place to work, in the context of sexual harassment and sexual attacks, than any other organisation in the country.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not think anyone is drawing that conclusion.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are statements in the public domain.
Ms Patricia King:
We do not, and it is not within our remit to make any comment about the IRG.
We deal with the issues on a current basis. We do not have any remit in relation to the past. That is a matter for the tribunal and it will no doubt deal with it. What we can tell the Senator is that we get a quarterly report from the Defence Forces at a senior level about the level of complaints on various matters. These are broken down into inappropriate behaviours, including sexual assault, assault and a range of other categories. The numbers are far too high for the organisation.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces base that on?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Ms King say that any other organisation is different?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not think the issue is whether one organisation is worse than another. The remit of the oversight body pertains directly to the Defence Forces, so it can speak about that. Is one too many? Is two too many? Is three too many?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When the chair of the oversight body says the level is too high, on what basis is that? It is too high if it is one, but it is not just the Defence Forces. Perhaps the oversight body should be looking at every public sector organisation.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are looking at the Defence Forces, and we have more than enough to do in terms of the remit we have.
Ms Patricia King:
From our perspective, we have had engagement on an ongoing basis, as the Senator can imagine, with the Chief of Staff and the head of strategic HR. They do not disagree. I completely accept the bona fides of their aspiration to change it and bring the figures down. They believe they have a zero-tolerance approach. The Chief of Staff is clear in his engagement with us. We accept that he is adopting a zero tolerance approach and we need that to be more meaningful than it is because the numbers need to come down. People in the Defence Forces need to be aware that inappropriate behaviours are not acceptable, and the message regarding zero tolerance has to go through and down.
The value our people survey, which I mentioned in a response to another member, was useful in giving us some more facts and figures. These are self declared facts and figures. This is not someone doing an overview and writing an opinion. Sixty per cent of the people working there participated in the survey. Some 24% said they had either experienced or observed inappropriate behaviour and 78% said they would not report it. By any stretch of the imagination, those figures reveal to anyone who is listening, including the senior management and us, as an EOB, that there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
From the point of view of how it is addressed, our role is to oversee and monitor that sufficient measures are put in place. It is not just about saying the Defence Forces has zero tolerance. It is about putting measures in place so that every member of the Defence Forces understands and knows that if they behave like that, there will be a consequence. We accept the bona fides of the people who are running this, that they want to get to a place where these figures are lower. For instance, there are things like, that we have several times suggested that at the induction stage there should be a small module which deals with the behavioural issue and inappropriate behaviour. A process should be started at a very early stage with, in the main young, people coming in to make them aware that this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that if they engage in it, they will be gone. That is an approach a lot of organisations take, and it can be quite successful. We are making those sorts of suggestions on a continual basis and that is our role. It is to be helpful, because we accept that the Defence Forces wants to get to a place where surveys are not returning that kind of result.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is mandatory training now in respect of interpersonal relations, is there not?
Ms Patricia King:
They have had different types. They have used Cork university, and they are involved in another with Trinity College. However, my point is that they are all elements - part of finding a solution. The induction is just another part. It will take time. Ms Feehily would like to come in.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will let Ms Feehily in, but ask her to be short because we have gone over time.
Ms Josephine Feehily:
I thank the Chair. It is important to point out that the Defence Forces conducted the value our people survey. That is a mature thing for an organisation to do, namely to find out for itself. They have also committed to repeating it after 12 months. For the oversight body,that is an important next milestone. There is no getting away from the fact that, with a high response rate, 24% of staff reported experiencing, not observing, but experiencing unacceptable behaviour and that is very high for any workplace by any measure. That is just a fact. The Defence Forces should be acknowledged for having the maturity to find that out. Now, they have to do something between the first survey and the next one, take some positive action. The proof of the pudding will be in whether that number goes up or down. The second scary number is that 78% of that 24% did not report it. The Senator asked earlier about impressions. That is not a sign of a mature workplace. I will be taking those two numbers and watching how they develop in the future.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is useful to have that baseline against which to measure progress and the effectiveness of what the oversight body is doing and what is being done in the Defence Forces to address it. It is like a school saying that there is no bullying happening while we know what happens where there are human behaviours. It is outward looking and acknowledging what is there and how it will be addressed.
I allowed almost two slots for that discussion because it is significant and a serious issue, and it binds everything together in terms of what we are trying to do here.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming in today and note the apologies of the members who could not make it.
On a point of clarity, Ms King mentioned that 60% of the Defence Forces responded and that, of those , 24% said they had either experienced or witnessed inappropriate behaviour, but then Ms Feehily-----
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To clarify, did 24% say that they had directly experienced it or that they witnessed it?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was just for clarity. That is certainly a large number.
For the record, I am still female. I was a female member of the Defence Forces, and I served my time there. I feel it rising in me that I am still hugely loyal to the men and women I served with.
In particular, as a 17-year-old girl who joined the Defence Forces, I was the only female in a class of 30. To this day they are my band of brothers. If I needed to call somebody at 3 a.m., I could call any of them and they would come to my aid. I never once had a single piece of bad behaviour or attitude towards me. In fact, I had the complete opposite. This is from a woman who joined the Defence Forces in the nineties. The numbers of females were low then and they continue to be low, but there is a whole other cultural aspect that in my view would lead to that. What do the witnesses envisage when the work is done and the Defence Forces are reformed? What does that look like?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms King has mentioned that the body has a narrow lane in the context of HR. The focus seems to be solely on the inappropriate behaviour. I appreciate she is shaking her head, but I am asking the question because that is the only piece of culture we seem to have been talking about since we came in today. The mandate and strategic objective are the implementation of chapter 8 of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, as outlined in the opening statement. Is that every section of chapter 8? Ms King also said the people are the Defence Forces' key strategic resource. Should the remit then not cover strategic HR, career progression, promotion systems, training, culture, morale, female participation, gender diversity, grievance processes, trends in numbers including recruitment and retention, family-friendly measures, the working time directive, civilianisation, entry to officer ranks for enlisted personnel, healthcare, pensions and contracts, visibility of the total package, pay structures, pay review, pay bargaining and ICTU? They are all part of chapter 8. Is the remit to cover all of that? If it is, how are we feeling about the fact that 12 projects have been delayed in the implementation plan?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They are all chapter 8.
Ms Patricia King:
We are confined. As the Deputy will accept, the legislation provides for our role, and it is specific that we do not have a role with regard to pay and pay matters. However, if the Deputy looks at Chapter 8, which she obviously has in front of her, section 1 refers to strategic HR, career progression, promotion systems and training. The first thing that happened when we were on a non-statutory basis was we got agreement that a strategic HR manager would be appointed. That is the recommendation in the commission report, and that happened in September 2023. We then selected three items for the course of 2024 that we would home in on, which were career progression, promotion systems and performance appraisal.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms King has said that already in the contributions and I get that, but those items have also been pushed back for more than two years. Is she really confident that they will be delivered before the end of this year?
Ms Patricia King:
We have had an intensive engagement on those. We are confident and we have said to strategic HR that we need the final output from it on 1 November. That is in the strategic framework. We have had long, in some cases lingering, engagement, particularly on the promotions and what needs to change and what we need to see. What we need to see is what is in the chapter 8 recommendations.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am conscious of my time. Ms King mentioned that when some targets were missed, the oversight body was really not happy.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What then is the next step? Ms King is hopeful the recommendations that have been made will be delivered. If they are not, does the board have teeth? What is the next thing it can do?
Ms Patricia King:
The next step is that we can advise and report to the Minister directly. We can do that in a way that says, even in the interim, that if we believe not enough progress is being made or it is not being taken that seriously, we are enabled to go to the Minister and make a report. Ultimately, the Minister within her legislative domain can deal directly with the Department and the Defence Forces. We have the option to go to the Minister to make that report.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If it is deemed that progress has not been made, is that a whole-of-board decision? Can anybody overrule that? Does there have to be a majority? Does everybody on the board have to agree, or how do they come to that?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it 100% consensus?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What if there were a voice on the board that did not agree?
Ms Patricia King:
We would take time to tease that out to see if we could understand where the person was coming from. The engagement is a quality engagement. We have good-quality people on the body who have been around the houses more than once, if I may so, in relation to these matters. The objective is to get a consensus, but there was no difficulty getting a consensus from the body that what is stipulated in the commission report with regard to HR matters should be the outturn of our engagement with HR. Strategic HR is aware of that.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When the 12 projects-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will bring the Deputy in first in the next slot because the others have had more time. Is that okay?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, thank you.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming. I wish them well in their work. They have a big task. The structures in the Defence Forces were inherited to a large degree. They came from the old British army model and with it came a lot of the culture. While things have changed in the years since Independence and progress has been made, they have a huge task, and I think that is recognised. I would not for a minute question the fact that 24% have experienced inappropriate behaviour. The shocking figure is the 78% who are not just reluctant to complain but who would not do so. That strikes to the heart of how we have a huge problem in the Defence Forces. That figure screams of the level of change that is needed. There are a lot of areas to be covered. The big thing for me from various engagements we have had since the committee was formed is that when these matters come up, a lot of it seems to originate from the power of rank within the Defence Forces. There are obvious challenges in trying to change that. It is not like working in a factory or an office, where you receive an instruction and you have union representation and all of that, or at least you should have. We do not have a right to be represented by a union in this country, although I think Ms King and some of the others will agree it is something we need to progress to. That has been a bugbear of mine for years. Is it fair to say that is where the bulk of the abuse of power comes from? Is it abuse of rank or is it based on gender alone? Does it affect both men and women generally?
Ms Patricia King:
This is a complex issue. The Deputy has identified one of the complexities, which is the command and control structure.
That is different from a lot of organisations which do not operate on that basis. The Deputy might have heard me make reference to the culture - it is very embedded in the culture. The command and control structure probably makes the dynamic different and makes it more difficult to transform the culture. One of the reasons we have made suggestions on the induction piece is that people coming in at the very earliest stages who get a very clear message about inappropriate behaviour will take that with them, even going through a command and control structure, and will know there are limitations in terms of how they behave and so on. There is a complexity around this, but I would not like, in any shape or form, to give a sole prognosis in relation to it. I do not think that would be fair, and it would not properly describe-----
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Maybe I will rephrase the question. While it is hard to measure or put a figure on it, and I would not expect Ms King to be able to do that, is the predominant source or origin of this someone who is one, two or three ranks higher than the person who is on the receiving end?
Ms Patricia King:
I would not like to even say that it is that predominantly, because some of the information we have seen is that some is happening at quite a senior level and some is happening at junior levels - at lower ranks - and so on, among themselves. From that perspective, it adds to the complexity because you are not able to diagnose a one-way approach to this. There are a whole lot of things when you look at the information. We get quarterly information in relation to complaints that are made. We do not get a huge amount of information other than numbers and maybe a heading of type. I cannot give the Deputy the diagnosis that he is seeking, but I can say that there are numerous elements feeding into that. It is not just one against the other, female or male, say. For instance, we are well aware that there have been male on male sexual assaults. From that perspective, we cannot even say that it is solely a gender-based issue or diversity in relation to gender, because it is not.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to a different question. I know the body has a limited role or narrow focus, as Ms King described it, and that is fair enough, but can the witnesses express a view on the block to recruitment? Progress is being made, and that is welcome. We have received figures at previous hearings around the improvements but the scale and pace is not significant. It is not where is should be. Can the witnesses identify the single biggest factor in terms of recruitment?
Ms Patricia King:
I was saying to the Deputy earlier that there was interest expressed last year by 16,000 people who made it clear to the Defence Forces that they wanted to be considered for enrolment. That is good. What happens between the 16,000 and the 700 or 800 where there is an intake? That probably has to be analysed in more depth than is currently the case.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we have a view on it at this point?
Ms Patricia King:
Are there barriers internally in the ability to take more than the 800 in terms of training facilities and all those things? We are at a stage where we do not have all the answers. We have identified what the Deputy raised as a question that needs to be answered. Some of it relates to the internal capacity.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What Ms King is saying is interesting. Is she saying that there is a training capacity issue?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is something the committee needs to be aware of.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Expansion.
Ms Patricia King:
Expanding them and elevating them in terms of how the thing happens, how the training piece works. That is why we have selected that as our next theme in 2026. We will be progressing intensive discussions with the Defence Forces on that. How does it work? Is it accessible? What is the capacity deficit? How is it that we 16,000 people who are interested in coming in and that we only have an intake of just over 800? Does some of the problem relate to our training capacity? Those are the sorts of questions that we are starting to ask, but I have come before the committee without the answers as yet.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Feehily wanted to come in.
Ms Josephine Feehily:
Just a very brief additional point. When the body was on a non-statutory basis we did a piece of work which tried to break down that pipeline from the 16,000 not just in the context of the 800 who turned up but also the ones who actually stayed past the first couple of months. There had not, it seemed to us, been any serious attempt to see whether some of the steps in that regard might be part of the problem. In my experience, that is quite common in the public sector. Young people today apply for a job and they get a job. The public sector takes its time. That is common and not confined to military or the Defence Forces. Work needs to be done, and we have said this to the Defence Forces, to identify the pipeline from which they are losing people before they even set foot in the organisation. One of the pieces I remember particularly was that they had not done exit interviews to ask the people who were leaving within three or four weeks why they were doing so. Now they are doing that. It is painstaking and tedious, but that is the only way you will turn that 16,000 into the optimum number of functioning members of the Defence Forces. They really do have to think about the labour force they are trying to attract and what the expectation is. It is not to fill in an application today and get an answer in six months' time that they might have to do step 2. There is a whole new way of engaging with recruits. Any recruitment expert in the private or public sector will tell you that. They have a lot of work to do there. They are doing it, as far as we know. They give us assurances that they are doing certain things. At the end of this year, we will be having another look to see if they have done what they said.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It would be very interesting to hear some of those reasons.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Certainly.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who conducts the exit interviews?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is par for the course in so many other organisations. I was just wondering would it curtail the type of information that comes back if it is being done by somebody who was very close to you in the-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Maybe not. We are dealing with young people, however. They do not have life experience.
Ms Patricia King:
Part of the work we are going to become involved in, which relates to the Deputy's question, relates to the training piece. We expect to get detailed response on all of those. Slowness is an issue in trying to get progress - that is probably an understatement - but you have to first identify what the barriers are and then you have to find solutions to break down those barriers and see can we increase the capacity for take-in and then reduce the attrition levels, because, to be quite candid, the attrition levels are unhealthy. They need to be really analysed to establish why there is such an attrition level having gone through this process. Those are the things we have to do.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am going to go on to Senator Clonan, who has been very patient.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome everyone and thank them for the very important work they are doing. Thirty years ago, in 1996, I submitted a letter to the Chief of Staff requesting permission, as a serving officer, to carry out doctoral research on the equality environment within the Defence Forces.
When I did my transfer examination from the MPhil register in DCU to the PhD register in 1998, the registrar was so concerned about the preliminary findings of my research that he referred the matter to DCU and Arthur Cox, one of the biggest corporate law firms in the city. Having reviewed the preliminary work, Arthur Cox directed that I should get a letter of comfort from the Chief of Staff indicating in writing that I had permission to continue, that the research would be lodged to the library in the normal way and that it would be examined internally and externally, which is a form of publication. The Chief of Staff gave me that permission in writing. That is when I started to interview my female colleagues.
I am very proud of my service in Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is an extension of my family. Like any family, it can be dysfunctional from time to time. I was never bullied in the Defence Forces. I was never sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. It was not part of my research design to discuss that. However, in the discussion of the training environment when I interviewed my female colleagues with a maximum variation sample of 60, they began to disclose experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault, up to and including rape. Fifty-nine of the 60 women whom I interviewed disclosed some form of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape. I was not aware of it until I asked the question. I did not swear an oath of allegiance to a cohort of very vocal, misogynistic, sexist individuals in the Defence Forces who did not understand its mission. I swore an oath of allegiance - mionnaímse go solamanta - to uphold the Constitution and its aspirations for male and female soldiers.
Remember, my PhD was not a report. It was an academic work that contributed to knowledge. It was supervised not only by the ethics committee in DCU and my academic supervisor, but by the Chief of Staff, the chain of command within the military and an international law firm. It was probably the most overseen, interrogated and invigilated piece of research in the history of State. When my findings were published, the Chief of Staff and the general staff issued a press statement, which is very unusual, in which they said that I had falsified the research and fabricated its findings. They said they had no knowledge of the research, notwithstanding all the letters that they had written.
They immediately embarked on a process of reprisal. That reprisal included that type of character assassination. I had been appointed as an assistant lecturer in an institute of technology. I was advised that I had been hired on the basis that I had a PhD, but now the Chief of Staff and general staff were saying that I had made the whole thing up. I was told that I would be off-boarded by the person who had on-boarded me. I was also threatened by the general staff. They alleged that I had breached the Official Secrets Act, which is a criminal offence. They told me that a file would be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that if I was convicted, I could face imprisonment. Reprisal. Lies. Character assassination. I was physically assaulted. My family was exposed to a campaign of silent phone calls during the night. One of my sisters received the most obscene, disgusting, grotesque messages from serving members of the Defence Forces.
The study review group that investigated my research, at my request of the Minister for Defence, Fianna Fáil's Michael Smith, did so thoroughly under the direction of Dr. Eileen Doyle from DCU. It completely vindicated all of my findings. Not only did it find that women were subject to this toxic behaviour, but young men were also raped, very often in the overseas environment. I have been approached over the past 30 years by so many families whose sons died by suicide after being sexually assaulted, particularly but not exclusively in the overseas environment.
Fast forward to the independent review group after the fresh disclosures from the Women of Honour. When that report was published, the reprisal against me was reanimated. Senator Craughwell will be aware of this. The most disgusting and grotesque allegations were spread about me online and in our community of retired and serving officers. My daughter became aware of it and was very upset by it. When the tribunal was set up, I experienced a fresh round of reprisal. One of the key points that was set out by the independent review group was that there was a cycle or dynamic of reprisal. It is not that they have zero tolerance of the inappropriate behaviours. They have zero tolerance of people who raise a concern, whether it is about air purifiers, exposure to chemicals or the proper helicopter being used on an operation to seize drugs on a vessel off the west coast. If you raise a concern about anything, there is zero tolerance of you.
Some of the most enthusiastic participants and architects of the system of reprisal that was directed at me are now members of the general staff.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Senator have a question for the witnesses?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have been invested in this for 30 years. I have not once been asked to make a contribution to this transformation. In 2000, my research contained a comparative analysis with the British army, the US military and European Union militaries that showed why the Defence Forces were different. I agree with Senator Craughwell that of course every organisation has this problem, but what makes the Defence Forces different is the manner in which they respond to it.
My research has set out in forensic detail what the international military do. I have so many questions for the witnesses. The literature on this is very clear and extensive. The most socially conservative military in NATO is the British army, but the British army is completely different to the Irish Defence Forces, which inherited not just their physical infrastructure, but their cultural infrastructure from the British army of the 1920s. There are far more progressive militaries, such as the US military and the Germans. The Germans have a cultural imperative called "Innere Führung". What does the external oversight body think of the services of a British army colonel being brought in to provide advice and consultancy at the expense of the taxpayer on transforming the culture?
I apologise for going over time. I have been in lockstep with this for 30 years. I have never been approached by the Department of defence or military authorities to provide any input or assistance. When the oversight body engages with the general staff, does it experience any defensiveness, resentment or resistance to an interrogation of the culture? The sexual violence is a symptom of the toxic culture, of a broader, overarching, systematic and systemic toxicity.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to give an opportunity to the witnesses. We have gone way over time.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask the witnesses to respond to the contribution in any way that they can.
Ms Josephine Feehily:
In relation to the Senator's second question, no organisation likes to be challenged. There is a very strong loyalty and attachment to the values of the Defence Forces. It is natural that there would be a certain challenge back when an oversight body starts to interrogate an organisation's processes. We certainly experience that. I would not say that it is unexpected or unusual to be challenged back when we start to do our work.
Over the time since we moved from being non-statutory to now, we have had two years in which we have certainly got a more open engagement than was been the case at the beginning. There is a maturing in that conversation. The appointment of a head of strategic HR who is a civilian is helping because he brings an understanding of how organisations should function and he is not as surprised, maybe, as some others at the questions we are asking. The engagement is robust but that is fair enough. We are used to that. Sometimes it takes time for us to connect why we are looking for something back to a certain cultural dimension.
There is a low trust environment evident in the survey results and that is really one of the things we have to talk a lot about when we are meeting the general staff. We have to talk a lot about transparency and about communications. Communications are not strong and they break down halfway down the chain of command so that by the time the message reaches the bottom, it can be quite different. We spent a lot of time in the early stages trying to understand and encourage much more open communication and much more transparency about reasons. For example, there was a discussion earlier about some of the training in relation to unacceptable behaviour. It was not always understood in the lower ranks why they had to do this because the communication was: "On Monday morning, you are there, you are detailed". We have really had to work on getting a more rounded communication as to the cultural underpinnings of some of the work we are trying to do. We are bringing that transparency conversation into promotions and recruitment and various other areas.
Maybe I am rambling a bit but to answer the Deputy's question, the engagement was more defensive but has now improved. We are not there yet but that is perfectly understandable. An organisation that has been in existence for 100 years suddenly has civilian oversight. That is new and it takes time to get used to, so I am not surprised.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will go to a second round of questioning now.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Following on from my last contribution, my first question is about the board's response and representation to the Minister around the delay to 12 HR and career development projects. My second question is around retention and recruitment challenges. In terms of retention and keeping people, I accept that the witnesses do not have a say in pay. I accept that but one of the key recommendations in chapter 8 is to ensure the implementation of pay review mechanisms. That is a key recommendation. I am nearly blue in the face speaking at this committee about increasing cadet pay and making sure that the members of the 80th Air Corps apprentice class, the last apprentice class in the Air Corps, are paid what they are due. In the context of valuing our people, we should be paying specialised personnel in the Defence Forces - in the navy, Air Corps and the Army - extra. We should be paying them their value and making them feel valued. That will improve our culture and morale.
My third question is about engagement with representative organisations. Reference was made to career progression and promotion systems and the lance corporal rank is something that could be incorporated. We are now talking about systems being delivered in November. When the witnesses speak to the representative organisations including PDFORRA, RACO and REMA, do they believe the systems will be delivered in that timeframe? Is that discussed with them?
In the context of the board moving forward, would there be value in having members of those representative organisations as part of the board? The board would gain from their experience, particularly from people in REMA who are retired but it would also have grassroots, constant contact with what is happening on the ground through those representative organisations. Could including members of those organisations on the board be considered?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I specifically wanted to know what the response was and what its representation to the Minister was in the context of what Ms King said earlier. What actually happened? What was the representation?
Mr. Pat O'Doherty:
We outlined to the Minister where we believed things were not moving as quickly as they should. Our role is to challenge and to be constructive in equal measure. What we bring to the table is a lot of experience of transformation and change and we challenge the approach the Defence Forces are taking to a complex programme of interrelated projects. All of these projects come together in a complex way to create the culture of the Defence Forces of the future. Our role is to challenge, to offer advice and to be impatient about it, to be impatient for change and the speed at which it is happening. Where we do not observe that things are happening quickly enough, we will have that conversation with the representatives of the Defence Forces and with the Minister.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay-----
Ms Patricia King:
Just in relation to the three items, the first section of chapter 8 refers to strategic HR, career progression and promotion systems, and performance management. The strategic HR appointment was made; that was done. We engaged intensively on the next three items for most of 2025 with the Defence Forces. When we had not achieved output at the rate and level we wanted, the Deputy is asking what we did. We wrote to the Minister and said that we needed to have an acceleration of output and the Minister agreed that the three to four items we were looking for progress on should be included in the strategic framework which put a timeline on them, namely 1 November. We need to have the commission's report output by then. That is what we did.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was not quite what I was asking. My question was about the representations to the Minister on the 12 missed projects. The other question about reform of the promotion system is whether the representative organisations that the oversight body has engaged with think it is going to be delivered in November.
Ms Patricia King:
We have had these matters raised with the representative associations and I think it is fair to say that they have indicated their unhappiness in relation to the consultation process. On foot of that, what we have said to the senior people in the Defence Forces is that they should create a much more robust consultation forum on transformation generally. We said there should be much more engagement and that would be only in the best interests of trying to progress and accelerate these pieces. We are hopeful that they will take this up and do that. The engagement between the employer and those who work is really important and we think that consultation forum should happen.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The question was, based on engagement with the representative organisations, do they believe it can be delivered by November?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In that engagement with them, did they say they think it will be delivered by November?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do they think that it will be delivered? Can we take it from that they do not think it will be delivered?
Ms Patricia King:
With respect, the Deputy will have to put that question directly to the representative bodies. I am not going to answer for them. We are expecting to have a consultation shortly with PDFORRA on these matters.
We will be going into detail with them on those. The Deputy can take it that it would be our view that the representative associations are not content with the level of engagement with these matters.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms King think that representatives from those organisations could form part of the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces as well?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms King think it would be useful?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My final question is in terms of valuing our people in respect of advocating for the implementation of pay review mechanisms, which are a key recommendation in chapter 8.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, but in the opening statement, on page 2, it is stated that the body's strategic objective is "the implementation of Chapter 8 of the 2022 Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces". I do not understand how the body can pick and choose its remit. It is either implementing chapter 8, and all of it, or not implementing it at all, or it should specifically say chapter 8 in the context of all the pieces mentioned so far, including strategic HR, career progression and promotion systems and training. They are all in section 1.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In fairness, there is also female participation and gender and diversity, which is in section 2.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Pay structure, pay review and pay bargaining is in section 4. That is the key recommendation of chapter 8.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, but I am not saying pay. I am referring to the pay review mechanisms and if we can advocate for pay review mechanisms. I am not saying that the body would decide what the pay is, but I am saying that in terms of retention, this is a key part of how morale is built and how people feel valued. People need to feel heard, and I respect and applaud the work the body is doing in this regard most definitely. It needs to be said as well and stated on the record that the Defence Forces are a professional organisation, and are taking on board and working in tandem with the recommendations the body is making. I would like to see advocacy on behalf of all of the Defence Forces for implementing the pay review mechanisms that are, and I know I am saying it again, a key part.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not saying pay, but the mechanism for it. I am referring to a review of the pay mechanism.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That means the body does not have remit over chapter 8.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, and I completely understand what Deputy Callaghan is saying. That may be a recommendation that the committee could write to the Minister on in terms of changing the legislation to allow for that flexibility. Obviously, I hear exactly what the Deputy is saying in respect of how we can separate the two aspects and how the oversight body can be really effective if it is separating pay from what it is trying to achieve as well. I want to go to Ms Feehily.
Ms Josephine Feehily:
The Cathaoirleach made the point I was going to make. Advocacy is something that this committee has a much stronger voice on. It has had the Minister in already, and it could have the Minister in again in a couple of weeks. It had legislation before it for pre-legislative scrutiny recently. We use “chapter 8” almost as shorthand. I just wanted to remove any confusion. Our remit is in statute. In interpreting our remit, we asked where we would start. We took the various elements of chapter 8, including recruitment and promotions, and we are moving onto training and working down through it. I am sorry if there has been confusion. For us, it is about us creating a work plan for ourselves, in accordance with the strategy that we have before us today, and using chapter 8 as our template. Our actual remit, however, is in statute. The context is how we extrapolate and implement action in respect of that statutory remit using chapter 8, rather than starting with a blank page.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, and I think it is-----
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I did ask if the body covered all of chapter 8 and it was said that it did. That was at the start. I did specifically ask that question before I started my contribution, just to be clear.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I call Senator Clonan.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I apologise, but I will be brief. I mentioned the former Minister for Defence, Michael Smith, previously. I asked him back in-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just want to be careful. I allowed the Senator a lot of leeway the last time.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to be very careful in terms of my remit as Chair in respect of not allowing anybody to be identifiable or anybody mentioned who is not here. I will just caution the Senator on this point, if he wants to ask a further question.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When the Women of Honour came forward with their fresh disclosures, the former Minister, Michael Smith, contacted me and said that he was so disappointed that there had been no harm reduction in the 20 years that had passed since the publication of my research. He talked about the satisfaction he had got having reduced alcohol limits for driving and that having led to harm reduction. He was just sharing his concern with me that he was disappointed that there had been no harm reduction in this context. Since the establishment of the EOB, do the witnesses think it is leading to harm reduction within the organisation for young men and women?
My own personal belief is that we should absolutely accelerate the enlistment and recruitment of women, as is the case internationally. There is a big body of literature on that. Do the witnesses think that the Defence Forces, as we speak now, are a safe place for female personnel? I accept there are many female personnel who do not have adverse experiences. Given the numbers who do, however, is it a safe environment for young women?
Ms Patricia King:
I thank the Senator for his question. There are two key aspects: no harm reduction and harm reduction. I can tell the Senator - I would say without equivocation - that every member of the body is doing the work they are involved in for one reason, and that is to be able to say to the Senator that we want to have a strong harm reduction in the Defence Forces. That is what our mission is and that is what we want to achieve, in very simple terms. I am glad the Senator asked this question.
In relation to whether the Defence Forces are a safe place to work, that is a question that we regularly ask the most senior people who come into us. In fact, we asked it at the most recent public meeting. That is a question that is a very full question. We need to get to a place where, again without equivocation, the answer to that can be “Yes”. When we mentioned in answer to other Senators and Deputies about the levels, on the survey and the numbers of complaints made, and so on, those are all key indicators in relation to safety in the workplace. That is why the body has to go through such intense work with the Defence Forces to get to a place where we can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is no question about safety in the workplace. We do not want people going into a workplace where there is the possibility of assault, sexual assault, bullying, sexual harassment or any of those aspects. We need to get to a place where it is, by far and away, a rarity rather than a continuation of numbers. I am glad the Senator asked that question because it gives me the opportunity to very plainly, I hope, say to him that this is the mission of this body. This is, certainly, why I am personally engaged in doing it, and I know my colleagues on the body feel very much the same.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry to put Ms King on the spot, but as of today, is it a safe place for young women?
Ms Patricia King:
Well, I think it is becoming safer and the things we are putting in place, like, for instance, the independence grievance procedure, if it is put on a statutory footing, will be another milestone in relation to putting the building blocks in place to make it a safer workplace than it currently is. That is the place where we are. We are not hanging back. A lot of people will be cross and angry because that is a position we have taken. We have to just let that noise go away. We have to keep focused on what it is we are doing, and the mission is, as the Senator described it, to put all the blocks in place to ensure this is the safest workplace it can be.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Briefly, in the time I have left, as a committee, we visited the joint induction training centre in Gormanston recently. After our visit, I was contacted by a number of recruits, who, I am sorry to say, made serious allegations about both physical and sexual assault in the joint induction training centre in Gormanston. Now, we are dealing with that and trying to provide support to these individuals. I suspect they came to me because probably just by reputation or common public profile, they thought I was probably somebody they could approach. Is there a mechanism like that for members of the Defence Forces to contact the EOB in confidence and reach out to it? Is there a mechanism or a portal for individual members of the Defence Forces to contact it and speak to it in confidence?
Ms Patricia King:
We do not directly have that because that is not directly what our work is. If somebody wants to tell us, we are open to hearing that. The utilisation of Raiseaconcern, for instance, as an organisation has been put in place for that precise reason. Our work is about making sure that if somebody contacts Raiseaconcern and if that matter has to be dealt with, there is a good, sturdy, robust procedure in place whereby the person who has that serious concern can have the matter remediated and dealt with.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If there are allegations of a crime being committed, the first port of call is An Garda Síochána to address that.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms King has a long and very strong reputation in public representation for workers in this country. Does she believe the Defence Forces representative associations are getting enough time with the external oversight body? We wanted them as part of the body and it was rejected out of hand by the Minister while, at the same time, he allowed the Secretary General to be an ex officio member. In our previous meeting, the Secretary General questioned the Chief of Staff, which undermines independence. Is the body getting enough time with the representative bodies to hear their concerns? What is Ms King's view on the Secretary General being an ex officio member? Who is responsible for saying the Secretary General cannot engage in this? We were assured at that time that there would be limitations on what the Secretary General could do.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms King addressed that earlier but perhaps she could reiterate.
Ms Patricia King:
We have never seen anything other than that we work well as a body. We believe access to the Secretary General at that level is positive from our perspective.
In terms of the representative associations, we meet about 15 times a year. We have never put any form of barrier in relation to meeting representative associations. We are happy to do that as often as necessary. We do not only meet every quarter; we do not have any of that. We do not carry on with that. We will meet them every day if that is what is required; there is no issue with it. We understand the value of representative associations. That is why, as I referred to earlier, we are making a plea that the consultation and engagement process with their employer starts to become much more robust and starts to listen and hear what people are saying. That is really important as well. We are trying to influence that. We see the representative associations and our consultations with them to be very positive.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces open to them contact it at any stage?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fantastic.
Mr. Pat O'Doherty:
I will make a comment on the point Ms King made. There is insufficient consultation between the representative associations and Defence Forces management given the nature, scale and complexity of the transformation needed. That has to be genuine consultation as is clearly understood in all industries and companies of what consultation means. There is a complex conciliation scheme in place. It is outside of that. There is a philosophical debate to be had about what that means in the Defence Forces and then a practical manifestation or implementation of that to improve the level of consultation. We are well open to having that consultation with the representative associations. We have challenged the representative associations to come to the table genuinely in a spirit of consultation while at the same time reserving their right to negotiate what they need to negotiate on. We have also challenged the Defence Forces leadership to come to the table in that context.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The phrase "zero tolerance" is out there all the time and I fear that due process is being set aside. For example, there is no legislation yet to allow for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces. Is the external oversight body watching that space to make sure we stay within legal parameters?
Ms Patricia King:
We are very conscious of what the current Bill states in relation to suspension and dismissal. We wrote to the Minister, which is on the public record, when that issue about the necessity for clearer direction on suspension was raised. We gave our view to the Minister and felt it should be on a legislative basis. We are very conscious of all of that. We do not want to deny anybody their rights or entitlements either. From our perspective, of course we are very conscious of that.
Ms Josephine Feehily:
We are definitely conscious of the need for due process but we have been impatient to make sure due process is not used an excuse for inaction. We were very supportive of the recommendations of the Ward report, which we now see in the legislation before the Houses on suspension. Without that shift, the existing due process protected bad behaviour and brought risks into the workplace. Getting back to Ms King's point earlier about one thing that gets us up in the morning and into meetings of this body is the safety in the workplace piece. For the Chief of Staff not to have a mechanism to remove somebody who was a risk pending an investigation was a lacuna in due process that people could hide behind. We are mindful of that as well - there is due process and then there is the need for proper process.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The chair has been involved in a case in another organisation where due process allowed somebody to stay in situ for an extended period. You walk a very tight rope when you say we must protect the individual from somebody who albeit has not yet been found guilty of a crime but the dogs in the street are screaming that the crime was committed. It is a difficult problem. The right of being innocent before being proven guilty is a very serious issue. Ms King rightly pointed out the structure of the Defence Forces is rank-based. If your colonel says you are suspended, you are suspended and that is it. It is a huge problem.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for their contributions this morning but I really want to thank them for the work they do. I very much look forward to the second survey to be able to measure the progress that has been made and to 1 November and the targets set for then. That will be very telling. I look forward to having the witnesses back at the committee again. There was some discussion today about the role this committee can play in supporting their work. If there is anything we can do please contact us in the interim. What they are doing is critical to where we need to be for our Defence Forces. I commend our Defence Forces, thank them for their work across the board and encourage young people to join and be proud of the Defence Forces which are serving a key role in our country.
On behalf of the committee I thank the members of the External Oversight Body of the Defence Forces for their time and engagement this morning. We will suspend to allow the witnesses to exit. The committee will then go into private session.