Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 52 together.

First, no such equation was ever made. The report of the independent review group, IRG, established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces was published on 28 March. The Government agreed to progress the recommendations contained in the report, which included the establishment of a statutory inquiry to identify systemic failures, if any, in the complaints system to ensure accountability and transparency. Draft terms of reference were prepared in consultation with the Attorney General and shared with a wide variety of interested parties.

In July, I obtained the approval of the Government to establish a judge-led tribunal of inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended, to examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces and to address workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I have continued to engage with a range of stakeholders to this process.

I have met the Women of Honour and their legal representatives on a number of occasions, most recently on 27 September last. Many of the additional terms and edits sought by the Women of Honour and their legal team, including their request for a statutory public inquiry, have been included in the draft terms of reference for the tribunal. I explained at these meetings that the terms of reference must be clearly defined to ensure the tribunal will be capable of completing the task assigned to it within a reasonable timeframe. I also outlined that certain terms sought for inclusion will be examined in separate, non-statutory investigations, in line with the recommendations in the IRG report.

In respect of my letter of 2 November last to the legal representatives of the Women of Honour, the content reflected what was said at a recent meeting with the group and clarified the breadth of inquiry that could ensue if the terms of reference were to expressly include health and safety legislation. I also pointed out, however, that the tribunal will have regard to any and all relevant legislative provisions, which include the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, and this will be at the discretion of the judge who will be appointed as chair of the tribunal. Revised draft terms of reference have been shared with individuals and groups who have been in contact with my office. I also intend to meet the Women of Honour group before I revert to the Government in the coming weeks to seek approval for the terms of reference and for the appointment of a judge to chair the tribunal.

No equation at all was made between sexual assault and trips and falls. I was surprised by the question and do not in any way feel it was a fair reflection of what transpired or of my views. The whole purpose of the tribunal is to prioritise sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and the manner in which the complaints were processed dealt with such misconduct. It was about giving that the overarching priority. That was the context.

See this speech in context