David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of recommendations made by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in 2007, 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010 respectively; the number of these which were rejected; the number of same on which he has yet to make a decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38258/10]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The function of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is to act as the ultimate point of appeal for and administrative investigation into complaints made by members and former members of the Defence Forces against other members or former members of the Defence Forces or against a civil servant of the Department of Defence. The ombudsman may investigate a complaint in respect of an action or decision which may have adversely affected the complainant personally. The action or decision complained of must have occurred no earlier than 1 December 2005.

In 2007, the number of recommendations received from the ombudsman was 20 with 15 accepted and five rejected; in 2008, it was 21 with 15 accepted and six rejected; in 2009, 25 with 22 accepted, three rejected and two still to be decided; in 2010, none of the ten recommendations has yet been decided.

The ombudsman's recommendations in these reports cover issues specific to the individual's complaint including proposals for redress in cases where the ombudsman has found a person has been wronged together with any systemic issues the ombudsman identified in the course of her investigation.

In arriving at my determination on each case, I take careful account of all the ombudsman's findings and recommendations. I also take into account the specific and unique requirements of the Defence Forces. In cases where I accept a recommendation, this decision is conveyed to the chief of staff to ensure the action required to give effect to that recommendation is taken at the earliest opportunity.

Where I accept a recommendation from the ombudsman which is of a systemic nature, this is referred to the appropriate branch of the Department or the Defence Forces for consideration in the context of the ongoing development of best practice human resources management.

I welcome the constructive contributions made by the ombudsman in supporting improved human resources practices. Since the establishment of her office in 2005, her input has assisted the Defence Forces in the revision of several human resources procedures including the selection processes for career courses and overseas service. The ombudsman's recommendations have also informed the revision of selection processes for promotion, a new version of which is currently being progressed with the representative associations through the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

In accordance with the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent in the performance of her duties. She is required to cause a report on the performance of her functions under the Act to be laid annually before each House of the Oireachtas. In her 2009 report, the ombudsman referred to several recommendations about systemic matters made by her in final reports which were accepted by the then Minister for Defence and the military authorities. She stated the changes flowing from these recommendations will not only address the grievance in the individual case but will also ensure other members of the Defence Forces will not encounter bad practices, or good practices poorly applied, in the future.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister agree the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is competent? On what basis, would he not accept one of her findings? Does he take advice from other parties? If so, does this mean that someone else reviews the ombudsman's work? If that is the case, one would wonder why we need an ombudsman. Why is there a delay in deciding on the ten recommendations made by the ombudsman in 2010? Is it because the recommendations were received late in 2010? What is the delay over the two outstanding recommendations from 2009?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a philosophical aspect to the Deputy's question as to whether the ombudsman is the final arbiter which we should not get into.

The first recommendation in 2010 was received on 13 May 2010, the last on 4 October 2010. These are relatively new and some work must be done on them. Some decisions and determinations have been made in 2010 relating to cases disposed of by the ombudsman in 2008 and 2009.

When an ombudsman's recommendation is received, her overarching advice is considered. It is nearly always possible to incorporate that into best human resources practice. Sometimes specifics in an individual case or recommendations on systems in the Department or the Defence Forces may warrant further consideration. As with all ombudsmen recommendations, the Minister will turn to the parent Department for advice.

A total of 14 recommendations have been rejected since 2007. Of those in 2007, four related to the educational criteria for a potential officer's course and one related to retention of pay and allowances. In 2008, two related to the eligibility criteria for an aeronautical engineer course and one related to the eligibility of other candidates in regard to a promotion board. In 2009, three related to non-selection for courses, one to non-payment of technical pay, one to non-selection for a course and one to non-selection for acting appointment.

Another way to look at it is to examine the main categories of complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. There are three chief categories - non-selection for promotion, non-selection for courses and non-selection for overseas service. They account for more than half of the cases referred to the Ombudsman. Other categories are pensions, transfers and allowances. A few cases are of a systemic nature and I can supply the Deputy with details in that regard if he wishes.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister saying that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is wrong in her findings in some cases? Is that the reason the Minister has decided not to accept her findings or recommendations? My question has still not been answered. On what basis does the Minister make the decision not to accept a recommendation of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces? How does he judge it? Does he get advice from somebody else and, if so, who is the person or persons advising the Minister not to accept a recommendation? How is it done? The Minister should let us in on the secret or perhaps it is covered by the Official Secrets Act.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are three potential outcomes when the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces examines a case. Let us say the ombudsman recommends completely in favour of the complainant. If the Minister partially accepts that, he has rejected the ombudsman's recommendation. In some instances the ombudsman recommends partial redress for the complainant. If the Minister only accepts some of that, he is also rejecting the recommendation. Finally, in some cases the ombudsman finds against the complainant. I had intended to find out if the Minister has gone against any of those recommendations. I doubt it but I will let the Deputy know if that has been the case.

The case comes back from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces and is examined by the relevant section or sections. A file, which is usually quite large, is presented to the Minister, sometimes with recommendations or at least with advice as to the procedures that have been followed and the implications of the initial decision and of the ombudsman's decision. Ultimately, it falls to the Minister to make a decision, but it is usually taken with some advice.