Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Senators who contributed. I thank them in particular for their kind remarks of congratulation on my appointment.

Each aspect of the Bill has been agreed with both representative organisations. PDFORRA and RACO have been widely consulted on almost each line of the Bill, which reflects the agreement these representative bodies made with the Government.

Senator Paddy Burke raised the question of coercing people to go abroad. Senator Henry and a number of other Senators were also concerned about this aspect. I take Senator Mansergh's point that overseas missions consisted entirely of volunteers prior to 1993. Since 1993, there has been an element of selection, which is being done with the agreement of PDFORRA. For example, if a mission is chosen to go abroad and needs certain specialist staff to operate effectively and those staff are not among the volunteers, by definition there must be an element of selection. Having said that, the Irish troops currently deployed overseas are overwhelmingly volunteers. For example, 428 troops are currently deployed in Liberia, of whom 20 are there by way of mandatory selection.

The Doyle report was referred to on a number of occasions. The unique aspect of the report in this context is that the Army has admitted bullying is a problem. People will be aware that the initial Doyle report, which purportedly revealed all of this, was published in 2002. To the best of my knowledge, the ombudsman Bill had been published at that stage. Senators will also be aware that on 24 September Eileen Doyle reported on the progress made in the last two years on implementing the original recommendations, which has been considerable. As a result of the press conference held by Dr. Doyle on 24 September, it was further agreed that there were a number of other things to do and that the Department of Defence, the representative organisations and so on would get on with the job of implementing the reforms to combat harassment and bullying in the Army, and there would be a further progress report in 2007. It was envisaged that all this would be put in place by 2007 at the latest.

The delay in progressing the Bill was referred to. As I already said, each line and paragraph in the Bill has been agreed with the representative organisations. This entailed the widest consultations, which took time. The latest commitment given to PDFORRA was that the Bill would be implemented by October 2004. We are now in the early stages of October and I am confident that promise will be delivered on.

Senator Burke referred to alleged Government control over the ombudsman and the terms of his appointment, etc., compared to the Ombudsman for Children Act. In regard to the terms of appointment, the Bill is an enabling one. It provides for an ombudsman to be appointed for an initial fixed term of seven years. A person can be re-appointed for one subsequent term only. This was drafted to allow some considerable flexibility from the point of view of potential appointees. The Bill transfers the fixing of the terms of the initial appointment into secondary regulations, subject to the criteria that the initial term cannot exceed seven years. The actual term will be laid out in regulations but, under the legislation, these regulations cannot provide for an initial term of more than seven years. There is provision in the general legislation for a second and possibly further terms, with the duration of any subsequent term of appointment to be made by way of regulation.

The Senator referred to the lack of powers of the ombudsman and felt the ombudsman would be a lesser creature than his or her counterpart in Canada who can take complaints from a much wider range of complainants. The ombudsman for whom we are providing can take complaints from all serving members of the Permanent and Reserve Defence Forces, including cadets who are enlisted personnel. Former members of the Defence Forces will be able to make complaints subject to other criteria in the Bill. This has been agreed with PDFORRA and it has been widely welcomed by the reserve representative association, which is what the people for whom we are legislating wanted. There is one substantial change. Under the system being replaced, there was no retrospection in regard to the Minister. For one's complaint to be entertained, a person had to be serving at the time the circumstances giving rise to the complaint arose. There will now be an element of retrospection.

Senator O'Meara broadly welcomed the Bill and said she would table amendments, which I will deal with in a constructive manner. Senator Minihan said that the military atmosphere is different from a civilian-type atmosphere and what might be considered bullying in a civilian sphere might not necessarily constitute bullying in the military sphere. I am very conscious of this aspect, which is why a small number of matters have been excluded from the ambit of the ombudsman and kept within the ambit of the Minister. I was urged by the Senator to consider the closure of barracks in the context of Army re-organisation and I will do so. The Senator asked from whom Irish soldiers serving overseas seek redress if alleged bullying or harassment occurs while they are overseas. Overseas service falls into the category of "active service", which means their recourse is to the Minister.

Senators Minihan, Burke and others were anxious that the proceeds of the sale of lands, etc., by the Department of Defence should not affect the ordinary Estimate for the Department. In other words, we should fight for our Estimate year on year and anything extra from the sale of property should be put back into the Defence Forces to provide extra equipment and repair barracks infrastructure, etc. This is precisely how we are operating. For example, this year, prior to my coming to the Department, my predecessor and former Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, agreed this year's Estimate. This represents an increase on what was provided for in the budget for the Department last year. This has been done without any knowledge of the amount of money coming in during 2005 from the sale of property, etc. This is how I intend to deal with the matter. I have no intention of allowing once-off windfalls from property sales to substitute for normal provision through the Estimates.

Senator O'Rourke raised the question of the 12-year contract, which is in place for people coming into the Army since 1994. This was done with the agreement of PDFORRA. The initial proposal was for a five-year period but this was subsequently extended to 12 after negotiations. I shall be attending the PDFORRA annual conference in Letterkenny tomorrow where I will undoubtedly hear all about this and will listen to what PDFORRA members have to say.

Senator Mansergh referred to Sarsfield's Rock, which is close to my heart and is on the edge of my constituency, and I take account of what he said with regard to it. Senator Maurice Hayes is correct that a member of the public who has a difficulty or suffers alleged bullying or harassment from a member of the Defence Forces, whether acting in aid of the civil power or whatever, has no recourse to the ombudsman. Only members of the Defence Forces can take complaints to the military ombudsman. Such members of the public may possibly have recourse to the State Ombudsman. They shall certainly have recourse to civil law and possibly even criminal law if the complaint falls into that category.

Senator Maurice Hayes raised an important question about the section of the 1954 Act dealing with service under the aegis of the United Nations. This raises much broader policy issues. The Government has consistently stood over Ireland's involvement in peacekeeping abroad in United Nations sanctioned operations, the Petersberg Tasks, and so on, on the basis that there is a triple lock in operation in such matters. The Government must agree to participate, that decision must be ratified by the Dáil and the operation is only undertaken under the aegis of the United Nations and with its sanction. I understand that the situation in Macedonia was that China vetoed the operation at the United Nations and so it was not a United Nations sanctioned operation. If the Government had changed the legislation to allow our Defence Forces to participate in that operation, it is unlikely they would have done so in any case because of the lack of a United Nations sanction.

As Senators are aware, this legislation has already been considerably improved in the Dáil. Senator Lydon asked what is meant by a military operation. Alleged bullying or harassment or other complaints which a member of the Defence Forces can make which happen during what is defined as a military operation will not go the ombudsman. Such complaints will remain within the remit of the Minister for Defence. As a result of representations from PDFORRA, the Opposition parties in the Dáil and others, the term "military operation" has been given a very precise definition, as set out in the Bill. To paraphrase, it is defined as any operation in the field. If one considers the new definition introduced as a result of the Dáil debate, it is clear the Government has made every effort to ensure that the remit of the ombudsman is as wide as possible and the exclusions are as narrow as possible.

Senator Lydon also asked about the other matters that are excluded under section 5. A complainant who has already initiated legal action, for example, cannot present his or her case to the ombudsman but must continue to pursue it through the courts. Another exemption applies to cases where the reconciliation and arbitration process is the more appropriate course of action.

I thank Members for their kind remarks and constructive suggestions and for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I look forward to Committee Stage, which I understand will take place next Tuesday, 12 October. I will constructively consider any genuine amendments which would improve the Bill, which we are putting in place at the behest of members of the Defence Forces.