Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I stand before the Tánaiste today a proud veteran of the Irish Defence Forces. Every officer, NCO and service person of the Defence Forces, serving and retired, with whom I have engaged since the publication of the report has expressed a welcome for the statutory inquiry and for any Garda investigation of wrongdoing in the Defence Forces. All expressed strongly that any wrongdoing should face the full rigours of the law.

Page 10 of the IRG report clearly states the IRG did not partake in fact finding with any individual participant, yet the Minister accepted the findings of the report unequivocally as fact and expressed the view that he was going to deliver cultural change in the Defence Forces. I hope he read more than the executive summary and did a detailed analysis of the appendices as well. If he had, he may not be so certain of the findings and his condemnation of the Defence Forces.

He has referred to the findings as outlined in the report as very troubling and used the word "disgusting" to describe them. Where did findings like overt preference of a masculine culture, an over-emphasis on physical fitness, misogyny and little tolerance of women come from? Where is the basis of fact in this report? The judge listened to the unacceptable lived experiences of individuals. None of these lived experiences were examined or interrogated to establish fact, yet they are presented as fact. The judge made sweeping generalisations using the extreme and unproven lived experience to cast grave allegations against the entire Defence Forces. Where is the fact in the report ? Where is the evidence to support the finding?

This report has thrown a cloud over members past and present, where a judge simply became judge, jury and executioner. The report would not stand the test of any academic assessment and the report methodology used would not support any findings. The findings are not fact but generalisations. The proud history of the most loyal citizens of the State has been undermined by generalisations, not fact. All jumped on the bandwagon for some reason, perhaps because they knew the Defence Forces cannot comment publicly to defend themselves and are unable to speak openly to the press. Now we have Defence Forces which are unable to defend themselves and Ireland.

Did the Department of Defence advise the Minister that the report was built on generalisations and point out the damage that could be caused to the Defence Forces by this opinionated report? It clearly looks as if that was not the case. Even the Department of Defence, which can speak publicly, appears unwilling to defend the Defence Forces.

Let us talk about resistance to change in the Defence Forces. How many reorganisations have Governments imposed on the Defence Forces in the past 20 years, driven by budgetary concerns and often against the advice of the military? Every reorganisation was delivered effectively with no resistance once the Government decision was made.

The Government employed a third assistant secretary general in 2017 for the Department of Defence. The post was assistant secretary for defence capability. We were told the objective was to deliver HR change in the Defence Forces. How many HR initiatives did the person appointed bring forward? Can anyone name one that the Defence Forces refused to implement? In fact, I would question if any were brought forward, yet the judge rubbished the HR policies. Is that the fault of the Department or of the Defence Forces?

The independent monitoring group was established in 2001 following a report from my colleague, Senator Clonan. Is it not the case that every one of this group's findings were implemented by the Defence Forces? Where does the judge see resistance to change? The recent intervention in the media by the first Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, Paulyn Marrinan Quinn SC, shows the success of the independent monitoring group, IMG, and Defence Forces as best in class. The IMG was shut down by the Department in 2014 when it was doing an excellent job. Why did that happen?

The Tánaiste, as Minister for Defence, puts our Defence Forces in harm's way every day. It is part of his job. The report stated there was too much emphasis on physical fitness. The Defence Forces face potential life-threatening situations every day. There may be a requirement to use lethal force to protect themselves, refugees in camps in Africa or Irish citizens being evacuated from Sudan. Soldiers need to be fit, strong and resilient, and neither I nor anyone else should make any apology for this. The Defence Forces training reflects these realities.

Reference is made to the fact the Defence Forces do not place an over-emphasis on education, yet the truth is the Defence Forces are possibly the only organisation in the State, certainly the first, to recognise the benefits of lifelong learning and accreditation. The level of primary and secondary degree-qualified soldiers, NCOs and officers is nothing short of impressive, something often adverted to by those military I meet abroad. These are easily ascertained facts.

Regarding the culture of the Defence Forces, there is no doubt that among HR professionals who are subject matter experts in organisational culture and how one assesses organisational cultures, the findings in the report of such an extreme view could not possibly be arrived at from any true representative independent survey of culture. I question whether an empirical survey was carried out as there is zero evidence that one was conducted.

The report took input that was unquestioned and untested from a very small representative sample of those who alleged rape, sexual harassment or felt they were unfairly treated, and based the report's analysis on that. How did the Minister or Department not recognise the shortcomings in the report before accepting it in its totality and condemning the Defence Forces?

The same position exists for Defence Forces leadership. The judge did not in any way reflect the excellent comprehensive leadership training in the Defence Forces. A suggestion that the leadership is dishonest and untruthful is simply a scurrilous comment and has no basis in fact. How can any credible report describe officers and NCOs as akin to characters from a Marvel film? Where is the credibility of these unreasonable ramblings?

The report refers to elitism. The Minister attended the recent commissioning at Collins Barracks. The young men and women commissioned were totally representative of Irish society. A number were the sons and daughters of enlisted personnel. From the biographies I read on the day, none were the product of the private colleges or elite schools in this country. They are the future of our Defence Forces and I see nothing elite about them

The Tánaiste must move quickly to set up the statutory inquiry, and I am glad he has confirmed that today. It must run parallel to the Garda inquiry. Together with the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Seán Clancy, and the Secretary General, Ms Jacqui McCrum, we must ensure the bullies and those involved in inappropriate sexual behaviour are rooted out and face the law.

As it is clear that the Department of Defence has many questions to answer, I believe the independent oversight body must be totally independent of those serving in the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence and must report only to the Minister. Clearly, it would be wrong to include the Secretary General from the Department, albeit she is relatively new in the post, as this gives out the wrong signal to those who are serving or retired.

I compliment the Tánaiste on the work he is about to do. I am deeply hurt, like so many of my colleagues who served, that we all have been tarred with the one brush. A simple sentence in the report stating that prima facieevidence was found that required a statutory inquiry would have sufficed. Instead of that, we have a report that has tarred the whole God damned lot of us as sexual predators and bullies. I am proud of the service I gave to my country, as are thousands of men and women, hundreds of whom have contacted me in recent days. They are deeply hurt by this report.