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

When I debated this in the other House, and prior to the publication of the independent review group report, almost every person in that House, representing different parties, asked whether I would accept all of the recommendations. They asked me to give a commitment that I would accept all of the recommendations or whether I would welch and do this.

I met the independent review group, including the chair, Ms Justice O'Hanlon, and six or seven other members. They said their experience of being on the review group was not good in terms of the members of the Defence Forces they met who said misogyny was rife, the complaints process was inadequate and that making a complaint was a career ending or limiting move. Senator Craughwell made an impassioned contribution to this House at the time of the debate on the independent review group recommendations.

I stress that I accept the point that these were not findings of fact because it was not a statutory based tribunal, but the group made conclusions which were far-reaching, and those conclusions related to the Defence Forces, not the Department of Defence. The independent review group examined how the Department of Defence coped with or managed complaints in respect of assaults and other matters right across the gamut of human behaviour. What emerged was not a pretty sight at the time. Huge efforts have been made to move to a new journey of cultural transformation, and the external oversight body is part of that. That is an important point. This was an independent review group specifically on the Defence Forces.

I have been in government at different times and I see a logic operationally, as well as the impact and effect, of a Secretary General being an ex officio member. As for what is really behind this, to a certain extent Senator Craughwell probably alluded to it earlier in a different context. RACO and PDFORRA would say they should be on it because some people want to change it from being an oversight body to a representative body. To be fair to Senator Craughwell, he said he does not want that, ideally. Others have argued and advocated for that, however.

When I met the IRG, it told me previous attempts at change have failed abysmally. That is the context. It said the independent monitoring group processes were ineffective in bringing about the change that was required. Senator Clonan and others will say that ten or 20 years ago assertions or allegations were made that were not followed through on in terms of getting change. We have to get change. There is a degree of resistance to change.

At one level, it is all focused on the role of a Secretary General. I am not convinced that is as major an issue as has been presented. The bigger issue is the equivalence issue between military and the Department of Defence. That is what underpins some of the representations and advocacy that have been made. We need to move beyond that across the board. Many people in the organisation want to drive forward with change, but there is also resistance to change. In some elements, there was not a full acceptance of the conclusions of the IRG. I have seen this in practice.

In the context of the strategic framework, for example, I have heard people ask why I am constantly talking about cultural transformation and whether I have to mention it in every speech. I do have to reference it in every speech because I am certain that we need to change the culture. I have spoken to members of the Defence Forces. At the moment, they do not believe change is going to happen. The two reports of the external oversight body pulled no punches and have stated that people on the ground do not believe culture change is happening at a sufficient level as we speak right now. That is the real issue, not whether a Secretary General is a member of the body. The real issue is the capacity of the external oversight body to bring about change.

We need to bring about change. The status quo and old way of doing things will not suffice in terms of making sure this is a safe environment where people can work with dignity, make complaints without it being a career-limiting move, modernise and so on. The vast majority wants to go in that direction. I spoke to members, through various networks, and they are sceptical about whether change will happen because previous iterations of independent monitoring groups and so on did not work. If there is anything approaching a representational composition of an external oversight body, it will not work.

This has to work because we are at a critical juncture. We have dealt with a lot of pay issues and health eligibility - every member of the enlisted forces now has an entitlement to private care. We have dealt with the patrol duty allowance and starting pay has increased to a level higher than most starting rates in the public service. The real issue is culture, which includes command and control, induction, training and the initial experience of people when they come through. These are all issues we have to work on. We need to consider the progression path for women in the Defence Forces.

Until the IRG report, if a woman could not attend a course because of pregnancy, maternity leave or whatever, she was put down the pecking order in terms of promotion. These are fundamental issues that we have to change. The number of women at the upper echelons is quite low, something women in the Defence Forces have said to me. I believe the Chief of Staff is committed to change, but I acknowledge that culture change does not happen overnight, in particular in an organisation and institution like the Defence Forces.

I have received two reports from the external oversight body. I appreciate what has been said in terms of the quality of the people who have been appointed, and that is important. The chair is well established and has good bona fides. The group includes people like Ms Julie Sinnamon and Ms Sam des Forges, who is director of conduct, equity and justice at the UK Ministry of Defence. Ms des Forges has proved to be very valuable in terms of external representation and her expertise and experience have proved to be very helpful. I have no issue with adding to the reservoir of that international expertise if we can find people willing to serve.Legislative provision is not required to do that.

I accept the spirit of Senator Byrne's amendment in that regard. I have not compromised on the IRG's recommendations. I have accepted them in full. Members will say I do not have to and can vary them, but I think there is strength in accepting them. It is a bit unusual. Sometimes with an inquiry, you just get the report. However, I met with the judge and the members of the group. It was a difficult and challenging experience because all of them were clear that they were taken aback, to put it lightly, by the stories they were told. That was is a year ago and we have now established a tribunal of inquiry which will hopefully bring more clarity and transparency to the issues, whether they are findings of fact or conclusions. I was taken by the oral presentation by the representatives of the groups. They recommended that this body was the most effective mechanism to bring about the change that is undoubtedly required.