Tribunal of Inquiry into certain matters relating to the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces: Motion

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

bearing in mind the serious allegations of discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces;

noting the decision of Government, in January 2022, to establish an Independent Review Group (IRG) to examine such issues and provide recommendations and guidance to the Minister for Defence on measures and strategies required to underpin a workplace based on dignity, equality, mutual respect, and duty of care for every member of the Defence Forces;

noting that, having completed the IRG review, it is the opinion of the Group, that the establishment of a statutory fact-finding process to identify systemic failures, if any, in the complaints processes in the Defence Forces, represents the only comprehensive method of inquiry to resolve outstanding issues of fundamental public importance;

mindful that the Minister for Defence has consulted with the Attorney General and the observations and comments from key stakeholders have been considered in the development of the terms of reference and the type of inquiry;

noting that:

— "Abuse" means discrimination, bullying, harassment, physical torture, physical assault, psychological harm, sexual harassment and any form of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and rape);

— "Complaints of Abuse" means complaints made by:

— serving or former members of the Defence Forces to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence;

— current or former civilian employees to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence; and

— current or former Civil Servants to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence,

in respect of Abuse suffered by the complainant in the course of his or her training, work and/or career with the Defence Forces, or in the case of Civil Servants and civilian employees, in respect of their interactions with the Defence Forces;

— "Complaints of Hazardous Chemicals" means complaints made by:

— serving or former members of the Defence Forces to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence;

— current or former civilian employees to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence; and

— current or former Civil Servants to the Defence Forces/Minister for Defence,

in respect of the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps' headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel; and

— "Complaints Processes" includes, but is not limited to, processes covered by:

A. the Defence Forces Administrative Instruction A7 Chapter 1;

B. section 114 of the Defence Act 1954 (Redress of Wrongs procedure);

C. section 169 of the Defence Act 1954 (civil offences punishable by military law);

D. the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004;

E. the Protected Disclosures Act 2014;

F. where applicable, the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; and

G. in so far as (vii) below is concerned, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (as amended) or where applicable, the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Act 1989;

resolves that it is expedient a tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2011, to be chaired by Ms. Justice Ann Power, to inquire into the following definite matters of urgent public importance to:

(i) establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were appropriate and fit for purpose;

(ii) establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were followed;

(iii) consider and report on the response and outcome of Complaints of Abuse, and to identify any systemic failures in the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces;

(iv) investigate whether Complaints of Abuse were actively deterred or whether there was a culture that discouraged the making of the Complaints of Abuse;

(v) investigate whether there were:

(a) retaliation or reprisals against those who made a Complaint of Abuse;

(b) intimidation consequent on the making of a Complaint of Abuse; or

(vi) investigate the nature and performance of the statutory role of the Minister for Defence/Department of Defence in the systems and procedures for dealing with Complaints of Abuse; and

(vii) investigate the response to Complaints of Hazardous Chemicals and to consider the adequacy of the Complaints Processes in light of the responses to same;

further resolves that:

(I) the Tribunal of Inquiry:

(a) is requested to report on its investigation into the matters set out in this resolution and to make any appropriate recommendations arising out of this investigation;

(b) shall consider Complaints of Abuse and Complaints of Hazardous Chemicals advanced by serving and former members of the Defence Forces, to include members of the Army Nursing Service, Chaplains to the Defence Forces, civilian employees and Civil Servants working within the Defence Forces and Civil Servants working within the Department of Defence;

(c) shall have due regard to any criminal or military prosecution or civil proceedings, currently in train or pending, that may be affected by evidence adduced at the Tribunal of Inquiry;

(d) in the context of its investigation into Terms of Reference (i) to (v), may permit evidence of Abuse and the consequences of Abuse to be led, but the Tribunal is precluded from investigating into, or making findings of fact upon any matters that would, if established in a court of law, be criminal in nature;

(e) will require appropriate assurances from the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces that any serving member of the Defence Forces will not be penalised by reason of their disclosure of any Complaint, Complaint of Abuse, or Complaint of Hazardous Chemicals at the Tribunal;

(f) may request, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, information pertaining to matters relating to a confidentiality agreement; and in making such request, it is a matter for the Tribunal to determine what (if any) obligations may be imposed in relation to such disclosure;

(g) shall have due regard to the independence of any statutory body and/or statutory Office Holders in the performance of their functions;

(h) may engage with the interim supports put in place to date by the Minister for Defence, including Raiseaconcern – Confidential Contact Person (CCP), INSPIRE Counselling Service and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, as well as the already established Defence Forces Personnel Support Services (PSS), Defence Forces' psychologist and psychiatrist and medical supports within the Defence Forces Medical Branch;

(i) is charged with investigating the matters provided for in its Terms of Reference from 1st January, 1983 to the date of its establishment;

(j) may examine Complaints of Abuse whether made in respect of matters occurring within the jurisdiction, while serving overseas or on board a State ship or aircraft; and

(k) shall endeavour to complete its work no later than three years from the date of its establishment; and in order to achieve this objective, the Tribunal shall be entitled to exercise a discretion in relation to the extent of the evidence that it hears and will be entitled to consider that a sample of evidence on particular issues is sufficient for it to make conclusions and report upon its findings; and the Minister for Defence may at any time request the Sole Member of the Tribunal of Inquiry to provide updates on the progress of the Tribunal;

(II) the Tribunal shall report to the Taoiseach and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit in relation to these matters as expeditiously as possible;

(III) all costs incurred by reason of the failure of individuals to co-operate fully and expeditiously with the Tribunal should, as far as it is consistent with the interests of justice, be borne by those individuals;

(IV) any records made, received or held in the course of the Tribunal of Inquiry shall be subject to the terms of the National Archives Act 1986 and Part 15 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011; and

(V) the Taoiseach shall, upon receipt of any Report from the Tribunal, either apply to the High Court for directions regarding publication of the Report or arrange to have it laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Government last week approved a motion to establish a tribunal of inquiry. I now move the motion for resolution by Dáil Éireann. This House will be aware that the report of the independent review group, established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces, was published following Government approval on 28 March 2023. The contents in the report were shocking and stark. The group’s analysis and assessment of the current culture in the Defence Forces shows: deep, long-standing issues around unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, bullying and harassment; a complaints-handling system that is not fit for purpose; and legislative frameworks, policies, systems and procedures that are out of date and out of step with modern human resources practice. The report was a very important and useful initiative. It represented an essential scoping exercise to establish the extent to which the current legislative frameworks, policies, procedures and practices and the workplace culture were not aligned with the fundamental principles of dignity, equality, duty of care and mutual respect.

The Government agreed to progress the recommendations in the report. This included approval in principle for the establishment of a judge-led statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious systemic failures in the complaints system in the Defence Forces in relation to interpersonal issues, including, but not limited to, sexual misconduct. I consulted extensively in respect of the establishment of the inquiry and in respect of terms of reference for the tribunal. Draft terms of reference were initially prepared last May and shared with a wide variety of groups and individuals.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to Women of Honour. At a time when it was not easy to do so, they stood up and told the country what happened to them. The clarity and power of their account had a catalytic effect, setting in motion a journey of accountability that has brought us to this point. I also want to pay tribute to Men and Women of Honour who also shared their experiences with us, and PDFORRA, RACO, and all the other groups and individuals with whom the Department and I interacted in this process. The personal courage, dignity and resilience shown in the journey to this point by those who came forward and shared their often horrific personal experiences has made a deep and lasting impression on me.

Reflecting on the range of views expressed, I determined that an open, independent and transparent appraisal of the issues raised by the various groups and the independent review group is the best way to examine those issues. On that basis, last 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). The truth is that a variety of views were expressed at the time as to the best format. The Women of Honour argued strongly for a public inquiry. Others did also. Some would prefer a different format. Some articulated they might be reluctant to share their experiences in public. The chairperson will have that capacity to facilitate some in camera hearings for people. In the end we took the view that an open and public inquiry was the optimum way forward.

Since then I have continued to engage with the stakeholder groups and individuals involved, including up to eight meetings with Women of Honour, and working closely with the Attorney General. On foot of the feedback we have received the terms of reference have been amended and expanded.

I reassure the House that I carefully considered all views and observations received in the consultation period. Some of the decisions on the terms of reference influenced by this process include: that the statutory inquiry will be by way of a tribunal of inquiry; physical torture, physical assault and psychological harm will be included within the definition of “abuse”; the Protected Disclosures Acts 2014 and 2022 will be included within the definition of "complaints processes"; the investigation of whether complaints were actively deterred; whether there was a culture that discouraged the making of complaints; provision for safeguards for serving members who give evidence to the tribunal; provision for the waiver of non-disclosure agreements; that the tribunal may permit evidence of abuse and the consequences of abuse to be heard; and provision for investigation of the response to complaints regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps’ headquarters at Baldonnel and to consider the adequacy of the complaints processes in light of the responses to same.

I have also clarified - I reiterate this today in order to remove any doubt - a point Deputy Cronin raised with me last evening. Those who did not make a formal complaint at any stage in their careers while working within the Defence Forces or subsequently, or who did not come forward to engage with the independent review group process but have experiences similar to those that are now the subject matter of this tribunal, will be able to come forward and be heard by the tribunal.

The terms of reference now represent a thorough and fair basis for a full examination of the issues raised and the problems identified. In framing the terms of reference, I have endeavoured to properly capture the feedback I received and make a judgment on what I believe to be the best, fairest, most thorough and most effective way forward. That is what these terms of reference represent. Given the gravity of the issues before it and the fact there are many people out there who want to contribute it is important for everyone involved to now establish the tribunal and enable it to commence its work without further delay.

When the independent review group's report was published I told this House that I believed it was a watershed moment and had to be a catalyst for change. As Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, I have proceeded on that basis and in the time since publication I have driven forward a number of changes. At my direction, all complaints of alleged sexual offences by members of the Defence Forces are passed directly to An Garda Síochána for investigation. Last July, the Government agreed on legislation which will ensure that An Garda Síochána will have sole jurisdiction within the State to investigate alleged sexual offences committed by persons subject to military law. Any subsequent cases will be dealt with by the civil courts. The relevant Bill is progressing through this House and is currently on the Report Stage. I established an external oversight body, which will be a critical element in driving the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and in increasing transparency and accountability. We approved its terms of reference last July and I recently sought and received Government approval for the drafting of the defence (amendment) Bill 2023, which will include provisions in relation to the establishment of the external oversight body on a statutory basis.

I also look forward to bringing forward legislation to establish an independent external complaints system for members of the Defence Forces. With the assistance of an external legal firm, extensive work is under way to ensure that Defence Forces policies and practices are compatible with the provisions of the relevant equality legislation. An associated but very relevant and important element of this work is in the area of maternity and protected leave policies.

The independent review group's report also called for the establishment of a complaints process for civilian employees and civil servants, whereby they can have access to redress in respect of complaints concerning grievances or dignity at work issues, where the matters concerned relate to their interactions with members of the Defence Forces. In this regard, I recently appointed Mr. Kevin Duffy as the independent chair of a new working group to develop a complaints process for civilian employees and civil servants who work with the Defence Forces. Taken together, I hope that this list of areas where progress is being made will reassure Members, and, more importantly, those women and men serving the country in our Defence Forces, of how seriously the Government takes the issues identified by Women of Honour and the various other groups and the conclusions of the independent review process.

I return to the immediate issue at hand, which is the establishment of this tribunal. Last week, the Government approved the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power to chair the tribunal, and I thank her for agreeing to do so. Ms Justice Power brings a wealth of experience to the role having served as a Judge of the Court of Appeal since November 2019. She is also a judge of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal. Funding has been provided for this year and arrangements made for its future funding. My hope is that it is timely, efficient and effective in the hugely important work it will do.

The Defence Forces are a source of great pride throughout our country and represent one of the key institutions of our nation. The independent review group's report set out the path to their modernisation and was clear on what needed to be done to ensure a positive transformation into an organisation fully reflective of contemporary Irish society and fully respectful of all those who serve. This tribunal will play a critical role in this transformation and in my view it is important that we move forward with it. We wish Ms Justice Power and her team the very best in getting under way as early as possible this year. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert the following after "terms of reference and the type of inquiry;":

"acknowledging that were it not for the work of the Women of Honour group, the Canary Movement and others, these matters may never have been brought to light;";

in paragraph G. to delete the words "in so far as (vii) below is concerned,";

to insert the following after "in light of the responses to same;" in paragraph (vii):

"(viii) investigate whether Complaints of Hazardous Chemicals were deterred on the basis of a lack of personal protective equipment or chemical awareness training; and

(ix) investigate the health, mortality and disability consequences to civilian and military personnel, their partners and children, arising from any hazardous chemical exposure;";

in subparagraph (j) of paragraph (I) after the words "matters occurring within the jurisdiction," to insert the words "or the deterrence or discouragement thereof in accordance with the Terms of Reference (iv),";

in subparagraph (k) of paragraph (I) after the words "from the date of its establishment" to insert the following:

", notwithstanding that the Minister for Defence may by regulation, upon request of the Tribunal, extend this period with approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas";

in subparagraph (k) of paragraph (I) to delete the words "and in order to achieve this objective, the Tribunal shall be entitled to exercise a discretion in relation to the extent of the evidence that it hears and will be entitled to consider that a sample of evidence on particular issues is sufficient for it to make conclusions and report upon its findings;";

after paragraph (III) to insert the following:

"(IV) the Minister may make provision through the budgetary process for the provision of funds in support of the cooperation of those individuals and representative organisations whose engagement the Tribunal necessitates;"; and

after paragraph (V) to insert the following:

"(VI) the Taoiseach shall, in advance of publication of the Report or it being laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and in line with any direction of the High Court, make appropriate provision for a physical copy of the full Report to be provided to any individual who cooperated with the Tribunal at the earliest opportunity.".

I welcome to the Public Gallery members of Women of Honour and the Defence Forces Justice Alliance. They are very welcome and we are delighted they are joining us.

We very much welcome that a tribunal of inquiry is to be established into incidents of abuse in the Defence Forces, including the exposure of personnel to hazardous chemicals. This is a long time coming and it is long overdue. An RTÉ investigative radio documentary in 2021 brought to the fore deeply concerning and serious allegations of sexual violence and harassment in the Defence Forces. At the time, the survivors wished for a statutory inquiry into the allegations brought to light. In February 2022, the Government voted against the Sinn Féin motion to do just this and instead opted to establish the independent review group, which reported over a year later.

With nearly another year passed, the Government is finally in a position to establish the tribunal of inquiry for which survivors have been calling for more than two years. It is such delays that make it so frustrating that the terms of reference brought before the Dail are seen by the same abuse survivors as insufficient and potentially exclusionary. Negotiations fraught with poor communication on the Tánaiste's part, and a seeming unwillingness to deliver what survivors have sought and what is their right, have stoked unnecessary frustration and even a level of distrust, in particular by bringing terms of reference to Cabinet while the women and survivors themselves still believed the negotiations to be ongoing.

Without the work of survivors' groups such as Women of Honour, the Defence Forces Justice Alliance and others these allegations may never have been brought to light. It is inconceivable that the terms of reference for this tribunal would not explicitly recognise this. It is inconceivable that the decision of the Government, the independent review group and, indeed, the work of the Attorney General are acknowledged but the motion does not acknowledge the role of the survivors, including the critical defining role they played in bringing about this inquiry.

Before the Christmas recess the Tánaiste was told we would seek to amend the terms of reference in line with what we had heard from survivors. This remains our objective today. In the first instance we acknowledge the work of the survivors. The Tánaiste is familiar with the hurt caused by his comments on trips, slips and falls. Survivors have been incredibly vocal regarding their wish to see nobody within or beyond their groups being excluded from this tribunal. The Tánaiste has indicated this would not be the case but he needs to clarify how there is an inclusive approach given the terms of reference, which do read as exclusionary.

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, they do not.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

This can either be the beginning of the end or simply the beginning of a series of inquiries that will see survivors re-traumatised time and again in pursuit of the justice they have deserved for years or even, in the worst-case scenario, for decades. The process of sampling must be excluded from the terms of reference. It would be cruel for the voice of any survivor to be excluded on the basis of their abuse but considered as similar in category to that of another.

The language itself is problematic. It states the tribunal shall be entitled to exercise discretion to the extent of the evidence it hears. The tribunal cannot function without the full co-operation of all survivors and the terms of reference need to be clear on this point. Each individual who wishes to present to the tribunal has their own experience and story to tell. Neither the Government nor a tribunal has a right to deny their right to give evidence and to facilitate the giving of this evidence. The Tánaiste engaged extensively with survivors. What is apparent is that it seems he was not listening, at least not sufficiently to appreciate the glaring issues in the text presented before the Dáil today. This must be corrected.

I want to touch specifically on the members of the Air Corps exposed to hazardous chemicals. Many of them were children when this occurred. They required their parents' permission to enlist, parents who entrusted their care to the State and the State failed them. Having heard from survivors about the rates of cancer among their ranks and the deaths, this alone demands that the tribunal must be a breaking point with the past. It is not sufficient simply to consider whether the complaints process was sufficient. It was not. It is time for a statutory inquiry to examine the health impacts endured by these survivors and their families.

Through our amendments we reflect the concerns of the people whose efforts brought the Government to this point. We call on the Government to support the amendments, which will ensure the full support of the House and full public confidence in the tribunal. We know the Irish Defence Forces face many challenges. More members have left each year that the Government has been in office than have joined. We need strong Defence Forces. The first step in achieving this is ensuring the experiences of those who do join is very positive. Thanks to the work of Women of Honour and others, we know the unfortunate truth that this has not always been the case. This has to change. The tribunal, if done correctly, can be the start of this change. The Sinn Féin amendments are crucial to making it so. I commend them to the House and urge the Government to accept them.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I welcome to the Public Gallery members of Women of Honour, whom I have met several times, and members of the Defence Forces Justice Alliance whom I met yesterday in the audiovisual room. As the Tánaiste knows, we discussed aspects of the tribunal of inquiry last night in priority questions and other oral questions. By chance, just this morning when I was looking through social media, I came across something that goes to the very heart of what this is. It is that truth is always something that is told and not something that is always known. Without the telling there would be no knowing. This is why the amendments I have proposed with my party colleague Deputy Carthy are significant for those affected.

It is a fact that were it not for the work of the Women of Honour, the Canary Movement, the Defence Forces alliance movement and others, matters may never have been brought to light. The truth about what was done to people in the Defence Forces would never have had the chance to be investigated, uncovered or told. I use the phrase "what was done to people" deliberately. Rape and abuse do not just happen. Rape and abuse have no autonomy. They are not walking around barracks or overseas postings. They are violent, invasive, degrading acts committed by someone on someone else. Similarly, "exposure to dangerous chemicals" was not strolling around the Air Corps in Baldonnel in a uniform. Instead, as those affected tell us, and the detail was graphic and hair raising in their briefing yesterday, the Defence Forces must be investigated as to whether they exposed soldiers to these dangerous chemicals in what they did and did not do, for example, in the provision of PPE.

As my party leader has said, some of these were children. They were entrusted to the State. One of them was 16 when he was sweeping asbestos around Baldonnel. They are suffering. It is why our amendments are particularly focused on clarity. They are also designed to address the previous imbalance of power, for example, in making provision through the budgetary process for "funds in support of the cooperation of those individuals and representative organisations whose engagement the Tribunal necessitates". Money cannot be a barrier to full engagement, especially where people have been disadvantaged by their experience. We have to do the right thing. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do.

The amendments also address proper and timely access to information proposing, for example, that "the Taoiseach shall, in advance of publication of the Report or it being laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and in line with any direction of the High Court, make appropriate provision for a physical copy of the full Report to be provided to any individual who cooperated with the Tribunal at the earliest opportunity". Focus, funds, information, clarity and respect in the tribunal are key.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I welcome the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry. It has been a long time coming. It comes due to the tireless and courageous work of the Women of Honour group, who have campaigned relentlessly and effectively to have this statutory inquiry put into place and who have been since joined by others, whom those of us who attended the briefing in the AV room yesterday heard.

A tribunal of inquiry has two fundamental requirements. First, the terms of reference need to fully address the issues demanded by those directly affected. Second, it must do so in a timely way. For the first of these requirements to be met, there must be a real engagement to hear the requirements of those who are impacted. This involves more than meetings and engagements. It even involves more than listening. It has to involve understanding what is required. It is clear those directly affected are not satisfied with the terms of reference the Government has endorsed and presented to the House. We have had many tribunals of inquiry. I have been involved in several of them myself. Often, they are very satisfactory and produce comprehensive and shocking results. Sometimes, though, they are not satisfactory and simply compound difficulties and prolong investigations.

The Government circulated the specifics of the terms of reference today. Under them, Ms Justice Ann Power is to inquire into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

(i) To establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were appropriate and fit for purpose;

(ii) To establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were followed;

The first two requirements are not to examine the abuses, but to establish whether the processes that dealt with the abuses were fit for purpose and followed. Surely the first requirement should be to examine the abuses themselves and how they came about and to hear testimony in respect of that matter.

This motion is an unsatisfactory mechanism for dealing with such an important issue. We should be holding a Committee Stage debate on individual amendments with a Government-Opposition dialogue and then come to a consensus, which I believe we could, rather than being presented with a fait accompli, with us tabling amendments and the Government voting them down. The latter is not an effective way of dealing with something of this importance.

I ask that the Government at least give a commitment that the Women of Honour group and others who have legitimately presented their cases over the years be officially represented legally throughout this tribunal. I am referring to legal representation paid for by the State. I expect that is to be case, but I would like it put on the formal record of the House.

Deputy Micheál Martin

We said that already. The judge will deal with it.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It is accepted.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The judge will deal with it, but we have indicated to the groups-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

We can indicate to them------

Deputy Micheál Martin

People have to have their legal costs addressed.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Yes. It is important that they be formally represented from the beginning by counsel without fear of residual legal costs.

Regarding the status of the Defence Forces, it is important that the House acknowledge the pride we all have in our Defence Forces. As a member of the Government during the decade of commemoration, we were proud of the way our Defence Forces represented the nation in every part of the country and of the incredible service they gave and continue to give, often at the cost of their lives overseas. It is a unique institution in our State and we need a fundamental inquiry into the causes of concern in it so that, by the end, we can address and resolve those causes and ensure the Defence Forces are a model workplace where the sorts of abuses and damage to people we have heard of do not recur. I hope this tribunal will be the end of the matter, but unless the amendments suggested are accepted, they will not be.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have a number of issues with this proposal. I only have three and a half minutes, though. I agree with Deputy Howlin that this is not the proper way to deal with this.

One of my issues is that the Minister and the Department, which may be under investigation by the tribunal, are the ones drawing up the terms of reference. It seems slightly bizarre. Previously when a Minister or Department was to undergo scrutiny by an investigation, another Minister took the lead. Maybe that is what should have happened in this case. In this instance, one of the main problems-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, that is not true.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It has happened in the past. The Minister may need to read the history of it. He was in the Dáil at the time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I set up a few of investigations.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

If the Minister wants, I can debate it with him afterwards.

The terms of reference deal with complaints. I have met those in the Public Gallery. I welcome and support them and they are very courageous. In many cases, they did not make complaints because they could not. If they made a complaint, they were bullied, sidelined, attacked or drummed out of the Defence Forces. That is one of the key issues. Perhaps the Minister will say there was no complaints system, but these complaints date back years. From 2017 onwards, I raised the abuse with Minister after Minister, senior and junior. I also raised it with the Tánaiste. I did the same in respect of Lariam, but all I got was the claim that the Government held the health and safety of our Defence Forces as a priority. No Minister ever listened to me in this Chamber. I was not doing this off my own bat or for votes, as the majority of the people I was dealing with came from outside my constituency. I was doing this out of concern. I could see the effects this was having on people, yet time and again, Ministers told me they could not comment on it because the Defence Forces had told them I was wrong. We did not even consider international best practice. Other defence forces around the world ran a million miles away from Lariam, but it was the best thing since sliced bread in this country. We kept poisoning our men and women who were operating overseas even though it was shown time and again inside and outside this House that Lariam was the wrong drug to use.

Regarding the abuse of chemicals, the military authorities blatantly knew there was no PE. The reports were there. In fact, the military authorities forced people to shred those reports. Reports were done into health and safety in the Defence Forces by another branch of the State. Those reports are there now. They show that the Department and Ministers were lied to, which means this House was lied to. Ministers stood in front of me, particularly the then Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, whom I tortured on this issue week in and week out for years, and parroted information to me about cases of chemical abuse.

I could go on. These are not proper terms of reference. The tribunal is not open and needs to be much wider. Those in the Gallery and elsewhere should have their voices heard and acted upon so that no other generation has to deal with the abuse they have had to suffer.

Deputy Gary Gannon

Members of our Defence Forces have experienced some of the most egregious treatment and conditions of any workforce in our country’s history. It has been harrowing listening to the stories of the all-too-many members who were victims of a broken system. It was a system of abuse. Imagine how difficult it must have been to live through that trauma. It is for this reason I can act only as a conduit for those who know better but do not have a voice on this floor, namely, those who were failed by our defence institutions and were brave enough to stand up against those failings to ensure they never recurred. Those people represent the very best of us.

The Defence Forces have six core values: respect, loyalty, selflessness, physical courage, moral courage and integrity. It stuck with me yesterday when Ms Yvonne O’Rourke and Ms Diane Byrne of Women of Honour outlined in their briefing how these core values were repeatedly violated and rendered non-existent. In fact, the complete subversion of such ethics is evident across the forces, as shown by their treatment.

The Defence Forces claim these values are the bedrock of the organisation and are central to their effectiveness. It is no wonder, then, that there is a recruitment crisis across all echelons of the military. It is missing its bedrock, which it admits it is ineffective without. "Ineffective" is too soft a word. It is a toxic, malignant and destructive institution. Those involved at the highest level have demonstrated a dereliction of duty that words struggle to describe, no matter how strong or verbose they may be.

The stories of those in the Women of Honour group, the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group, the Defence Forces Justice Alliance and the Canary Movement paint pictures of lives ruined by an exploitative organisation indifferent to their suffering as they raised it in the moment. If it were not for these groups, and other groups like them, we would never have got to this point, even though, seemingly, we are still only at the beginning. For many, it is too late to undo the horrors they were found to have experienced, but this only provides a greater incentive to ensure such wrongdoing never again occurs in the future.

Echoing the bravery of these groups, I welcome the tribunal of inquiry. The more action regarding and attention given to this issue, the better. Unfortunately, as has become the defining fact of the Department of Defence's track record, the tribunal appears deeply flawed from the outset. The terms of reference of the tribunal were received by the aforementioned advocacy groups with or no time allowed for them to express their dissatisfaction with their scope before they went to the Cabinet the very next day. The very victims of the atrocities the tribunal was created to investigate felt blindsided once more, but they will not be blindsided again.

As the Tánaiste looks away, I remind him that the very antithesis of restorative justice is the retraumatisation of the victims. Upon receiving the terms of reference, it was clear the focus of the tribunal was completely misguided, namely, homing in on the flaws in the complaints' process and not the levels of abuse. In the 1990 review, it was already acknowledged that the complaints system was grossly ineffective. In actuality, it said the process led to victimisation rather than to redress. In 2013, senior internal sources in the Defence Forces acknowledged the same thing. Three years later, the University of Limerick and even a judicial process deemed the system not fit for purpose. The former institution conducted interviews that found many members would not take part in the complaints process for fear of suffering a backlash.

They were fearful because they had seen the lives of colleagues ruined for doing as much. They had heard their voices, seen their faces and had served alongside those people. After acknowledging the wealth of empirical evidence we have already acquired about the complaints process, why are we gearing the tribunal towards investigating what we know has already been broken instead of investigating the root causes of such abuse?

The mishandling of complaints, as horrendous as it is, and its products were and continue to be only a symptom of the disease that has racked our military. Only when this has been addressed will we be able to pay adequate respect and attention to those who have suffered abuse. Let us not delay the improvement of the culture for future generations. The entire Department of Defence must be examined to root out these issues. It should not be the Department designing the terms of reference of the tribunal because this is flagrantly against best practice.

It must also be ensured that those who did not use the complaints process are included, as many did not have faith in using the system out of fear of repercussions. This has been established. The experiences and traumas of those people are just as valid as anyone else's. These advocacy groups must be included in the scope of the terms of reference because they must have a seat at the table as the process goes on. This is because it is their stories that have the worth that will steer us in the direction of justice and having better Defence Forces.

Before I conclude, it is important to mention the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors. They deserve much more than a mention if only my time permitted it. I have rarely heard of a group struck by tragedy to the extent these people have been. There have been 105 deaths of former members of the Air Corps at an average age of 53. The tribunal in its current form completely missed out on hearing about their circumstances as they had made no complaints at the time of service because they were unaware of the damage their bodies were subjected to as a result of gross negligence by an absence of personal protective equipment, exposure to asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, and physical, mental and sexual assault. As the members of the group suggested yesterday, you cannot complain if you are dead.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

This is the first occasion on which this Dáil has had an opportunity to consider passing resolutions for the establishment of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry

(Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2011. It is a significant occasion for any Dáil to pass such a resolution because, to a large extent, once a tribunal of inquiry is established by the Houses of the Oireachtas we sort of lose control of how it operates. This is why it is so important that we pay careful consideration to the terms of reference and we ensure when we are drafting them we are not giving the tribunal a task that is going to be excessively broad or take an inordinate length of time to complete.

The process by which a tribunal is established is that both Houses of the Oireachtas pass resolutions and after that the Tánaiste signs a statutory instrument giving effect to the commencement of the tribunal. It should also be noted that every tribunal in recent years has happened in response to a political campaign in respect of issues of public importance. This is why the members of the Women of Honour group deserve to be commended on bringing about the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry. Everyone in this House will be aware that many people come before us looking for investigations, inquiries and tribunals of inquiry. Many of them come with very meritorious stories. Obviously, though, we must be discerning and we must exercise our judgment concerning whether we establish a commission of investigation or, indeed, a tribunal of inquiry. The members of the Women of Honour group can recognise the fact, and should gain pleasure from the fact, that their campaign has succeeded in establishing a tribunal of inquiry.

There is a responsibility on us as Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that the terms of reference are accurately defined and that we do not give the tribunal a job that will take it an inordinate amount of time to undertake. We must also look at our experience of setting up tribunals of inquiry. We set up a very efficient tribunal of inquiry in the last Oireachtas, namely, the disclosures tribunal. It was very efficient. It lasted for six years and did its work very efficiently. Other tribunals recently established included the Smithwick tribunal, which took eight years, and the Morris tribunal, of which Deputy Howlin will be aware, which took six years. We must be fair and honest with the public in recognising that when we set up a tribunal of inquiry, it takes an inordinate and lengthy time. This is why we must exercise our judgment in trying to put forward terms of reference that do not require the tribunal to spend an inordinate amount of time investigating a very broad range of issues. I think the terms of reference put forward are concise and seek to investigate the central issue of public importance, which is whether the complaints processes in the Defence Forces, in relation to complaints of abuse, were appropriate and fit for purpose and were followed.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

We know the answer to that: they were not.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

The tribunal also seeks to establish whether there have been systemic failures. I know some Deputies say they want to ensure the tribunal is entitled to hear every allegation of abuse. The tribunal is being permitted to hear evidence in respect of complaints of abuse dating back to 1983. In my opinion, though, it is not feasible that we would say to the tribunal that everything - every allegation of complaint since 1983 - should be heard. This would mean that we would, in my opinion, have a tribunal going on for more than a decade. Instead, what we have done in the terms of reference is provide a mechanism whereby the tribunal is permitted to be evidence-led in respect of abuse. This means that the individuals - the women in the Defence Forces who were impacted by what appears to be an inappropriate complaints procedure - will be able to give their evidence in respect of what happened.

I also think we need to be honest with people who seek tribunals of inquiry or other forms of investigation. Sometimes, people come to me as my party's justice spokesperson - I am sure it happens as well with other Members of the House - to tell me they want a tribunal of inquiry or a commission of investigation because they want justice. It is extremely important that we tell the Women of Honour group and the people of Ireland that tribunals of inquiry do not result in justice. They are fact-finding bodies. They are there to investigate something that happened in the past and to produce a report setting out what occurred. Justice is administered in courts when people make civil or criminal complaints. Tribunals of inquiry do not result in justice being administered. At the end of a lengthy process, which may have gone on for many years, people get a report and then ask what the point was and what the report contains and highlight that no one is being held to account as a result of the process. Such a report can lead to lines of investigation, but it is important that people are aware that if they are looking for justice, the mechanism to achieve that is not through a tribunal of inquiry.

It will be noted from the terms of reference that there is a reference to the fact that the tribunal cannot make any findings of fact upon any matters that could be criminal in nature. The reason tribunals of inquiry take so long is if such a tribunal establishes itself and gets into a position where it is potentially going to reach serious findings against individuals, those individuals are going to come into the tribunal and say they wish to be represented as well because their good names are under threat.

They will want legal representation here. As has been indicated, the Women of Honour will be represented but there are other people we have not heard of against whom accusations may be made at this tribunal of inquiry. We cannot tell them they are not entitled to have representation. They will be so entitled. Tribunals of inquiry get into difficulty when they try to hold people to account for criminal behaviour and serious civil behaviour. People may be looking for a report that, at the end of day, will name individuals within the Defence Forces who were involved in forms of abuse but that is not going to happen. That will not be in this final report because, if established in a court, it could be seen as evidence of something being criminal in nature.

Notwithstanding that, we should look at the positives of this. We have been very well served by the Defence Forces in this country. Through the work of the Women of Honour, we have seen that there are areas where standards have not been sufficiently high, where abuse has occurred and where it appears that complaints of abuse were not properly investigated. If it is the case that there was a systemic approach within the Defence Forces not to investigate this issue, to ignore it or to dismiss it because it involved women, it is in the public interest for us all to be aware of that and for it to be reported upon.

I will conclude by stating that if it is the case that individuals think this report and process will result in individuals being held to account for their inappropriate behaviour in the past, I respectfully submit that is not going to happen.

On terms of reference, when we set up a tribunal of inquiry, we lose control over it. We could be here in a couple of years asking where is the report from the tribunal of inquiry set up in 2024. We lose complete control. That is why we try to set concise and precise terms of reference so the tribunal will know what we are asking it to do. The easiest thing for us to do is to give it a blank page but, if that happens, it will never end.

Deputy Mark Ward

I mentioned to the Tánaiste in the past that I am the proud son of a Defence Forces veteran. My dad served in the Defence Forces for 27 years, both in this country and overseas. He is still very active with the United Nations veterans group. I spent my formative years living in Army quarters. Having grown up as the son of a member of the Defence Forces, I am well aware of the impact that poor pay and conditions have on the families and children of Defence Forces personnel.

Historically, successive Governments have not valued our Defence Forces and things have not got any better under this Government. The Defence Forces are at a critical juncture. The number of personnel stands at historically low levels with more members having left than joined each year since the formation of this Government. Part of the solution to this crisis is ensuring that the experience of those who join is a positive one.

I was at an excellent presentation by the Women of Honour yesterday, which was hosted by my colleague, Deputy Matt Carthy. I welcome the Women of Honour and other survivors to the Public Gallery. The Women of Honour have had to wade and fight their way through bureaucratic and cultural systems designed to keep them quiet and to prevent them from challenging the status quo. On that note, I extend my admiration and support to the Women of Honour group and tell all those survivors who have bravely come forward to tell their stories that they are being listened to here.

Sinn Féin welcomes that the Government is moving forward with the tribunal into incidents of abuse and exposure to hazardous chemicals endured by members of the Defence Forces but it is inconceivable that the Government would press forward without the full support and endorsement of stakeholders. Sinn Féin wishes to see a tribunal established that places survivors and their voices at its very centre. The tribunal must acknowledge the value of survivors' groups and their role in bringing these matters to light. The Government must ensure that the widest possible cohort of those with legitimate grievances have an opportunity to have their voices heard at this tribunal and that survivors are the first to hear of any findings it makes.

At the presentation yesterday, we heard it was important for the tribunal to focus on the actual complaints rather than the complaints process. Many Defence Forces personnel did not make complaints for fear of reprisal. The first Defence Forces members prescribed the anti-malaria drug, Lariam, while they were serving overseas, many of whom have got in touch with me, are an example of this. Side-effects of this drug include depression, neurological disorders, anxiety and hallucinations. Sadly, more than 7,000 Irish soldiers deployed overseas were prescribed this drug. Some of the soldiers affected were forced to retire on health grounds. These soldiers are still fighting the Government in their search for compensation for their illnesses. Many soldiers did not make formal complaints or disclose their symptoms while they were serving members for fear of reprisal. One of the reasons for this is that the doctors one reports to in the Army are officers who report directly to their superiors. If you go to the doctor, who is an officer, because you are under the weather and have a mental health issue or perhaps because you are experiencing side-effects from Lariam, that might be a black mark against you that may lead to you not serving overseas.

We also heard from the Defence Forces Justice Alliance and Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors. These groups outlined horrific exposure to toxic chemicals. I had never before heard the likes of some of the stories I heard yesterday. People were put into tubs of chemicals as young soldiers, or child soldiers, as they called themselves, and were then punished for reporting it to their superiors. This happened in Baldonnel in my own area. The Government must provide for the tribunal to investigate the health consequences faced by those who were exposed to these hazardous chemicals. The voices of all survivors must be at the centre of this tribunal.

Deputy Bríd Smith

In line with what the last speaker had to say about the pay of Defence Forces personnel, the conditions under which they have lived and the housing they have had over the years, with many not being given houses and living in the backs of their cars in order to operate as soldiers or naval personnel, I marvel at the Government's attempt to spend more money on defence but not on the Defence Forces themselves. The idea that we would join PESCO and increase the proportion of our budget that goes towards military hardware rather than improving the lives and terms and conditions of the ordinary decent men, women and others who work for our Defence Forces is quite obscene.

Today, The Irish Times carried an article reporting that the Tánaiste is going to legislate to get rid of the triple lock as soon as possible. Would whatever resources that are to be put into investigating whether the Women of Honour are entitled to give evidence to this tribunal not better be spent on giving the people of the country a chance to vote in a referendum on whether they want to ditch neutrality with haste, as the Tánaiste seems to want to do?

The Women of Honour have asked me to raise a couple of questions. Some have probably already been asked. I was out at a protest for Palestine and so missed all of the discussion. Those involved in setting the terms of reference may have inadvertently excluded many members of the Defence Forces, including the Women of Honour, for the very understandable reason that many of these members did not engage with the complaints process that existed. Will the Tánaiste please clarify-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

They are covered. That was clarified.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I just want to hear the Tánaiste say it again-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

I have said it.

Deputy Bríd Smith

-----and I believe the Women of Honour want to hear him say it again. This has regard to term of reference (iv), "To investigate whether Complaints of Abuse were actively deterred or whether there was a culture that discouraged the making of Complaints of Abuse". Will that term of reference allow everyone-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

Yes.

Deputy Bríd Smith

-----to be included in the tribunal, including those who did not engage? The Tánaiste's answer is "Yes". That is most welcome. The other question relates to the last recommendation on page 91 of the independent review group report commissioned by the Department, which states:

The Minister [that is, the Tánaiste, Deputy Martin] should consider a complete review and replacement of the redress of wrongs procedure under Section 114 of the Defence Act, 1954 and Administrative Instruction A7, Chapter 2, in light of modern HR practice.

The Tánaiste may have answered that as well. If not, could he address that point? Does the Tánaiste believe it to be best practice to have been involved in drawing up the terms of reference if he himself is going to participate in the tribunal as a witness?

Deputy John Lahart

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. One of the comments Deputy Smith made reminded me of what I was going to say about how separate and apart the Defence Forces historically were as an institution. That was facilitated and seen as necessary.

One of the positive outworkings of this process is that is now seen as being archaic. The Defence Forces are definitely coming under increased scrutiny and oversight, not least because of the abuses revealed by the Women of Honour some years ago.

In a previous chapter of my life, I had the opportunity to see the work of the Defence Forces at first hand overseas. I always marvelled at their discipline, accomplishments and diligence and how well they represented their country. I saw very much the absolute best of the Defence Forces, much of which we have reason to be very proud. The public hold the Defence Forces in high esteem. To have learned that members of the Defence Forces, almost exclusively women, particularly in the context of sexual abuse, suffered so awfully within a structure that made it almost impossible at times for them to speak, be heard with respect and be responded to appropriately was particularly galling and appalling. It is a stain on the otherwise noble history of the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces need to take ownership of that. They have done so to some degree. In this regard and in the context of the commitment of the Government to reforming the culture of the Defence Forces, this tribunal will be an important public inquiry and will represent a watershed moment for the Defence Forces. I hope it will be a catalyst for change and transformation, in line with the intention of the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence.

As regards oversight of the Defence Forces, it was almost like a satellite or separate unit of the State. As I was growing up, I never questioned the fact the military has its own military police and the Defence Forces has its own disciplinary structures and in-house way of dealing with things. As other Deputies have noted, that simply is not good enough. It is a structure that simply cannot, will not and did not work.

Turning to the establishment of the tribunal, as a previous speaker stated, I have no doubt that how previous tribunals have served the country weighed heavily in the Tánaiste's consideration and deliberation of this matter. Some of them served the country well, while some went on at length. Some made findings that were later dismantled, dislodged and undone. That was never the intention behind them. Like my colleagues, I approve of the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power to chair the tribunal. She is an eminent selection by the Government. Among the recommendations of the independent review group was to call for the establishment of a complaints procedure for civilian employees and civil servants through which they could have access to redress in respect of complaints concerning grievances or dignity at work issues relating to their interactions with members of the Defence Forces. Mr. Kevin Duffy, who is well known to most Members from his work with the Labour Court, is a very appropriate chair for the working group in that instance.

With regard to the terms of reference, having listened to the remarks of the Tánaiste, it is clear that he considered all views and observations received from a wide range of interested parties. It is clear that a variety of views were expressed at the stage of the formative tribunal. For instance, some people I know expressed the view that they would be reluctant to share their views in public. In many inquiries, those affected have different ways in which they would like to see their stories reflected. Other individuals and groups sought a statutory public inquiry and that is what the Government has done in this case, while recognising and acknowledging the critical role the Women of Honour played in bringing appalling and very serious allegations to public attention. Without their commitment, none of this would have come about. As one who previously worked in the field of psychotherapy, I find the allegations in question truly appalling. Not only did the structures of the military impose an unwanted and involuntary omerta on the experiences of some members of the Defence Forces, but the manner in which the members in question were dealt with certainly had a chilling effect on me.

I know the Tánaiste had to consider the views of other interested parties, including an obligation to currently serving members of the Defence Forces. The tribunal established by the Government attempts to strike that balance. In the course of questions to him in his position as Minister for Defence last night, the Tánaiste made the point that there has been full respect on his side and an ongoing engagement with the Women of Honour, members of which he met last January and thereafter. He stated that they reflected, changed and made further inclusions, particularly in respect of the issues relating to hazardous chemicals at Baldonnel. Knowing the Tánaiste as I do for several years, I have no doubt he has done his best to tease out the requirements that are needed for the tribunal to get to the truth of matters in an efficient way that respects the rights of everybody. He also made the point in response to a question last night that the only outstanding issue when discussions with the Women of Honour concluded related to their view on the random selection that the judge should have the authority, if she wishes to exercise it. It is clear to the Tánaiste that the judge will hear all cases but if there are thousands of cases coming in, for instance, one must make provision for a judge to take a selection and to say she can make conclusions in respect of what she has heard based on that selection. It is not ideal but it is prudent in the circumstances. It speaks to a point made by my colleague, namely, that without such a provision, we could have a tribunal that goes on endlessly and, by the time it is finished, people will have forgotten why it was initiated.

I welcome the tribunal. Not everybody is 100% happy with it, but I believe the Tánaiste has acted with the best of intentions and with great integrity in response to the awful revelations that came to public notice in recent years regarding the treatment of women in the Defence Forces.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I will cut straight to the chase. The terms of reference of this tribunal of inquiry are too tight. This is not coming from me; it is coming from those present in the Gallery who have lobbied on this issue.

I ask the Government to accept the Sinn Féin amendment. I listened to previous speakers. I will stick to the issue of chemical abuse in the Defence Forces because I want to give a synopsis of what those affected by this have gone through. This is only one side of it. These are not my words; they come from the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group. There have been 61 untimely deaths since President Michael D. Higgins assumed the role of supreme commander of the Defence Forces. There have been 48 untimely deaths since protected disclosure was made to the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, in 2015. There have been 41 untimely deaths since a further protected disclosure was made to Vice Admiral Mark Mellett in 2016. There have been 35 untimely deaths since the further protected disclosure was made to various senior former and current Members of the Houses, including Mr. Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and Justice, Deputies Coveney, Harris and McEntee, Deputy Kehoe, Senator Regina Doherty, Mr. Michael Noonan, the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, Senator Lisa Chambers, the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl and Senators Michael McDowell and Gerard Craughwell. There have been 33 untimely deaths since the Tánaiste met six survivors back in June 2007, when he was fully briefed on the prevalent illnesses, untimely deaths and the demands of the survivors. There have been 32 further untimely deaths since the further protected disclosure was made to Deputy Kehoe, listing 56 untimely deaths at the time. The total number of untimely deaths now stands at 105.

That is just one synopsis. A previous speaker referred to Lariam and so on. We have dealt with people in respect of suicides within the Defence Forces as well. I understand from where they are coming. It is impossible to make a complaint. We have seen it with the protected disclosures. We changed the protected disclosure legislation in the previous Dáil term. I welcome that change. We need to strengthen this tribunal. We need the terms of reference to be wide open. We cannot narrow them.

These people need every angle to tell their truth.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome the fact that we are moving forward with a tribunal of inquiry. There are many matters that need to be addressed. The survivors' groups, including the Women of Honour and the Canary Movement, have done huge service in bringing to light various allegations against the background of a historic failure to address particular matters. Sinn Féin recognises the importance of this and the importance of placing survivors and their voices at the centre of the tribunal's work. Amendments have been submitted by Deputies Carthy and Cronin in relation to this in order to ensure that voices which must be heard are not needlessly omitted due to sampling, and to address the fact that the Government would press forward without the full support and endorsement of stakeholders.

While I am speaking of the importance of placing survivors at the centre of the process, I want to reinforce the importance of seeing this tribunal as an opportunity to rebuild confidence within the Defence Forces. During my work on the public petitions committee, I have become acutely aware of deficiencies that can get in the way of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces being as effective as possible. These deficiencies include addressing the 12-month rule and the inability to initiate own-motion inquiries, and how certain complaint categories, as they are worded, can hide the seriousness of the alleged offence and deter people from lodging complaints. The Minister will be aware of these three issues. I urge him to consider them carefully. Process and openness are important to building confidence, and this includes scenarios like bringing the terms of reference before the Cabinet without the say-so of the survivors. The Women of Honour gave a brilliant presentation yesterday, and I recognise them in the Gallery today.

I hope I heard Deputy Jim O'Callaghan wrong. He talked about people being held accountable if the tribunal of inquiry goes ahead. They should be held accountable for anything that these people suffered. The type of attitude adopted by this Government and those that preceded it must be a thing of the past. These people have done great work. They and their colleagues must be front and centre within and outside any tribunal.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I am grateful for the opportunity to make some very brief comments on the tribunal being established. I also welcome the Defence Forces veterans to the Gallery. They are hugely welcome, as well they know.

I welcome the establishment of the tribunal. It cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned. I note the comments from Deputy O'Callaghan on the terms of reference. The Tánaiste listed out all the stakeholders, there are lot of them there, and I recognise that it is hard to get unanimity in relation to the terms of reference. Are these terms of reference perfect? I would say not. Are they reasonable enough to begin the process, though? I would say, on balance, that they are. I also welcome the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power, a highly impressive individual, both nationally and internationally. I wish her and her team well. I have two questions on logistics regarding the tribunal. I am not sure if the Tánaiste has the information to hand, but is there a potential or tentative launch date yet for the tribunal to begin? Has a premises or precise location been identified? If he could shed some light on that in his closing remarks, it would be greatly appreciated.

I want to double down on what Deputies Howlin and Lahart said in commending the vast majority of members of the Defence Forces on the performance of their duties and the exemplary fashion in which they perform them. There have been a few comments about Defence Forces culture and I want to address what the true Defence Forces culture is. The true Defence Forces culture was very evident in the take-down of the MV Matthew only a few months back off the Cork coast, when we had operatives sliding down the fast rope, overpowering those on the vessel and basically executing the largest drugs bust ever in the history of the State. True Defence Forces culture was when an aircraft flew to Kabul two and a half years ago and those on board snatched our citizens and brought them back to safety. The true Defence Forces culture is the almost 500 troops in the Middle East at the moment, in harm's way, keeping a lid on a potentially catastrophic regional conflict. That is what the true Defence Forces culture is. What is being discussed in this Chamber and what will be discussed in the tribunal is that there are a number of individuals who are not aligned to the Defence Forces culture and do not abide by it. They think that the Defence Forces culture is not relevant to them. That is the key issue. My phone has been inundated, as people can well imagine, in recent months with messages from many people who serve this country so proudly currently and who did so in the past. They feel that the report that was written is not reflective of the true organisation they served in.

I welcome the establishment of the tribunal. I wish Ms Justice Ann Power the very best and look forward to reading her report. It is officially due in about three years' time. If we get it earlier, then all the better. The focus of this tribunal should be on the victims and ensuring that this never happens again.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I want to pay tribute to the Women of Honour, many of whom are here tonight, who have courageously brought to light the shocking litany of abuse and bullying that has been experienced by men and women in the Defence Forces over the decades. I had the opportunity to raise their case for the first time in the Dáil. At that time, I stated that if we wanted to achieve justice, we had to ensure first of all that the terms of reference must be drafted in consultation and in agreement with the Women of Honour. This has not happened. Indeed, the Women of Honour have been frustrated in this process a number of times by the Government. I worry that the time-honoured process of the State resisting truth is evident here again. This inquiry has fatal deficiencies. I am not confident that the tribunal, as it is currently constituted, will get to the truth. I am not confident that we will achieve the justice and accountability that is necessary to drive real reform of the Defence Forces. If we have no accountability, we will not have reform. That is plainly clear.

Incredibly, this tribunal will not investigate the abuse and bullying that has occurred in the Defence Forces. The tribunal dodges the damage that has been done to so many men and women. This is startling. This should be the primary objective of the tribunal. Instead, the tribunal only seeks to investigate the complaints process. The complaints process is already proven to be corrupt within the State. There is a long history of reports already written on this. In 1990, the Report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces stated that the complaints procedure "is now held to be a meaningless ritual with little or no hope of ... redress". The report also refers to the perception that if a person applies for that redress, that they will get special treatment. The report states that the procedure has lost all credibility. The Workplace Climate in the Defence Forces study from 2016 also discusses the complaints procedure. It includes statements from members of the Defence Forces, who state that "you will suffer afterwards. You may win the battle but you will lose the war." Another source says "I would not be comfortable using that. It will come against you." The Government's own independent review group report recommended the immediate reform of the complaints procedure. Now you are setting up another tribunal to create another report on a procedure that is obviously broken, corrupt and damaging.

On another major weakness of this report, I welcome the fact that you have clarified this somewhat but given that there was such a push-back against people using the complaints procedure, should not a welcome within the terms of reference have stated in black and white that those people who did not use the complaints procedure on the first occasion have an opportunity to use the tribunal to get justice for themselves? The fact that it is not written in black and white is still incredible. I spoke to one woman today who said it is an incredible situation. She suffered sexual abuse and a cover-up by the assailant. The assailant was protected and went on to retire with their full pension while she was bullied out of the forces. She said that nobody came after her looking to see if she wanted to have a complaints forum. The fact that they are sampling here means that the process will refuse justice to many people who have suffered abuse and bullying in the past in the Defence Forces and that is a wrong as well.

Deputy Carol Nolan

Like so many others, I begin by acknowledging the exceptional dedication and courage of the Women of Honour and their campaign to have justice applied to this issue. We are all aware, thanks to the Women of Honour, that serious failures in the complaints system have occurred in the Defence Forces and these serious failures have caused anguish and pain that is ongoing, unfortunately, for so many. Indeed, the draft terms of reference, if they are accepted by the House, make clear that the tribunal will commence its investigations covering the period from 1 January 1983 on. This in itself hints at decades of pain that may be unearthed during this process.

It really is quite shocking that what we are talking about goes as far back as 1983. I am aware the Women of Honour group has expressed serious reservations around the draft terms of reference. For that reason alone, we should not rush the process. Accuracy and justice cannot be sacrificed for haste and political expediency. Having read the letter and analysis of the draft terms provided to us by the Women of Honour, the lines that jumped out were those that stated that in its members' view, the Minister has sought to equate the Defence Forces' workplace of "rapes, sexual assaults and other outrages with slips, trips and falls." Safety issues in the Defence Forces are real. The Women of Honour group has noted that it is certainly not a safe workplace, with rape violence, bullying and other proven outrages not only perpetrated but condoned, concealed and in some cases even enabled. This underscores for me the absolute gravity of the situation and, indeed, the compelling need to get the process off to a good start by securing wide agreement on the draft terms of reference. We have to listen to these women in making sure we do this properly and the process is correct from the start.

Deputy Michael Collins

The Women of Honour group, which was in the audiovisual room yesterday, serves as a support network for former and current female Defence Forces members who allege they were abused within the military. The group has issued a warning and has expressed concern that the issues plaguing the Defences Forces will persist unless the terms of reference for an inquiry into these abuses are expanded. The group recently had a meeting with the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, the purpose of which was to present its proposed terms of reference for the planned statutory probe into the claims of abuse. This is a significant step, as it shows the group's proactive approach in seeking justice and resolution for the alleged victims.

During the meeting, the Women of Honour group emphasised that given the allegations of sexual assault, it believes the scope of investigation should be broadened to include other claims of abuse. These include instances of physical torture, discrimination and career obstruction, which are equally serious and damaging. Despite the Government's commitment to a full statutory inquiry into allegations of misconduct, the Women of Honour group has criticised the Government's draft terms of reference. It believes the current terms are too narrow and do not fully encompass the range of issues that need to be addressed. This criticism highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to tackling the alleged abuses within the Defence Forces.

The Women of Honour group is advocating for a broader and more inclusive investigation into the alleged abuses within the Defence Forces. It believes a more comprehensive approach will lead to a more thorough understanding of the issues at hand and, ultimately, to more effective solutions. Its efforts underscore the importance of addressing all forms of abuse and ensuring justice for all victims.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I hope our visitors will forgive me for not dwelling on a welcome, given that I have two and half minutes. How did we get to this point? Two years and four months have passed since the Women of Honour went on the Katie Hannon show, highlighting serious abuse over three decades. It is two years tomorrow since the independent review was established, an exercise the Women of Honour and most of the Opposition in the Dáil at the time said would be inadequate. It is ten months since the damning final report of the independent review group, IRG, was published in March 2023. It is 24 years since Tom Clonan, now Senator, published his research, and 22 years since the publication of the report of the external advisory group on the Defence Forces headed by Dr. Eileen Doyle . It is 34 years since the Gleeson commission reported, highlighting inadequacies in the redress of wrongs and the victimisation of those seeking redress. We have known all about this for a very long time.

In relation to culture, and I note my colleague talked about it in a different way, the report of the IRG stated:

Apart from the horrendous nature of the alleged rapes and sexual assaults suffered and described in great detail to the IRG-DF, what happened afterwards is of equal concern. Instead of delivering a proper, modern, streamlined and skilled response to the complainant, the individual was often told to bury the complaint, or they were asked whether they seriously wanted to complain formally.

It went on to state that "the majority of respondents stated that they did not make a formal complaint of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or sexual assault, and the main reason given for this failure to report was that there was no point". The report also noted:

The prevailing workplace culture is one that is disabling when it comes to supporting dignity and respect in the workplace. The IRG-DF’s analysis reveals a workplace where self-worth and value are negated and disrespect is a dominant feature.

There is any amount of evidence the complaints process was not fit for purpose. It was clearly not fit for purpose, yet we are setting up a tribunal to determine whether it was fit for purpose, as opposed to a tribunal that will look at how, in God's name, a system could be so bad that it failed to deal with the serious complaints coming before it. We have set up a tribunal where we have not even acknowledged the role of the Women of Honour. We have set up a tribunal - or are about to - with no interim reports or anything like that, and an endeavour to finish in three years. Finally, the Government has clarified that those who did not make a complaint previously can come forward. That should have been reflected clearly as a term of reference.

Deputy Marian Harkin

Yesterday, I attended what was probably the most harrowing event I have ever attended in Leinster House. Representatives from the Women of Honour group and from the Air Corps spoke about the harms and abuse they have suffered. Many TDs have elaborated on it here today, but some of the stories and the statistics were shocking. They told us they have real concerns that this tribunal of inquiry is not comprehensive or inclusive enough. They do not believe it will finally deliver an adequate and just outcome for all concerned.

On the other hand, I listened to the Tánaiste's response last night to oral questions on this issue, and he outlined the terms of reference of the inquiry. They do cover a lot. However, listening to the representatives of the Women of Honour, they say they already know the complaints process was not carried out correctly. The 1990 report, the 2013 report, the UL report of 2016 and the independent review all accepted the complaints process and procedures were not fit for purpose and the focus must be on the abuse itself. The representatives have welcomed the establishment of the tribunal and the engagement they have had, but they strongly believe the Department of Defence should have no role in designing the terms of reference of the inquiry. They have welcomed the fact the judge is given discretion but have raised issues about the fact that some people were deterred from using the complaints process. I believe the Tánaiste has said that those people who have not been through the process can still be part of the tribunal. I was not aware of that beforehand. I think it should be written down.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is.

Deputy Marian Harkin

If it is, I would be happy for the Tánaiste to read it to me and I would be a bit more satisfied than I am now.

I support the Sinn Féin amendment, in particular the amendment on complaints regarding hazardous chemicals. I support the request to investigate if complaints on the use of hazardous chemicals were deterred on the basis of the lack of personal protective equipment or chemical awareness training and, crucially, to investigate the health, mortality and disability consequences for civilian and military personnel, their partners and children arising from any hazardous chemical exposure. I think this gap may not be unbridgeable and I ask the Tánaiste to do all in his power to bridge the gap that is there.

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I will start with a quote that suck out from yesterday's briefing, "It is hard to get the right people to do the right thing." This process only started due to the bravery and courage of the Women of Honour, who are here today in the Visitors Gallery. I acknowledge their presence, if they are still here. Since this process started, there have been a number of actions the Department of Defence has not got right, so we are starting off on the wrong foot. Engagement, for example, has been a major disappointment to those victim groups. That has spoken volumes to them about the commitment of the Department to show respect to these individuals. In the eyes of the victims, the setting up of the IRG and the scoping exercise that was conducted was a time delay, when the much-needed public inquiry should have been the focus. There is disappointment there, too. The fact the terms of reference were only supplied the night before they went to Cabinet leaves questions. Why?

These intrinsic details are important, especially when someone is watching with bated breath to see whether these matters will be finally dealt with in the proper manner. The "lastminute.com" approach will not be understood or accepted and the Tánaiste needs to seriously reflect on the effects those kinds of actions are having on those who have suffered grave trauma. That should be front and centre in all actions going forward.

I appreciate him providing the much-needed clarity on the matter of those who did not use the complaints processes and his commitment to including them, especially considering I raised that matter with him on the floor of the Chamber last night. It would be ideal, however, if he would go further and outline whether it is by way of sampling. Does this mean a representation of all victims will be the focus of the inquiry - I ask because the term "sampling" is being used - or will all victims be given the opportunity to have their testimony heard? I request also that the Tánaiste name the Women of Honour in the terms of reference.

The complaints process failed; that is a fact and I think everybody in this House accepts that. The inquiry needs to look at those who were in the positions of power and what they did with that power.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions to the debate. There are a number of points to which I want to respond. Deputy Nolan made a point about me supposedly equating sexual assault with trips and falls. It was very unworthy of her to say that. I have rejected that in public. It was an outrageous distortion, to be frank, and I said that. It is not something I would ever do; in fact, it was the opposite. This inquiry has to examine how allegations of sexual abuse and sexual assault were dealt with by the complaints system. Any notion that I would make such an equation is untrue. I have said this already and made my point clear on it. If we are having a debate, people need to be clear about what is the truth. I take exception to that remark and have done so since it was first articulated. I have rejected it very strongly. The opposite is what I am about.

On the "lastminute.com" comment, the terms of reference were first circulated last May and there have been a series of iterations of the terms of reference since last May up to the end of December.

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I was referring to the final version.

Deputy Micheál Martin

There have been a whole range of drafts and they have been amended and amended. Anyone in the Gallery who was listening to Deputy Wynne's contribution would imagine I had produced the terms of reference last night on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, but that is not how it happened. In fact, we were of a view we had achieved a very substantial agreement. There was an issue around the random selection, the idea for which originally came in a helpful, constructive way from the legal representatives of the Women for Honour. As has been discussed during this debate, it was about how we could ensure a comprehensive, thorough and reasonably timely public inquiry. People wanted to broaden various aspects, such as workplaces and so on, and in that context the idea was that if thousands of cases were coming in, the judge would have an entitlement at some stage to say they could make conclusions. The judge has made very clear to me that the tribunal is going to hear all cases, and that if it ever gets to a stage when that could have to be invoked, it will be.

On most of the other substantive issues, we had agreed on the legitimate issues the Women of Honour had raised with us. Other groups also raised issues but I am referring to specific issues the Women of Honour raised. I outlined in my opening remarks the kinds of issues that were raised. In the case of people who did not make a complaint, for example, the Women of Honour made a very valid point that many people would not have made a complaint because they would have felt the complaints system would not have facilitated them, or they would have been afraid of intimidation or reprisal, or they might have felt it was pointless to make a complaint because it would not have been effective. Under (d) in the terms of reference, therefore, it is stated, "In the context of its investigation into Terms of Reference (i) to (v), the Tribunal may permit evidence of Abuse and the consequences of Abuse to be led, but the Tribunal is precluded from investigating into, or making findings of fact upon any matters that would, if established in a court of law, be criminal in nature". That is understood; tribunals cannot inquire into every individual case or each individual crime. It can make findings of fact as to what happened. We are including anybody who wants to come forward who was abused or who has suffered any abuse.

We then define "abuse". Deputy Collins stated we were not including physical torture but, as I said in my opening remarks, following engagement with the Women of Honour and others we have included physical torture. Abuse is defined as "discrimination, bullying, harassment, physical torture, physical assault, psychological harm, sexual harassment and any form of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and rape)." We have included additional requests in that regard.

Turning to other amendments, in my opening remarks I paid tribute to the Women of Honour, the Women and Men of Honour and various other groups we have met. I have never come across a tribunal where the terms of reference include names of groups and so on who subsequently may be part of the tribunal or who may bring evidence to the tribunal, which others may contest. I was surprised to see that amendment because such a provision has never featured in any tribunal, nor do I think it would be appropriate. I mean this in the best of faith, having great respect for what the Women of Honour have done, but I do not believe that is the correct approach for a terms of reference. Terms of reference are, in essence, about what is to be investigated in order that the judge will be very clear. Doing otherwise could, potentially, be seen by somebody to be prejudicial.

The difference between the independent review group and this tribunal is that the latter will be statutory and will be able to make findings of fact. The independent review group drew observations and conclusions but they were not findings of fact, and it was that group that said we should establish a statutory inquiry. We have gone for a public inquiry, because the Women for Honour made a very compelling case that there had been too much behind closed doors in the past and that, therefore, there had to be a public inquiry. We examined the pros and cons of that. Some people, as I said, might have preferred a commission, while others who would like to come forward may not want to come forward in the full glare of publicity. There is no perfect answer but, in the context of so much being behind closed doors and the complaints processes in the past, we went for the public inquiry model. Moreover, we were influenced by the experience of the Charleton inquiry, which, as was said earlier, was quite an effective and efficient tribunal. We did listen and engage, and any assertions that we did not do so are not fair or correct.

On the PPE amendment, complaints would not be deterred by the absence of PPE. I think it is a kind of superfluous amendment because the judge will have absolute discretion on these issues. We defined "complaints of hazardous chemicals" and, in particular, the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. That is now included but was not in the original draft because there were High Court proceedings and parallel processes. Nonetheless, in my view, it is necessary, again to make sure there is full transparency, and I believe the tribunal can ensure transparency around what happened in respect of the treatment of that issue within the Air Corps and the Defence Forces. I am now satisfied to include that area because I want absolute transparency around that entire issue and the tribunal of inquiry is a statutory office.

There were a range of other amendments. On the costs, I think the precedent is well set that the chair of the tribunal awards costs and then grants representations to bodies, groups and various individuals. There is no issue in that regard and it is not necessary to make an amendment to the terms of the reference. It is the norm. Obviously, there will be discussions with the chair, but we anticipate that is what will transpire. Every tribunal has followed a particular course of action.

There was also an amendment, which again was hardly necessary, in respect of the circulation of the proceedings. In the case of all tribunals, if people come before them and give evidence or are cross-examined, they are entitled to access that evidence before it is published and circulated to ensure they are satisfied with how their presentation was treated.

That is normal procedure. These are issues that are worked through by procedure with the judge. That happens in all places where people give evidence. You are entitled to have a copy in advance of its publication to make sure you are satisfied and there are no issues that undermine your character or reputation, etc.

I think I have dealt with most of the amendments. Regarding the lack of equipment or PPE, I do not think it would deter people from making complaints. There is the issue of investigating health, mortality and disability consequences. Let us bear in mind that the timespan to be covered by this tribunal is 40 years. People have said today that the timespan is tight, but it is not. It is anything but tight. Let us be honest; it is 40 years. We have said that people who made complaints can come forward and people who did not make complaints can come forward. The definition of "abuse” is very wide and includes discrimination and physical torture. When you read the terms of reference, I do not think there is any way you could describe them as tight.

I will explain what we mean by "timely". If this proposal is passed this evening and the tribunal is established, the judge will be in charge. We know that. People are saying that the Taoiseach should be involved. No one in the House should have any role in it once the judge has it. It is the judge who is to decide the circulation on all those issues. That deals with the suggestion made by Members that because this is from the Department of Defence, the Department might be trying to influence it, etc. The Department of Health has published many inquiries, the most recent being the cervical inquiry, which was established by the Department. No one questioned the outcome of that.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 24 Jan 2024

Tribunal of Inquiry into certain matters relating to the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces: Motion

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 2024