Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Office of Defence Ombudsman has been downgraded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48826/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 7 November 2012
Ceisteanna (4)
Freagraí ó Béal (16 píosaí cainte)
The primary role of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, which is provided for in the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, is to provide an independent appeals process for members of the Defence Forces. Such appeals arise where a complaint has been processed through the internal Defence Forces “redress of wrongs” process but the member remains dissatisfied with the outcome or the manner in which the complaint was handled. The 2004 Act also provides that, subject to certain conditions, the ombudsman may accept complaints directly from former members of the Defence Forces. The office of the ombudsman is now well established and a number of administrative and systemic issues identified by the outgoing ombudsman have been addressed. This has contributed to improvements in procedures and policies within the Defence Forces.
Recent trends show a significant increase in the number of redress of wrongs complaints being resolved within the military system, thus reducing the number of cases being referred to the ombudsman for investigation, a fact I very much welcome. In addition, it is anticipated that the new and comprehensive promotion system for NCOs agreed and introduced earlier this year will eliminate the many complaint referrals to the ombudsman relating to promotion. Such referrals currently account for about a third of the caseload in the ombudsman’s office. Against this background, the post of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is being filled on a part-time, three day week basis, subject to ongoing review of caseload and referrals.
I can now inform the House that yesterday the Government decided, on foot of a recommendation from me, that it would advise the President to appoint Mr. Patrick Anthony McCourt as Ombudsman for the Defence Forces for a period of three years. The warrant appointing Mr. McCourt to the post is currently with the President for signature. Mr. McCourt was recommended for the post by the Public Appointments Service following an open competition.
There are no plans currently for changes in the role of the ombudsman or to amend the legislation in relation to the powers or functions of the ombudsman.
I thank the Minister for his response. It would be appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Ms Paulyn Marrinan Quinn since her appointment and the importance of the Act that she gave effect to in the course of her service. Certainly recourse to some form of ombudsman service was absolutely essential in the Defence Forces, as it would be in any organisation that has a strong authoritative and hierarchical system. I am glad to hear the Minister's response that the culture within the Defence Forces has changed over the years but I am puzzled when I look at the figures from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. Between 2008 and 2010 there was an average of about 112 cases considered by the ombudsman but that dropped quite dramatically from 116 in 2010 to 32 in 2011. Could the Minister explain that dramatic drop?
I am also conscious the outgoing ombudsman wrote to the Minister indicating the time was right to consider how the whole system was working and if the oversight system was fulfilling its original purpose. Have the necessary changes taken place in the Defence Forces to reflect the concepts enshrined in the Act? I understand Ms Marrinan Quinn raised the question of the powers enshrined in the Act being further extended as they have been in other jurisdictions. She reported that the Minister responded positively to that approach. One wonders how that positive response to a request for additional powers and a review of the system gave rise to a situation in which the working hours of the ombudsman will fall from 40 to 25 hours per week and we are to have a part-time ombudsman. Some members of the Defence Forces would say we also have a part-time Minister for Defence.
The Defence Forces have a full-time Minister for Defence. As has been my practice for about 30 years, I do two days work in one day by starting at 5 a.m. and finishing some time between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. When I was in opposition, that allowed me to continue to work as a solicitor and it now facilitates my being able to deal with defence issues in a very effective and hands on way. I am perhaps involved a great deal more in the Department of Defence in dealing with issues and implementing reform than my immediate predecessor. The Deputy might inquire into that.
The ombudsman is becoming part-time for the very reason the Deputy gave.
It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the former Ombudsman for the Defence Forces for the work she did. Over the initial years of her term in office, she identified a range of what I describe as procedural failures in the manner in which the military dealt with a variety of complaints and issues. As a consequence of what she identified, I was anxious to ensure that issues were actively addressed. Where new procedures were required, they were put in place and where there were perceptions of unfairness or real unfairness in the manner in which regulations were being applied, those issues were addressed. As a consequence, during my time as Minister, a number of changes were introduced to address areas of difficulty that have given rise to a myriad of complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. In fairness to my predecessor, I believe there was some reform in that area during his final year in office.
There has now been a substantial drop in the level of complaints. Better procedures are being applied within the military. There is less cause for complaint. Difficulties that were previously identified have been addressed. The numbers the Deputy gave clearly illustrate why it was deemed appropriate to change this from being a full-time post to being a part-time post. It is a part-time post in the sense that the new Ombudsman for the Defence Forces will operate three full days a week. Of course, we have said we would keep that under review and if it transpires that there is a difficulty in that regard, it will be addressed. However, I could not justify resourcing a full-time Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, when as the Deputy has put it, complaints have dropped from in excess of 100 a year to approximately 35. We are now happily in a different and better place.
We have considered other reforms that could be introduced. One of the issues that arose with the outgoing Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is whether the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces would engage in some sort of mediation or dispute resolution. Having regard to the role of the Office of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces as being effectively an appeals mechanism for members of the Defence Forces who are not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint under the Defence Forces internal complaint system, there would be considerable difficulties in having the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces becoming engaged in mediation with a view to dispute resolution because essentially that office is an appellate office for a member of the Defence Forces who believes he or she has been wronged in the manner in which an issue has been addressed. Clearly what is required is a decision on that matter as opposed to an engagement in mediation. Our decision-making process effectively identified the need for change and reform, which has now been substantially implemented.
Unfortunately the members of PDFORRA do not share the Minister's analysis of the situation because at their conference they talked about the role of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces being downgraded to a part-time role and being a mere "nixer". They talk about the Department not taking the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces seriously and consequently not being serious about the welfare of members of the Defence Forces. I expect the Minister to dispute that, but he should also accept that there is genuine concern at such a dramatic reduction in an office that has been very effective in its remit since it was established in 2004. It is very difficult to understand the dramatic decline between 2010 when there were 110 cases and the mere 32 cases referred to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in 2011. It is very hard to understand that rapid turnabout and decline in numbers.
I suppose it would not have happened if reforms had not been introduced. The Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent. It is for members of the military in circumstances where they believe they have been wronged to complain to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, and they are free and able to do that. I thought the Deputy would have welcomed that there are fewer issues arising in which members of the Defence Forces feel they have been wronged and feel compelled to complain to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. I thought the Deputy would welcome that there are greater efficiencies and that reforms have been introduced meaning the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is called upon less frequently. There has been no suggestion at any stage from PDFORRA that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces was not properly dealing with complaints.
I regret that a representative organisation such as PDFORRA, when it holds its annual conference, feels compelled to make wild complaints about all sorts of issues. It seems to be something that happens at conferences, but does not then arise in the very constructive work in which the representative bodies engage during the rest of the year. If there were only 32 complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, does the Deputy want someone to invent complaints? Does he want somebody within the Defence Forces to start deliberately behaving with inefficiency so that we generate more complaints? Is there a suggestion that we should really have more members of the Defence Forces who believe that issues of a disciplinary nature or of a promotional nature-----
The Minister is being facetious.
-----in which they are engaged should be dealt with less efficiently to give more work to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces?
I thank the Minister.
I do not believe that is the case. Incidentally the Deputy might be interested to know that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces makes recommendations to the Minister and the Minister must decide whether to accept or reject them. Owing to the impact on members of the Defence Forces it was always my view that when a recommendation is received from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces it should be given relatively speedy consideration by the Minister of the day, and decisions made and communicated. When I became Minister there was a substantial backlog of reports from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces to my predecessor that had not been addressed. We had to take special action to have them addressed and to bring us up to a situation where within a relatively short time of getting a recommendation from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces it was responded to. I am afraid the Deputy's party did not cover itself in glory in office just over 19 months ago in dealing with either recommendations from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces or even in taking that office seriously.
I thank the Minister. We need to make some progress as we are over time.
Deputy Donnelly has advised that he will not be able to attend for Question No. 5 and we will proceed to other questions.
Should I give the reply for the record of the House?
No. The normal practice is not to read out a reply when a Deputy is not in the House for a priority question.
Is it in order that we give Deputy Donnelly a written reply on that matter? I am agreeable to doing that if it facilitates him.
Unless the Deputy wishes to wait-----
Unless there is some procedural difficulty, I am happy that he gets a written reply.
The Deputy may wish to withdraw it and submit it at a later date.
Question No. 5 lapsed.