Paul Bradford
Question:1 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Defence if he will respond favourably to the request for an ombudsman for military affairs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Force Grievance Procedures.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to calls made at the recent PDFORRA Conference for the appointment of a military ombudsman; if he intends to respond to the request; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Michael Bell
Question:14 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has to appoint an ombudsman for the Defence Forces in view of the fact that the long established grievance proceedings in the Permanent Defence Force via the redress of wrongs has proven to be antiquated and inefficient; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 6 and 14 together.
The procedures for dealing with grievances in the Permanent Defence Force are at present under review. The matter is being considered under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Permanent Defence Force. A sub-committee of the conciliation council is examining the existing grievance procedures with a view to identifying problems and assessing the options for improvements. In this context a draft scheme for a new complaints procedure has issued to the Permanent Defence Force representative associations.
I was expecting a slightly more detailed response from the Minister but, as we are the only Members in the House, we have some time to examine it in detail.
I thought a short answer would facilitate a better discussion.
Would the Minister agree that an external ombudsman to deal with grievances in the Force would be preferable? In any organisation it is difficult to be both judge and jury. Is it not time to put a new procedure in place as the present schemes have been deemed unsatisfactory particularly by PDFORRA which has made a strong case for appointing an Ombudsman? Is the Minister of the opinion that we should be moving in that direction?
I would not impute any wrongdoing to the operator of the present system which has been in place for a number of years. This is the system colloquially known as redress of wrongs. My concern about the system is that it is somewhat bureaucratised in that a wrong put into the pipeline takes some considerable time to come out at the other end. Based on the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied I would like to think that a solution might be provided along the lines of an ombudsman type system within the Defence Forces. I presume it is not the present Ombudsman the Deputy has in mind.
I was about to ask the Minister if he would consider seeking an extension of the powers of the Ombudsman to enable him to deal with military matters. The difficulties being experienced by ex-servicemen in relation to pensions cannot be dealt with by the Ombudsman. Changes would be required in legislation if the Ombudsman were to deal with such matters as pensions due to retired members of the Defence Forces. Would the Minister consider appointing an external ombudsman? Anyone other than an external ombudsman would not be much of an improvement on the present system. I cannot argue that anything improper has happened up to now, but people believe there is not a workable system of redressing wrongs in place and that it is necessary to appoint an independent person to deal with queries on disciplinary, promotional and transfer matters. It has been suggested that an ombudsman would be an appropriate person to deal with such matters, either a military ombudsman or the present Ombudsman with extended powers as is the case in many EU countries.
If a wrong cannot be redressed down the line it comes to the Minister. However, without any sense of arrogance and without in any way trying to make little of the wrongs it sought to redress, some were so minor that ministerial time should never have been wasted in adjudicating on them. I see merit in the introduction of some independent third party investigation to assist me in the review of grievances brought to my attention, but I do not want to pre-empt the form such an investigation element should take pending the outcome of discussions in a subcommittee set up for the purpose sought by the Deputy.
I am not certain that the committee will come up with the recommendation sought by the Deputy. What will be achieved will be an independent third party to deal with the wrongs. The subcommittee, established in 1992, consists of personnel from the Department of Defence, a representative of RACO and PDFORRA and it was asked to produce a report for the national forum which is now the conciliation council. The terms of reference of the subcommittee are to identify current problems in the operation of the redress of wrongs grievance system in the Permanent Defence Force and to bring forward recommendations.
The Deputy asked if I was aware of the dissatisfaction with the present grievance procedure. A subcommittee has been established to consider this and, as well as reviewing the current procedures, it will consider the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission which were that the current procedures should be examined with a view to introducing new grievance procedures; that the aim at all times should be to resolve the complaint at the earliest possible stage; that grievances should normally be outlined in writing and, where possible, indicate the corrective action sought and should be responded to in writing; that military personnel should be trained to deal with grievances; that the number of ranks through which each grievance must be processed should be reduced; that the procedure should allow for the grievance to be addressed directly through an individual's commanding officer rather than through the various NCO ranks where the individual so wishes; that consideration might be given to establishment of a grievance board consisting of a serving officer, a member of the Department of Defence and a member of the representative bodies; that the board should have authority to acquire information and, if necessary, carry out an oral investigation of the complaint and make recommendations on the complaint to the general officer commanding and that where a grievance is not resolved at or below the level of the Chief of Staff the complainant could require that it be addressed to the Minister for Defence for final decision.
I am confident that as a result of this indepth review satisfactory grievance procedures will be in place. That is the picture at present.
May I take it the Minister is sympathetic to the idea of a source of redress which is clearly independent of present structures?
Yes, I am. I am anxious to assist the Deputy and the House in this regard. I have addressed the issue in the recent past with PDFORRA or some such similar organisation or group — I do not wish to get caught on this matter — and I am satisfied that an independent person, or persons, is required to redress the wrongs in the present system.