Vol. 1035 No. 6
6. Deputy Mark Ward asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the report carried out by the independent review group into allegations made by a group (details supplied); when this will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14199/23]
7. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the independent review into a group (details supplied); when the report will be published; the actions he will be taking in respect of the report; and if all the recommendations be implemented. [14165/23]
33. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 61 of 2 February 2023, when the final report of the independent review to examine the effectiveness of the policies, systems and procedures in place for dealing with bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Defence Forces, will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13641/23]
36. Deputy Sorca Clarke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide a detailed update on the current status of the report from the Independent Review Group into allegations of abuse in the Defence Forces. [13838/23]
I wish to ask the Tánaiste, in this role as Minister for Defence, about the review carried out by the independent review group into the very serious allegations made by the Women of Honour. Has the Tánaiste seen the report? When will it be published?
These questions are grouped.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 7, 33 and 36 together. Despite the reforms that have taken place in the Defence Forces in the past 20 years with regard to dignity and equality matters, it is clear from the experiences shared by both current and former members of the Defence Forces, including the Women of Honour group and the men and women of honour group, that the culture that is prevailing and the application of policies, systems and procedures for dealing with unacceptable behaviour have not served and are not serving all Defence Forces personnel well. I will take this opportunity again to commend the courage of those who have shared their experiences of unacceptable behaviour in the Defence Forces.
The judge-led independent review group, established on 25 January last year, following approval by Government, examined those very systems, policies and procedures for dealing with issues relating to bullying, discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces, as well as the prevailing workplace culture. The primary objective of all concerned, at the outset, was to acknowledge issues in the current workplace and to establish a course of action that would address them.
The terms of reference for the review were wide-ranging and provided that the Government may consider further work on receipt of the independent review findings, including with regard to matters of a historical nature and how this might best be pursued. The chair of the independent review group, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon, submitted the final report of the group to me last month. I am considering the report in full in consultation with the Attorney General and will be bringing the report to Government very shortly for consideration, assessment and subsequent decision and publication. I do not intend, therefore, to comment on the detail of the report at this stage, other than to say that it is imperative a 21st century workplace culture is fully aligned with the principles of dignity, equality, mutual respect and duty of care for every member of the Defence Forces. The report will help us in this endeavour.
It must be acknowledged that these women were very courageous in coming forward to speak of their experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and misogyny in the Defence Forces. It is important these experiences are never allowed to occur again and that there needs to be a cultural change within the Defence Forces. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke earlier about his positive experiences in three years in the Defence Forces, but that was obviously not the experience of all. It is important to ensure the Defence Forces is a place of dignity, equality and mutual respect for all and a career choice for women. In establishing the independent judge-led review group, the Government obviously recognised what the women were saying was true. When did the Tánaiste receive the report? Will he meet the Women of Honour group, prior to publication of the report? Will he ensure the Women of Honour group is involved in a comprehensive review of the report? The Women of Honour sought a statutory inquiry. Does the review report recommend same?
I will put on the record that I am the son of a retired Defence Forces man. My father was in the Army for 25 years. I will point out all the hard work he and his comrades did, some of whom are in today. Retired United Nations veterans will be coming in this afternoon to visit the House. I extend my admiration and support to the Women of Honour group and all the survivors who came forward, so bravely, to tell their stories. Abuse and harassment are unacceptable in any workplace and we must show zero tolerance as a society. The Defence Forces should be no different. The last I heard was that the review was going to the Tánaiste's office, seven weeks ago, and was then being referred to the Attorney General. I wish to know when the review will be published. Will the Women of Honour get the recognition and validation they deserve? The Tánaiste also mentioned further work. What does he think that further work will be?
We want a date for the publication of the report. The Tánaiste has it and it is in to the second month. What is the delay and why will the report not be published? All of this arose with regard to the documentary by Katie Hannon, back in September 2021. I will not waste my time, or use my time rather than waste it, to praise the Women of Honour. They have set out what needs to be done. They were never happy with this independent review. Trust is of the essence and now we have a situation in which we are delaying the publication of the report. It is essential the report is published. I have read the report by Ruth FitzGerald on the other matter. I thank the Tánaiste for publishing it. It says the Minister did everything right with regard to following up on the complaints, but what it indicated from first hand reports was rape which occurred overseas and a first hand report of child pornography. Obviously, the Minister has done everything right, according to FitzGerald. I have no issue with that, but trust is of the essence here, not sweet words about culture and dignity. It does not exist and has not existed. That is why we have had the review.
Seven weeks ago, the Tánaiste stood in this Chamber and confirmed to me he was to receive the report that afternoon. Has the Tánaiste brought the report to the Attorney General? Has the Attorney General brought it back to him? Has the Tánaiste brought the report to his Cabinet colleagues? Will he engage with the stakeholders? Has he reached out to the stakeholders who were involved in that Katie Hannon documentary and stakeholders who came forward, after the Tánaiste established that group? Language is very important. These women spoke up. They banged on every door that was available to them, which culminated in the Katie Hannon documentary. The documentary, as powerful as it was - played on every radio station in the country - was not the first time these women spoke of the issue. It was simply the first time the country was listening to them.
The night before the Dáil went into recess last year for the summer, the Government published the high-level action plan in response to the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. I stand here to ask the Tánaiste, personally and as an elected representative, not to publish this report on the eve of the Dáil going into recess. I ask him to listen and finally vindicate what these women and others have experienced by not publishing the report on the eve of the Dáil going in to recess.
Deputy Troy raised the issue of the Women of Honour group. I intend to meet with those groups, prior to and after publication of the report. I received the report last month. I sent it to the Attorney General and I will be bringing it to Government very shortly. I hear conflicting reviews as to when it should be published. We cannot wait until after the recess either for publication. This will not be resolved in one day either.
What I envisage is that I will make a statement to the House upon publication of the report. When the report is presented, we have to examine the report, we have to go the Attorney General and we have to respond from a Government perspective to the recommendations by identifying and formulating a response that can be presented both to the groups and to the Dáil in particular.
This report affects every member of the Defence Forces. The words "culture" and "dignity" are not sweet words. I take very sincerely the points that have been made by Deputy Connolly. The words "culture" and "dignity" go to the very heart of this. This report is very far-reaching and goes to the core of much that was wrong in terms of workplace dignity and safety and in terms of behaviour. It is comprehensive. A very significant range of recommendations are being made coming out of that report. I do not intend to publish it without having a position, at least, on those recommendations, which I think is a valid position to have. I want to share it with Deputies and, as I publish it, I want to facilitate debate or at least an initial response. I am open to what Members feel is the most appropriate way in the first instance. I believe we should publish it as soon as possible. We intend to go to the Government very shortly on this. I want to make absolutely sure in the next number of days that we have everything ready and that we engage. I am engaging with the Chief of Staff and military management in terms of how we intend to act on the recommendations.
My Department will also be initiating contact prior to any publication to meet with those groups who were fundamental in bringing these issues to the fore. I would also say that it really impacts on everybody within the Defence Forces, present and past. That is how I intend to approach it. I will engage with the Opposition spokesmen on this. I think Deputy Clarke is suggesting we wait another three weeks.
I do not intend to do it without Dáil debate, if that meets the Deputy's point. This is not something that can just be published and we all go on. This is going to take prolonged engagement from Members of the House as well as all stakeholders.
It is a very important subject and I am trying to accommodate as many people as possible within the time. We will start the sequence again. Deputy Ward can go first this time.
The last time I spoke on this, I called on the Government to establish a full statutory inquiry into the allegations of abuse, harassment and sexual harassment. I said at the time that the proposal to hold a review was far short of what was needed and that a full statutory inquiry was needed. I also called for re-engagement with all stakeholders including the representatives of the Women of Honour to create fit-for-purpose terms of reference for an adequate scope to deal with these issues. Has this happened? What threshold in the level of systemic abuse that could be in the report would lead to a full statutory inquiry? Is there a threshold that might move to a full statutory inquiry?
I thank the Tánaiste for the reply. I very much welcome that he has confirmed that he is willing to meet the Women of Honour prior to publication. That is critically important. The Women of Honour have stated that "we are here, ready and available to work with them towards effective change and tangible solutions in a collaborative and restorative manner." They want to be part of the solution and have to be part of the solution. Critical for that is for the Tánaiste and his office to engage with them prior to publication. I welcome that confirmation today. I do not know if the Tánaiste can confirm today whether the independent review group has recommended a statutory inquiry. We did say when the review group was being established that if a statutory inquiry was recommended by the group, it would be forthcoming.
The culture of dignity and respect did not exist, clearly, from the reports and stories told and the histories told by the Women of Honour. From the beginning they wanted a full, independent statutory inquiry. They got a review. They were never happy with that but struggled and did their best to co-operate with it. Let us put that aside now. Here we are. Trust is of the essence. I echo what Deputy Clarke has said about publication. We have seen this with the mother and baby homes report, where the Government held on to the report from October to January and then it was leaked. Trust is of the essence in this matter. A full debate in the Dáil is of the essence. The Tánaiste is already in receipt of a number of interim reports. He is fully alerted to what is in this report. Can he tell us precisely when he got it, when it went to the Attorney General, and when it will be published? He must know that by now. He must have an action plan in respect of this. I am repeating again that trust is of the essence in this, given the background and the nature of what was disclosed in the documentary.
I agree with Deputy Connolly when she speaks of trust. For many years these women and others who have engaged in this process had their abuse belittled. They had their rapes, sexual assaults and all of those negative experiences belittled. In fact some of them were actually gaslighted in their own reporting of this. Nobody in this House disagrees with the statement that this is wrong. However, this needs to be the watershed moment we often speak about. We must fully commit as a House that this will never happen to any other serving member now or into the future in our Defence Forces. This House sits for three days of the week. I am asking the Tánaiste, through the Business Committee, to ensure that when the matter comes before the House it is not only fully debated but also debated at a time that gives those in the Women of Honour and others who have engaged the opportunity to be in the Gallery to hear what their public representatives are saying on this issue. It is an issue we speak on but it has been their very real, lived experience and resulted in many of them losing their dedicated careers within the Defence Forces. Those careers should have been much longer than what they actually were. These people deserve not only to be heard but also to be seen to be heard if they are to draw a line under this so they can move on with their lives also.
What I would say to the Government is that I do not think what happened was merely wrong; I think it was shocking and disgraceful. There is no justification. There has to be fundamental change. I have to go to the Government. The Government has to make decisions on the basis of this. This is the process. I will recommend decisions for the Government to take in respect of the report. There is a comprehensive range of recommendations. We have to take a position on those. I want to meet the groups prior to the Government decision. In some respects I am constrained in terms of when I have those meetings. We will have those meetings and then I will meet again subsequent to the Government decision and publication. I would like a debate and I am open to discussion with the Opposition spokespeople. We will need time to debate but I think we could have an initial debate - I want to bring this to the Government next week. I am being cautious in the sense that I want to make sure of everything.
Will the Tánaiste share his decision that he intends to bring to the Government with the women beforehand?
The Deputy was a member of the Government and knows they have to go to the Government first. He does know that. This affects every member of the Defence Forces. It really does. Every member of the Defence Forces is a stakeholder in this now in terms of the implications of the report and the follow-up action. I believe that we should try to facilitate an initial debate after the Government decision and after the publication of the report. Subsequently there is going to be further engagement. This is not going to be a report that gets published and is left at that. The Deputy should not be under any illusions about that.
Will there be a statutory inquiry?
I do not want to go into the specifics. There are many recommendations.
I am minded to follow through. I will be resolute in following through on this because it will be a watershed moment.
The statutory requirement question-----
As I have said, I am not going into the specifics because we want to meet groups and we want to-----
It is a very important subject and the Minister correctly gave a bit of latitude to it.
8. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the action being taken on the recommendation of the Commission on the Defence Forces that the future disposition and structures of the Army be regionally balanced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14375/23]
What action is being taken in regard to the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces that the future disposition of the structures of the Army be regionally balanced-----
I was right the first time and wrong the second time. We are on Question No. 8 in the name of Deputy Barry Cowen.
That is the question I am asking.
You have informed the Ceann Comhairle that you are taking the question on his behalf.
That is correct, yes.
Excellent. We will not argue about it.
I will keep it tight.
The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government and the Government decision in December 2020, which also agreed its terms of reference and membership. The report was published on 9 February 2022.
The commission undertook a significant body of work, encompassing wide-ranging terms of reference. It recommended significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. It covers high level Defence Forces' structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force and funding.
In July last year, Government approved a high-level action plan in response to the commission's report. As part of this, approval was given for a move, over a six-year period, to a level of Defence Forces’ capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of circa €1.5 billion by 2028 through the annual Estimates process.
Implementation structures have been put in place encompassing an implementation oversight group, a high-level steering board and an implementation management office to support the implementation of the overall transformation programme required to implement recommendations from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. The high-level action plan also sets out all the recommendations contained in the report and designates a response of accept, accept in principle, further evaluation or revert.
A number of recommendations contained in the report may impact on the structure of the Defence Forces, including that the structure of the Army be reviewed and, in that context, the disposition of units across the Defence Forces may be considered. The recommendation that the structure of the Army be reviewed was identified as an early action in the high-level action plan. Military authorities are progressing the establishment of an office of Army force design which will undertake the work required to give effect to this recommendation. The implementation management office is working on the production of a detailed implementation plan for the remaining recommendations, which will include those that may assist with informing any decision about an Army headquarters.
I thank the Minister. The high-level action plan had a number of recommendations. The Government accepted two and partly accepted a third, namely that the future disposition and structure of the Army be regionally balanced. Why has the Government only partially accepted this or accepted it in principle? The Commission on the Defence Forces was established because on coming into government our party recognised there was a decade of underspend in the Defence Forces and we needed to increase spending and modernise the Defence Forces to make it fit for purpose. The report was published after more than 12 months. When will the Minister be in a position to confirm where the new regional Army headquarters may be located?
Of the 130 recommendations of the commission, 48 have been accepted, 55 have been accepted in principle, 17 are subject to further evaluation and ten are to revert to Government. In respect of areas such as the chain of command and so on, I will revert to Government. In terms of the disposition of units and so on, there is work to be done and significant evaluation is required in respect of those recommendations. Later today, I will publish the up-to-date progress report on the delivery of these recommendations from the commission. It will be some time before a decision is made in respect of the headquarters or regional disposition of the Army.
The Minister has visited a number of barracks since he took up his role as Minister for Defence. We would welcome him to Custume Barracks in Athlone. Given its central location and the fact it was the headquarters for the Western Brigade prior to its disbandment, it is an ideal location for a regional Army headquarters. We would welcome the Minister there so he could see the fine barracks and how it would be an ideal location.
I look forward to visiting. I will visit all the barracks, as well as the navy and Baldonnel. I will also meet serving members of the Defence Forces and review progress at various barracks, in terms of infrastructure investment. I was in Kilkenny recently. A fantastic gym has been recently constructed there and we need more of that. We need to modernise the infrastructure in all of our barracks and across the Defence Forces. I look forward to following up on the visit to Custume Barracks. I am well aware of the significant advocacy that has been articulated on its behalf.
I would like to say something regarding substitutions generally. In fairness to Deputies who are here waiting, there is a system. Sometimes it is not perfect. I have the list of substitutions here and it does not encompass the last question. Chairpersons make decisions; I am not undoing that. I am making a general point because it is hard to be consistent when Deputies approach the Chair. It is not fair on the clerks and staff. We are trying to make a decision on the hoof. It is particularly unfair to Deputies who are sitting in the Dáil waiting on their questions. There is a timespan to put in substitutions. That is the end of the lecture. I am trying to be fair to everybody.
9. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if it is intended to review the ages at which members of the Defence Forces have to retire, particularly taking into account specialist skills that have been acquired by many of them during their careers and positions held as a consequence that can capably be carried out by such personnel up to the normal age of retirement in comparable employment outside of the Defence Forces, and the ongoing shortage of members in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13976/23]
25. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide a definitive timeline on when a decision will be made about the mandatory retirement age of 50 years being extended for Defence Forces members; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13880/23]
Is it intended to review the ages at which members of the Defence Forces have to retire, taking into account the specialist skills required by many during their careers? Given the types of positions these people might hold, the work could be capably done by people over 50 years of age.
The answer to that question is "Yes". As I said, because historically military life placed unique demands on individuals, it was considered necessary that Defence Forces personnel had to be prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations. The compulsory retirement ages for ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are considerably lower than in other employments.
The Public Service Pay Commission, in its report on recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019, included in its recommendations the need to consider options to tackle barriers to extended participation in the Permanent Defence Force. A joint civil-military review was subsequently completed in 2021. The report of the review group made a number of recommendations for extended service limits across a number of ranks in the Defence Forces.
As current pension arrangements for personnel enlisted to the Permanent Defence Force on or after 1 January 1994 are based on date of entry to the Defence Forces, any proposals to amend the length of service requires the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, as there are impacts on accrued pension liabilities. In December 2021, the then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform agreed to allow for an extended service limit for privates and corporals recruited post 1 January 1994, to serve beyond the 21-year service limit that existed before that date up to a revised service limit of 50 years of age, subject to them meeting certain criteria, including medical and fitness standards.
An interim arrangement was also agreed to allow for the continuance in service of sergeants in the Permanent Defence Force who were due to be retired on age grounds at the end of 2022. Those sergeants who were recruited since 1 January 1994 and would be due to retire on the basis of mandatory retirement age in 2022 and 2023 will not be required to do so until the end of 2024. The fast accrual pension terms will continue for those additional years.
The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has established an interdepartmental working group to consider mandatory retirement ages and service limits for public service groups who have fast accrual occupational pension arrangements.
A number of meetings of this working group, of which the Department of Defence is a member, have taken place to date. The recommendations from the joint civil-military review of mandatory retirement ages of all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are being considered as part of the work of this group.
There are clear staffing challenges across the Defence Forces. Compulsory retirement ages and service limits in the Defence Forces are one of the factors impacting manpower policy, which has to be balanced against the operational requirements of the Defence Forces. I discussed this matter recently with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Options for interim measures pending the outcome of the work of the interdepartmental group are being considered.
It is well recognised that there is a shortage of personnel. Personnel used to be allowed stay in the Defence Forces until they were 60 years of age and that changed in 1994. I do not suggest that all of the personnel be allowed to remain because I understand that depends on their role in the Defence Forces. If we take, for example, paramedics, they have to retire, depending on their rank, at 50 years of age. The following day, however, they could go to the HSE or to the National Ambulance Service to get a job and could continue with fairly similar work to 66 years of age. It seems anomalous that the PDF is losing very skilled personnel who may want to stay on just because there is an arbitrary age limit there that does not reflect the particular skills level and the physical attributes needed for those skills.
We all accept the service and importance of what the Defence Forces do and the difficulties that they have to work with at times. That was drawn to our attention by the loss of Seán Rooney and I am aware that the Minister is dealing with the family in that respect at this time.
The Minister has accepted that the compulsory retirement age at 50 does not suit for a considerable number of people and does not make any sense. Interim arrangements have been made in respect of some privates, corporals and sergeants. The only problem is that we are talking about a report, review and an interdepartmental working group, and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform where sometimes issues, unfortunately, go to die. I am not looking to take a cheap shot here. Will there be a timeline in respect of delivery on this and can more interim arrangements be put in place in the short term?
I accept the principle that Deputy Ó Cuív and other Deputies have put forward, including Deputy Fitzpatrick earlier. To be fair, I outlined in the reply that a significant move has been made in respect of 21 years' service, I believe, and going to 50 years of age.
I accept the basic principle that the world has changed. Ireland has gained 25 years in lifespan for Irish people compared to 1922. There has been a dramatic improvement in lifespan in the past 20 years in respect of cardiac issues, disease survival, and so on. I have seen 50-year-olds who are fitter than 25-year-olds.
Just not in here.
There are some in here too.
I would not like to race Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick at the moment.
The clock is running.
The point I am making is that we have to apply that to the Defence Forces. There are wider issues in respect of the fast accrual pension, which is at the core of it. I believe we can resolve those, and if a move is made, the Deputies opposite will be the very first to come back and ask what about another group that deserves similar treatment and so on. That is why the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform are dealing with that but, in the interim, we are trying work through and carry out some interim measures.
The Minister might give the House some more clarification on timelines. I accept that a process has to be gone through and that there are always knock-on effects and so on in the public service. On the other hand, it is an issue that needs to be tackled. Are we talking about an interim arrangement this year and in the long term within a full year, or what kind of timelines are we talking about? Things seem to get lost in the system and get gummed up. This is always going to happen and we hear this word “soon”, which is used and abused. The Minister might give some indication as to the finite timelines that could be involved here? If it is 18 months, can he tell us that?
I agree. The nub of the issue is that we all accept that there is a problem in respect of 50 being the compulsory retirement age and we must get to the point of introducing the necessary flexibilities. It comes down to the timeline so that we at least know what sort of timeline we are looking at and whether that is for the interim or finalised arrangements. Can the Minister provide that information, please?
If he has time, I will also raise an issue that has come to my attention and perhaps that of many other Members. This relates to abatement and people who have given 30 years' service in the Defence Forces. On that basis, these people at an earlier stage would have received their pensions at in or around 50 years of age. Some ended up working where they did not believe they were working in the public service such as for education and training boards and were not necessarily on full-time contracts and all of that. Then suddenly they face a big bill. I am not going to go into the ins and outs of it now but it is an issue on which I am waiting for more information and I will definitely return to the Minister later about it.
On the timeline issue, the Minister of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is very clear that the interdepartmental group is not a mechanism for allowing something to be buried, or whatever, but it needs to be resolved quickly. The interim measures I am talking about are within a much shorter timeframe.
10. Deputy Sorca Clarke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the steps that have been taken to date regarding the Workplace Relations Commission ruling in December 2020 to roll out anti-discrimination training course and materials for all Defence Forces personnel with staff responsibilities due to be completed by the end of 2022. [13839/23]
Can the Minister provide an update on the steps that have been taken to date on the work regarding the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, ruling in December 2020 to roll out anti-discrimination training courses and materials to all Defence Forces personnel with staff responsibilities, which was due to be completed by the end of 2022?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I wish to confirm that the WRC recommendations on anti-discrimination law arising from a decision in December 2020, are currently being implemented by the military authorities with the support of my officials.
As the Deputy will be aware, the WRC adjudicator directed, in the first instance, that a comprehensive review of training and information materials, instructions and local practices be undertaken within the Defence Forces to ensure their compatibility with the protections pregnant personnel enjoy under anti-discrimination law, and more generally, to ensure that the basic provisions of Irish anti-discrimination legislation are clearly and accurately reflected.
Second, it directed that the Defence Forces roll out a training programme for all Defence Forces personnel with staff responsibilities to ensure they are appropriately aware of the updated materials. This training programme was to be completed by 31 December 2022. I understand that this piece of work is well advanced.
As a means of carrying out the first element of the direction and identifying a way forward, a Defence Forces working group was convened after the ruling, comprising membership from the human resources, HR, legal, training and education headquarter branches as well as representatives from the Defence Forces formations. The group duly completed the review during the final quarter of 2021.
Since then, and with the assistance of an external legal firm with a strong record in employment law matters, extensive work has been undertaken by the military authorities over the past 12 months, with support from my officials in ensuring that all documentation, including training programmes, materials and associated documents for Defence Forces personnel, as well as the relevant Defence Force regulations are fully aligned, and compatible with the provisions of the relevant equality legislation and in line with the direction of the WRC direction.
An associated but very relevant and important element of this body of work has been in the area of maternity and protected leave policies, including in the context of safety, health and welfare, performance appraisals and appropriate training for interview boards in the context of promotion competitions. I understand this particular element of the exercise is nearing completion.
I am further advised that a number of policy documents, including regulatory amendments, are to be submitted to me for consideration and approval very shortly.
I thank the Minister for that update. I have repeatedly asked this question over the past number of years and on the most recent occasion, I was told that this ruling was currently being implemented. There seems to be a substantial amount of greater detail in the answer he provided this time, which leads me to believe that this, while still a work in progress, is one that is nearing completion. The relevant handbook for the Defence Forces staff described in the finding is remarkable in two details. The provision relating to sexual harassment runs to one and a half pages, which is three times the length of that on discrimination and pregnancy-related discrimination. Whether this section is being updated is not mentioned at all.
This case was taken to the WRC by Ms Yvonne O'Rourke, who had two of her maternity leave periods classed as the equivalent of sick leave for a male officer. Having made the complaint internally in the first instance and then to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, with neither upheld, Ms O'Rourke took the case to the WRC. The finding, ruling and judgment of the WRC were very far-reaching and the culmination of a seven-year process for the woman in question.
Having been briefed on this case, I believe that what happened was unacceptable. It is symptomatic of a wider problem, particularly concerning maternity issues within the Defence Forces and how they are dealt with.
The Deputy will appreciate the work to implement the direction of the WRC is critical. While there has been progress to date, I have nevertheless directed that the process, including the roll-out of any remaining training and awareness programmes, be concluded as soon as possible, without any delay. To me, there is no room for equivocation and there cannot be any in respect of these issues.
The terms of reference of the judge-led independent review group looking into dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces included an assessment of the effectiveness of training syllabi and awareness programmes for all ranks within the Defence Forces. We are assessing that report. It and its recommendations concerning training and awareness programmes will further inform the body of work currently in train to implement the WRC ruling in full.
The WRC ruling was quite powerful. An unacceptable systemic failure was found. From what the Minister said, I believe he agrees with that ruling. Ms O'Rourke was awarded the maximum compensation plus interest by the WRC due to the extensive delay caused by the Minister for Defence objecting to her legal argument that EU law should apply and not withdrawing the objection until the eleventh hour. Will the Minister make a commitment to ensure these kinds of objections will be a thing of the past and not affect any other member of our Defence Forces? What occurred went on for seven years and the Department and Minister objected literally until the last moment.
What was happening was clearly out of line with normal practice in other workplaces. I have given very clear directions that there can be absolutely no discrimination or any processes or requests made of pregnant women within the Defence Forces that would not be contemplated in any other workplace.
But specifically on objections to the WRC.
Yes. I am very clear that there has to be a complete modernisation of approach to these issues within the Defence Forces. I have made that very clear.
11. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the implementation of the working time directive in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14185/23]
34. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on plans to implement the working time directive for the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14314/23]
43. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his plans to ensure the Defence Forces conform with the working time directive as per the recommendations in the Report of the Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13684/23]
I would like the Minister to provide an update on the implementation of the working time directive in the Defence Forces and make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 34 and 43 together.
As I have already advised, the Defence Forces are currently excluded from the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which transposed the EU working time directive into Irish law. I assure the Deputies that the Government remains fully committed to ensuring the provisions of the working time directive are applied, where appropriate, to the Defence Forces. This is in line with a Government commitment to remove the blanket exemption in the Organisation of Working Time Act for both the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible for preparing the legislation and my officials are working with that Department. The removal of the blanket exemption in the Organisation of Working Time Act for the Defence Forces is a complex matter given the nature of some military activities. A significant amount of work already undertaken by military management has determined that a high percentage of the normal everyday work of the Defence Forces is in compliance with the working time directive.
Recent European case law has been clear that certain activities, due to their specific nature, can be considered outside the scope of the directive. The provisions of this ruling have duly informed the proposed management position, which has as its guiding principle the fundamental requirement to ensure that appropriate rights and protections concerning health and safety are afforded to serving members, while also ensuring the Defence Forces can continue to fulfil their essential State functions.
A robust time and attendance system is also essential in ensuring the provisions of the working time directive are properly afforded to serving members of the Defence Forces, and bringing this work forward is a priority.
Dialogue with the representative associations on the proposed management position is continuing through a subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, and I am aware that a number of issues raised by the associations are actively being examined by both civilian and military management, respectively. It would, therefore, be inappropriate at stage for me to comment further while the process is ongoing.
A final management position on the implementation of the directive is expected to be submitted to me very shortly for my consideration and approval once this dialogue is concluded. Thereafter, my Department will work with Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment officials to get the legislative work done. That is the agenda.
I thank the Minister. I had the pleasure of joining him on a tour of the barracks in Cork recently. As Deputy Troy said earlier, his visits to barracks and naval bases around the country are welcome. They will give him a firm understanding of the issues facing the Defence Forces.
The Minister will be aware that one of the main issues facing the Defence Forces' representative organisations is the working time directive. The Commission on the Defence Forces recommended the expeditious removal of the blanket exclusion of the Defence Forces from the Organisation of Working Time Act, subject to the application of the derogations permitted by the directive. Will it happen as expeditiously as has been recommended by the commission?
The Minister may be aware that there is concern among some personnel that derogations from the directive sought by military management might be so vast as to render the application of the directive pointless. Can the Minister assure us this will not be the case?
Earlier on, the Minister stated the process associated with the working time directive must not be allowed to drag on. We already know that it is. According to the Government's high-level implementation plan concerning the commission report, which was published 13 months ago, the heads of Bill concerning the working time directive were to be introduced within six months. It is now eight months since the high-level implementation plan was published and there are no heads of Bill. The Minister is saying there are still discussions going on. He might tell us when the heads will be produced. If not, the process will inevitably be allowed to drag on.
The critical point concerns the exemptions. The Minister might touch on what exemptions are being considered. Does he believe operations that can be rostered for within the Defence Forces should be exempted in implementing the working time directive?
The Minister is relatively new to his Department; however, if he had been sitting here for defence questions regularly, he would have noted the question under discussion has been recurring for a long period. Retention and recruitment probably comprise the most fundamental issue facing the Minister. It is a matter of having a proper cohort of people, set out in our plans, to ensure the defence of the country is maintained.
One of the concerns of all our Defence Forces personnel is the working time directive. The legislation will not be that of the Minister for Defence; it will be a matter for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that legislation being advanced in parallel with the ongoing negotiations? I, like others, would want to be very clear. If what emerges has so many exemptions that they really gut the implementation of the directive for Defence Forces personnel, there will be considerable disappointment, with consequences for recruitment and the maintenance of staff.
Since coming into office, I have identified this issue as one on which I want to see progress. The heads of the Bill cannot be drafted until the discussions are completed within the confines of the subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
That means discussing with the representative organisations and hearing their concerns, and that is ongoing. It makes sense for us to facilitate those discussions but I do not believe they can go on and on. It is an important aspect of recruitment and retention. We must work on a range of levels to make the environment within the Defence Forces one where people have a quality work experience and a breadth and depth of experience that attracts people to join the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps for a long and fruitful career. This is the ultimate objective and relates to culture and dignity in the workplace, pay and the organisation of working time directive. That is the fundamental issue and it is at the heart of my approach to this.
