Holly Cairns
Question:8. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the steps he is taking to address systematic sexual harassment and assaults in the Defence Forces. [19971/23]
View answerTuesday, 16 May 2023
Questions (8)
Oral answers (8 contributions)
I too will raise the report into bullying and sexual harassment in the Defence Forces. The report was damning and deeply disturbing and found that the armed forces "barely tolerates women" and that there was "a discernible pattern of rape and sexual assault". Moreover, it was a complete vindication of the Women of Honour group and all who were brave enough to speak up. What guarantees do survivors, serving members of the Defence Forces and the public have that things will change?
As I am sure the Deputy will be aware, I am currently progressing a comprehensive programme of actions to address the extremely serious issues identified in the independent review group report. As I said in my initial response to the report, a completely honest appraisal of the problems and a comprehensive plan to address them is the only way to honour the contribution of serving and retired personnel and rebuild trust. Most immediately, I obtained Government approval to establish the external oversight body, on a non-statutory basis initially, to drive the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and to increase transparency and accountability. The Government has also agreed to the establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious systemic failures in the complaints system in the Defence Forces on interpersonal issues, including sexual misconduct. I have been consulting with the Attorney General in respect of its establishment.
I am also keenly aware of the importance of consultation with all stakeholders as this transformation is taken forward. I met with the various groups on 27 March to advise them that I intended to bring the report to Government on 28 March. I had a further round of meetings on 2 May with the Defence Women's Network, the Defence Forces representative associations, the Women of Honour group and the Men and Women of Honour group. In addition, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence met with the Irish Defence Forces veterans associations and with civil and civilian employee unions. At the meetings, a draft of proposed terms of reference for the forthcoming statutory inquiry were shared. I have requested the groups to provide feedback in writing to me so that their observations can be considered in preparing the terms of reference. Work has also commenced on legislative change required with an initial focus on amending the Defence Act 1954 to ensure all allegations of rape, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault in the Defence Forces in the State are referred to An Garda Síochána for investigation. This will confirm in legislation the policy instruction issued by the Chief of Staff in relation to such complaints.
I have consistently stated that any incident of sexual abuse, whether current or historic, should be reported immediately to An Garda Síochána and I welcome the recent announcement by the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, that dedicated resources have been put in place to investigate such criminal allegations. I have also committed to continuing the interim supports established in October 2021 for both current and serving members of the Defence Forces affected by such behaviour, including the confidential contact person, with Raiseaconcern.
I know we all unequivocally condemn the abuses described in that report. It revealed a toxic environment which is unsafe for both women and men. The extreme malpractices were systematic and facilitated by senior offices, while predators acted with impunity. The report found "the Defence Forces is unable (or unwilling) to make the changes that are needed". The Tánaiste mentioned the new external oversight body to drive cultural change in the Defence Forces and the Women of Honour group were shocked at the appointment of the Department of Defence's Secretary General to the board of this body. The Women of Honour compared this situation to the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference being the secretariat to investigations into the church. I know other Deputies have raised this, but it is such an important point. It speaks to the Government's position on implementing real and effective change. We see what happens when these investigations are set up, in that it is not in the way the group that is affected is asking for. Does the Tánaiste recognise the group's concerns, or what does he think about the appointment?
Before the report of the independent review group was published, the Opposition in this House and people were asking me whether I would implement the recommendations in full. I have not deviated from the recommendation in respect of the oversight group. The criticisms are unfair. They are not reasonable and are very unfair on the Secretary General. To compare it to the situation of the bishop in a diocese is especially unfair and does not bear comparison. I have engaged with the Women of Honour group on this and I do not accept some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the approach being taken by the Department. I am not clear which Department is in question. If it is the view of the Women of Honour that the Department of Defence should have nothing to do with the inquiry, which is a growing or an evolving position, it will create a real capacity issue in terms of who, from an administrative perspective, develops the proposals for a statutory inquiry. We are open to consultation on the draft terms of reference. We have to get movement on this. There is very little point in all of us condemning and being shocked, if we are prepared to prolong the implementation of the most basic of recommendations. Looking at the calibre of the people appointed, I ask anybody to question their calibre or indeed their independence from the Government.
I cannot speak for the Women of Honour, but I suspect it is not anything personal. I think it is just a view the group has, because it wants an independent review done of this and does not want any institutional aversion to change or to calling out what has been systematic. The systems involved include oversight of the whole Defence Forces. I do not think the group is coming from the place the Tánaiste is describing but, like I said, I cannot speak for the group.
It is not just the Women of Honour.
However, the oversight body is not the only part of the Government's response about which the Women of Honour group has raised concerns, both publicly and with me directly. The group has expressed its disappointment that the Tánaiste and the Department are seeking to design draft terms of reference without any consultations with it and the group feels the Government seeks to railroad through it and others, without any courtesy or respect. The group has rightly called for a full and rigorous statutory inquiry and, crucially, the group should have a meaningful role in determining those terms of reference. Consultation is key with regard to these things. We know that. We have seen it go badly wrong without such consultation. To date, the group has been sceptical of the process.
These women, who have exhibited such bravery and determination, were left disappointed after meeting with the Minister and the Department. On that basis alone, the Minister needs to do things differently. I can only hope that he is listening to them and that he is developing a new approach.
There was consultation, and the consultation is ongoing. When we had a meeting, on the terms of reference, we presented a basic draft - I emphasise "draft" - terms of reference, which is reasonable as a starting point in terms of discussions with group.
The meeting was quite amicable. The press statement afterwards surprised me given the nature of the discussion we had. I have tremendous respect for the Women of Honour and those who courageously came forward.
With regard to the establishment of a statutory inquiry, we have consulted with all the groups, presented draft terms of reference and asked for feedback, amendments and change so that we can engage further. That is all that has happened. I do not know why that is shocking or why that, in itself, is condemned. It is open to other groups to come back to us and say that they do not like our draft terms of reference and then we will consider all of that, as will, of course, with the Attorney General's office, which, from a legal perspective, will help the drafting in consultation with the groups.