Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 20 June 2023
67. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he has finalised the terms of reference for the statutory inquiry into abuse in the Defence Forces; if he has accepted the views put forward by the Women of Honour group; when he expects to present his proposals to the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29729/23]
View answer69. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he is willing to apply the terms of reference provided by the Women of Honour group to the planned statutory inquiry into abuse and bullying in the Defence Forces. [29859/23]
View answerWe would appreciate an update on the question of the inquiry into the concerns highlighted by the Women of Honour group and where the process is at.
Is the Tánaiste willing to apply the terms of reference provided by the Women of Honour group to the planned statutory inquiry into abuse and bullying in the Defence Forces?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 69 together.
The Government has agreed to progress, as a priority, the recommendations in the report of the independent review group. The establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious systemic failures in dealing with individual complaints in relation to interpersonal issues, including but not limited to sexual misconduct, is just one of the recommendations that is being implemented. Following Government approval to establish a statutory inquiry, there has been ongoing consultation with the Attorney General and his office in respect of the establishment of the inquiry and his office has assisted in the preparation of the draft terms of reference.
In early May I had meetings with a number of key stakeholders where draft terms of reference for the statutory inquiry were shared. I requested that the groups provide feedback in writing to me so that their observations could be considered in preparing the terms of reference. The draft terms of reference were also shared with a number of interested parties who contacted my office. The Taoiseach and I met the Women of Honour group and its legal representatives on Monday last, 12 June, to discuss the Government's commitment to move ahead with progressing the recommendations of the independent review group's report.
I met the Women of Honour group and its legal representatives again last Wednesday in a further round of engagements with a number of other stakeholders, including PDFORRA and RACO, which are the Defence Forces representative associations, the Defence Forces veterans' associations and the Men and Women of Honour group. In addition, the Secretary General met with Civil Service and civilian unions. The views of all stakeholders are very important and we have listened very carefully to their concerns. I have heard differing views from different groups. I will be reflecting on the feedback received from the various stakeholders, which will be considered in the preparation of the terms of reference for the inquiry.
While consideration is being given to the format of a statutory inquiry, this has not delayed the immediate implementation of some of the recommendations in the independent review group's report. For instance, all allegations of sexual assault by serving members occurring in the State are now being referred directly to An Garda Síochána for investigation and prosecution. Legislative proposals are being finalised to formalise this. The external oversight body recommended in the independent review group's report has been established, initially on a non-statutory basis. Legislation will be brought forward to put this body on a statutory footing.
With the assistance of an external legal firm, extensive work is already under way to ensure the Defence Forces are compatible with the provisions of the relevant equality legislation. The implementation of the recommendations in the independent review group's report, together with the implementation of the recommendations in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, particularly in the area of culture, will see a fundamental transformation in Defence Forces culture in line with the acceptable norm in any modern-day employment.
The Tánaiste knows the Women of Honour group is dissatisfied, to say the least, at the narrowness of the proposed terms of reference that were produced. The women have raised this directly with him. They do not believe the terms of reference as they are drafted and the proposal presented to them have sufficient scope to encompass the range of issues they have very bravely and graciously highlighted. Based on the principle that we cannot and should not do anything to them without them, will the Tánaiste engage further with the Women of Honour group?
Does the Tánaiste accept that the framework is far too narrow? It does not encompass all of the areas, specifically the references to and definitions of abuse. The group has provided the Tánaiste with information on 13 areas that can be categorised with regard to abuse in the context of a statutory inquiry. Does the Tánaiste agree that the role and function of the Department of Defence ought to be covered in this, in terms of the knowledge it had about the allegations that have been made to date by the Women of Honour group? How does he intend to approach this? When does the Tánaiste propose to bring to the House the completed terms of reference for the inquiry? Will it be before the end of this Dáil session?
We had a lengthy discussion on this last week with the Women of Honour group and other groups. We also consulted serving members of the Defence Forces, including serving women in the Defence Forces. I do not accept that the terms of reference are too narrow. We took on board some recommendations from various groups, including the Women of Honour group. We then agreed there would be further engagement and we received correspondence today from the legal representatives of the Women of Honour group. There will be further engagement. We have made clear that there will be further engagement, particularly with the Attorney General and the legal representatives of the Women of Honour group, in respect of clarifying some legal issues. It is our view that some of the issues raised by various groups are covered within the terms of reference.
I made the point to all of the groups, and Deputy Nash knows this and we have to be honest, that we are endeavouring to have an inquiry that is reasonably timely. I do not mean that it will be short but that we have had too many inquiries in the past that have simply gone on for far too long. This in itself causes challenges. Very often this is a subject of terms of reference and how we construct them. There is a balance to be struck between an effective and efficient inquiry that goes to the heart of the issues raised by the independent review group. The draft terms of reference we have tabled very much mirror and are based, although not completely, on recommendations from the independent review group. The nature of it is an issue on which we will come back to the groups.
What timeline does the Tánaiste expect for the recommendations?
My aim and objective is to have it done before the summer recess. This gives me only two to three weeks. There will be further engagement with the groups on this. I have made it very clear from the very beginning that the Department would be covered in a statutory inquiry. There is no issue around this. I have made this very clear to the Women of Honour group and every other group.
I understand the Tánaiste has met other stakeholders. I believe we have a particular duty to the Women of Honour group, especially given how the review into the situation of these women used language of a type and depth that I suspect has not been seen in very many other reports that have come to the House. Earlier we spoke about recruitment and retention. I have met these women. Most of them come from military families. They love the Defence Forces and want to make them better. I always say that when we sort things for women, we sort things out for everybody. The number of men who have come forward to talk about sexual abuse in the Defence Forces since the Women of Honour group first spoke out is marked. The women gave these men the courage to come out. When we are speaking about a recruitment and retention crisis, it is important we listen to women who are providing their help and assistance for free to make sure we can all be rightly proud of the Defence Forces.
I agree. I am on record in the House as paying tribute to those in the Women of Honour group who came forward to highlight abuses in the Defence Forces. This led to the establishment of the independent review group, which has had an impact. People may disagree on this but I believe that has had an impact in the public realm in terms of people's reactions to it. I was anxious to implement quickly the recommendations of the independent review group, including in terms of establishing the statutory inquiry.
The Deputy is correct that one of the traits of all those involved is their love of the Defence Forces and their desire to make sure this never happens again. That is why, since I met with those currently serving in the Defence Forces, particularly women, I found their views very helpful all along since the publication of the report IRG. We have to weigh up how best we ensure the fullest of participation in the statutory inquiry. That speaks to the model that we develop. I am open to perspectives on that.
I would not disagree that the IRG was beneficial. I know the Women of Honour were not particularly supportive of it. They wanted it to go further. It cast light on many problems in the Defence Forces. The Opposition would be prepared to work with the Tánaiste on this. We could meet and talk about the terms of reference that would be used in this statutory inquiry and make sure that we do this once and for all, no matter how long it takes. It is extremely important.
The Deputy's views are welcome. In respect of the earlier answer I gave, we need to get his up and running before the summer recess. It will take a lengthy period before there are hearings and so on. There has to be discovery of documents and legal representation has to be worked out for all those participating. Time could go very quickly here. I am giving a minimum time of three years for an inquiry. It could go for longer.
I want to share this with the Deputy. We have to be straight to people. The Deputy used the phrase "no matter how long it takes." How long it takes matters. If people want to say they want to stay at the terms of reference then, believe me, I have been at a range of inquiries in the past that went on for too long. The most recent was Siteserv. We were supposed to do ten modules on the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. The first one was in 2016 and we only got the report relating to it at the end of 2022. We are not coming near the other nine modules. There is a balance to be struck. We have to get it right. I am just sharing the issues that we have to weigh up to get the right model.
