Gino Kenny
Ceist:70. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the Government’s recent discussions with the Women of Honour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29556/23]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 20 June 2023
Ceisteanna (70)
Freagraí ó Béal (13 píosaí cainte)
This question is pretty similar to the previous one. If the Tánaiste does not mind, rather than repeating the question, I will just follow on the train thought of the discussion he has just had with Deputies Nash and Cronin. I ask him to repeat what he said about the groups he met. He said it very quickly. He said he met various groups in the Defence Forces, retired members of the Defence Forces, some other group and the Women of Honour. Was I right in picking that up or that he was in touch with them or had a meeting with them?
I met them all.
Could the Tánaiste just run through it again, please? Before he answers, what is the purpose of meeting them all if the point of this was to address the concerns of the Women of Honour?
The purpose of this is to inquire into the entire culture in the Defence Forces in the context of sexual assault in particular and abuse, and to examine all the recommendations that came from the IRG. The latter recommended a statutory inquiry covering a range of issues, especially the degree to which the complaints system in the Defence Forces was effective or not in respect of complaints of abuse and a range of other matters, including reprisals and so on. That is the purpose of the statutory inquiry. Everybody in the Defence Forces has a stake in this.
Could the Tanaiste-----
Everybody serving in the Defence Forces has an interest in this. People who have retired have asked to make an input. We have heard people. It does not mean we accept every case that is made. I will give the Deputy the list, which I gave earlier. I did not go fast either. In fairness, I do not have an issue-----
The Tánaiste gave the list. He is only obliged to answer the question listed on the Order Paper.
I met the Women of Honour group twice, including with the Taoiseach. I have met the group three times. I met PDFORRA and RACO, which represent serving members of the Defence Forces. I met the Irish Defence Forces Veterans Association. The Men and Women of Honour group also made representations. There is a different approach and so forth, but their views are legitimate too. The Secretary General met the Civil Service and civilian unions.
On the question, we agreed to the IRG's 13 recommendations. We are establishing the statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious, systemic failures in dealing with individual complaints on interpersonal issues, including but not limited to sexual misconduct, which is one of the recommendations that has been implemented. I consulted the Attorney General about the establishment of the inquiry. His office has assisted in the preparation of the draft terms of reference. I just referred to meeting key stakeholders. There has been much interaction about the terms of reference to date. There will be further interactions. The Women of Honour group, through its legal representatives, forwarded substantive correspondence again today. There will be further engagement on those terms of reference.
I might flesh out the question a bit more. On the terms of reference, the Women of Honour group presented the Tánaiste with what it recommended as terms of reference, which should be broader and would make an inquiry more transparent and open. It wants it to be more public. Does meeting the group to deal with its terms of reference, choices, queries and preferences mean that if the Tánaiste meets other organisations that represent serving members or veterans' associations, which I am not picking out particularly but which were on the list the Tánaiste read, there could be a conflict of interests about the terms of reference and how they are structured? Is the purpose not to delve down into what the Women of Honour exposed, which is a culture of misogyny, discrimination and sometimes violence and secrecy in the Defence Forces? I get what the Tánaiste is saying, namely, that everybody will be involved in the inquiry, but in establishing the terms of reference, was it wrong to include everybody and not just to look at their suggestions?
The terms of reference were predominantly drafted in line with the IRG's recommendations. That group was led by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon. We drafted the terms of reference. That is my responsibility. We shared them with all the groups, including Women of Honour and Men and Women of Honour. They came back with suggested amendments. We met to discuss those. There will be further engagement in respect of the terms of reference, which are very broad. I do not believe they are too narrow.
The issue with transparency is whether there is a commission of inquiry where the disposition is to be more in camera and the judge can opt to go public in certain situations or if there is a full tribunal of inquiry, which is disposed to be more public, although the judge can opt to go in camera to hear evidence from people. I have shared the pros and cons of both approaches with Women of Honour in particular and with other groups. My concern is to facilitate the maximum participation in the inquiry. We have to weigh up which model is optimal for people coming forward. I want the maximum number of people coming forward. There can be conflicts or different perspectives, but I am very alive to those. On the other hand, it would not have been acceptable to completely ignore the representative organisations of the Defence Forces, for example. I found the perspective of the women currently serving in the Defence Forces very insightful.
I thank the Tánaiste. I am afraid we are over time.
I do not want to draw this out. I am trying to work it out in my head as well. The Tánaiste shared the draft terms of reference with everybody. The Women of Honour came back with their suggestions on them, which included 15 grounds that an inquiry should investigate, and asked for openness and full transparency.
We know, very publicly, that Women of Honour came back with its suggestions on the draft terms of reference, which included approximately 15 grounds that an inquiry should investigate, and asked for open and full transparency. Did other groups the Government shared this with also come back with suggested changes, different types of terms of reference, or additional terms of reference to those of the Government? I am trying to find out how expansive the Government's structures are, when the origins of the inquiry into the culture of the Defence Forces stems from the exposé Women of Honour did on that culture. How far-reaching has the Government's structure been in setting up the terms of reference?
It has been very far-reaching. It was very much based on the independent review group, to be frank, which probably exceeded people's expectations in the clarity of its language. Although it is not a finding of fact, and the judge was clear on that, the conclusions are nonetheless very stark and shocking, as I said in the House. The objective of the exercise is to have findings of fact in respect of those issues raised by Women of Honour and the IRG through a statutory inquiry with due rigour. The terms of reference are broad, in line with the IRG recommendations but we have to have a focus, and this is part of the discussion I have had with Women of Honour, on a timely, effective and efficient inquiry. Terms of reference are a factor in that.
As regards transparency, the issue is around the public versus the commission approach. They are the two essential models for statutory inquiries in legislation at present. We have heard what Women of Honour and others have to say about that. There will be further discussions and we will come back with a final position on that and on the terms of reference.