Professor Brian MacCraith:

A Chathaoirligh agus a bhaill den Choiste um Ghnóthaí Eachtracha agus Cosaint, táimid buíoch díbh go léir as an gcuireadh dul i gcomhrá leo maidir leis an mBille cosanta (leasú) 2023. Good afternoon. I thank the Chair and committee members for their invitation to members of the external oversight body of the Defence Forces to appear today to discuss the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2023.

I was appointed in April 2023 by the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, to chair the external oversight body of the Defence Forces. I am joined by three of my colleagues from the body, namely, Ms Josephine Feehily, chair of the governing body of the Technological University of the Shannon, former chair of the Revenue Commissioners and former chair of the Policing Authority; Ms Patricia King, former general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and former vice president of SIPTU; and Ms Julie Sinnamon, chair of the Commission on the Defence Forces implementation oversight group and former chief executive officer of Enterprise Ireland.

We are also joined by the head of our secretariat and principal officer, Ms Marianne Nolan.

Our other three colleagues from the body, Ms Sam des Forges from the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom, Mr Aongus Hegarty, former president of Dell for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the MEA region and Ms Jacqui McCrum, Secretary General of the Department of Defence are, regrettably, unable to join us today and they have asked me to convey their apologies to the committee.

On behalf of the external oversight body, EOB, let me say that we welcome the proposal to put the body on a statutory footing. We appreciate, however, that the proposed provisions are still subject to discussion and may be modified. In bringing forward this general scheme, the Tánaiste and the Government are moving forward on their commitment to put the body on a statutory basis as part of a suite of measures: "to support the transformation of the Defence Forces into a fit for purpose organisation to defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future".

Before I outline the body’s views on the provisions related to its establishment on a statutory basis as contained in Part 2 of the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2023, I would like to provide some context to the work of the body, which I hope the committee will find useful in our engagement today.The Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality issues in the Defence Forces, IRG, was established to examine issues relating to allegations of discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and any form of sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces. The IRG report, which was published on 18 March, 2023, had its findings accepted by the leadership of the Defence Forces, which also committed to implementing its recommendations.

The IRG recommended, among other things, the establishment of an external oversight body of the Defence Forces. Having accepted the recommendations of the IRG report, the Government approved the establishment of the EOB on April 5, 2023 on a non-statutory basis initially, with the following objectives: first, to oversee the implementation of relevant recommendations of the report; second, to increase transparency and accountability in the Defence Forces, and, third, to bring about necessary changes to the workplace culture and behaviour in the Defence Forces.

In terms of transformation of the culture in the Defence Forces, the body is motivated by the words of the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, who stated in the foreword to the: "Strategic Framework: Transformation of the Defence Forces" document published in September 2023:

The end goal of this cultural change is to ensure that the Defence Forces is an equal opportunities employer, reflective of contemporary Irish society, and that is providing a safe workplace,

• where self-worth is actively promoted,

• where mutual respect becomes a dominant feature,

• where all members are treated with dignity,

• in an organisation that continuously evolves to deliver positive change.’

The body is firmly committed to supporting the delivery of these objectives and has met 20 times since its establishment. The first task of the body was to develop detailed terms of reference in line with the relevant recommendations of the IRG report and to ensure coherence and consistency with the ongoing work of the implementation oversight group, chaired by Ms. Julie Sinnamon. The terms of reference were approved by the Government and published on 12 July 2023. Aligned with these terms of reference, the work of the body has been organised around key thematic levers of culture in the Defence Forces, including: the complaints process; the performance and promotions processes; and training, recruitment and cultural transformation. A particular focus initially has been on the complaints process.

To support the body in its work, a dedicated secretariat was also established. As would be expected, the body meets with the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Seán Clancy, and selected members of his senior management team on a regular basis. In addition, the body has recognised from the outset the importance of engaging with a broad range of stakeholders to clarify context, oversee progress, and assess the impact of reform measures. Such engagement also facilitates exchanges of views on the progress made to date on implementing the IRG recommendations and, where relevant, on the stakeholders’ ongoing experiences in the Defence Forces. An active programme of engagement with stakeholders will continue for the foreseeable future.

Turning to the provisions related to the establishment of the EOB set out in Part 2 of the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2023, the body is tasked, under item 13 in its terms of reference, with advising the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence on the legislative proposals to establish the body on a statutory basis. In this regard, the Department of Defence has sought the body’s advice and views on the general scheme and the body has engaged with the Department in recent weeks on the specific heads set out therein. Our engagement with the Department is continuing. Many of the heads in the general scheme are standard provisions in the setting up of a statutory body. I will focus on those issues that pertain directly to our work and its efficacy. While not all our members can be present here today, the following proposals reflect the consensus view of the body.

First, head 6 deals with the functions and powers of the external oversight body. With regard to subsection (2), the body considers the complaints process to be one of the key levers in delivering the required cultural change in the Defence Forces. Under its terms of reference, the body is mandated to oversee the management of the existing complaints process within the Defence Forces pending the introduction of a new complaints mechanism. It is also tasked with overseeing the reform of the process of making a complaint of unacceptable behaviour under administrative instruction A7, Chapter 1, and revision of the grievance model to replace the redress of wrongs system. These matters are a priority for the body at this time. It is the view of the body that the current head 6 of the general scheme should make explicit reference to all grievance and complaints policies and processes in the description of the functions and powers of the EOB section.

The second is, again, under head 6. With regard to subsection (10), the body is of the view that it should be given as much autonomy as it requires such that it can review and report on relevant matters pertaining to the Defence Forces without requiring prior approval from the Minister.

The third is under head 8 dealing with membership of the body. With regard to subsection (1), the body is of the view that the membership should comprise the chair and at least six but not more than eight ordinary members. This change, if accepted, would result in a body comprising a minimum of seven and a maximum of nine members. The motivation for the requested amendment is the potential inclusion of further international experts to augment the external advisory role of the EOB as its work evolves.

In conclusion, Chair and members of the committee, I would like to make clear that the external oversight body supports the proposals to place the body on a statutory basis to ensure independent, external oversight of the Defence Forces. We hope the views of the body will be taken into account in any modifications to the general scheme. We will continue to engage with the Department of Defence on our views of the scheme in the coming weeks. Placing the EOB on a statutory basis sends a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to effective, external oversight of the Defence Forces. This is critical to driving the necessary transformation of the culture throughout the Defence Forces and to increasing transparency and accountability. This is critically important to all women and men currently serving as members or civilians within the Defence Forces and to attracting those who are interested in joining the Defence Forces in the future.

Along with my colleagues here today, I would like to thank the Chair and the committee members for their time and engagement. We look forward to our discussions with the committee now and we welcome all questions it may have on the relevant provisions of the general scheme.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegates are very welcome. In their opening statement, they said the oversight body has met 20 times since its establishment. On how many of these occasions did it meet representatives of organisations such as RACO and PDFORRA?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We commenced our engagement with stakeholders last August and September, having spent several months getting our terms of reference in order and so on. Since then, we have met PDFORRA once and RACO once. However, we made it very clear to both representative bodies that we believe they play a critical role in the transformation process and that we want to engage with them regularly. In fact, invitations will be issued later this week inviting them to our next in-person meeting, which will be next month. Both representative associations are clear on how important they will be to the transformation process we are engaged in.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the oversight body meet RACO and PDFORRA on the same day, or were there two separate meetings?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

They were separate. We invited representatives of both RACO and PDFORRA to our meeting last October but I believe Lieutenant Colonel King was unavailable then and came to a meeting in November. Therefore, we met the two representative associations separately. We initially intended to meet them on the same day but that did not work for RACO, so we met its representatives at the next in-person meeting.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree it is important to meet them, because there will be health and safety issues. I do not know whether Professor MacCraith watched the proceedings of the meeting last week. It was clear from listening to the representatives that they have strong thoughts on ensuring they have representation. They also have strong thoughts on what they might have described as draconian leanings on their freedom of expression. They were quite upset about that. Also, they were very upset about the prohibition on membership of their organisations and the position on roles and promotion within the Defence Forces. Would any of the oversight bodies members like to discuss that? Ms King might like to.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Some of those issues are not within our remit. I will pass over to Ms King.

Ms Patricia King:

What precisely was Deputy Cronin’s question?

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether Ms King watched the meeting last week.

Ms Patricia King:

I did.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The representatives of RACO and PDFORRA were passionately upset about the potential impact on their freedom of expression, the prohibition on their organisations’ membership and the career-progression potential in the Defence Forces.

Ms Patricia King:

Does Deputy Cronin mean the establishment of this body?

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to know the opinions of the oversight body on that.

Ms Patricia King:

It was not what I took from the representative bodies. I believe they had issues with representation in other ways all right. What the Deputy referred to is not what I understood them to be saying. I understood they were concerned with features of the legislation that did not have to do with the external oversight body. As a private individual, I do not have any view on that.

On the external oversight body, I believe there is a job of work to be done to try to make the Defence Forces a better organisation for everyone to work in. The reason I agreed to take part in the group was to see whether I could contribute positively in that regard. You only have to read the IRG to realise the necessity for the required improvement. From my perspective, that is my contribution to this.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

At the meeting with representatives of RACO and PDFORRA, they raised the matter of the Secretary General of the Department being a member at ex officio level while they are not. What are the delegates’ thoughts on having ex officio membership or another type of membership for representatives of Defence Forces personnel?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It is the view of this body that the membership of the external oversight body is a matter for the Government, including the Minister for Defence. So far, the membership reflects the recommendations in the IRG, including with respect to the inclusion of the Secretary General of the Department of Defence. Our view is that this body will operate under whatever directions the Government gives on its composition.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the delegates. I want to turn first to the IRG, which is the foundation upon which the oversight body is established. Like Ms King, I have spent most of my life representing workers. A key element of representing workers is the principle that no man is guilty until proven so. As a former serving soldier, I was deeply upset to find the IRG was published as fact rather than untested evidence. In this regard, I have received a number of phone calls from members of the Defence Forces since I served, which was in the late 1970s, who were deeply concerned that they could in some way have their service to the country damaged or sullied by an untested report. From a veteran’s point of view, there seems to be a fixation on the issue of sexual abuse, which, incidentally, nobody I know of denies. Everybody I have spoken to says there must have been some of it but that they did not see any themselves or that they were aware of an incident. That is the sort of thing that has come back to me. Anybody who has served wants to see the outcome of a tribunal set up by the Government before giving it any credence. Maybe my question is unfair to ask. Do the members of the oversight body believe, like I do, that we should simply have called for a sworn inquiry and allowed it to take place in the proper way rather than publishing first and then defending? It reminds me of a company sergeant I worked with when I was in an Chéad Chath in Galway. During orders on a Monday, John would say, “March in the guilty man.” There is a touch of that about this IRG.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I believe the Senator will understand it is not our remit to comment on such issues. We were set up with clear terms of reference. There were two major outcomes of the IRG, one being the establishment of a judge-led inquiry that would be retrospective, as the Senator knows. Ms Justice Ann Power has been appointed to take on that role. The other major outcome was the establishment of this body, which was to be prospective in focusing on the transformation of the culture. That is what we are about. I have to say, however, that with regard to our programme of stakeholder engagement, including a two-day visit to Cork in early February, our members came away really motivated regarding what they encountered. We spent a full day at the naval base in Haulbowline and a full day in Collins Barracks in Cork city, and we met over 100 commissioned and enlisted members of the Defence Forces. We created safe spaces for members of the Defence Forces to share their experiences and we are very grateful to them for their honesty and frankness. We were all very moved by that. It reinforced our view on the work we have to do and its importance and urgency. Obviously, I cannot go into details here on that, but that would be my overall assessment.

On the Senator’s specific question, it is not our role to comment, as he will understand. We have been appointed to honour the terms of reference of the body itself and we are absolutely assured of the importance of that work.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another issue relates to the independence of the board. It is vital that the board be independent but also that there be balance. I am following on from the Deputy's point about the appointment of the Secretary General of the Department. I understand what the professor said about this being a matter for the Government, and it is something our committee will have to take up. Whatever about ex officio members, I think the employee side is as entitled to have representation to offer balance. I think he is saying we will have to bring that to the Government and that it is not a role for the oversight body.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Yes, the IRG specifically recommended that the Secretary General of the Department of Defence be a member of the EOB and, on foot of that, the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence appointed her to the body, like the rest of us. In terms of good governance, the Senator raised the issue of independence. At every meeting, the first item on the agenda is declarations of interest, so if any matter arises whereby there may be a conflict for any member, I as Chair will ask that person, as I have done with the Secretary General, to leave the meeting for the duration of our discussions on that matter. That is just good practice and it has happened three times, in the 20 meetings we have had, for portions of the meeting on specific matters where there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest. We value very much our independence as an external advisory body. It is critical for the success of our work and we guard it carefully.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The matter of independence has often arisen in situations such as this. I am mindful of a Supreme Court ruling that it is not good enough just to say you are independent. Rather, you must be seen to be independent, and I think all members of the board would agree with that.

Ms Sinnamon is chair of the implementation group. I have had conversations with some very senior people throughout Europe and there is great concern regarding the emphasis of the external oversight body and its work on bullying, sexual harassment, rape and any other horrendous crimes that have taken place. It is my hope the perpetrators will be found and duly brought before the courts, but there is a concern that the weight of this problem is overshadowing the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. The concern is that there is now an obsession with sexual harassment, bullying and so on and the military aspect is being left aside. Certainly, from my perspective, I do not see a great deal of evidence for the implementation of the recommendations of the commission while, at the same time, numbers are falling rapidly. By the way, this is not just in the Defence Forces but is now also in the Garda, where it is not the issue of bullying and harassment but where other pension issues and so on are involved. A number of tasks are ongoing at the same time. The implementation body is looking at how the Defence Forces will look in the future, whereas the external oversight body is looking at issues from the IRG. Is there a fear one is overshadowing the other?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

To be clear, I am here today wearing my EOB hat but, obviously, there is a crossover between the two bodies, which is why it was considered important that I would be the common denominator in respect of the interface for both. Since I was last here in May of last year, we have published the detailed implementation plan and the Tánaiste subsequently published the strategic framework, which is an attempt to bring together the various silos of work that are going on and to prioritise within that. In many ways, that detailed implementation plan sets out every action that was listed in the report of the commission. We have taken a number of them that are specific to our terms of reference. In fact, almost the opposite of the Senator's question could be argued, whereby it is actually freeing up the key focus of the implementation of the oversight group for the other, non-cultural issues because they are largely being dealt with, other than being communicated in terms of what is happening and keeping people up to speed.

At this stage, 37 of the 38 early actions have been reported on and 12 of the actions have been completed. We will have another meeting either at the end of March or in April. We have proposed dates for that. I will be very happy to come back before the committee to brief it fully on the other actions and the wider agenda the commission is involved in. Certainly, we are looking at every aspect of that. Some of them are very long-term actions that, by their nature, are going to take time. Various tenders are involved, which will take time. I would hope that after we meet again at the end of March and when we come back here, there will have been substantial further progress.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague spoke about heads 25 and 26 of the proposed Bill, which set out to silence the representative bodies and prevent them from making public comment. Surely one issue that is going to be really important for cultural change within the organisation is that if complaints are brought to the representative bodies and are not dealt with correctly, they should have the power as representative groups to bring that into the public domain and to ensure pressure will be brought on the Minister and Government of the day to address specific situations that are causing serving members huge problems. I accept Professor MacCraith stated he cannot speak to heads 25 and 26, but this does overlap with his area.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I can see the point the Senator is making. Our first priority is to ensure there will be a fit-for-purpose complaints process, with interim solutions before there is the major change, in order that such issues will not arise. As I have said from the beginning, our only comment here today is on the pre-legislative scrutiny of those elements of the Bill that speak directly to and of the EOB.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor MacCraith and his team. It is great to have them here and to have such broad and deep expertise from academia, industry and the trade union movement, so we will lean on that over the next while. I thank Professor MacCraith also for his role in the vaccination process and for his personal assistance at times, which was hugely appreciated.

On his visit to the naval base in Cork – he may have gone to Collins Barracks as well - did he hear any positive stories? I get a lot of phone calls, as he can well appreciate, from people who are very happy in the Defence Forces and they always ask when somebody will want to hear their story and when that information is going to be captured. I get phone calls from people who have engaged with the complaints process and had a positive outcome. They may not have got their course but went to their commandant and were put onto the course within 24 hours. I also get calls from people who have never felt the need to engage with the complaints process because they are quite happy and content. Has Professor MacCraith heard positive stories, and if so, is there anywhere we can capture that to bring some balance to the conversation?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I thank the Deputy for his positive comments. I am glad he mentioned the vaccination programme because, as part of our visit to Cork, I said that, in my experience, the role of the Defence Forces in the success of the vaccination programme in so many areas - not just vaccination, which the Deputy was involved in, but also logistics, transport and so on - was huge and the citizens of Ireland greatly appreciated that. There are many other positive stories, some of which I will talk about in a moment. We took away many messages from our visit to Cork. We were moved by some of the more traumatic stories from individuals, but we were also impressed with the enthusiasm, particularly of young recruits, and the commitment to the vision of the Defence Forces. In some cases, there was frustration about getting overseas and getting onto ships and so on, but it was positive. As often happens in these matters, when you hear some traumatic stories, they tend to take over your memory, but all members of the body took away some very positive messages.

We sat down randomly over lunch in the mess in both locations and talked to people. There was no prepared engagement here and we heard those positive stories, particularly of young people. Then I know one well-known Cork footballer who is an officer, and he would have talked about the positives. It is very important with regard to the recruitment process. We are very taken with the fact that the establishment numbers and the actual numbers are very far apart. We think that those positive stories coming out of the Defence Forces can be part of attracting people in, and I am very impressed with some of the recent TV adverts, as will the transformation of the culture. This will be all part of attracting people in. That is the common focus and vision we all share in this regard.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

We were also really struck by the pride and the passion. We were moved by that. It was very evident in all of our encounters. There is also a passion for change but certainly a pride in the Defence Forces, and people committed way beyond the call of duty in terms of their role. That came across. It was not all one-sided. We heard it randomly from across the forces. Certainly, I was really struck by the pride and passion of the people I encountered.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I would like to add to that. We met lots of groups of all ranks, and one of the things that struck me was that several of the people we met did not have a clue who we were. They had been detailed that morning so we had to spend a while telling them who we were. I say that just to show the committee that it was not that all the complainers were sent in to talk to us. There were groups of people, some of whom had no issue. The chair took the trouble, as the meetings went on, to make sure everybody spoke. Anyone who had not spoken was asked if there was anything they would like to add. There were definitely positive comments made to us in all of those groups. It was not that the groups we met self-selected. There were people who were detailed that morning who did not have a clue who we were, and that actually made it really spontaneous and a very good cross-section.

Ms Patricia King:

Because our group was developed as a result of the IRG report, there is one sentence in it that really resonates with me as to why we exist. It is on page 41, "Bullying, harassment, discrimination and sexual assault are experienced by a higher proportion of people in the Defence Forces than is the case in other workplaces." Effectively, this is a workforce, as the committee knows, of about 7,100. In any workforce of that size, you are going to have complaints. That is the reality. What the report drew attention to was that it is a higher proportion. If you take the complaints system, one of the tasks we have is to make sure people have confidence in the complaints system that exists and that people can work in the knowledge it is going to work for them, both perpetrators and claimants. You want a system that people have confidence in. That is one of the tasks we are looking at, and when we are engaging with and talking to people, regardless of rank, we are asking those sort of questions. What would they do with it? They are telling us.

We have met a number of the women's network. We have had engagement not just in Cork but also we have had other engagements with people. That is the value of working with the representative groups. They have a lot of background and, I am sure, a lot of opinion on how you get the complaints system to operate to optimal levels and have optimal confidence. That is the task we are involved in, and I think it is a positive thing. I would find it difficult to understand if people had a difficulty with us doing that. That surely has to be a good piece. Once we collaborate and consult in that regard, I think it will surely turn out to be a positive piece at the end.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for sharing that. I very much agree with it as well. I have worked in loads of different lines of work, no more than the witnesses. I started off in agriculture, and went on to retail, the military, medicine and now politics. My own genuine personal experience is that the place where I was treated the best and the place where I saw people being treated the best was unquestionably the Defence Forces.

I will pose a question to see what the witnesses' thoughts on it are. My theory and my proposition is that there is nothing really wrong with the defence culture. The defence culture is good. It is that there is a small number of people who are not aligned with the defence culture. I want to see what the witnesses' thoughts on that are. In every organisation, there are issues. I would say that the Defence Forces culture is improving. We need to further improve an already good culture but it is with the individuals who are not aligned with that culture of selflessness, courage and high ethical leadership that the problem lies. I would be grateful for the witnesses' thoughts on that.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I thank Deputy Berry. I will start off, if that is okay, and colleagues may want to come in. We recognise there is good and bad, but ultimately, it comes down to a definition of culture. The definition we are using is the lived experience of individuals. There may be some portion of individuals who are bad but the lived experience of many can be affected by that. How those bad individuals are dealt with can actually create a culture of fear, fear of reprisals and fear of making a complaint when there is not an efficient complaints process. It is a complex issue, and that is why we have zeroed in on the complaints process as fundamental. We have it from all our engagements, without exception, that there is no confidence in the complaints process in the Defence Forces, whether it is chapter 1 or chapter 2. We have it from the Chief of Staff that there is no confidence in the complaints process. That itself creates a culture where most of the people who are offended for serious or not-so-serious reasons feel they have nowhere to go. To us, that is a major driver of the cultural transformation we need to address, and that is why there is such urgency about it, in our view. Maybe colleagues, if the Chair does not mind, would like to add something to that.

Ms Patricia King:

Culture, as we know, is a difficult thing to change. It will take time. As the chair has said, it is about how people think, what they believe and how they act. It is based on those. We are, I think, putting a lot of effort in to making sure that in any system we put together and on which we work with the management in the Defence Forces and collaborate with the representative groups, the outcome of that will be something that works well and in which people have confidence. I do not think it is wrong to take a little bit of time to get that right. That is my own judgment. With regard to that line in the IRG report that refers to a "higher proportion", nobody is saying - not even that report is saying - that everybody in the Defence Forces does not behave properly or is making complaints. That is not the issue. There is a higher proportion in that workplace. It needs remedy, and it needs remedy in the first instance by virtue of the issues with the complaints system. It will take time, and as members know, all of those are embedded in legislation. That is not normal in workplaces. Complaints are normally voluntarily agreed but in this case, they are embedded in legislation, which makes it ten times more complex for this body to move the 12 inches it wants to move on things. This is complex, and sometimes very frustrating, I might add. In any event, that is the job we took on and that is what we are doing. It really is important that we get it right.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am really glad Ms King mentioned that, that it is primary legislation. There is a perception that the complaints process was conjured up by the Defence Forces to keep complaints within the organisation. However, as Ms King has quite rightly pointed out, a lot of these processes were conjured up by politicians and people external to the Defence Forces and these rules were imposed on the Defence Forces.

It is funny that it was mentioned that people did not know who the witnesses were when they showed up in Cork. I was that soldier around 2002 or 2003 when the Dr. Eileen Doyle commission came in to see us. As a result of this commission, these new complaints processes were brought in. I will not say they were imposed on the Defence Forces but they were told these were the new procedures. Nobody in the Defence Forces said they were going to come up with the most convoluted system that will never work and conspire against their staff. Many of these rules have been extracted from primary legislation and made a Defence Forces regulation. These regulations are inappropriately named because they are not designed by the Defence Forces. The Minister designs them, the Department drafts them and they are imposed on the Defence Forces. Therefore, if there is a problem with the complaints process, it is not only an issue for the Defence Forces. Many people have spoken to me hoping to God there would be a good complaints process at the end of this process because the last complaints process that was imposed on us 20 years ago was not fit for purpose. The only point I am trying to get across is that there are external factors at play regarding the complaints process and we should not be exclusively pointing the finger at the Defence Forces. We should not be pointing the finger at anybody, but it is not a uniquely Defence Forces phenomenon.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

That is one of the things that shows the value of our direct engagement with the staff to understand the reality. Certainly, the lived reality of many people, though not everybody, to whom we spoke reflects what was in the IRG report. The important thing is using this opportunity now to make the changes to the complaints system. The oversight body will be very actively involved with all the players to make sure that what we come out with at the end of the day is something which will support the cultural change and that people have confidence in that complaints system. We are not there yet but we have got a lot of feedback on the current issues with the system.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I thank the Deputy for his useful comments on this. It might bring him some reassurance to know we are not an implementation body. We are an oversight body but are engaging in real time as the changes are happening. Currently, there are the changes needed to the existing complaints system and the design of a replacement. There are two things, because primary legislation will be required for the latter so we need action now. The Defence Forces and the Department of Defence are working together in coming up with options that will fulfil what needs to happen. This will not be an imposed solution as may have been the case in the past. We do not know the history of that but I certainly take the Deputy's point about both the Defence Forces and the Department themselves working together and finding mechanisms. That can be done reasonably quickly to try to avoid primary legislation for the immediate or the near-term interim reform as opposed to the long term. However, it will not be an imposed solution. It will be a co-designed solution, which is very important.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

The shorthand definition of culture is "the way things are done around here". That message of lack of confidence in the complaints system is widespread, even from people who have never engaged with it. Therefore, it will be critically important that confidence is built in a new system. When confidence in something gets damaged, changing the packaging is not going to bring confidence in a new system nor is a new regulation or primary law. The confidence comes not just from having a good complaints system but having confidence that there will not be reprisals or other kinds of consequences. There is a culture of thinking we cannot go near the complaints system, not just because it will not solve our complaint but because there may also be a backlash. Any help the committee members can give in building confidence as to how to bring forward complaints safely, where a person senses they are safe, is going to be very important. That is not something that can be put between the covers of an Act. There is a fierce lot of work to be done in that space as well.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great. It is a very stimulating conversation. I have loads more questions but I am conscious of my colleagues. I will ask two quick ones.

Regarding the internal complaints processes, the witnesses come from academia, industry and the trade unions. Presumably, they have a HR department with an internal disciplinary process in their various sectors. The last question is to Ms King. I totally appreciate she is reading from a document that states there is a higher proportion of complaints in the Defence Forces than in other walks of life. However, I do not think any other sector has been exposed to an IRG process with such forensic, granular research being done. What is the basis of that comparison? You can make one in absolute terms but to compare it with society and different sectors while not having done an IRG process on those sectors, I would be very slow to make that assumption or draw that conclusion. Those are my final thoughts. I may come back in again on the second round.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

On his general point about complaints systems, I ran Revenue for a long time and we had a complaints system. We got a handful of complaints every year. It is all very well documented. The system is there. It is not widely different by the way, though it may have different language. There are stages involved. Complaints are made and there is an opportunity for informal solutions. If that does not work, then there is an opportunity for the appointment of an investigator, usually from a panel of trained people. Way back when we were less sophisticated, they were mainly internal. If the complaint was particularly egregious, an external investigator might be hired. The investigator brought back the facts and there might be more meetings. Throughout that meeting, usually the person making the complaint would be supported by their trade union, as happened in my case, and ultimately it comes to an end. What the end might be will vary. Those are the elements. They all exist in the Defence Forces system and there is still no confidence in them, which is really the point we are making. While it may have a different name in other places I have worked in, I have listed the elements and they are pretty bog standard.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

One of the issues where the system might differ from many of the complaints systems in organisations I have seen is the chain of command issue. I know there have been some changes to that. In Enterprise Ireland or other organisations, it would be handled by a separate line of command.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

People's reluctance is a consistent message and, based on the experience of others or their own, there is that chain of command issue and the need for an independent element in this. The Deputy asked about sourcing information. We are looking at many sources of best practice but we had a very useful engagement with Mr. Kevin Duffy, former chair of the Labour Court, who spent a long session with us a number of weeks back looking at best principles and looking, in a generic fashion, at what the design principles are of a good complaints system. We also know the Defence Forces themselves are engaging with external expertise. There are a lot of moving parts at the moment in trying to come up with both interim solutions, the ongoing success of which or otherwise it is our job to monitor, and then a bigger process that will replace the existing system and address an awful lot - it is to be hoped all - of the concerns.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very useful. The key point I am getting across is that there was a perception the Army was trying to cover up these things whereas the reality is other entities, in fact most entities, have internal disciplinary and complaints processes as well when issues are appropriate to be dealt with internally. Obviously, if things escalate to a higher level, then an external investigator is required. That is all I have. I thank the witnesses for their assistance.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are very welcome. It is good to see Professor MacCraith again and everyone else. I am very impressed by the level of knowledge. I am a bit humbled and intimidated by the level of knowledge and expertise of those here. I thank them for giving up their time and expertise to this hugely important work.

I will start off with the basics. What is the budget?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

The current budget this year for the period of time before we go to statutory is €150,000.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many members of staff will be needed? What kind of levels of staffing will be needed in the office?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

There are currently four staff members: one at principal officer level, an executive officer, a clerical officer and an assistant principal. There is currently room for two more for this phase. There is a major piece of work to be done as to the scope once the Bill for the statutory process is in place. My personal view is that it will have to expand, as will the ability to look at international best practice, research and so on. It will scale up from that but there is no designated budget for that statutory phase.

We are currently not hampered by the situation we are in but we can see already that our work is expanding all the time because of the complexity and scale of it.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

International best practice was mentioned. Is there any comparable body anywhere in the world that has done this before?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

When one looks at defence forces across the world, there is hardly a major or minor defence force that has not been faced with this. It is very fortunate that we have Ms Sam des Forges from the UK Ministry of Defence. Her job title in the Ministry of Defence is to be responsible for conduct, equity and justice and she was brought in. They are dealing with this in Britain and the Deputy may have seen the recent coverage about the Red Arrows in that regard. We look at the US, Canada and Australia. There are some good examples of interventions as well and we are learning from those. That is going to be increasingly part of this because there is nothing particularly new about what is happening or has happened in Ireland so we do not want to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel when there are good examples elsewhere. That is why, to answer the Deputy's question about resources, we need people drawing that in and we need to engage more with those international bodies. That is part of the vision for the expansion of this group.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Professor MacCraith see it as part of the external oversight body's role to engage with the Reserve?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Yes.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has it engaged with the Reserve to date?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

No, not yet. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we have a commitment to ongoing engagement with stakeholders. I think there will be regular engagement, for example, with the representative bodies but wherever we can learn, we will listen. As I said, it took three days of activity but the two days of actual meetings in Cork were extremely valuable to us in terms of insights and context. The worst thing we could do is sit in meeting rooms in Dublin and talk about this. We need to go out on a regular basis. We will go out to different Army barracks, Air Corps locations, Naval Service bases, etc. As we move forward and listen on the ground, that really influences what we do and motivates us hugely.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is always good to go to Cork obviously.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We started there.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under head 16, part of the external oversight body's role is to develop a strategy statement. What will be in the strategy? When will it be put together and by whom and what are the parameters?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

In light of the learnings from the past 12 months almost at this stage, we understand a lot more. We are on a learning curve in respect of the complexity of these challenges. When our transition to a statutory body takes place, we will develop principles of operation. We have already developed a work programme in draft form, which we have shared with the Chief of Staff and others. It looks at priorities, urgencies, modes of engagement and strategies for effective oversight.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I have had this experience before where, within six months of establishing a new body, we had to do a strategy statement and there was nobody, only me and two borrowed staff to do it. The strategy will inevitably contain the elements of a public consultation, if that is where we are going with it. With every public body that develops a strategy now, there will be opportunities for the general public. I expect we will invite submissions from relevant stakeholders to assist us in developing our strategy. That will have to be done at a fairly fast clip in order to meet the timeline foreseen in the Bill whereby it will be done within a number of months. There is a fairly tried and tested path which involves consultation and workshops. I hope that by then we will have some people to help Ms Nolan with the work. I am sure everybody will be welcome to make a contribution to the strategy when we are developing it, if that is helpful.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a time when a Member of the Oireachtas who became bankrupt had to leave the Oireachtas but that is no longer the case. I note that head 10 provides that if a member of the external oversight body "is adjudicated bankrupt", he or she shall cease to be a member. Is that provision a bit archaic?

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I have no idea but every State body lists such a provision. I am chair of a technological university and there is a specification setting out who can and cannot be on the governing body, and the bankruptcy one is there front and centre. This provision is everywhere. Whether anyone has ever availed of it to escape from a State board, I do not know.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

The Deputy will have heard us say throughout this engagement that we are very much a listening body. That is very important and it will also apply to the development of the strategy. All of our stakeholder engagement and ongoing stakeholder engagement will influence that in real time as we move forward. It will be important for us to get that right and set out our objectives very clearly.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the external oversight body have a headquarters or premises yet?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

No. We currently use meeting rooms in Trinity Point where the Department of Defence has offices and meeting rooms. The Bill refers to the body's ability to have a designated space and location, and a location for the staff that goes with this. That is also important for the ongoing independence of the body. It is a significant message in terms of where one is located, where the staffing comes from and so on. That is something we will seek to preserve very carefully.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will there be a CEO or such a person?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I do not think that is envisaged in the Bill.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I am not sure. I do not think similar State bodies necessarily have one. The body itself and the supporting secretariat will be the key elements.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 24 refers to the "Preservation of contracts" and states "Every contract, agreement or arrangement made between the Minister and any other person" shall be "transferred to the External Oversight Body", etc.

Head 23 refers to the "Transfer of rights and liabilities to External Oversight Body". What kinds of rights and liabilities does this refer to?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We are not sure that any of these currently exist. We have some small supports that are short term. To my knowledge, we have not committed to anything. Other than minor short-term contracts, there is nothing that will transfer over. Much will depend on the timing of the actual transition. It is expected at some stage later this year but we are not sure exactly when that will take place. That is why we did not comment on head 23. I just do not think it has any immediate significance to us.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From time to time, this committee takes an interest in the issue of diversity. Obviously, we had diversity regarding gender. We now have a lot of people living in Ireland who were born in other countries. Will Professor MacCraith comment on how the external oversight body will engage with these other cultures? We have already seen people wearing headgear and different items of clothing in the Garda and elsewhere. There are cultural and religious issues around that and these will probably increase, especially if we encourage more people from other culture to join the Defence Forces.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Absolutely. The Deputy will note that in our opening statement we quoted the strategic framework document from the Tánaiste and this notion that the Defence Forces should reflect contemporary Irish society. We also believe that one of the major levers of transformation of the culture in the Defence Forces will be the recruitment process. That is on our agenda. It is not the most immediate issue but it is certainly on our agenda for this calendar year. We will address that and some of our team has started to look at it as well. In our engagement with the Chief of Staff and his team, and certainly with the head of transformation and head of strategic human resources, these are the sorts of discussions we will be having.

They have also been developing, for example, a profile of the female soldier, which is an interesting development. The fact is that 7% of the Defence Forces is female yet there is no female above the rank of lieutenant colonel. These are issues to be addressed, we believe. We absolutely agree, in respect of the broader issue of diversity, that a successful outcome - this will not happen overnight - would be a composition of our Defence Forces that reflects the high level of diversity in Irish society so that it is something that can be embraced by all Irish society.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the external oversight body have oversight of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

No, we do not have oversight of that office.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should it have such oversight?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We certainly will be engaging. At one of the next meetings, we will seek that oversight in the context of the complaints process. It is a useful thought coming from this meeting.

We knew we would come away from this engagement with some things to reflect on. That is something that we will reflect on at our next meeting, which is not too far away, and whether this could be something that should be included in the Bill.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Defence Forces Ombudsman is all about complaints-----

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Yes.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- from members of the Defence Forces. That is on the oversight body's agenda too. Is there a risk of having a twin-track approach here or a conflict or lack of synergies if there is an engagement and there is some sort of understanding as to the roles of the two bodies?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

That is certainly something. As I say, we have not reflected on it. We have committed to meet the ombudsman in the very near future because of the relevance of the complaints process but it is worthy of consideration. We will certainly reflect on that. Thank you for that.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been looking at the whole issue of aptitude testing for people who want to join the Defence Forces. I am not sure if our guests have looked at the test. I am sure they would all fly through them with no problem but the Chair and I have had difficulties trying to get through them. I certainly have, anyway; not the Chair. Have the witnesses any view on the aptitude testing? I understand that many people decide not to take them because they are so challenging and a huge percentage, about 50%, fail them. These are people who want to join.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

In our work programme to date, we have not gone into the recruitment process in any detail so we have not looked in any detail at the aptitude testing issue although we are aware of public comment on the matter, and not only in the Defence Forces. It obviously is something we will look at. We will look at all elements of that.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

It is part of the plan of work for the recruitment group.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Exactly.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I have not actually looked at the aptitude test but there has been a lot of negative feedback on it and it has definitely been a constraint to people progressing with their applications to join the forces. There is something that needs to be addressed in it.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a final question. I have not seen any reference to the body’s engagement with an Oireachtas committee and whether it would report to a committee on a regular basis as part of its work. The heads are very loose and when the Bill is published it will be tightened up fully. Our job here is to try to see if there are any suggestions we could make for it. That is something I have not seen here. Does anyone have a view on that and if there would be any issues around reporting to an Oireachtas committee from time to time? Should it be in the legislation?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We would have no problem with that. I think it would be very important. Obviously, we would be very happy to continue to engage with this committee for this phase of our existence. There was mention of an annual report which would be laid before the Oireachtas. In terms of ongoing reporting, the current modality is a quarterly report to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence. We are open to accept any invitation to come before this committee itself but on an ongoing basis, once we become a statutory body, I think this will be important as well.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apart from increasing the number of the board of the body by two initially -----

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Optionally.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- is there anything else that should be included in the heads of the Bill that are not there or that are there and should be removed?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We have learned from this engagement and the committee has suggested some things which we will look at. Our remit is to report through the Department of Defence to the Tánaiste as per our terms of reference. We have learned from this discussion and engagement today and we will reflect on a number of those suggestions.

I have looked at some of Deputy Stanton’s previous contributions. He mentioned the promotions process. There is a “may” and a “shall” there which we will also look at.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I was reflecting on the question about the ombudsman. It is not the only sector. There is a public service ombudsman, there is GSOC and there are ombudsmen in lots of sectors. Usually oversight is from these Houses. It is not usual for an ombudsman. That is not to say that the external oversight body would not have a view on how complaints might be handled, channelled and so on as part of the logistics of complaints but as regards the decisions of an ombudsman, normally the oversight comes to them from the Oireachtas. I was just puzzling it out there.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I come in on that point? Looking back at ombudsman reports over a number of years, some of the issues that arose in the IRG report never materialised in the ombudsman’s report.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I think my colleagues will agree because we have tested this, but we have been struck that so many members did not seem to know that they had direct access to the ombudsman. We have tested this as recently as our visit to Cork. I found it really perplexing; I agree with the Senator.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

They were not aware of the option.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

They felt they had to go through the internal process first, that is the one in which they are expressing no confidence. We certainly see the promulgation of the fact that within the existing framework, without changing anything, there is a direct access for a member’s complaint to the ombudsman as being something that is really important to communicate right throughout the Defence Forces. Whether that will result in more complaints or fewer remains to be seen. There might be a cultural dimension to that. Certainly, the same thought occurred to us; we tested it and we found people saying “We can’t do that”, but they can.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If ever you could give me a reason for having the representation bodies as ex officio members of the oversight body’s committee, you have just given it to me there.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I do not agree that is a good reason. We asked them as well. I did not find that they were as confident in saying to us that it is okay for the members to go directly to the ombudsman. Returning to my definition of culture as “the way you do things around here”, there seems to have been a belief right across the Defence Forces that the ombudsman was at the end of a process. I am not sure that the representative bodies were immune to that belief.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is they would learn.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

It is culture. It is what you pick up in the mess. It is what you pick up talking to colleagues. All I can say is that we tested it because we found it really unusual. Would my chair say that is a fair comment?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Certainly, in Cork it surprised us that there was a lack of knowledge of the various elements of complaints but particularly the pathway directly to the ombudsman. In fairness, we have not had our follow-on meeting with the Chief of Staff to brief him on what we took away. I am not going into any great detail here on that. There may be clarifications on lots of elements of that. At our next meeting with the Chief of Staff, we will have these conversations.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We did not talk too much about it but certainly the whole issue of communications, internal and across the sector itself, is a very important issue. For example, the Defence Forces are working on an app that has been signed up to by about 50% of members. Delivering messages is critically important, particularly when cultural transformation and new initiatives are coming in, to ensure all members are fully au fait with all developments. That communication issue is one on which we will focus more and more.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Professor MacCraith and his colleagues to the meeting, thank him for appearing before us and wish him well in his work. At our meeting last week, ICTU strongly recommended that the representative bodies have membership of the oversight body and the vast majority of members of this committee would have been in agreement with it on that. In his contribution, Professor MacCraith said he believed the representative bodies have a critical role to play in the transformation of the Defence Forces. I think we all agree with that.

However, he went on to say that membership of the oversight body is a matter for the Minister and the Government. That is a fact. If the Minister agreed that PDFORRA and RACO should have a voice on the oversight body, would Professor MacCraith or any other member of the oversight body have any difficulty with that?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Of course not. The consensus view of this body is that the composition of the body is the remit of the Minister and the Government. Whatever the Government decides in that regard, of course, we will act accordingly. Whatever happens, I believe that the representative associations have that critical role to play and we will be asking them to spend a lot of their time with us and to give us their insight on an ongoing basis. From our meetings with them, it was very clear that it would be important to have that ongoing dialogue and we are committing to that on a regular basis. Even their connection to members is hugely impressive but in terms of a transformation of culture, I absolutely believe that both representative associations are important in that regard and we will convey that again in our next meeting. We hope both bodies can join us at our next in-person meeting in March. Those invitations will issue in the next few days. They were planned anyway so that is what we hope will happen.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with what Deputy Berry said. Based on my experience of meeting and working with members of the Defence Forces, they have a very positive experience in the main.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I assure the Cathaoirleach that we are very busy with the detail of current activities in terms of that transition and not even understanding when that might happen. This has not been part of any discussion agenda but I take the Cathaoirleach's point on the matter.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Regarding the issue of independence, the only experience we can give is our experience to date. It is the consensus view of the body that if we had an issue with that, it would have been reflected in our contribution to any modification to this Bill. I also referenced our operational practice in terms of good governance. When there is any declaration of conflict of interest, we act on that. In this particular case, I asked the Secretary General to leave the meeting room until that matter was addressed. In our experience over the past ten months or so, we have managed that and have not felt constrained in terms of our independence.

The second question concerned an extra member. We have already looked at the issue and have some possibilities in mind. We would like a senior member of a defence force internationally with experience of similar transformations. We think that sort of person would bring a context, vision, experience and expertise that is quite specific. We have identified a small number of those. As we are at the early stage of discussions with some of those individuals, I cannot name them.

If we could get one of those people, it would really add significantly to the insights and the progress we can make more rapidly as a result. As I said earlier, this is not reinventing the wheel but learning from best practice with someone who can work side by side with us. We are already seeing that to some extent with Ms Sam des Forges from the UK Ministry of Defence, but I am thinking of someone who has been in the Defence Forces and understands all of that, but has led transformation and experienced it. We are looking both in Europe and further afield on those. We have a small number. It is in our minutes from previous meetings that we have discussed this. We are due to have a discussion with one of those individuals in the coming weeks.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

It is fair to say this is an evolving agenda. At this stage we are progressing filling one of those slots, if we had that slot available. As time moves on we might identify other gaps we to bring specific expertise in on, so we want to allow for that.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It could well be, Chair, that before this process finishes we ask for a facility to go to the Minister of the day if there is a feeling there is room for more expertise, but we did not want to put an open-ended number here, so it is our current thinking that two is appropriate. Perhaps if there was a facility for an amendment that opened up in the circumstances where we felt there was additional need one could go to the Minister without having to, as the Chair says, go back through the legislative route.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

It is not unusual to make provision for co-option on the basis of expertise as an option. There might be some scope there that would make the Act more agile.

On the question of independence, I draw the Chair's attention to the point made by Professor MacCraith in his opening regarding head 6(10). We are very keen the body be free, or freer than the Act envisages, to conduct reviews and make recommendations without approaching the Minister for permission.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

That was the third point around autonomy.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

All I can say to the Chair is we have not considered any of the heads of Bill that were not directly pertaining to and referencing the EOB, so we do not have a view on that.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

No. We may reflect on it on foot of this meeting, but certainly it is not directly within our remit, so it is not clear we have a role to play in this.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will follow up on what the Chair was asking around autonomy. The witnesses have expressed how important the autonomy was for them and that the body should have as much autonomy as required. That is really important and I agree it is necessary in terms of the transformation. Whether I believe it is feasible within the culture or not, I am impressed with the witnesses' enthusiasm and the fresh thinking they have expressed at this meeting. It is encouraging to see in the context of a disciplined organisation that is very much about the taking of orders and the following of orders and, as Ms Feehily referenced, the idea that this is the way we do things around here. How are the witnesses going to ensure they get to meet more of the people who do not know who they are? I remember hearing the earlier ombudsman say she was surprised people had not come to her. It was obviously not well known within the organisation that people could go because that was not the way things were done around there. What was it like to be talking to people who were used to taking orders and not used to being listened to and asked for their opinions?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I thank the Deputy for her positive comments, which we really appreciate. One of the things we endeavoured to do in the visits to Cork was to first of all convey it was a safe space for conversation with whatever group we were talking to and that it would be completely confidential, completely anonymised and that we would not be carrying any messages particular to a person or that would make them identifiable, and so on. Sometimes it took a while, but in all cases we were very happy that people opened up. The Deputy is very right in pointing to the tension. This is one of the difficulties and the complexities. None of this is easy, but we have a necessary command-and-control system. That is the very essence of a defence force-----

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

-----and it has to be there, yet we are trying to ensure a mutual respect, a bidirectional respect, in those environments and freedom to raise the issue of complaints in those environments. That is why it is not easy, but it is very important for us to create a process or processes that are trusted. For example, one of the recommendations made to us by one of the people in Cork was even the notion of a safe phone line manned by a civilian trained in all the processes and understanding the situation, so members could have an open conversation with that person. I am not saying this is necessarily how it will go, but it gives a sense of the situation. It is about creating a process so people can feel safe and get reliable information because there is a deficit of information on the ground around the possibilities. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

There is a point I would like to put on record. The trip we had and the meetings we had with staff at all levels of the organisation were massively important in allowing us hear first hand. The staff we met took risks in having that type of open conversation with us and we certainly owe them a debt of gratitude-----

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Yes.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

-----for the way they responded. They came into a room not knowing what this meeting was about, in some cases, and then had a very free and open conversation. It is really critical for us to have that type of relationship to be able to do the role. To answer the Deputy's question, it will be the ongoing engagement we will have to have to really understand the lived experience. Has it changed? Is it the same? What are people experiencing? What are the green shoots so people can say they believe in this? That should also be a two-way communication process with staff.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Exactly.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

It is something that is really important.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

To answer the other part of the Deputy's question, we plan to go out around the provinces to various Army barracks and Air Corps and Naval Service posts. This is not a one-off.

We found that so valuable. We think it is very important to be visible, including by having periodic meetings in various locations throughout the country in order to create awareness and a listening space.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 9 provides for the Minister to commission a review from the body which can make recommendations. Section 10 allows the body to do the same, but only with the permission and consent of the Minister. Does Professor MacCraith believe the oversight body should be able to commission reviews of its own volition without sign-off by the Minister? With all that the body is learning this might be important.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It is in our opening statement.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The oversight body feels it should be able to do this.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We should not need to seek prior approval if something is important to us. This would be a clear message of autonomy.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Professor MacCraith would like us to make changes on this.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Absolutely.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to go back to the good old days when I served. The First Battalion in Galway paraded every day at 9 a.m. The battalion commander took the parade and the second in command was on parade, as were the sergeant major and the company commanders. Each platoon had a lieutenant, sergeants and corporals. Not so terribly long ago, I had to raise an issue whereby an entire battalion was being managed by a captain and three lieutenants. We constantly see 600 or 700 non-commissioned officer vacancies. Soldiering is a robust profession. Soldiers have to go through robust training. We expect them to go to places such as the Golan Heights and Lebanon. We expect them to be able to operate in severe conditions. We must train them properly. There is a large dearth of middle management. Will the oversight body go through this issue? I will throw all I have at the witnesses and they can come back at me. I do not want to delay them too much longer. The middle management issue is a big one for me. By and large, when there is a good spread of middle management the opportunity to behave inappropriately is reduced greatly.

There are two discretionary places on the board. When Ms King's colleague from ICTU was before the committee last week he rightly pointed out that representation is a partnership between management and the organisation. It is the conduit by which we can deal with problems before they become serious. Would the oversight body consider using the two places available to bring on ex officio members of the representative bodies? Even if it were not all the time, they could be there some of the time.

With regard to the trip to Cork, Ms Feehily particularly spoke about the lack of knowledge of the direct route to the ombudsman. Surely the representative bodies would have learned something by being there and hearing it first hand. This is a learning process for everybody involved in the Defence Forces. To some degree some are running to catch up. From this point of view, as a former trade union representative I am really concerned. The idea of partnership is massive. As Ms King knows I worked with the TUI. We had chief executive officers who worked in partnership with the union and we had chief executive officers who did not. Where a chief executive officer worked in partnership there was a tremendous relationship and many great things were done. Where there was one that did not it led to problems increasing.

It has been written about and it has been said publicly in the media, so it is not me saying it, that there is a toxic relationship between the uniform and the Department. The Secretary General of the Department is a member of the oversight body. If there is a toxic relationship, and I note that the oversight body is to look at the possibility of bullying or harassment of civilians, then surely we should also be able to look at the Department to see what problems there are there. Surely the Department has lessons to learn. We saw that the week before last when I asked about engagement on the Bill by Department officials. I was told that a letter had issued to the representative bodies the night before the Bill was brought to Cabinet. This is not partnership. It is not respectful of the role the representative bodies play. I keep going back to the same thing, and I will be making this point forcefully at this committee and in the Seanad. We need to have the Department side by side and working in partnership with the oversight body. It must learn first hand. It cannot be learning second-hand from the oversight body's findings. I will leave it at that. I thank the Cathaoirleach for letting me in a second time.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

I can certainly cover some of the points and perhaps colleagues will want to join in. I have noted down - I hope accurately - Senator Craughwell's points. He spoke about staffing and middle management issues. Going back to our visit to Cork, when we arrived the GOC and senior team gave us a very comprehensive overview. We were all struck by the gaps that Senator Craughwell spoke about. These are the gaps between the establishment numbers and the actual numbers, and the gaps at various levels. There is also the gender gap but that is not what Senator Craughwell has asked about. It is very important that it be addressed. It is not explicitly within our remit as such. It straddles other areas, certainly in terms of its relationship to the culture, morale and proper functioning. It is not in our current work plan but it will be very shortly, in particular in our engagement with the head of transformation and the head of strategic HR in the Defence Forces. We will be looking at recruitment and promotion. It is an issue; it was very stark to see the numbers, I have to say. One could not feel comfortable about it.

The issue of the representative associations has come up again. I will stick to what we have agreed is our view on this. Membership of the body is a matter for the Minister and the Government, and we will act accordingly. The two potential positions reflect a different need for us, focusing on very specific technical expertise. The example I gave the Cathaoirleach was of someone who can bring international best practice. It is a different sort of contribution. We think it would be very beneficial if we could do this. It is a different issue.

Senator Craughwell spoke about the toxic relationship between the uniform and the Department. We have no experience of it. We engage as a body, including the Secretary General, with the Chief of Staff on a regular basis, and with his senior team depending on the topic we are covering. I have to say the engagements have been positive. There is bedding in. This is a new reality for the Defence Forces. The existence of an external oversight body that is transitioning to be a statutory body is different. It is new. This has to be worked through. I can say that from our side it is proceeding in the right direction. We are aware of the amount of change the Defence Forces are having to grapple with. We are conscious of it. We have not encountered, directly or indirectly, the issue Senator Craughwell has spoken about.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been in the media. It has also been said to me internationally that something people were surprised to find was this very difficult relationship between the civilian side and those in uniform. This needs to be looked at. If we are going to have cultural change it has to go the whole way and down through the Department. It has to be looked at.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I would like to come in on the point with regard to middle management.

The retention issue and the strain it is putting on people within the Defence Forces, as well as the linkage between people exiting the Defence Forces and the issues relating to the cultural side, came up quite bit when we were in Cork a couple of weeks ago. We will be looking at it in the context of recruitment, retention and trying to address the cultural issues. It came across quite strongly. It is putting many people under pressure.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the things we did was increase the pay of private soldiers. As a result, the incentive to become a corporal for an extra €20 a week or whatever has gone out the window. In fairness, we did it to see low-paid workers improve their lot. It was a great idea at the time but now the latent aspect is beginning to kick in and the incentive to take on the additional responsibility for very little reward is going to be a problem going forward also.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

Returning to the complaints point, it is military and civilian. We also met civilian staff who were working in the Defence Forces. Just to be clear, our remit is oversight of the Defence Forces, not the Department. To the extent that we engage with civilians and look at that issue of complaints, it is complaints within the Defence Forces of those in uniform and civilians. The question of uniform staff in the context of the Department is not in our terms of reference or in the engagement we have had up until now. However, we have engaged with civilian staff – both industrial civil servants and general civil servants and professionals working within the Defence Forces. It is a different relationship because they are working without the command and control entitlements but they are still subject to direction. It is a tricky one.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we need to look at the departmental relationship as well when we discuss this legislation further.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find this very positive and useful. I thank the witnesses for their input, which is great to get.

We have had external oversight of the Defence Forces before. There was an independent monitoring group that was inexplicably and unilaterally wound down about five years ago. It is a pity that happened. We probably would not be where we are now were that still in situ. Both representative associations, namely, PDFORRA and RACO, were an integral part of that process and were very effective. If the witnesses are visiting various barracks, I ask that they ensure that the reps from PDFORRA and RACO at local level are invited in, because they are the spokespersons. Much of the time, because of the way things are done, the representative associations are more vocal and people are more comfortable allowing them to speak on their behalf. I ask the witnesses to bear that in mind.

Doubling down on what the Chair said about freedom of speech, Professor MacCraith is a university professor and president. He knows the true value of freedom of speech. There have been a number of improvements in the Defence Forces in the past four years. These were chiefly the result of the representative associations coming here and airing their legitimate grievances. Solutions were found in the meantime.

I am also very concerned about the guiding clause. It is like a vow of silence to an enclosed order of nuns, basically. That is my interpretation. It has no place in primary legislation whatsoever. One could argue in some universities and workplaces there might be a code of conduct, which is way down the legal hierarchy. I will not say it is abusive process but it is approaching abusive process even to consider putting it primary legislation.

Regarding the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, people should be aware that it is odf.ie and there is a portal there one can click on if one wishes to make a complaint. I raise the point that I presume the Defence Forces did not want to strain that operational space. The ombudsman is independent in their function. They do not want to be advertising the independent function of the ombudsman for fear of being accused of straying out of their lane. That would be one reason. Second, surely the ombudsman’s office is responsible for communicating to people as well. I am conscious to not lay the blame exclusively on the uniformed services at every opportunity. I am not saying that was done rather I am just raising that.

There is a perception that every complaint the Defence Forces receives relates to unacceptable behaviour, but my understanding is that 8% do. Obviously, all unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable. Some 92% of complaints have to do with lack of overseas, lack of promotion and lack of career course. That is an important message to get out there.

On the gender balance issue, 7% members of the Defence Forces are female. That is not good enough at all. It would not be unusual by international comparisons. I am trying to bring in some balance and relativity. Ms Sinnamon is a director of Cairn Homes. The gender balance of the Defence Forces is probably superior to that of a building site, for instance. Having worked in healthcare-----

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

Not in Cairn.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to hear it. Having worked in the healthcare profession, I know that the Defence Forces gender balance is infinitely better than the nursing profession or midwifery, for instance. So while it is an issue, we should not be army bashing and exclaiming that the stats are so low. We have to bear in mind that other armed forces across the world are not as army-heavy. Our Air Corps and Naval Service are very small. Not only that, but the Army is infantry-heavy. Many female members of the Defence Forces, both serving and retired, asked me to ask people who come before the committee one thing: will those in authority put crèches into the naval base in Haulbowline, the barracks in the Curragh and Baldonnel? Then we will see logistically the stats will improve. Bear in mind as well that while 7% of those in the Permanent Defence Force are female, it is much higher in the Army bands and in the Reserve Defence Force. The reason is their work schedule is much more predictable. They are not told they are going overseas at two days’ notice. There are logistical reasons as well for this.

I have a couple final points. Command and control has been raised a few times. Again, having worked in other areas, I am aware that everybody has a manager. I worked in healthcare. You know who the registrar is and you sure as hell know who the consultant or professor is. A command and control system is not unique to the Defence Forces. It is always portrayed that there is a unique command and control system in the Defence Forces but it is very similar to any other hierarchical organisation.

I wish to double on what the good Senator said about the chaotic turnover. Chaotic is a good way to describe it. When I went to McKee Barracks, we had the same management for three years. He was there every single day and there was a deputy adjutant who would step in. The adjutant is the personnel officer in a unit. Now it is like “Who is the adjutant today?” “Well, you were on in the morning and I am on in the afternoon.” That is how ad hoc things have become. If the turnover is chaotic, the results are chaotic as well.

Last, I note it is written in the IRG report that the incidence of unacceptable behaviour is higher in the Defence Forces than in other sectors. I still wonder what the basis of that is. A more specific question is whether there has been a judge-led inquiry in any other sector and going into such forensic detail. I do not mean to identify the professor or anything, but he was president of DCU for ten years. If there was a judge-led inquiry into what went on in DCU with the student body and staff over a ten-year period, would the results be any different? If they would not be any different, would he do it and see? We are not comparing like with like here. If the IRG report judge-led inquiry is stating that on the basis of what it found, the incidence is much higher in the Defence Forces, then surely we should have a comparator in another sector.

That is my only contribution. I have found this a very useful exercise. I wish the witnesses the best of luck. They have our full support. If we can assist in any way, we are available to do so.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We listened very carefully to what Deputy Berry had to say. Those were statements rather than questions, as such. Balance is important. We listened to the Deputy’s points, and we probably need to get the transcript to capture all of them.

The Deputy mentioned the crèche issue. Generalising that in terms of attracting, retaining and getting more females promoted upward, which will be important for the future of the Defence Forces, I refer to the concept of a more family-friendly environment with regard to rules and regulations.

One thing which has come up a few times with us in respect of promotions and training courses is the fact that the mother of a young family in the Defence Forces might have to spend six months away where the amenities afforded by digital technology and the flexibilities of online learning are perhaps not being used as much as they could be to facilitate such a person. There are things around that, which have happened in many other sectors, whereby this sort of transformation, which facilitates women in particular to move up the promotion ladder has happened. Some of the interventions, as suggested by Deputy Berry, can be quite simple and straightforward. We have not come to the detail of that yet and it is certainly part of our initial discussions. When we come to that, that is certainly something we will be looking at. We will take what the Deputy has said on board and we will go back, look at it and read it carefully but I believe we are hearing the points he is making about taking a balanced look at matters.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

I want to pick up in the ombudsman comment. I do not see any reason any organisation that had such a report - leaving aside Deputy Berry's comments about the elements of it, as it was accepted by the Defence Forces - would not want to say that if there is not confidence in its complaints service, to be aware that while it is having legislation prepared and is trying to figure out a new complaints service, that there is an Ombudsman for the Defence Forces.

I was not bashing anybody. I was simply saying that I found it surprising that in the DNA of the organisation, in the mess and in the chatter, there seemed to be a feeling that one had to go through the chain of command, and that was where the confidence issue was, at best, weak and dented. If I were an employer who had that problem, I would be rushing to get an external person. They have got one and it is called the ombudsman. That was the context in which I made remarks and I just wanted to explain that. Apart from anything else, in most public sector bodies at the end of appeal letters and so on, people have to be told that if they do not like what is going on with their tax or social protection affairs, that the ombudsman is there. This is quite a normal practice and it is not a sign of any weakness or of a problem to direct people to an ombudsman. It is quite normal.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In industrial relations, if I lodge a grievance against my employer, there is a system I must go through. It is no different to what Ms Feehily is portraying in the Defence Forces.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

This is not an industrial relations, IR, question but it is an individual personal complaint. On an individual personal complaint, if one wants to use the IR analogy, such an individual can go straight to the WRC.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They can, but by and large, one has to go through the system and if one does not, one will be sent back from time to time.

Ms Josephine Feehily:

Sometimes, not always.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a unique military thing that there is a hierarchy to go through. There is a hierarchy in most IR systems.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the Act says that one can go straight through to the ombudsman but the feeling is that if one goes through the system which the Senator is talking about, that there might be a faster resolution. I wonder about the effectiveness of the ombudsman's findings and how impactful they are. At the end of the day, that might be something worth looking at if it is within the remit of the oversight body.

I have one or two very brief questions. How will the body come to a decision if there is a split in it? If the body is coming to a decision on something, how does it reach that decision? Is it a majority vote? Does the chair have a casting vote? Does the Secretary General of the Department ex officio have a vote? Has the body looked at that or does it see such a situation arising at all?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It has not arisen to date. There has been remarkable consensus around all issues. It is a reasonable point to raise with us but there has not been a single situation where were we were not able to-----

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should we include something in the legislation where if there is a vote of the members of the body where there was a very deeply-felt difference of opinion, that there would be some way of resolving that? Would there be a minority report or how would Professor MacCraith see that working? We do not want to see a situation like that arising as we are dealing with serious issues here and there may be complexities.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

That is again another useful point that we can take away from this. I would not like to give the Deputy a knee-jerk-reaction response at this stage. We are taking notes, as is our secretary, Ms Marianne Nolan, and we will reflect on these comments.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The body will have a statutory legal function with even a badge, or whatever it is called, and the way the body comes to a decision as a group will probably need to be statutorily laid down as well, I imagine, in some way, if such a conflict ever arose and hopefully it will not.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Yes, that is a good point.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask now about the body’s information technology, IT, system. We are obviously quite interested in the issue of the hacking of computer systems and all of that kind of stuff which goes on. Some other committees are looking at the fourth industrial revolution, that of artificial intelligence, AI. What kind of thinking does the body have around the IT system it will acquire or require? Where will it come from and who will manage it? Is it the Department, the body itself, or has the body its own people?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

The current situation, given the location of our meetings and so on, is that it is separate from but sits on the Department’s framework. I agree with the Deputy that given the sensitivity of the issues and the independence of our approach, and so on, it would be sensible that whatever location we are in, we have an absolutely independent system with all of the best and most up-to-date approaches to cybersecurity. That makes sense. Obviously, we will be dealing with very sensitive matters so that is critically important.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the complaints we have had here from time to time is the time it takes for people to become attested in the Defence Forces from the time they make an application. It can take months and months. Will the body be looking at that timescale because if someone shows an interest today, and it takes six months or longer for them to be attested, they may have gone off to do something else in the meantime?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

Our plan is, and this will be on our agenda very shortly, to look at all aspects of the recruitment process - it has come up already - and at matters which will enhance the uptake. We very much want to see this as an attractive process which does not deter people from joining the Defence Forces.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to test the Chair’s patience with my time but I have two more or perhaps three further questions.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the oversight body be reviewing the Defence Forces regulations, DFRs, as part of its remit because quite often these regulations come up at this committee as a reason why things can and cannot be done?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It is not explicitly noted in our terms of reference and I do not recall seeing it in the heads of the Bill itself. The matter might arise where a particular DFR or set of DFRs was having an impact on some matter which we wanted to progress but it is not explicitly there. I believe colleagues are nodding their heads in agreement with this comment.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We bring in the ombudsman from time to time and one of the ombudsman’s unique roles is that former members can only make complaints there, as they are not members any more. Has the body thought or looked at veterans and former members and its role there, and at the issue of retirement from the Defence Forces and how people actually leave the Defence Forces. Sometimes, people become almost institutionalised and when they leave they can get a bit lost. We have the veterans' associations, which do great work, as the body knows. Will that space be part or should it be part of the oversight body’s area? On retirement and leaving, perhaps if someone is in the Defence Forces and they are worried about retirement, that can have an impact on their present function.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

There are two parts to the Deputy’s question. I do not think that the veterans situation is part of our remit currently so obviously we will not be looking at that. Certainly, with regard to the net leakage which is happening out of the Defence Forces and the whole issue of retirement, exit interviews and learning from that; that certainly will be part of our remit. We will be looking at that but not the first issue.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Re-enlistment is another issue. If people leave and want to come back in again, what are the terms? There is also the issue of people who want to join who are part of the military establishment in other jurisdictions and who want to come here and join at a certain rank and level. Is that something the body would see as part of its operation?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

On all those issues, even recruitment directly from the private sector, we will be asking are there appropriate mechanisms with appropriate training which will allow that to happen. Our role will be to look at all aspects that will enhance the composition and performance of the Defence Forces.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I brought up an issue with the Tánaiste recently when he appeared before the committee. I said to him that it was a bit of a curveball and he agreed with me but I will nevertheless bring it up again. When I was in the Department of Justice, I visited Mountjoy Prison from time to time and I visited a jobs fair there where young prisoners who had been through training and rehabilitation were interviewed by employers. Some of the employers told me that they got some of their best workers through that process. I understand at the moment it is not possible in the Defence Forces for somebody with a record like that to join. Is it something that the oversight body might look at?

Professor Brian MacCraith:

It has not come up so far but all of those issues, where we can sensibly look at pathways into the Defence Forces that will again enhance recruitment, taking account of all regulatory matters of course, will be looked at.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair.

Professor Brian MacCraith:

We submit a report every quarter and then, whenever I need to meet the Tánaiste, the Minister, I request such a meeting.