Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jul 2024

I propose to take Questions Nos. 59 and 61 together.

I thank the Deputies for raising this serious question. I wish again to express my unequivocal condemnation of any form of gender-based violence. Such behaviour has no place in a modern society or in the Defence Forces. Let me be quite clear about this: the Defence Forces are not a place where someone who has been convicted of serious offences, including sexual offences or domestic or gender-based violence, can continue to serve.

At the outset, it is also important I note the pride we share in the vast majority of the men and women of the Defence Forces who serve the nation so admirably at home and on peacekeeping missions abroad. The actions of a minority completely go against the values of the Defence Forces and have no place, as I said, in a modern workplace, particularly in an organisation which is there to protect people. Last week, I issued an instruction for the placement with immediate effect of serving personnel in the Defence Forces who are either convicted of sexual assault or rape and awaiting discharge, or are currently before the courts for such offences, to be put on local leave on a without-prejudice basis. The ability to take this measure is already captured in Defence Forces regulations and I have been absolutely clear that it must now be applied uniformly in all such cases.

As the Deputy will be aware, following the recent case, I was first informed on Friday, 21 June of another case involving a member who is still serving after being convicted of assault causing harm. In light of this, I have also requested a report from the Chief of Staff to find out how many serving members of the Defence Forces have civil convictions or are before the civil courts on serious criminal offences. After receiving an initial report, I sought further detail. On Wednesday evening last week, I received a report of 68 Defence Forces personnel who have been recently convicted or are currently before the civil courts on a range of criminal offences including public order breaches, drink driving, drugs offences, physical assault or sexual offences, as well as other offences. I have received legal advice from the Attorney General around restrictions on publishing some of the details of these cases given that many of them are before the courts. I have therefore asked my officials to summarise, which I have articulated in generalities by way of numbers and so forth.

There is a regulatory pathway to discharge or dismiss serving personnel convicted of a serious crime and I have made it absolutely clear that the due process in line with those regulations must be followed. These regulations have been applied and indeed are currently being applied in respect of Defence Forces members. There is no room for inconsistency in this. While I am satisfied there are existing mechanisms in place to deal with such cases, I am open to considering proposals to improve and streamline these mechanisms. Defence Forces regulations are reviewed and amended on an ongoing basis.

I have appointed Peter Ward SC to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances in which personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Mr. Ward will be asked to come back with an outcome of this high-level analysis, together with any recommendations and any enhanced powers that may be necessary to improve processes, regulations, legislation and reporting arrangements. The terms of reference are currently being finalised.

My priority since becoming Minister for Defence is the urgent transformation of the Defence Forces with a specific focus on cultural transformation. We have a significant programme of work under way to progress this transformation. The establishment of an external oversight body of the Defence Forces on a statutory basis, which is currently progressing through the Oireachtas, is one of a number of important steps in progressing the required culture change programme.

Reports that a naval officer remains in the Defence Forces almost a year after pleading guilty to a serious assault on a woman shows a bit of a pattern. The Tánaiste will forgive the Women of Honour for nodding their heads and saying, "I told you so". The time for learning lessons is over. It is the time to show what can be done. I wish to take this opportunity to salute Natasha O'Brien for courage and bravery. She was very impressive speaking after her court case last week. I really took on board what she said about her speaking for women in the future.

The fact we have 68 members of the Defence Forces with current convictions or are being tried for offences ranging from public order breaches to physical and sexual assault is a real worry. I am aware of the presumption of innocence and all of that.

Deputy Réada Cronin: Reports that a naval officer remains in the Defence Forces almost a year after pleading guilty to a serious assault on a woman shows a bit of a pattern. The Tánaiste will forgive the Women of Honour for nodding their heads and saying, "I told you so". The time for learning lessons is over. It is the time to show what can be done. I wish to take this opportunity to salute Natasha O'Brien for courage and bravery. She was very impressive speaking after her court case last week. I really took on board what she said she was speaking for women in the future. The fact we have 68 members of the Defence Forces with current convictions or are being tried for offences ranging from public order breaches to physical and sexual assault is a real worry. I am aware of the presumption of innocence and all of that in this respect

In respect of the individual in the Naval Service, there is currently a process under way, which may be coming to a conclusion. I have been advised by the Attorney General's office the less comment now at this stage, given the potential impact on that process, the better. I hope the House understands that I am not going to comment further on it other than to say, generally, there are regulations which facilitate the discharge of people who have been convicted.

I note that 68 people have not been convicted. Of the aforementioned 68 people, between 40 and 50 of them are before the courts. They are not convicted.

Of those, I think we have about five, and maybe one pending, in respect of a sexual assault and rape charges.

We are at a critical juncture with the Defence Forces in terms of how allegations of abuse are dealt with. The Tánaiste has to take the bull by the horns. Morale in the Defence Forces is very low. I cannot imagine what it is like for ordinary, decent, professional soldiers in the Defence Forces who serve with honour and pride to feel like they are constantly under attack and that the Government and the legislation are letting them down. It is something the Tánaiste has to take seriously. "Two to take her down, and two to take her out" was what Mr. Crotty said. It is time the Tánaiste took those kind of people down and out of the Defence Forces, so that ordinary, decent, professional soldiers can continue to serve with pride and honour.

I too salute the courage of Natasha O'Brien in making very clear her position as a victim. I am conscious that the case has now been appealed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, so I cannot comment any further. Since I became Minister for Defence, I have focused on changing the culture in the Defence Forces. I mentioned earlier the external oversight body that has been established. There was a lot of resistance in the House to that when the legislation went through. It is now in the other House. I ask Deputies to reflect when they oppose a lot of measures. Believe me, the external oversight body is constructed on the advice of the independent review group as a key element of effecting culture change, along with a whole lot of other things we have done. Yet, I faced a lot of opposition, externally and in the House, to that measure. I agree with the Deputy that we need a fundamental change in culture.

I thank the Deputy for the question. I again express my unequivocal condemnation of any form of gender-based violence. Such behaviour has no place in a modern society or in the Defence Forces. The nature and type of such attacks on women are deeply troubling and absolutely unacceptable. The depth of feeling expressed at the protests recently is testament to that and I know everyone in this House feels the same.

The process for a military representative in court cases is captured in Defence Forces Regulations, DFR, namely, DFR A.7, paragraphs 55 to 58, which specify that a military representative is required to be present during the trial in a civil court of an accused member of the Defence Forces. The role of that representative, which is also provided for in the regulations, is to assist the court, if called upon to do so, with any queries the court may have in respect of the service record of the accused member. It should be noted that under paragraph 57 of the regulations, the officer detailed to attend the trial is not required to disclose any information concerning the accused soldier, unless required by the court to do so. If required by the court, and again in line with the regulations, the military liaison officer will furnish any information in his or her possession as to the soldier’s character and service, and full particulars of any previous convictions by a civil court or by a court-martial for an offence under the Defence Act 1954.

The officer detailed to attend the civil trial of a soldier will be furnished by the soldier’s commanding officer with a certified copy of the soldier’s record sheet, A.F 43A, copies of any other documents in possession of the unit relevant to the soldier’s previous service or conduct, and previous trials or convictions of the soldier by a civil court. Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings, the officer attending the trial will prepare a brief but comprehensive report of the trial and findings. This report, together with documents originally furnished, will be transmitted by such officer to the soldier’s commanding officer directly. I have asked the military-----

The State came to a standstill with disgust and disbelief last week when a member of the Defence Forces walked free from court following the brutal assault on Natasha O'Brien. Another man had his career protected while another woman was failed by the State. I am glad to see the DPP has appealed the sentence. I do not want to give the Ceann Comhairle a heart attack or anything like that but the ruling was given by the Judiciary. While it is really welcome that the DPP is looking at it again, the fact that a spokesperson for the Defence Forces was in the court is something we have to look at. People were revolted by the fact that a senior officer gave a glowing account of Mr. Crotty's service record. I believe that is something that-----

-----and is not there to give a glowing account. The officer had a record in front of him and was cross-examined by the prosecution and the defence. He happened to be in the court in line with the Defence Force regulations. We have to be fair to everyone in this context. However, I am reviewing that and I have asked Mr. Peter Ward SC to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances where personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Part of this analysis will be around the military liaison officer system and how it works. The perception of it was not good because people assumed the officer was there on behalf of the perpetrator of the crime. He was not; he was there because he was required to be there. It is important to get that clear. I will come back to the Deputy with the details on the numbers asked for in the original question.

I am not a military lawyer or anything like that but after listening to the conversations, I know the officer was not there to give a glowing reference. However, that is what it felt like to the victim. Members of the Defence Forces have been through such a tough time lately with the disclosures from the Women of Honour. There is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction coming from inside and outside the Defence forces. This closing of ranks and circling of the wagons is not very helpful. Because the Defence Forces are there to defend citizens, it seemed like an awful betrayal to citizens when members of the Defence Forces acted like this. It is important for those members of the Defence Forces who do serve with dignity that the Tánaiste take the bull by the horns and sort this out.

I am very clear on this. The Defence Forces are there to protect society and keep people safe. I believe that, as with An Garda Síochána, standards have to be very high, given the unique role the Defence Forces play in society, over and above other sectors of the public service. That imposes an extra burden, but it is necessary. I think we are all shocked by the level of violence against women in society today. It is quite shocking. I do not understand such levels of violence. I do not understand the aggression and I do not understand how someone can beat a woman unconscious. I am not talking about any particular case, just generally. We have had a number of cases of horrific violence and rape perpetrated against women. We need zero tolerance of such violence against women. Notwithstanding all the programmes in our education system, from relationships and sexuality education, RSE, to social personal and health education, SPHE, it seems the level, aggression and nature of the violence are getting progressively worse. At a societal level, we need to do a deep-dive analysis of this to make inroads on it.

On 30 April last, the Government approved the proposal to draft the general scheme of a Bill to govern overseas deployments into the future. Work on drafting those proposals is well under way. This involves, where required, further consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and across Departments and key stakeholders.

I will be reverting to the Government shortly with the general scheme of the Bill. Once approved by the Government, the scheme will be referred for pre-legislative scrutiny consideration by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to determine if pre-legislative scrutiny is required. As this legislation advances, there will be ample opportunity for Members of the Oireachtas to scrutinise and debate its contents within the Dáil and Seanad.

It is important to emphasise that any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Any modification to the triple lock will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping and similar missions and will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance.

That has been our consistent position for a considerable time. Amending the triple lock in no way undermines our military neutrality. I take issue with the way the question was even tabled. I do not accept the assertion about "the triple-lock neutrality protection of our neutrality" because our neutrality has always been defined in terms of our decision not to join NATO or, indeed, be part of a European mutual defence pact, which we are not.

It is our independent foreign policy, a legacy of Ireland working for a nuclear non-proliferation, humanitarianism, contributing to the drafting of the convention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, peacekeeping and our proud record as our United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon, Congo, Chad, South Sudan and elsewhere. Yet eight months ago, the Minister instructed officials to prepare legislation to remove that cornerstone without delay and did that with no mandate, having campaigned on this at the general election and agreeing to a programme for Government that would keep the triple lock. Even the chair of the consultative forum the Minister held last year put in her report that there was no public appetite for a change on our position of neutrality and no appetite to change the triple lock. I spoke to the Minister earlier at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence when he said that he hoped to bring draft legislation forward in the next two weeks.

Can I counter that the triple lock is not the cornerstone of Irish foreign policy. As a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, I have knowledge of the historic role that Fianna Fáil Ministers played in establishing an independent foreign policy. In fact, Frank Aiken was the key first signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we have a very proud record on nuclear non-proliferation. That does not depend on the triple lock at all. As there is no connection, why do people keep saying these kinds of things when there is no basis in fact for them at all? Nuclear non-proliferation will continue after any amendment to the triple lock. Our great work on human rights internationally in multilateral forums will continue after any amendment to the triple lock. Our commitment to multilateralism and the UN Charter will continue after any amendment to the triple lock. Above all, one of the most defining manifestations of Irish foreign policy, namely, peacekeeping, will continue after an amendment to the triple lock and could be enhanced by amendment to the triple lock because we will no longer have to depend on a Security Council resolution to participate in peacekeeping missions in the future. I really would prefer a more honest approach.

I would love if the Minister could be honest with the people and if he would put it to the people in the form of a referendum and to enshrine our neutrality in the Constitution. The Minister stood on a platform of protecting the triple lock in his last manifesto. Irish people are proud of our military neutrality. They are not embarrassed by some of the invited guests in the Minister’s consultative forum last summer. Irish people cherish our neutrality and the triple lock and we in Sinn Féin also cherish it. The consultative forum had no appetite to change our position on neutrality. There was no appetite to change the triple lock either. I was there for that debate which was held in Dublin Castle. It is bizarre that the Minister is trying to change it now. Why not put it to the people if he wants to remove the triple lock? It has not prevented us from engaging in any peace-keeping missions.

There has not been a peacekeeping mission approved by the Security Council of the United Nations since 2014. It is now 2024. The Security Council is paralysed. The idea that we would depend on Russia, China or the US to decide on whether Ireland should send troops to a peacekeeping mission, particularly given the role of like Russia, is completely outdated and absurd. That Russia would have a veto on whether Ireland would deploy troops to peace-keeping missions? That is where we are now. The world is changed. The Security Council is paralysed in how it may behave. Again, the Deputy has decided to equate the triple lock with neutrality. There is no question of changing our policy on military neutrality. We have been very clear on that. We are not joining any military alliance - we have no intention of that – and we are not part of any mutual defence pact. We do have to clarify the whole legislation in respect of having more than 12 people go to an evacuation zone, for example, to get our citizens out of a place like Afghanistan, Sudan or some other place where war breaks out, which is increasingly a feature of our need to intervene in given situations. We need far greater flexibility on that front.