Gerard P. Craughwell: IRG report and Defence Forces oversight
Gerard P. Craughwell addresses the committee about the publication and consequences of the Independent Review Group (IRG) report into the Defence Forces. He insists sexual violence must be stamped out, but condemns the IRG report's untested publication and calls for evidence-based reform and proper oversight.
Main concerns: Craughwell says the IRG report's publication put the Defence Forces in a horrible light by presenting untested material as evidence. He welcomes the Tribunal process that will test evidence in public and stresses the need for factual accuracy in committee records.
Evidence and research: The speaker reminds the committee that research has been carried out, including his own doctoral work and a subsequent Study Review Group, and says those findings align with the IRG conclusions. He challenges broad statements that the Defence Forces are uniquely in need of reform when other organisations have not been subjected to similar scrutiny.
Survey findings and workforce impact: Craughwell cites the Value Our People survey results as a clear warning: 24% reported experiencing or observing inappropriate behaviour, while 78% said they would not report. He says those figures show a problem that requires meaningful measures beyond rhetoric.
Oversight, remit and practical reform: He questions claims about the oversight body's remit-especially around pay and implementation costs-and urges honest discussion about what the external oversight can and cannot do. He recommends induction, training and enforceable consequences as part of a long-term strategy to reduce inappropriate behaviour.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thank you very much Chair. At the outset, let me put my cards very much on the table. I believe that any sort of sexual assault, any sort of sexual violence, anything of that nature that happens in any organisation needs to be stamped out and stamped out quickly. There is no room for bullying and harassment either in any organisation. And as you rightly point out, Ms King, the Defence Force is a very structured organisation with structured ranks etc. Having said that, I believe the publication of the Independent Review Group report was appalling. I believe it put the organisation into the public domain in a most horrible light. The IRG report quite rightly led to the establishment of a tribunal which will deal with evidence that is tested in the public domain, whereas the IRG report presented as evidence something that was untested. So I need to put that on the record. Indeed, I believe some of your own members have stated that you have seen no organisation in more need of reform than the Defence Forces. And I'd love somebody to explain to me where is the empirical evidence for that? How can you say something like that when no other organisation in this country has been subjected to a similar study like the IRG report? And indeed, recently we saw the HSE continue to employ a doctor who raped a nurse for several months after the rape took place. If I could just add on a point of information. It's incorrect to say before the committee that no research has been carried out. My doctoral research was carried out over four years from 1996 to 2000, and it was then followed by the Study Review Group which was set up by the government to independently investigate my research. And all of those findings and conclusions and recommendations accord precisely with the findings, conclusions and recommendations as set out by the IRG. So I think we have to be very careful as a committee to make sure that whatever is put on the record is factually correct. I'm not for one moment questioning Senator Clonan's doctor thesis. I fully respect the work he carried out and I fully respect the fact that that work led to the establishment of an independent monitoring group with oversight of the Defence Forces. That group included members of the representative bodies who are not included in the external oversight body. And indeed, during the debate that took place with the legislation for the external oversight body, the committee was almost as idiom at the fact that the Secretary General of the Department of Defence should not be a member of the oversight body. And we were assured at that time, I can quote Deputy Charlie Flanagan, he said the Secretary General of the Department of Defence as a full member, he saw it as a conflict of interest. This was on the 27th of February 2024. And he went on to outline, and it's available in the public record, why he thought it would be a conflict of interest for the Secretary General of the Department. Now independence, your strategy document is very clear on the integrity of the organisation and the independence of the organisation. The Secretary General of the Department is the accounting officer of the Department of Defence and as such the paymaster for the Defence Forces. Any implementation that needs to take place, and we talk about Chapter 8, such things, you say you don't touch pay, you have no remit in pay, well you do have a remit in strategic or specialist pay, you do have a remit in the establishment of the Lance Corporal rank, you do have a remit in respect to long service, and you do have a remit with respect to training. So all of those are issues that have to be paid for. So to say that you don't have a remit in pay, maybe not in pay per se, but in the final outcome will be a pay differential if somebody gets promoted. So I think we've got to be honest and straight about that. So I suppose in essence what I'm saying is first and foremost, the independent review group has coloured every discussion around the Defence Forces because it was published in the way it was. If the Tribunal finds exactly the same thing, and I have no reason to believe that it won't, but if it does, that would have been the time to talk about where we go from here. Indeed, after Senator Clonin's doctorate piece was done, there was some work done in reforming the organisation. Clearly not enough at the time, but I am concerned that statements are made about the appalling Defence Forces without any empirical evidence to show that the Defence Forces are different than a hospital, different than a prison service, etc. Maybe we allow the witnesses to address some of the issues that you have raised there. Chair, I just want to clarify, is there a question Senator Hasford? I'm asking where the empirical evidence is to support the fact that the Defence Forces is a worse place to work from a sexual harassment, sexual attack than any other organisation in the country. I don't think anybody is drawing that conclusion. Well, I mean, we're not, nor is it within our remit to make any comment about the IRG, so just to say that to you. Secondly, we deal with the issues on a current basis. We don't have any remit in relation to past. That's a matter for the Tribunal, and the Tribunal no doubt will deal with that. So what we can tell you is we get a quarterly report from the Defence Forces at a very senior level in relation to the level of complaint on various matters which are broken down into inappropriate behaviours, which include sexual assault, assault, a whole range of pieces. And I can tell you that the level in terms of the numbers is far too high for the organisation, far too high. What do you base that on? The numbers of the complaints that come in to the Defence Forces on an ongoing basis. Can you say any other organisation is different? I don't think that's the issue, sorry, in terms of one organisation being worse than the other. The remit of the oversight body is obviously pertaining directly to the Defence Forces, so they can speak on that. Is one too many? Is two too many? Is three too many? When you have the chair of the oversight body saying that the level is too high, on what basis is that? It's too high if it's one. But if it's not just the Defence Forces, perhaps the oversight body should be looking at every public sector organisation. We're looking at the Defence Forces. I think we have more than enough to do in terms of the remit that we have here, but if you want to address that. So from our perspective, we've had that engagement on an ongoing basis, as you can imagine, with the Chief of Staff, with the Head of Strategic HR. They don't actually disagree. I completely accept their bona fides in relation to their aspiration to change that and to bring those figures down. They believe that they have a zero-tolerant approach. The Chief of Staff is very, very clear in his engagement with us. What we're saying is, well, we accept that you are adopting a zero-tolerance approach, and we need to have that be more meaningful than it is, because we're saying the numbers need to come down. People in the Defence Forces need to be really aware that inappropriate behaviours are not acceptable and that zero-tolerance message has to go through and go down. The survey, the Value Our People survey, which I mentioned in answer to another deputy, was very useful in terms of giving us some more facts and figures. These are self-declared facts and figures. This is not somebody going out and doing an overview and writing their opinion. This is the people working in the – 60% of the people participated in the survey, and they're telling us 24% of people saying that they had either experienced or observed inappropriate behaviour, and 78% of people saying that they wouldn't report. Now, by any stretch of the imagination, I would have thought that those figures reveal to anybody who's listening, including the senior management people, including ourselves as an EOB, that there's an issue here, and there's a serious issue here, and that it needs to be addressed. Now, from the point of view of how it's addressed, our role is to oversee and monitor that there are sufficient measures put in place. So it's not just about saying we have a zero tolerance. It's about putting measures in place that every member of the defence forces understands and knows that if you behave like that, there is a consequence. Now, we accept the bona fides of the people who are running, that they want to get to a place where these figures are less. There are, for instance, things like in induction, we have several times suggested that at the induction stage, there should be a small module which deals with the behavioural issue and the inappropriate behaviour, and that you start a process at a very early stage, young and in the main young people coming in, that they know that that type of behaviour is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and if you do it, you're gone. Now, that is actually an approach that a lot of organisations take, and it appears it can be quite successful. So we're making those sort of, that's our role, we're making those sort of suggestions on a continuous basis to be helpful, to assist, because we do accept that the defence forces wants to get to a place where surveys are not actually returning that sort of result. They do have mandatory training now, don't they, for interpersonal relations? Well, they've had different types. They've used Cork University, they're involved in another one with Trinity College, but my point is, they're all elements and part of finding a solution. The induction piece is just another part. It's going to take some time, but that's Josephine going to... Yeah, we'll let Josephine in if you don't mind, and I'll get on to you then, Deputy Callaghan. Just a short, because we're gone over time. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. I think it's important to point out that the defence forces conducted this survey themselves. We value our people. That's a very mature thing for organisations to do, to find out for themselves. They've also committed to repeating it at the end of 12 months, and for the oversight body, that's a really important next milestone. But there's no getting away from the fact that in a very high response rate, 24% of staff reported experiencing, not observing, experiencing unacceptable behaviour, and that is very high for any workplace by any measure, and that's just a fact. They should be acknowledged, the defence forces, for having the maturity to find that out for themselves. Now to do something between the first one and the next one, to take some positive action, and I think the proof of the pudding will be whether that number goes up or goes down. And the second scary number is that 78% of those 24 did not report it, and that's not a sign, Senator asked earlier about impressions, it's not a sign of a mature workplace. And so I would be taking those two numbers and watching how they develop in the future.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
