Apologies have been received from Deputy Catherine Callaghan and Senator Gerard Craughwell. The joint committee is meeting in public session for its engagement with the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in relation to the ombudsman's annual report for 2025. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Justice Alan Mahon, Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, and Mr. David O'Connor, head of office.

The format of the meeting will be that I will invite Mr. Justice Mahon to make an opening statement. This will be followed by questions from members. Each member will have seven minutes to ask questions and for the witnesses to respond.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precinct will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they formally confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Both members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting. I invite Mr. Justice Alan Mahon to deliver his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting and for the opportunity to highlight some aspects of the work which I, as Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, ODF, and my office do.

As committee members are aware, my office was established by the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 and commenced its business in 2005. The role of the ODF is, essentially, to provide serving and former members of the Defence Forces with a free and independent complaint resolution process. The ODF is independent from the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. While the ODF cannot make binding decisions, he or she can make findings and recommendations. In practice, over 95% of recommendations are accepted by the Minister for Defence.

My office is relatively small, with just three staff members, of whom Mr. David O’Connor is the most senior, and myself. Our offices are based on Earlsfort Terrace, having moved there from Hatch Street Lower two years ago. Our budget from the Department of Defence is a little over €400,000, including salaries. The Secretary General of the Department has indicated to me on occasion over the years that any request for an increase in my budget would be favourably considered. However, to date, no such increase has been required or sought. While my office is usually busy, and sometimes extremely busy, it can manage reasonably well on its current budget and without additional staff. In general, most complaints are processed and reported on within four to eight weeks. A small number of more complex complaints, or cases where difficulties with the collection of information arises, may take a little longer to conclude. All new complaints receive immediate attention and all investigations commence without delay. Complaints of an urgent nature are always given priority.

I note that the committee’s primary focus this morning is the annual report for 2025. As the 2025 annual report is not due for release until the end of this month, the version provided to the committee is a draft of the final report but I do not foresee any significant changes to it prior to its final release. I confirm that a copy of the draft report has been forwarded to the Minister for Defence for her information. The annual report includes case summaries, which I believe are useful in providing examples of the work of my office over this 12-month period, but which are written having due regard to the strict requirement for confidentiality as provided for in section 10 of the 2004 Act.

The committee will note from the annual report that in 2025, and over the previous two years, directly referred complaints, as compared to complaints that were initially referred to and investigated by the Defence Forces’ internal grievance process, had steadily increased in percentage terms. In 2022, less than 10% of referrals were directly referred. In 2023, this increased to 50%. In 2024, the figure was 80%. In 2025, the figure was 90%. In my annual report for 2023, I speculated as to the cause of this rapidly increasing number of directly referred complaints, and I will quote from that report:

A possible explanation is some decrease in confidence that the internal Section 114 process is yielding satisfactory outcomes for complainants. Additionally, the IRG Report over 12 months ago did little to create confidence in the internal investigation process.

Also, the option for a serving member to directly refer a complaint to my office prior to 2021 was unavailable. I should also say that I am aware that significant strides have been made within the Defence Forces over the past two years or so to improve their internal investigation process, including better training of its investigators. Importantly also, the Defence Forces have appointed a civilian head of strategic HR.

Interpersonal-type complaints, which cover a variety of issues including bullying and exclusion, are small in number and, including the trend so far this year, are decreasing in number as an overall percentage of complaints. I do not have figures for this category of complaints, which have been, or are being, investigated under what is referred to as the chapter 1 internal Defence Forces' process or, indeed, the recently introduced and revamped Defence Forces' internal investigation process for bullying-type complaints under the management of the interim grievance manager.

There is a significant variation of complaint subject matters in any one year or over a number of years. Complaints relating to promotion and course selection make up the largest category, with 35% in 2022, 50% in 2023 and 50% in 2024. I am of the belief that the publicity afforded to historical cases of bullying and inappropriate behaviour over the past three or four years, including the so-called Women of Honour, the independent review group, IRG, report of 2022 and the establishment of the current tribunal of inquiry, have helped to emphasise that such behaviour in the Defence Forces is unacceptable and will, where it is reported, be vigorously dealt with. Personnel engaging in such behaviour are now, I believe, much more likely to be exposed and disciplined than might have been the case previously.

The committee will see other interesting statistics from the 2025 annual report, such as the fact that the noticeable increase in complaints from officers as compared to enlisted personnel in 2024 was not repeated in 2025. Officer complaints in 2023 represented just 10% of the total, the figure was 40% in 2024 and the figure dropped to 15% in 2025. In general, over recent years, complaints from female personnel are roughly proportionate to their number in the Defence Forces. Over the past four years, there were no complaints from female personnel of alleged gender discrimination, whereas there were two such complaints from male personnel over that period. In 2025, I did not receive any complaint of what might be described as inappropriate sexual behaviour. Of the three military formations in the Defence Forces, namely, the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service, almost two thirds of complaints to my office in 2025 were from Air Corps personnel, which is clearly disproportionate to its size. The Army has just over 6,000 personnel, while the Air Corps and Naval Service each have under 800.

I am happy to report that I continue to receive excellent co-operation from the Department and from the Defence Forces in relation to requests for information and documentation. In particular, the Defence Forces' grievance management office is always helpful and efficiently responds to the frequent requests from my office for information.

I thank Mr. Justice Mahon for his presentation and I thank Mr. O'Connor for being here. I thank them for the very important work they do. When I did my research into the conditions and circumstances of service experienced by my female colleagues, which I started 30 years ago, and my PhD, which put on the record and set out the systemic and systematic discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual assault and rape of my female colleagues, was published in 2000, I experienced immediate retaliation and reprisal from the military authorities, unfortunately. I want to put on the record that one of the very few people who reached out to me to give me support was one of Mr. Justice Mahon's colleagues, Paulyn Marrinan Quinn. She went on to be the first Ombudsman for the Defence Forces and set up the office. She did great work and I thank Mr. Justice Mahon for continuing this work and for being the independent arbiter that the Defence Forces need.

Mr. Justice Mahon said he had had very few or no complaints about what he termed sexually inappropriate behaviour. Does he think that is because An Garda Síochána is now mandated to investigate all such complaints? Mr. Justice Mahon referred to the "so-called Women of Honour" and part of the context was with regard to raising issues of historical abuse. My understanding from my dealings with the Women of Honour is that the whole point of them coming forward with their disclosures was to say it was not historical and that it was persistent and remains systemic and systematic in the Defence Forces.

Will Mr. Justice Mahon clarify whether this is simply in the rear-view mirror now, a phenomenon that no longer exists, or whether it still pertains. He also said the IRG did little to inspire confidence in the Defence Forces' reporting mechanisms. Does he think the IRG was responsible, in the manner of its report, for bringing the Defence Forces and their processes into disrepute or was it simply that it was doing its task and reporting and making findings and conclusions to that effect? In fact, it was not the IRG who did little to inspire confidence. Would Mr. Justice Mahon accept that actually it was the Defence Forces and the military authorities themselves, in terms of the conclusions and findings set out by the IRG?

In relation to the last question, I do not blame the IRG and its work for dismantling confidence in the internal system. I think the IRG highlighted it. That was an explanation to me as to why there was, over a couple of years, very quick uptake of the entitlement for serving members to directly refer complaints to my office. There was a perception in the Defence Forces that the internal system was very well designed on paper but, because the appointed military investigator was an officer, there was a belief, rightly or wrongly, that people would not get a fair outcome from a complaint. That was the case with quite a significant number of members of the Defence Forces. I know what has happened and this is very important. In the couple of years since, thanks to the IRG report and establishing the tribunal, and the cases made by the Women of Honour, the internal investigation system within the Defence Forces has hugely improved. They now have invested in the training of officers to conduct independent investigations. It is a slow process. There is an increasing confidence. Perhaps, if you are somebody who is thinking of making a complaint, there is a certain attraction of going to an external agency like the ombudsman rather than an internal system. There have been great improvements. The criticisms that might fairly have been made three, four, five or six years ago and in the past probably would not be made, certainly to the same extent, now.

The Senator's first question was to do with the Women of Honour and the fact they had made the case that while their individual cases were often somewhat historical there was a belief among that group that this behaviour was still going on in the Defence Forces.

I think that was borne out by the IRG because it concluded-----

Yes, and-----

If I recall, the IRG, which was a judge-led review, stated that the Defence Forces was a workplace culture that barely tolerated women and considered them less than human, which is quite a finding.

I do not know whether I would agree with that particular statement. I know that is what was said.

That is the on-record conclusion.

My own view, based on my experience, is that there is a completely different approach now in the Defence Forces. I have spoken to many female members of the Defence Forces, officially and unofficially, and I get the impression from them that it is a much better place for women to work in now than it might have been in the past. Also, because of all the exposure over the past few years of what went on, there is a completely different approach from-----

It is interesting to me because there was quite some considerable coverage 26 years ago and there was an independent Government inquiry which investigated my research, the study review group, which reported in 2002. For two years there was almost constant reporting but no change, as borne out by the Women of Honour's disclosures in 2021, and then the IRG. So, I find it interesting that during that 23-year period there was no change in the culture but Mr. Justice Mahon is saying that it is his view that since 2023, in the past three years, there has been a dramatic turnaround and transformation.

The important work Senator Clonan did, and I was well aware of it, I think was forgotten generally over the years. It was a big topic at the time but then it seems to have been forgotten about, certainly within the Defence Forces. My view now is that there is a much greater awareness in the Defence Forces and among senior people there.

When I brought forward evidence in a PhD, which was supervised, of criminal behaviour that was systemic and systematic in its nature, with the military authorities promulgating policies and standard operating procedures that were unlawful, contrary to the aspirations as set out in the Constitution, and bearing in mind all officers swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the Constitution, that is still on the record as an academic document. I published papers throughout the noughties and into the last decade. My most recent peer-reviewed publication on this issue was this year. How can an organisation that is tasked to protect, serve and defend the State forget about systemic and systematic criminal behaviour involving sexual assault and rape? When Mr. Justice Mahon says "forget"-----

Well, it is-----

-----I would say it was actually covered up, and I say that respectfully. We have to be very careful about language because, 23 years after my report was made, and it is forensic in its detail, the IRG found things had not changed and, in fact, they had deteriorated.

The Senator has run out of time. I allowed extra time there.

The last question on An Garda Síochána, does Mr. Justice Mahon think that may have had an impact on the-----

Yes, absolutely. Anyone in the Defence Forces of corporal or higher rank, including officers, who would now engage in any of that sort of conduct would be far more aware now of the serious consequences for their career and also the possibility of a Garda investigation. There is much greater awareness now. The Defence Forces themselves are more on top of the situation now than they perhaps were five, ten or 15 years ago. I think there is a new era there.

Okay.

I am delighted to hear that. I thank Mr. Justice Mahon.

I appreciate Mr. Justice Mahon's presence here. We are in the habit, when personnel from the Defence Forces come before us, of thanking them for their service. Mr. Justice Mahon's service to the State is in a different capacity but we will thank him nonetheless for his considerable service. I do not have a huge number of questions, although usually when I say that I think of some more at the end. In terms of the nature of complaints, Mr. Justice Mahon identified in his opening statement that a disproportionate number of complaints come from the Air Corps. I appreciate that the nature of complaints is time-bound and they can only be made within 12 months of the event and so on, so they do not go into historical events. There are obviously still concerns reported in terms of health and safety issues in the Air Corps, including potential recent reports of inadequate servicing of equipment and implications for health and safety.

I know there is only so much detail Mr. Justice Mahon can give but does he receive complaints in terms of health and safety generally speaking, particularly from the Air Corps?

The other initial question that occurs to me relates to the recent findings of the European Economic and Social Committee that the Defence Forces were in breach of the working time directive. I am not totally clear whether pay and conditions and that side of things are within the ombudsman's remit but it is obviously a huge concern, particularly for the representative organisations, RACO and PDFORRA, that there are personnel who have been working overtime and not receiving adequate compensation for it, and that the issues of overtime are not adequately recorded. That feeds into a wider issue of retention of Defence Forces personnel, the esteem in which they are held and the respect they feel. Will Mr. Justice Mahon clarify if that is within his remit? If it is, does he receive complaints in terms of issues of inadequate recording of overtime or-----

The answer to that is "No". I cannot recall any case relating to overtime. As to health and safety, a very small minority of Air Corps cases involve a health and safety issue. Like other branches of the Defence Forces, most of the complaints from Air Corps personnel are to do with promotion, course selection, going overseas and things of that nature. Also, while there was this big increase and very obvious disproportionate number of complaints coming from the Air Corps in 2025, in the first three or four months of this year, and I do not have the figures, they seem to have dropped back behind the Army complaints into a position you would more expect them to be in the overall percentage of the total claims. Last year may have been a bit of a blip. I do not see that continuing into this year, although it is early days.

Mr. Justice Mahon is in a position to make recommendations. They are non-binding but typically they are applied, from what he is saying, to a particular set of circumstances. Is it within his scope to make recommendations as to the general, outside of an individual case, on how the rules, policies or procedures as they currently stand are applied? Is it within his remit to make recommendations as to potential changes in protocol or even potential changes in legislation?

I am very conscious of the fact that we had pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025, much of it focused on the issue of the triple lock, which is obviously a horse of a different colour. One element that may not have got as much media attention was the fact that it contained recommendations on the provisions for suspension of officers and so on. RACO, in particular, made the case that the proposed changes were inadequately vague. He probably will not wish to comment on proposed legislation but does Mr. Justice Mahon have a view - from his experience of complaints that are heard - as to whether there is adequate clarity on the current procedures for suspension of officers or whether any changes are to be made?

On the issue of making recommendations, obviously I do not have the power to do what is often referred to as an own motion inquiry. In other words, if I see an area that is frequently arising in different complaints, I cannot conduct an inquiry into that particular topic. My inquiry is restricted to a particular complaint from an individual. However, quite often, if I come across some regulation, administrative instruction or practice in the Defence Forces that I felt was unfair and had impacted this individual, I can then make a general recommendation that it should or might be reviewed or altered in some way. In my experience, almost all the recommendations I have made have been accepted by the Minister for Defence.

That is an interesting point. Given that Mr. Justice Mahon is led by complaints, it probably constrains him from identifying a thematic set of issues that consistently arise and therefore need to be addressed at a policy level. Is he of the view that his office should be given the scope for own motion inquiries, as he titled them? Would that require a change of legislation or just statute?

Yes, it would require that. I have raised this and have got a fairly sympathetic response from the Department, but it requires legislation. My own opinion is because there is likely to be new legislation anyway over the next couple of years in the whole area of defence, and maybe the whole area of my office and its jurisdiction, I will not be around then to see it but I hope it will find its way into some legislation in the future. It would require a significant amendment, so it does not surprise me it has not happened yet and is a subject that has only arisen in relatively recent times. However, the national or the public services Ombudsman has that power and I think the Ombudsman for Children has that power. More recent legislation in the whole area of the world of ombudsmen seems to have it. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has that power. It is now getting into legislation. It is hoped that might happen at some stage in the future.

I thank Mr. Justice Mahon for his presentation. He must have a very effective office considering it had 58 cases in total in 2025, six carried over from 2024, and it was able to deal with 32 of those complaints. That is pretty good.

My question also relates to the fact that the Air Corps represented two-thirds of the cases - 19 out of 32 - when you consider we have over 6,000 Army personnel and just 800 Air Corps personnel. It seems to be a very high number of complaints. It rings alarm bells. We do not know what the reason for those alarm bells is but it is certainly something I am sure the ombudsman will be addressing in his report. It does seem quite high, quite honestly, and way over the norm.

My own view is that it was a one-year blip. The Air Corps complaints, in terms of percentage of overall claims, have dropped significantly so far this year. We are nearly four months into the year so I do not think it is going to repeat itself. If the Deputy were to ask me why there were so many, I cannot give him an answer. It is just that is where the complaints came from last year. Last year, and I am only trying to recollect now and may not be quite accurate, there were very few from the Naval Service. There was one or two, whereas the previous year there were a greater number. You get these variations. I do not think you learn much from just looking at one year. It may be interesting from a statistical point of view but you really have to look at it over a number of years.

You can get these blips.

Some of the areas have already been touched on. Like my colleagues, I welcome Mr. Justice Mahon. I am glad he is appearing in front of us and we are not appearing in front of him. I also welcome his colleague, Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Justice Mahon said that 95% of his findings and recommendations have been accepted. Would he talk us through the types of complaints he receives and the process when he receives complaints? What is the process in relation to investigating complaints? Does he have an investigative team attached to his office? Perhaps he could talk us through the process briefly.

As I indicated earlier, the office is just three people plus me. There are four of us. Mr. O'Connor is an appointed investigating officer. I have the power under the Act to appoint an investigating officer and he is the appointed investigating officer. The reality is that all the staff partake, in some shape or form, in every investigation because a lot of it is now done by email. When we receive a complaint that has already been with the Defence Forces, under section 114, or if it is a complaint directly referred to my office and has never been raised with the Defence Forces system, as the majority now are, we investigate as you would expect. We get statements from the complainant and the necessary details. If individuals have been identified as the cause of the complaint or the complaint is against individuals, we look for statements from those people. We have a liaison officer in the grievance management office, GMO, in the Curragh and are in constant touch with that office. We look for regulations, administrative instructions and contact details for individuals. We get great co-operation from the office and from the Department when we need information from it. We then follow up and get statements.

I or Mr. O'Connor occasionally meet individual complainants or witnesses. Some people have greater difficulty in expressing the details of their complaint. If it is a very complex matter, sometimes it is easier just to go and meet the individual in Baldonnel, the Curragh, at our office or wherever else. When we have done our investigation, I write a report. It is no less than 10 pages and might be 20 or 25 pages long. In it, I set out the details of the complaint and indicate my findings. Recommendations are not made in every case because otherwise you might be accused of crying wolf. You make recommendations when you see a good reason to. Even if a complaint is not being upheld, I might still make a recommendation because I might have come across something that I felt was unfair or should be changed. Copies of that report are then sent to the Minister for Defence, the complainant, the GMO in the Curragh and the Chief of Staff. Sometimes a copy goes to the head of the particular brigade. Those are the people who get the report.

People against whom allegations are made - which would arise in quite a number of cases, perhaps relating to unfair treatment or whatever else - are given the opportunity to defend themselves. If there is likely to be an adverse finding against an individual, which would not happen in many cases but would happen from time to time, that individual would be given an opportunity to make a submission before the report is finalised and sent to the various people I have mentioned.

In the 2025 draft report, as in the previous two or three reports, there are two or three pages where the process is described in detail. Any would-be complainant can read that and see that this is how a complaint is dealt with from start to finish. We get feedback from complainants occasionally. A complainant whose complaint is not upheld might make his or her views known. Sometimes we even get "Thank you" letters from people whose complaints have not been upheld. We do not get huge feedback but do sometimes get some.

I know some of the 58 cases were carried over from the previous year. How many of those were from former members? Were any from former members?

I cannot give the Senator a figure. I can get a figure for him, but there would be very few. Complaints from retired or former members are very few in number. They are a very small percentage. There was one retired member complaint last year. Our legislation requires that an individual who wants to refer a complaint to the ODF must do so within a year of the incident or issue arising, or within a year of becoming aware of the problem, whichever occurs later. There is a fairly tight limitation period. The retired members who complain, those few who do, are generally people who have recently retired and perhaps something happened just before they retired about which they to make a complaint. There is no such limitation period for making a complaint directly to the internal process in the Defence Forces.

The ombudsman's office has a limit.

There is a one-year time limit for us, but there no time limit at all if you want to complain within the Defence Forces.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. As I am sure the Cathaoirleach said, we are a new committee and the fact that the witnesses have come here today is a part of the new level of accountability we have in this area, which is important. I hope that will be reassuring for the men and women who are serving.

I thank Mr. Justice Mahon for his opening statement. He made comments about how his office and the processes have increased the level of accountability and have resulted in a potential culture shift in the organisation. That highlights the importance of having accountability so that people are held accountable for their actions, and how that can change things quite dramatically. That is very positive.

I also thank Mr. Justice Mahon for a very succinct report. I thought the use of case studies was very illustrative for us to understand his work, the processes and how all of that operates. It very much brought to light the work he does behind the numbers.

I also compliment the civilian office. It shows how the incorporation of civilian elements within our armed forces and our security personnel overall can be of benefit to everybody. It is worth highlighting that. I particularly highlight the fact that there are clear terms of reference. It is a small office. As Mr. Justice Mahon said, there are just the four of them but all their operations are very efficient.

I congratulate the witnesses on that. It is important to highlight when there are clear efficiencies within governmental operations because we hear a lot of criticism all of the time.

I have a couple of specific questions. I myself am a former reservist.

So am I.

Very good. In this report, I thought it was interesting that there were no direct reports from the Reserve. That may be just be this year and maybe there were in previous years. I am asking for insights around that. Maybe everything is fine but are those in the Reserve aware of the office?

They are. I cannot give the Deputy an exact figure but, so far this year, there have been a couple of complaints from members of the Reserve. The numbers in the Reserve since my time in it have dwindled. There is a big effort to bring back up the numbers. As that happens, I expect we will get more complaints. Generally, they are aware of us. We have quite an informative website. Word of mouth is also important. Many of the reservists have a lot of contact with the PDF personnel. I do not think there is any lack of awareness in the Reserve of the service that my office provides. The answer is yes, we get complaints. We have had a couple in the last couple of months.

When I took over in the office last year, I contacted the head of the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association, RDFRA. I let it know the office is available for Reserve members as well as Permanent Defence Force members.

I appreciate that and it provides that reassurance. Sometimes, when there is not a number there, it prompts those types of queries. Following up on Senator Wilson's question on the processes, when the office gets a direct complaint - as indicated, it carries out an initial investigation - at what point does it notify the service and who is notified? How does the office go about that? Who gets notified of this complaint? When does it happen? Is there a process for the response back to the ombudsman?

Our contact in the Defence Forces is the grievance management office, GMO, which is quite a busy office, by all accounts. Almost immediately, a complaint is referred directly. If the complaint was with the Defence Forces first, we will ask them for their full investigation file, which we will be given fairly promptly. Much of the donkey work from an investigative point of view will have already been done. Where the direct referral comes in, we are almost immediately in contact with the GMO because we would be looking for information and contact details. The Defence Forces know pretty much immediately that Corporal X or Captain Y is making a complaint. We would then use that office to seek statements from individuals if we are having difficulty contacting them on a one-to-one basis. The office is always very helpful. We might need other information. If it related to a promotion competition, we would want details of the promotion competition, the advertising of that competition and so on. There is fairly immediate contact with the GMO once we get a complaint.

The ombudsman's office does not contact the individual or the division about which the complaint is made. The ombudsman does not engage with them directly; it is always through the GMO.

No, we engage with them directly. We get their contact details and we would usually deal with them directly. It is done in a confidential way and they have the opportunity to make a statement.

When the ombudsman's office gets those contact details from the GMO, does the GMO let the individuals or departments or whatever know that the ombudsman will be in touch?

I do not know if it does. We would ask the GMO for Captain X's email details because we wish to get a statement from him. I do not know. I do not think the GMO sends an email to Captain X saying he will hear from us.

That is really what my question is. If I am Captain X, is the first contact I get from the ombudsman as opposed to the GMO?

We deal very sensitively with individuals against whom complaints are made.

Of course.

That is part of the natural justice that is required. I imagine some of them may be somewhat taken aback when they receive a letter from my office. We try to deal with it in a sensitive way. The co-operation in almost every case is excellent.

I thank both witnesses for coming in. I certainly listened to what they have presented this morning. It gives me great confidence in the efficacy of the office. It is certainly taking a long-term, objective view. I have taken great confidence from what we have been told this morning.

Many of the questions I had intended to ask have already been asked and answered so I will not put the witnesses through that again. I have a number of quick points I ask to be addressed. I note there is an option to complain internally within the Defence Forces or to go to the ombudsman's office. Would it be preferable, from the witnesses' point of view, to have the onus on the member or ex-member to make the complaint directly internally in the first instance? You often find that in complaint set-ups, you should make a complaint in the first instance to the parties involved.

In some ombudsman processes that exist in this country and across the sea, there is a requirement to utilise or exhaust the internal system. There is not that requirement in the 2004 Act. The Deputy asked me if I would prefer if they went through the internal process. For personal reasons, it is great when they go through the internal system because a lot of the investigative work is done within the Defence Forces, such as getting contact details and statements, because their investigation is often quite detailed and, in fairness to the Defence Forces, often very impressive. It makes our job easier if we get a big file from the Defence Forces with a lot of this donkey work done. From a purely selfish point of view, it would be great if everybody went through the internal process.

I completely accept the entitlement of individuals to directly refer and I understand why they might want to do that. If you are in an organisation, do you really want your complaint becoming known within your unit? That may happen, depending on the circumstances. I fully appreciate the desire that a lot of personnel have to come directly. That is there and over the past three or four years since we have introduced that entitlement, we have put a system in place where we deal with it. A complaint coming directly to us can sometimes take a little bit longer because a lot of the donkey work, as I described it - probably a bit unfairly - has been done if it goes through the internal system.

We have to do that work before the investigation takes off so there is a slight delay. I accept that a lot of personnel probably find it more comfortable to come directly to the ombudsman.

Mr. Justice Mahon mentioned there is a limitation period of 12 months to bring a complaint. Is that from the date of a particular incident?

Yes. Section 6 of the Act says a person has a year to refer a complaint to my office from the date of the event or action, as it is called in the Act, or incident or, alternatively, 12 months from the date on which the person becomes aware that this incident has occurred, whichever occurs later. In 99% of cases, the 12 months from the date of the incident is the date. It is a reasonable time. We now have systems in place because when someone makes a complaint to the Defence Forces initially - this is one of the benefits of going through the Defence Forces - we are notified that so-and-so has lodged a complaint. It is not a referral to us at that stage but we get a copy of the notification of complaint. It is filed by us and it may stay there forever or that individual may then decide to refer that complaint to us if he or she is not happy with the way the investigation is going within the Defence Forces. He or she may decide to pull the plug after a couple of months or to get a report from the internal process and then come to us. After a certain period of time, because we know this individual has a complaint in the internal system, we will write to that individual after three months, through the grievance management office, to tell them we know they have submitted a complaint to the internal system and to be conscious that they can still jump ship and come to the ODF. Assuming we have not heard from them, we also warn them again at nine months, measured from the date of the incident, that in three months' time they will be out of time. We get a bit of a rush at that stage sometimes, when somebody realises they are going to be out of time.

Does the limitation period run from the date on which the ODF receives a notification?

No, it runs from the date of the incident. There could be a situation where the incident occurs on 1 January and the individual might not lodge a complaint until 1 February. That year runs from 1 January and he or she might put the complaint into the internal process. After six months in the internal process, individuals might get a result they are not happy with or they might feel it is not moving along fast enough. It is at that stage they might decide to ask us to take it over or ask the grievance management office to forward it to us, which is often the case. They might wait to get the final result from that complaint, which is a ruling from the Chief of Staff but that time has not paused, so they have to be careful. That is why we sent what we call the three-month letter and the nine-month letter. They now have two warnings that time is running out. Before we started that, there were quite a few cases where, through no fault of the complainant - maybe they were waiting for a ruling in the internal system and it went over the year - they were out of time and we could not take their complaint. We introduced the three-month letter and the nine-month letter. That seems to have knocked that problem on the head. If people really want to make a complaint to the ombudsman, they have plenty of notice.

Has anything ever come to the ombudsman indicating that a member has been adversely treated by the Defence Forces by virtue of making a negative complaint to his office?

Not specifically. Occasionally, we have expressions of concern from would-be complainants about whether, if they to go to our office, it will negatively impact on them. We emphasise the independence of the office. We do not have experience, certainly in my time, of that happening. I do not believe it happens. That does not mean a person complained of is not upset that a colleague or somebody has complained about them but I do not think anything negative happens in practice.

The Deputy asked an important question. That is why I allowed the discussion to go on. I call Deputy Stanley.

I apologise for being late, so perhaps my questions have been covered already. I have some on the annual report. On complaints regarding gender discrimination, I noticed over the past four years there have been no complaints from female personnel of alleged gender discrimination. That is welcome, as is the fact that in 2025 the office did not receive any complaints of what might be described as inappropriate sexual behaviour. Is it the case that the establishment of the office in itself has acted as a deterrent? This is obviously good news. It seems to indicate there is a level of oversight and there is a complaints mechanism in place through the office, which seems to be doing very good work. Does Mr. Justice Mahon believe the presence of the office and its establishment have led to positive figures like that? We know in previous years there were a lot of complaints.

I do. There are also all of the improvements under way within the Defence Forces in training of military investigators and the creation of the IGM.

What is that?

The interim grievance manager. Mr. Kevin Duffy is heading that. It deals with interpersonal-type complaints - bullying and complaints of that nature. We have no direct involvement with Mr. Duffy or his office so I do not know how many cases he has had to date. With the creation of the Defence Forces Tribunal, there seems to be a greater awareness of the need to treat people properly within the Defence Forces by senior management which is becoming clear. There is a more sympathetic reception on the part of senior military people to complaints.

I think there has been a huge overall improvement, that is my feeling-----

Could it be called a culture shift?

A culture shift, yes.

I had a question regarding the Reserve and where it fits into this. Deputy O'Connell heard the answer to that so I am not going to go back over that. It is good news that those involved are aware and included under it and have a right to make complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The Air Corps is relatively a very small percentage of the overall Defence Forces but 19 of the 32, which is two thirds of the complaints, were from the Air Corps. Why is that?

I do not have an answer to that-----

I seems to be-----

It is clearly disproportionate. As I said in answer to one of the questions I was asked earlier, I feel that this is a blip for last year because it was not the case the previous year. So far this year the number of complaints from Air Corps personnel are way down, which is more proportionate to the overall, so I think it is-----

In relation to 19 out of 32 Air Corps complaints for the last year, were they to do with a particular issue or was there a commonality between them?

No. I do not have the details in front of me but from my recollection most of those complaints would be to do with course selection or promotion. They would follow the same pattern as complaints from other parts or any other divisions of the Defence Forces. I think it was an unusual occurrence last year and I do not see it happening this year.

Okay.

Other than that I cannot really give the Deputy an explanation why it happened last year.

With regard to the 90% that come to the ombudsman directly, does that still tell us that there is a fear within the lower ranks in the Defence Forces of trying to use the internal procedures that are there? Without going to the Defence Forces first they are going to the ombudsman's office first, and we can see the numbers have increased on a sliding scale over the last the last three years. It indicates the numbers actually going directly to the ombudsman have increased dramatically, with up to 90% of complaints. Does that indicate there is still a fear among the rank and file within the Defence Forces of making complaints internally, maybe for fear of negative outcomes from more senior officers?

I think it is down to simply having a choice on the one hand to take a complaint internally to the Defence Forces through some personnel officer who you may know, so there is a degree of awkwardness or embarrassment there, or on the other hand taking the option to go to the ombudsman, where it may end up anyway if you do not like the outcome. I expect a lot of personnel will say to themselves why waste time going through the internal system because we have the option. It is there and it is probably less awkward often on a personal level. I am not talking about there being any negative steps-----

Is the ombudsman's office more efficient?

Yes in that it is sort of independent. There is a certain attraction there if you are a complainant. It is just people making that choice.

The report mentioned that the vast majority of the complaints were dealt with in four to six weeks. A lot of people in other jobs and in various positions will go to a solicitor as a first port of call instead of going an internal route or even using a representative body like a trade union. This might be a bit unusual but sometimes there are good reasons for that. Does Mr. Justice Mahon find that in some cases there are certain personnel in the Defence Forces who may go to a solicitor outside in relation to a complaint, before the ombudsman's office becomes aware of it, and then it may be referred back to the ombudsman? Is that an issue? I have certainly seen it arising in recent years in places of employment, where this is happening rather than going through and using internal grievance procedures.

We get very few complaints, maybe one or two a year, that may include a letter from a solicitor, where the complainant has gone and sought legal advice and the solicitor has written to us. In other words, the complaint has come into the office by way of a solicitor's letter. Obviously, if a person wants to be represented by a solicitor, they can do so and we do not have any particular issue with that, if this is their wish. It would be a tiny percentage, probably 1%, of cases, where we would see any involvement of a solicitor. Sometimes we do occasionally see a member of the Defence Forces going to a solicitor and maybe the solicitor tells them they are better off just going to the ombudsman, so the solicitor drops out then and we get the complaint. One might see that there was a solicitor involved at some stage, but really very few complaints come to us with a solicitor involved.

Thank you.

Before I go on to the second round I want to thank you for the work that you are doing. As the witnesses are contributing here this morning it strikes me that there are many other offices that would have things to learn from the way you do your work, such as the check backs and all of that. Obviously your experience has taught you how to do things quite meticulously, so I commend you on that and on the role that you play.

How aware are new recruits and everybody within the system of the services offered by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces or what the office is there for? Is it incorporated as part of the training for new recruits or at different levels?

I think they are, generally speaking, very aware. We advertise, is it SIGNAL-----

Yes, we advertise in SIGNAL, which is the magazine of RACO. Last year I contacted PDFORRA and it put out a representative association-wide communication that the office of the ombudsman is there. I know that, in recruit training, and I presume in cadet training as well, all the trainees are given A7 lectures, which are about anti-bullying and what to do if you have a complaint. They will explain the redress a wrong system there. That is the internal mechanism. I do not know if, in that lecture, they make them aware of our office but if one was to utilise the A7 system, as the ombudsman said, they would get a letter from us saying that, if they now wish to, they can complain to us directly. I am also aware there are ongoing lectures for members of the Defence Forces at all ranks in relation to sexual, ethical and responsible relationships, SERR, training. That answers some of Senator Clonan's and Deputy Stanley's questions. There is ongoing training there about what is appropriate behaviour between Defence Forces members.

Are the witnesses satisfied that there is a level of awareness and that members fully understand the processes in how to make a complaint directly to the ombudsman and all that?

I think so, yes.

An admission made by a person in a preliminary examination or any investigation under the Act shall not be admissible as evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings. Have any of your investigations led to criminal proceedings?

Not that I am aware of no.

Obviously that differs from somebody's counselling notes being able to be used in criminal proceedings. How important do the witnesses think it is to have that in there?

The position is designed to ensure that, with a civil complaint system like ours, compared with going to the Garda, all the things that might be said in statements to us cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial.

I think we will see this across other areas. It is part of our civil law. I have never seen that come into play in the real world. I think it is there to make it easier for people to make complaints without fear of reprisal.

I think it is the right thing. Obviously, we have the whole question of counselling. Is there anything further that this committee can do to support the ombudsman’s work?

No, I do not think so. It is useful to have a session like this. This helps. Other than that, I cannot think of anything.

Except the legislation for the no-motion inquiries.

Yes, that is something I think will come in time. I think it would be a useful tool to have, and I am fairly confident it will happen in the fullness of time, but probably not while I am around.

In the fullness of time, we will all be dead.

In the long run, as they say in economics. I am going to go back for a second round of questions.

I ask the witnesses to forgive me, because I am going to recap a little. I have a very deep interest in this area and the work the ombudsman's office is doing. I was immersed in the culture of the Defence Forces and their norms for behaviour and values for 11 years. I went through the cadet school and I served overseas with the Defence Forces. I then did that deep dive with my research.

To recap on that aspect, my research, this chronology, was published in 2000. It got saturation coverage, not only in the Irish media but also in the international media. This was throughout the 2000s, and in 2014 I published a bestselling book, by Irish standards, about that whole experience. There have been two separate television documentaries during that time about the culture of the Defence Forces and the outcomes for female and male personnel. Despite that, the independent Government report that investigated my research, from the study review group, which was published in 2002, found that not only were women targeted for this type of sexual assault and rape but also young men in the Air Corps, Naval Service and Army. This was to the extent that an independent monitoring group was appointed. That work went on for ten years and was then suspended for some reason in 2011. We also had the setting up of the Office of the Defence Forces Ombudsman in 2004–2005.

Despite all that coverage, and during that period I did at least a dozen major feature and analysis articles in The Irish Times on the culture of the Defence Forces, on 11 September 2021, the Women of Honour group came forward and made its fresh disclosures. The independent review group, which reported in 2023, found that nothing had changed in the Defence Forces and that, in fact, the situation may have deteriorated. As I said, the judge's finding was that it was a workplace that "barely tolerate[d] women" and considered them less than human.

In relation to making complaints, the independent review group said there was a culture of reprisal and retaliation embedded in the workplace culture of the Defence Forces and that anybody who made any kind of complaint, whether about health and safety, logistics or inappropriate behaviour, would immediately experience retaliation. That took the form of workplace and online rumour mongering, character assassination, false allegations and threats of charges, with the ultimate goal of having the complainants discharged from the Defence Forces. Those are findings made by the judge.

Mr. Justice Mahon is saying there has been a complete transformation in the culture of the Defence Forces since March 2023, which is when the IRG published its report – I accept he does not agree with its findings - and that people no longer experience reprisals for raising concerns. Why does he think that is? What has happened in the last three years to have made such a change? I am asking this in the context where all the other reports, doctoral theses, television programmes, documentaries and the independent monitoring group had no effect and seemed to make things worse. Mr. Justice Mahon is saying that the situation has transformed over the last three years. I would just like to know why he thinks that is.

In relation to the IRG, I do not disagree with its findings. I understood the Senator to suggest that I had expressed disagreement with the findings.

Yes, because when I said earlier that its report had said it was a place where women were barely tolerated and considered less than human, Mr. Justice Mahon responded by saying he did not agree with that.

I do not agree with that last "less than human" aspect. I have never seen any evidence of that degree of-----

I am sorry, but I am just conscious of time. What does Mr. Justice Mahon think has happened? Why is-----

I think there has been a serious cultural change.

Yes, that has been said. Mr. Justice Mahon has asserted that several times. What I am trying to find out is why he thinks that has happened. What is the change this time?

It is because of all the publicity that went with the disclosures from the Women of Honour.

Yes, but there had been publicity over the last 26 years.

Yes, and all of that contributed to it, but I am talking about my experience as the ombudsman, which is over the last few years.

So Mr. Justice Mahon is-----

While I was aware of all the work Senator Clonan did long before that, it was not something I was hugely tuned into because I was not doing that sort of-----

If I understand it then, Mr. Justice Mahon, as the Defence Forces ombudsman, feels that the dramatic change, and it is very reassuring to hear this, is as a result of the publicity that surrounded the Women of Honour and the report of the IRG.

That is my opinion.

I would conclude from that, therefore, that the pressure for change, if you like, is coming from outside the organisation and that it is not an internally driven dynamic.

My last question for Mr. Justice Mahon is in relation to litigation. I do not have the figures for 2025, but I understand that 482 cases taken by members of the Defence Forces were before the courts in 2024. That means 6.2% of the members of the Defence Forces are taking court cases. In the experience of Mr. Justice Mahon, are the personnel of the Defence Forces extremely querulous, vexatious, mischievous and litigious? Would he have any view as to why 6% of any organisation would be taking their employers to court?

Obviously, I am not familiar, other than in a general way, with the cases the Senator is referring to that are going through the courts. I do not think the personnel of the Defence Forces are particularly litigious. Often, I think there is a reluctance, if anything, on the part of PDF personnel to make complaints.

Why is it 6% then?

I ask that we let Mr. Justice Mahon finish.

I do not know.

On the one hand, he is saying that he thinks they would be reluctant to take a case, and yet we have this figure of 6.2% of them taking court cases. Does that fact and that data, correlating it with what Mr. Justice Mahon is saying here, speak to the culture of organisational justice within the Defence Forces?

I do not know about the 6% of cases that the Senator is referring to. Obviously, I read about them occasionally in the newspapers, if they are reported on. I expect that a lot of those cases are to do with being discharged from the Defence Forces. I do not know; that is only my guess. My view is that PDF personnel are, generally, reluctant to complain. It has been said to me at private functions, where I meet people from the Defence Forces-----

Can I just conclude, because I have to leave?

Yes, but briefly.

My belief is that the reason they are changing is because of people like Mr. Justice Mahon and all of the other oversight mechanisms that he has listed here.

All of these things. There has been a huge amount of publicity about seriously inappropriate behaviour in the Defence Forces over the last few years. A lot of it goes back into previous years. My view is that the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence have made major strides to deal with that. One will never deal with it 100% in an institution of 8,000 or 9,000-----

I commend Mr. Justice Mahon on his work. I thank him for it and all of the other oversight mechanisms, and I thank the people who are working hard, like Mr. O'Connor.

Indeed. I also commend the Women of Honour. That switched so many people on to the focus on what needs to be done. I commend their work.

I wish to understand the procedures correctly before I ask my question. From the date of an incident, the complainant has 12 months to engage with the ombudsman or else they run out of time. However, they have an unlimited amount of time to make an internal complaint. Has the ombudsman ever had somebody complain about, or does he think there has been, any attempt to run down that clock if somebody makes an internal complaint? I refer to a situation where it is said the complaint is being worked on and followed up on so the complainant does not get the opportunity to complain formally to the ombudsman.

I think that may happen in practice but I do not believe for a minute that it is intentional. There is a huge effort made. I have noticed in more recent times, including in complaints of inappropriate behaviour such as interpersonal stuff, that there is a serious effort made by, say, the unit commander or the immediate superiors of the individual to sort out the complaint and a lot of them get sorted out and complaints are withdrawn. I refer to the ones that go into the Defence Force's internal system. If, for example, an important individual to the solution of a complaint is serving overseas with UNIFIL, then obviously delays can occur. That is why it is important that when a case is going through that internal system, we know an individual has lodged a complaint and we write these letters. So, it is a warning to the individual that this 12-month limit is coming down the tracks. We know that has worked in a number of instances where the person has come to us. We have often got referrals literally in the last week or two of the 12 months because they have been warned. There is a much greater awareness. That awareness would not have been there five, six, seven or eight years ago.

That may be helping to have things dealt with in a more timely way, the very fact you are reminding people of the ticking clock.

Yes.

Without getting into specifics, have any of the complaints that have come through to the ombudsman said they do think there is a delay in terms of the Defence Forces engaging with their case?

A fair few of the complaints would involve delays: a delay in promotion or a delay in being informed about a corps selection. I understand the Deputy's question is about-----

About complaining that their complaint is not being dealt with.

-----being intentionally delayed so as to stop the time running. No, I do not think I remember any case where that has been said. There are obviously delays that occur in the system which can cause problems but I do not think they are intentional.

That is very reassuring.

In terms of the complaints and the number of them, are they reflective largely and proportionately of the numbers of enlisted personnel versus the commissioned officers?

I think it was last year there was a sudden increase in officer complaints, which was in complete contrast to previous years. They were always a sort of minority. In 2024, they jumped completely. In 2024, officer complaints were 47%. That was the big increase. It dropped back to 15% in 2025, which is the year we are talking about now. It is likely to drop again this year. The norm would be 5-8% of complaints coming from officers. It is hard to know what that big jump was. A lot of it was to do with promotion. Historically, there was a reluctance from officers to complain to the ombudsman because I think there was this sense, which is understandable in a way, that going outside the internal system was not the right thing to be doing for an officer. There is a much greater consciousness or awareness on the part of officers about their entitlement to complain. They do complain when it is appropriate to complain.

I note apologies from Senator Gerard Craughwell who could not be here with us today. On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Justice Mahon and Mr. O'Connor for their time and engagement.