Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 2005

Vol. 598 No. 5

Other Questions.

Defence Forces Regulations.

Joe Sherlock

Question:

78 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Defence Forces recruits who are injured in the course of their training are expected to meet the full costs of their medical expenses should they require treatment in a private hospital due to the lengthy waiting times for public treatment; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that injured recruits who may have to wait for up to two years for medical treatment or surgery in a public hospital are only given six months leave from the Army and are therefore forced to leave the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6691/05]

Mr. O’Dea

Medical treatment of military personnel is carried out as far as possible in a military hospital or other medical facility under the auspices of the Army medical corps. If the necessary treatment is outside the scope of the Army medical corps, non-commissioned personnel, including recruits, are referred for treatment in the public health service. Such personnel, in common with all citizens, are eligible for treatment as public patients in public hospitals.

The position with regard to recruits is that, under the provisions of Defence Forces regulations, each recruit must within a period of three months following the date of attestation be either finally approved or discharged in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. A recruit shall not be finally approved until he or she is considered suitable in all respects, including meeting the required medical standards for service in the Permanent Defence Force.

The regulations provide that in circumstances where recruit training has been interrupted or delayed, the three month period may, with the prior permission of the deputy chief of staff, be extended to a maximum of six months from the date of attestation. In determining the date by which a recruit shall be finally approved or discharged, periods of sick leave, special leave or privilege leave may, at the discretion of the deputy chief of staff, be excluded.

A recruit discharged from the Permanent Defence Force on the grounds of not having been finally approved for medical reasons may reapply for consideration for enlistment at a later date when any medical treatment required has been completed. Applicants are now required to satisfy the military authorities that they meet the minimum medical standards and other criteria for enlistment.

Mr. Sherlock

I know the Minister applies common sense to whatever he does and says. However, the case I raise was brought to my attention by an Army recruit who suffered an injury during his first week in training. The Army doctor advised him to seek further medical treatment, which he duly did, and medical experts advised him that keyhole surgery was required, but that he would have to wait two years to be treated publicly. Alternatively, he could be treated privately, almost immediately, at a cost of €5,000. The Army informed him it would not make any contribution to private treatment though the injury occurred while he was training with the Army. Moreover, the Army stated it would only give him six months in which to have the surgery so he had no choice but to pay for it in private practice. Does the Minister consider that reasonable and does he agree with it?

Mr. O’Dea

It appears unreasonable on the face of it that distinction should be made in such an instance between officers and ordinary members of the Defence Forces. That is the way things have been traditionally because it was assumed that enlisted men and women had more access and eligibility under the public health service than officers. Obviously I have inherited that situation and it will be difficult to change it. During questions to the Taoiseach someone noted that if one gives something to someone, it is very difficult to take it away. It would not be practicable to extend private medical care to everyone.

I do not know if Deputy Sherlock has written to me about this case since I became Minister. I have asked for the matter to be checked out and I am told by the Department that it has no information about anyone who had to leave the Army in circumstances such as those mentioned. If Deputy Sherlock writes to me I will investigate the case.

Another case was brought to my attention. The military authorities advise that in the past three years their records show 11 recruits discharged, not finally approved, mostly for non-medical reasons. One recruit was discharged, and not finally approved, for medical reasons. Another was discharged as being not likely to become efficient.

The medical case was the one brought to my attention. The recruit was enlisted on 29 November 2001 and discharged on 17 March 2004. Her medical condition was not due to an injury sustained in training but was a continuing medical condition which necessitated repeated periods of sick leave. She appears to have been given a period in excess of two and a half years to attempt to complete her recruit training, which is well in excess of the minimum period of three months or the maximum period of six months in which recruits are required to be finally approved under Defence Forces Regulation A(10). If Deputy Sherlock writes to me about the case in question I will make inquiries as to why the same approach was not taken.

Mr. Sherlock

Does the Minister believe that the situation is blatantly unfair and will he consider changing it? I will write to the Minister about this issue.

Mr. O’Dea

If recruits, particularly those injured in training, are discharged because they cannot have access to the public health service within the requisite six months, I agree that is unfair and must be looked at.

Bullying in the Workplace.

Paul Kehoe

Question:

79 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Defence the number of cases of alleged bullying which are under investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6723/05]

Jan O'Sullivan

Question:

114 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to recent comments from a person (details supplied) that bullying is rife in the military despite the launch of a Defence Forces anti-bullying campaign; if his attention has further been drawn to this person’s claims of physical and verbal abuse; his views on whether the extent of bullying in the Army projects an extremely negative image of the Defence Forces in general; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6702/05]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

124 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence if the latest public statement by a female recruit of Army bullying is accurate; his Department’s policy on bullying; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6757/05]

Simon Coveney

Question:

131 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the efforts being taken by him to tackle bullying and harassment in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6733/05]

Mr. O’Dea

I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 114, 124 and 131 together.

My previous reply on this subject detailed the comprehensive measures which have been taken since Dr. Eileen Doyle and the external advisory committee presented their report, The Challenge of a Workplace, in March 2002. The contents and recommendations of the report were accepted in full.

The military authorities advise that since the revised procedures regarding the conduct of interpersonal relationships in the Defence Forces were introduced in March 2003, eight complaints of unacceptable behaviour have been formally initiated. Five of these were proven to be unfounded. One case was upheld and the person complained of had disciplinary action taken against him. There are two cases currently under investigation so I do not want to comment in detail on those.

I am aware of the recent public comments by a former female recruit. However, because the recruit in question has had access to a solicitor, the solicitor has informed the Department of the intention to put this into the legal domain. I am, therefore, constrained in what I can say about this case.

Mr. Timmins

Does the Minister agree that due to the nature of the employment and training, the Defence Forces are susceptible to the allegation of bullying and that the concept of bullying has been prevalent right across society but only in recent times has received publicity? Having served in the Defence Forces for almost 20 years, I believe that there is no more bullying there than in any other walk of life.

Mr. O’Dea

I agree. How the Defence Forces operate is predicated on the simple assumption that lawful orders must be obeyed. Accordingly, the discipline in the Defence Forces not just in this country but elsewhere in the world is different from the relationship between a manager and employee of a factory or office. Sometimes, what might be reasonably interpreted as bullying in the workplace would not necessarily be so interpreted in the Army. There is a fine line there.

The Doyle report indicated that an alarming number of Army personnel, particularly female recruits, felt themselves to be the victims of bullying, harassment and so on, but it is significant that since March 2003, two years ago, we have had only eight complaints. It was at that time that the procedures were simplified and everyone was informed about them. A new regulation was also introduced to the effect that attempting to punish someone because he or she made a complaint was an offence subject to immediate discipline. Since then, only eight complaints have been received through the normal channels and five of those were found to be basically unfounded.

A confidential telephone helpline service was introduced in 2003 and a number of calls have been made to it. However, my information is that the number who call to allege bullying is quite small, in single figures. I agree with Deputy Timmins, some confusion surrounds the situation.

Bullying is not training for anything. If anyone feels bullied or feels reason for complaint in the Army, clear procedures exist to deal with such cases and all have been repeatedly informed of those procedures. No one can use the excuse that they did not know where to go or who to turn to or to talk to.

Mr. Sherlock

Arising from Question No. 114, has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent comments from a person (details supplied) that bullying is rife in the military despite the launch by the Defence Forces of an anti-bullying campaign? The question arose some time ago of people perhaps being afraid to complain of bullying, but the question which now arises is why, if no problem exists regarding bullying in the Army, the matter is being raised so frequently.

Mr. O’Dea

Without wanting to be flippant about the matter, it is analogous to crime in Limerick. When a crime of a particular nature takes place in Limerick, everyone is keen to talk about it. The same crime would not attract the same attention in Cork, Waterford, Galway, Blessington or elsewhere. It is basically a sexy story. If someone says "Oh my goodness, I was in the Irish Army, was bullied relentlessly, was made undergo all sorts of embarrassing procedures and had to do this, that and the other", that is a big, sexy story. The tabloids go crazy for stuff like that.

I am aware of the allegations to which Deputy Sherlock refers. However, without prejudicing the outcome of legal proceedings and in the interest of the recruit herself, the case was investigated under instruction A7, which is the new instruction setting out the complaints procedures, remedies, etc. All the relevant procedures were followed and it was found there was no case to answer. The recruit does not accept that, which is her right. She has engaged a solicitor who is taking the matter to court and we will see where it goes from there.

However, a confidential telephone line was provided and almost 200 people were recruited to hold "clinics" with members of the Defence Forces, 8,500 of whom are ordinary members. This presented a clear opportunity to those who had a complaint and it was communicated to everybody. A regulation is in place where a person who tries to interfere with a complainant is immediately subject to disciplinary procedures, which is a powerful disincentive. However, since 2003 only eight people have come forward and made allegations, despite all the reports in newspapers. The newspaper reports are one thing, but the reality on the ground can often be quite different. Only one complaint was upheld and five were found to be groundless. Apart from the female recruit to whom I referred, the others have accepted the result and they have not pursued court cases.

I wonder about the accuracy of the continuing reports of widespread bullying. Although I do not doubt people had this perception in 2002 I do not know whether it was the reality. However, given what has happened since, the lack of complaints indicates the problem is not as widespread as we have been led to believe by certain sections of the media.

Departmental Properties.

Phil Hogan

Question:

80 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Defence the extent of his Department’s property portfolio in Dublin city and county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6718/05]

Mr. O’Dea

The Department of Defence holds property in Dublin city and county as follows:

Location	Area
McKee Barracks, Dublin 7	45 acres
Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin 6	46 acres
St. Bricin’s Hospital, Dublin 7	5.5 acres
Esplanade (part), Collins Barracks, Dublin 7	2 acres
Arbour Hill Stores, Workshops, etc.	1.5 acres
Site at Islandbridge	1 acre
Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel	685 acres
FCA Premises, Swords, Co. Dublin	0.6 acre

Married Quarters at

47 McKee Park, Dublin 7

64 McKee Park, Dublin 7

2 Tomar Court, Arbour Hill, Dublin 7.

Overseas Missions.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

81 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Defence the statutory authorisation required in respect of non-UN overseas missions in which the Defence Forces participate, as listed on the Defence Forces website; if none was required, the reason therefor; if authorisation was required, the method by which it was given; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6695/05]

Mr. O’Dea

The Defence Forces participate in two main types of overseas missions, namely, traditional UN-led "Blue Hat" missions and UN-authorised missions, where the mission is established under the authority of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly of the UN. These two types of missions are represented on the Defence Forces website as UN and non-UN missions respectively. In both instances, the provisions relating to the dispatch of a contingent of the Defence Forces for overseas service are laid down in the Defence Acts, which require that the mission must be authorised by the UN, approved by Government and, where the contingent is armed and exceeds 12 members, approved by way of a resolution of the House.

With regard to authorised missions listed in the Defence Forces website to which a contingent of the permanent Defence Force was-is deployed, for example, Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, OSCE, verification mission in Kosovo, SFOR, KFOR, INTERFET, ISAF, UNMIL and EUFOR, Government and Dáil approval, as appropriate, were obtained and the mission was authorised by the UN. Apart from these larger missions, at any given time, small numbers of personnel are deployed overseas in an administrative, staff, observer or advisory capacity on other missions, none of which are armed operations. These include missions under the auspices of the OSCE, the European Union Monitor Mission, EUMM, to the former Yugoslavia and other military appointments in Europe. Such assignments, which are voluntary, do not require statutory authorisation.

Defence Forces personnel have also been deployed on humanitarian missions in support of NGOs or with other international organisations. The recent deployment of a small number of personnel to the UN joint logistics co-ordination centre in Colombo, Sri Lanka, is an example of such a mission. Defence Forces regulations provide that volunteer members of the Permanent Defence Force can be seconded to such undertakings by the Minister for Defence, with their agreement and with the consent of the Minister for Finance, for periods of up to one year.

Mr. Sherlock

The Minister gives lengthy replies to parliamentary questions and I often find it difficult to pick up the main point. Members of the Defence Forces serve overseas on 19 non-UN missions, according to the Defence Forces website, including the KFOR and SFOR missions, which involve more than 1,400 personnel. How can the Minister assert that the Defence Forces cannot travel abroad, even for training purposes, without EU and UN authorisation when history proves the contrary?

Mr. O’Dea

The Deputy is mistaken. There are two types of operations, which might involve Irish troops going abroad. There are traditional UN-led operations, where the UN organises the mission and approaches its members to supply troops. However, there are also UN-authorised operations, where other bodies such as the EU, NATO or the Organisation of African States put the team together, having been authorised by the Security Council or the General Assembly. The issue is whether the operation is led by or authorised by the UN. Currently, our commitment abroad under traditional UN "Blue Hat" operations, the most significant of which is in Liberia, comprises 466 troops while under UN-authorised operations, 268 troops are deployed abroad. Another 36 members of the Defence Forces have volunteered to work on various military missions with my sanction and the consent of the Minister for Finance. The primary deployment relates to UN-led or UN-authorised operations, in other words, an operation constituted by the UN from among its constituent members or an operation put together by another group such as NATO or the EU at the request of the UN.

Mr. Sherlock

Is the Minister saying the UN does not establish these missions but they are authorised by the UN? How can he reconcile that distinction with the wording of the Defence Acts, which defines a UN mission as one established by the Security Council?

Mr. O’Dea

The missions conform perfectly with the Defence Acts. The interpretation of successive Attorneys General is that the word "established" in the Acts covers the scenario where the UN decides that a mission must be deployed abroad but regards it as more appropriate to ask the EU, NATO or the Organisation of African States to undertake it rather than put it together itself. The advice is the word "established" covers both scenarios.

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

82 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence if Irish participation in EU battlegroups will be limited to the Petersberg Tasks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6692/05]

Jimmy Deenihan

Question:

90 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he will reform the triple lock mechanism which governs the deployment of contingents of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6741/05]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

92 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which the formation and participation in European battlegroups has evolved; if he will outline his perception regarding the way in which the logistics will be determined; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6710/05]

Pat Breen

Question:

93 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Defence if Ireland will participate in EU-led groups that can intervene in a rapid manner to prevent the loss of life; the circumstances under which such participation may take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6729/05]

Joan Burton

Question:

107 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Defence if military operations carried out by an EU battlegroup on the authority of the UN Security Council falls within the definition of a UN peacekeeping force for the purposes of the State’s triple lock mechanism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6693/05]

Mr. O’Dea

I propose to take Questions Nos. 82, 90, 92, 93 and 107 together.

The background to the rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battlegroups, is that at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999, member states set themselves a headline goal that by the year 2003, co-operating together and voluntarily, they would be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks, as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty. The EU has learnt from historical experiences in the Balkans and Africa and wants to be able to react faster when crises develop. That was effectively illustrated last year by the EU's first autonomous military operation, which was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The operation, which was undertaken at the request of the United Nations Secretary General and deployed very rapidly, was successful in contributing to the stabilisation of the security environment and the improvement of humanitarian conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Kofi Annan also stressed its importance during his recent visit to Dublin. Deputies will also recall that, in his address to the Forum on Europe on 14 October, he specifically welcomed the development of EU capabilities in the context of European security and defence policy and stressed how important strengthened EU capacities, in particular rapid deployment capabilities, are to the UN. He also highlighted Ireland's pivotal role during our Presidency of the European Union in promoting co-operation between the EU and the United Nations in crisis management and in particular the potential use of EU rapid response elements to support UN peacekeeping operations.

Regarding the other part of the question, I can confirm that the activities of those troops will be confined to the Petersberg Tasks, which are essentially humanitarian, including rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management.

One must bear in mind that the Defence Forces are currently in Liberia on a UN operation, in Kosovo on a NATO-led operation, and in Bosnia on an EU-led operation, and that rapid response elements are but one aspect of EU capabilities to assist in crisis management.

The rapid response concept raises many issues, not only for Ireland but also for other EU member states. Once again, I stress that the question of Ireland's participation in rapid response elements will remain subject to the usual requirements of a Government decision, Dáil approval and UN authorisation.

Mr. Sherlock

I know that the Minister has said it, but is the Government's position still that our international commitment will be confined to the Petersberg Tasks, with a UN mandate necessary? Perhaps I might quote from the Petersberg Tasks, and Missions for the EU Military Forces. Of Article 17.2 of the Treaty on European Union it states the following.

Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

Mr. Timmins

Does the Minister agree there is a great deal of confusion regarding Ireland's possible participation in battle groups and the EU constitution and common defence policy? Notwithstanding the fact that Fine Gael fundamentally disagrees with the Government's archaic policy of the triple lock, does he agree that it is very important that the message gets out into the public domain that membership of the battle groups is nothing more than having a more efficient mechanism to deal with UN missions than that which we have currently?

Mr. O’Dea

In reply to Deputy Sherlock, the answer to both questions is "Yes". It is our policy that the UN mandate will continue to be required. Second, activities are confined to the Petersberg Tasks, the definition of which has been expanded somewhat recently. Essentially, they are humanitarian, involving peacekeeping, rescue operations and crisis management, including peacemaking.

Deputy Timmins disagrees with the "archaic triple lock". He probably knows this, but I must point out the obvious, that Fine Gael is completely at odds with its potential coalition partners, particularly the Greens and the Labour Party.

Mr. Timmins

As are Fianna Fáil with the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. O’Dea

It will be very interesting to see how they square that circle come the next general election. The Government is firmly committed to the triple lock, which is and will remain the lodestone of its policy on foreign commitments.

Mr. Timmins

For now.

Mr. O’Dea

It is the case as far as this Government is concerned, which will be with us for many a long day.

Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.