Vol. 622 No. 2
1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence whether he has received the report commissioned to examine the height entry requirement for females and males into the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24178/06]
I have recently received the military authorities' report, which I commissioned, on the minimum height standards for Defence Forces personnel. It was prepared in the context of encouraging more women to apply to join the Defence Forces and deals comprehensively with the complex issues relating to this matter. As such, it requires careful consideration.
In the light of this report, I will review the height requirement for entry to both the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force, and I expect to be able to make a decision on this matter shortly. It is also my intention to publish the report in the near future.
Height is not the only issue to be considered in respect of encouraging more women to apply to join the Defence Forces and I have recently initiated some research in this regard. Tenders have been sought from companies willing to undertake research into the issue of recruitment and retention of women in the Defence Forces. The closing date for receipt of the tenders was 13 June 2006. It is intended that the research will test women's attitudes to military life and a career in the Defence Forces. I envisage that the research will include interviews with serving female members of the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force, as well as members of the public. The contract will be awarded for the research in the very near future.
I realise the height requirement issue for females is only one among a myriad of issues pertaining to the difficulty in encouraging women to join the Defence Forces. Moreover, I realise the percentage of women who join the Reserve Defence Force is far greater than the equivalent percentage for the Permanent Defence Force. However, I regret the Minister has not presented a final decision to the House today. I tabled the question in anticipation that a decision would have been made, as the report has been in the Minister's possession for some weeks.
It is time to move on from the issue. Can the Minister give Members any indication whether he intends to drop the height requirement altogether or intends simply to lower it? If so, will it be reduced for both men and women? The Minister should give some indication of his intentions because I am sure the report makes a recommendation. While height requirements may have been an issue for Deputy Glennon when he played rugby in the second row or whatever, they are irrelevant to the requirement to be able to carry heavy loads of equipment. The only scientific evidence available shows that the body mass index is the only physical attribute of concern.
While it may be correct for Deputy Timmins to state that the report was completed several weeks ago, I have only seen it in recent days. I have been busy doing other things and it may be that other people were also busy and did not hand it to me. I am engaged in consultations in this regard and can assure the Deputy that a decision will be made very quickly. I must resolve a number of difficult issues which arise from the report.
As for Deputy Timmins's other remarks, the Department has received consistent medical advice to the effect that injuries in the lower back and limbs arising from carrying heavy loads appear much more frequently in people of small stature. Some research was carried out on the average load-carrying requirements for Irish troops when on overseas duty and they are approximately the same as those for the United States Marine Corps, namely, approximately 126 lbs or nine stone. The average height and weight of a United States marine is in the order of 5 ft. 9 in. and 170 lbs, respectively.
I will consider the report over the weekend. I must discuss it with a number of people next week and I will make a decision very quickly thereafter. I hope it will be made before the House goes into recess.
Does the Minister agree that many nationalities have a limited height requirement? While I may be wrong, I understand the height entry requirement for the United States defence forces is 4 ft. 9 in. The Minister mentioned next week as a possible date for the decision. Can he provide Members with a final cut-off date in order that this issue may be put aside?
It is true that some armies, including the United States army, have significantly lower height requirements for entry than the Irish Army. However, the difference is that armies such as the United States army and the British army have a number of different divisions which are permitted to perform different tasks. Women do not have access to all activities whereas, uniquely, in the Irish Army, women are entitled to and are called on to perform the entire range of tasks performed by men. This is not the position in many other armies, especially those in which the height requirement is lower.
As for Deputy Timmins's request for a cut-off date, to the best of my knowledge, the Dáil will go into recess on 6 July. I promise that I will make the report available before 6 July and I will take a decision immediately afterwards.
2 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence the legislative provision under which 1,000 Irish troops have been deployed in Kosovo; if he is satisfied that the mission in Kosovo was established by the United Nations; if so, when it was established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24176/06]
The statutory authority for the dispatch of contingents of the Permanent Defence Force for service overseas is provided for in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993.
The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, as amended by the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, authorises, subject to the prior approval of Dáil Éireann, the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State with an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.
As Deputies are aware, Ireland participates in missions either established or authorised by the UN Security Council. The consistent advice of the Attorney General is that missions either established or authorised by the UN Security Council fall within the requirements of the existing Defence Acts. UNIFIL in Lebanon and UNMIL in Liberia are examples of missions established by the UN Security Council. KFOR in Kosovo, EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and ISAF in Afghanistan are examples of missions authorised by the United Nations Security Council.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 authorised the establishment of KFOR for an initial period of 12 months, to continue thereafter unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. Ireland has participated in KFOR since August 1999, following Government decision S.16137Q of 29 June 1999 and the subsequent approval by Dáil Éireann of the necessary enabling motion on 1 July 1999. The Irish contingent comprises an infantry group of 213 personnel, including a variable number of personnel in staff posts at various headquarters. The infantry group was first deployed in September 2003 following the withdrawal of a transport group which had been deployed with KFOR since August 1999. I am fully satisfied that our participation in KFOR is in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Acts relating to such deployments.
I thank the Minister for his reply. My question does not imply that I am in any way opposed to our troops being deployed in Kosovo as long as their operation is in accordance with the legislation. The new Bill published today states "International United Nations Force" means "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations".
I must point out to the Minister that of the words in that definition, only "established" is in the original 1960 Act, which makes provision for the deployment of an Irish contingent abroad only if the United Nations Assembly or Security Council establishes the force. The Minister already admitted that KFOR is in charge of the force in Kosovo, that it was not established by the United Nations but that it was authorised. However, "authorised" is not in the Act.
The Minister corrects the situation in the new Bill by including "established, mandated, authorised, endorsed". Clearly in the new legislation, the Minister admits he was wrong all along. The Minister must clarify——
I will be glad to.
——and explain this because it is not good enough to state that "established" means "authorised". It does not. By definition, "established" means the United Nations establishes the body and "authorised" means the body could be established by anybody such as NATO and the United Nations would subsequently authorise Irish troops to be there. Our legislation does not make provision for that.
Considering the severe and important legal implications for the troops in Kosovo at present, who may not be operating under a legal mandate under the 1960 or 1993 legislation, will the Minister publish the Attorney General's legal opinion? That would give us clarity once and for all as to the legal status of those Irish troops who served abroad in the past and who do so at present but are under a legal cloud as to whether they were properly established or authorised under the UN mandate.
I do not in any way suggest that Deputy Costello is opposed to the Irish presence in Kosovo. I did not mean to imply that at any time. Before we deploy troops abroad following a United Nations resolution, we take the advice of the Attorney General on whether, as the Defence Act 1960 as amended in 1993 stands, we are entitled under the wording of the resolution to deploy troops abroad. The clear advice of the Attorney General is that in every case where the United Nations authorises another party to put together a peace keeping force, we are covered. The word "established" in the Defence Act 1960——
That is not in our Act.
The Attorney General defined it as including "authorised".
That is my question. Will the Minister publish the Attorney General's legal advice?
He defined it as extending to "authorised", but not extending to "support", "endorsed" or "calls upon". That is why I included that terminology in the new Bill. We will discuss that later. If I can obtain the Attorney General's detailed legal advice I do not see any difficulty in publishing it. I will return to the Deputy on that matter.
We will debate the new Bill, but it is appropriate that it arrived today. We have not seen it before. The Bill does not seem to be retrospective.
No.
What provision makes it retrospective in a case where doubt exists on legal status? Does the new definition of "established, mandated, authorised, endorsed" cover troops who were sent abroad prior to when we pass the legislation? The KFOR contingent was mandated in 2003. How does the legislation apply to them if there is any possibility of legal doubt?
The short answer is the legislation does not apply to them. It will only come into play from when the President signs it. I am satisfied they are abroad legally. The advice of the Attorney General on that matter is crystal clear. If I can procure that advice I will be glad to communicate it to Deputy Costello.
3 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if members of the Defence Forces serving in SFOR's military police company in Bosnia in 2002 were aware that the SFOR headquarters Camp Butmir in which they were based was misused by the US forces for activities incompatible with the SFOR mission and international human rights and humanitarian law, namely the extraordinary rendition of six Bosnian men of Algerian origin to Guantanamo where they remain until the present time; and if there was an investigation into the matter since then. [24182/06]
Between mid-1997 and January 2003, a Defence Forces military police contingent of approximately 50 personnel served in the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, following Dáil Éireann approval in July 1997. The force is known as SFOR. The Irish contingent formed part of the international military police company at SFOR headquarters in Sarajevo. The military police contingent was withdrawn from SFOR in January 2003. A small number of Irish personnel remained in service at SFOR headquarters during 2003, and 12 personnel continued to serve with the mission until December 2004, when it was replaced by the EU-led Operation Althea or EUFOR.
The military authorities informed me that Irish personnel serving with SFOR in 2002 had no knowledge of US forces activities, which were or might have been incompatible with the SFOR mission, international human rights or humanitarian law. I am aware from recent media reports that socialist members of the European Parliament's committee investigating CIA activities in Europe called for a NATO representative to appear before the committee to answer questions concerning the possible involvement of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the abduction of six people from Bosnia. However, as I already stated, the information available to me from the Defence Forces, who were based in Camp Butmir, is that they were not aware and had no knowledge of the matter.
I take on board that the Minister stated he has no knowledge. However, he stated the Irish role in SFOR in Camp Butmir in Bosnia and Herzegovina was of a military police nature. One would presume part of their job was to secure the camp. If so, they should be aware of the comings and goings at the camp. This case involves the abduction of six men from the camp against the direction of the courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and an interim order placed by the human rights chamber by US forces at 6 a.m., not a time a substantial amount of movement would have taken place unless something drastic happened.
When did our Defence Forces become aware of what happened, if they were not aware at the time? What steps have they taken since then to ensure their position and role in the facility of peacekeeping missions are not abused in this manner in the future? What protocol governs the response of Irish Defence Forces serving in international missions in the event of such a hostile act occurring on their watch? Is the Minister aware of the allegations by the men's lawyers that US officials threatened to cut aid to Bosnia unless it handed over the men originally?
The protocol is simply that the Irish troops would not countenance any such activity. Our troops regard such activity as beyond the pale. As to whether they should have been aware of what may have happened, a number of investigations are taking place at present. An investigation by the European Parliament will be discussed on 5 July and voted on the following day. The Council of Europe is conducting two investigations, the parliamentary committee of which will discuss the matter on 27 June.
I spoke to the military about this. I wanted to know whether they had any knowledge or inkling of what allegedly happened. The answer was a firm "no". I cannot answer the Deputy's question on when they first became aware of it. I presume it was through the news reports which are emanating now. Given that roughly 50 troops were in Camp Butmir at the time, I very much doubt that the information could have been kept secret. On this basis, I have no reason to doubt the military authorities.
The Irish military has a proud history and I hope nothing untoward will be shown to have happened. If it is true that the Irish military authorities only discovered that the six Bosnians were incarcerated in Camp Butmir when media reports emerged, I am concerned that it took so long.
I do not know exactly when they became aware of it. I will check and communicate with the Deputy.
4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the legal basis under which Irish military personnel serving in Brussels as part of Ireland’s commitment to Partnership for Peace and other such operations are operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24179/06]
As Deputies will be aware, I established an interdepartmental group comprising representatives of the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General to examine all issues relating to Ireland's potential participation in an EU-led rapid response capability force. As part of its study, the group recommended changes to current legislation concerning overseas service. The main elements of these changes concern the updating of the Defence Acts in respect of UN-mandated peace support operations, humanitarian operations, overseas training and exercises and a number of avoidance-of-doubt provisions. The requirement for this amending legislation arises irrespective of our participation in battle groups.
The advice of the Attorney General, contained in the report of the interdepartmental group, is that members of the Permanent Defence Force may only be despatched for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force, that is, a force established or authorised by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. However, as the Deputy will be aware, since the Defence Forces were established, members of the Permanent Defence Force have served overseas for many other reasons, including carrying out official representational duties, undergoing training, representing the Defence Forces at sports events etc. The deployment of personnel in Brussels as part of Ireland's commitment to Partnership for Peace would fall within the ambit of these types of duties, as would the deployment of personnel in the permanent representation to the EU, the permanent mission to the UN and our representation to the OSCE.
Ireland's presentation document for participation in Partnership for Peace was approved by Dáil Éireann on 9 November 1999 and, following Dáil approval, Ireland joined on 1 December of that year. It is implicit in being a participant in any international arrangement such as Partnership for Peace that appropriate staff will be deployed in the relevant liaison office. Currently, there are two military officers and one full-time and two part-time civil servants from my Department serving in the Partnership for Peace liaison office in Brussels. The part-time civil servants also have European Union responsibilities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Having regard to the advice from the Attorney General to the effect that there is no formal basis in the Defence Acts for the despatch of Permanent Defence Force personnel on such duties, I believe it important that the matter be put beyond doubt. I am taking the opportunity in the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 to do this. With the co-operation of the Oireachtas, I hope to have this legislation enacted before the summer recess.
This issue is similar to that raised by Deputy Costello but slightly different in that it appears the individuals serving with Partnership for Peace, who might be in New York, or involved in other such operations, would have been serving illegally abroad. This contrasts with the circumstances in Kosovo and the dispute over established and authorised personnel. Would section 3 of the proposed Defence (Amendment) Bill rectify the problem?
The advice of the Attorney General is that there is no reference to this sort of matter in the legislation. Successive Governments have presumed they are entitled to send people on ceremonial duty for seminars, sports events etc. when they are not part of a United Nations force. The defence legislation only refers specifically to circumstances in which troops are to be sent abroad as part of an international peacekeeping force.
Since the Defence Forces were established, successive Governments have held the view that while the defence legislation does not mention the sending abroad of individuals in the circumstances I have outlined, it does not preclude their being sent. It could be an oversight in the legislation but it simply does not refer to them. In case it is argued that the only authority to send troops abroad stems from the defence legislation and that there is therefore no authority to send military personnel abroad in the aforementioned circumstances because there is no reference thereto in the legislation, I am taking the opportunity to include the necessary provisions in the amending legislation to avoid doubt. It is better to counter the argument before it is raised even though I do not believe it would succeed.
I do not believe it has been the tradition of this State to enact precautionary legislation. Am I correct in assuming that the Attorney General's advice is that the personnel in question are serving illegally at present?
No.
If not, why has the Minister proposed the new section 3?
The Attorney General has stated he is almost certain the personnel are serving legally.
Nearly all Irish military personnel abroad are serving illegally.
To be doubly sure, we are including the necessary provision so nobody will ever have the slightest doubt about the matter in the future.
Am I correct in assuming that this category of personnel serving abroad is different from that involved in the KFOR mission?
Yes.
There are two different issues.
The KFOR mission and those I discussed with Deputy Costello are part of international United Nations missions, either established or authorised. They are international peacekeeping missions.
That is supposed to be covered by the legislation but it is not.
I refer to individuals, for example, those in our permanent representation to the EU or the two military personnel serving in the Programme for Peace liaison office in Brussels. These are individuals whereas Deputy Costello's question referred to international peace-support groups.
5 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence the number of Army deafness claims that have been processed; the number of claims outstanding; the payment to claimants to date; the cost of fees paid to legal firms representing claimants; the cost of fees paid to his Department’s lawyers; the number of complaints made by Army deafness clients against their legal advisers for double charging; the action taken by him to pursue these complaints and the outcome of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24177/06]
A total of 16,760 claims have been received in my Department from current and former members of the Defence Forces in respect of loss of hearing allegedly caused during their military service. Of the claims, 15,605 have been disposed of, leaving a total of 1,155 outstanding. Some €280.9 million has been paid in respect of hearing loss claims, including €95 million in plaintiffs' legal costs. The plaintiffs' legal costs include the fees of the solicitors' firms as well as other costs such as those arising from counsel fees, medical reports etc.
In general, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor pays the costs of the State's legal team. This includes counsel fees, medical fees and fees for expert witnesses, State solicitors, stenographers etc. These costs are charged to the Vote of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has advised us that in the period 1998 to date, when the vast majority of Army hearing loss cases were finalised, it has paid a total of €17.8 million in such fees. This included €11.4 million for counsel fees. During this period, the Department of Defence directly paid €2 million in other costs associated with the processing of hearing loss claims. These amounts do not include the costs of staff and overheads incurred in processing these claims in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence, which costs are currently estimated at €23 million.
The management of new and outstanding hearing loss claims was delegated to the State Claims Agency with effect from 1 September 2005. Since that date, my Department has paid a total of €600,000 in plaintiff and agency legal and related costs to the State Claims Agency in respect of hearing loss claims.
Since October last, 145 inquiries have been received by my Department from plaintiffs regarding the fees paid to solicitors in respect of Army deafness cases. Generally these queries refer to the amount of the award or settlement and the costs paid.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As a matter of course, my Department advises the individual of the amount of the settlement or award, and the date on which payment issued. In addition, the amount paid by the State in respect of plaintiff costs, and the date of such payment, are also advised.
Plaintiffs are advised, on foot of their inquiries, that they are entitled to obtain details of the costs in their cases from their solicitors under the provisions of section 68(6) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. These provisions oblige a legal representative to provide a summary of the legal services provided and the amount of expenses incurred in the provision of these legal services, as well as details of all charges that have been recovered. We also advise that the Law Society of Ireland is the statutory body entrusted with responsibility to investigate complaints against solicitors by any client and that it has procedures in place in this regard.
I wrote to the Law Society of Ireland at the time of the initial queries regarding solicitors' charges in Army hearing loss litigation. In my letter, I asked what plans the society had to deal with any complaints regarding charging by solicitors in these cases. The society clarified that it was the statutory body responsible for dealing with such complaints and that it had procedures in place in this regard. The society has power to order a solicitor to repay any excessive amount charged and is anxious to investigate any complaints made against solicitors.
I wrote again to the Law Society of Ireland recently and expressed my disappointment that a number of complainants have apparently been advised that their complaints cannot be pursued on the grounds that the bill concerned is over five years old, despite the fact that the complainants have only recently become aware of the potential overcharging. I requested the views of the society on the matter and any proposals it has to address this apparent anomaly.
I thank the Minister for the information, some of which is available consequent to the Estimates we dealt with some weeks ago. The extra information supplied today indicates that, of over €280 million paid to claimants, €95 million has been expended on legal fees. If one combines the fees, including ongoing overheads, paid by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Defence Forces, one will note that they amount to at least another €20 million. Considerably more than €120 million has been spent on legal fees. That is over 40% of the amount of the entire claim and a whopping chunk of money for the legal profession.
The Minister indicated that 145 complaints have been made about the fees charged by their legal representatives. What is the nature of those complaints? What has the Minister done to pursue them and what has been the outcome of those complaints?
I agree with Deputy Costello that it is a fairly hefty percentage but these were party and party fees. In other words, if the costs were granted against the defendant, he would have been obliged by the Taxing Master to pay them if he was unhappy with the amount. These fees were barely sufficient to enable the plaintiff pursue his legal claim.
The 145 complaints are from people whose fees were paid by the Department of Defence but who had money deducted from their settlement cheque by their solicitors. They want to know why that happened given that the State paid the fees. The Law Society of Ireland says there is such a thing as solicitor and client fees over and above the costs one recovers by winning a case. These are for extra expenses, for example, extra experts' reports, time that the Taxing Master would not allow, etc. I wrote to the Law Society about that and it came back to me with the procedure where people can complain to the society. I have told the people concerned that if they write to me, I will give them all the necessary information to make a case to the Law Society.
I must admit to the House that the Law Society is now quoting a section of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 which states it is not obliged to deal with any claims regarding costs charged if the case was settled more than five years ago. The majority of these cases, as the Deputies are aware, were settled more than five years ago but this matter only came to light recently after the revelations concerning the legal fees in the residential institutions redress matter. I pointed that out to the Law Society.
I also pointed out to the society that it is obliged to furnish a bill of costs. In many of the cases where complaints arise a bill of costs is conspicuous by its absence. I also pointed out to the Law Society that solicitors are entitled to set out the basis of charge, under section 68 of the 1994 Act, when they first take on the case. I pointed out also that many of those initial estimates are also conspicuous by their absence. I am waiting for the Law Society to come back to me. My attitude is to help the claimant in every way by giving him or her all the necessary information we have, passing the matter on to the Law Society and following up the matter with the society if he or she wants to come back to us.
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. Effectively, what has happened in those cases is that 145 people are claiming there was double payment, in other words, the fees were paid by the Department of Defence and then an extra payment was sought from the individual claimant. When the Department of Defence paid those legal fees, can the Minister clarify if it made any allowance for any expenses such as medical expenses or anything of that nature?
The fact that the Law Society appears to be anxious to hide behind the Solicitors Act 1994 and prevent any examination of the validity of those claims is despicable. The society has said publicly that it is very concerned about any of its members who might be taking double payment from victims of abuse. That is happening in the Army deafness cases and the Law Society has now resorted to legislation to try to impede that investigation. Will the Minister comment on that?
I am heartened that the Minister's office is prepared to provide assistance to claimants in processing their claims. I will be anxious to see how he will pursue that in the future.
To answer the Deputy's first question, our Department provided for medical expenses, including audiologists' reports etc. but——
It did provide expenses.
Yes but, generally speaking, in a case like that it would only provide for one medical witness or one audiologist's report. In some cases more than one had to be procured to establish the case. That is the difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs.
Regarding the 1994 Act, I have checked the Act and, unfortunately, whether by oversight or whatever, it does contain that section. I have the reference to it. If the Act were to be altered, that would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but I believe we have grounds for talking to the Law Society on the basis that the bill of costs was not been produced in many cases and on what is called the section 68 letter outlining the fact that there may be charges other than what is recovered from the defendants, namely, ourselves. I understand that was not issued in many cases.
