Vol. 625 No. 3
6 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence when the training hall will be constructed on Slievenamon Road, Thurles, County Tipperary for the local Reserve Defence Force unit; when protective wet clothing will be made available on an individualised basis for each member of the Reserve Defence Force for when they are training in inclement weather; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32168/06]
There are no plans to construct a training hall in Thurles, County Tipperary for the Reserve Defence Force. The military authorities inform me that the current facility in Thurles meets the needs of the RDF. My Department was approached some time ago by a developer who wished to access his adjoining property through a portion of the RDF property in Thurles. However, no agreement has been made by my Department to sell any part of this military property, nor has any commitment been entered into regarding the incorporation of any portion of the property into any proposed development in the vicinity.
There is an ongoing capital building programme in my Department designed to modernise the living, training, operational and accommodation facilities available to the Defence Forces, both permanent and reserve. There has been an unprecedented level of spending on the programme to date with more than €200 million spent between 1999 and 2005. This year will see a further €21.8 million invested in the programme. The programme, based on prioritised needs, is agreed between the civil and military authorities and approved annually by the Minister.
On the issue of protective clothing, a quantity of disruptive pattern material, DPM, wet suits is available to all members of the RDF on a pool basis within each formation. Each formation has an allocation of 1,500 suits. There are currently no plans to provide each member of the RDF with a DPM wet suit.
If there are plans for a private development at the rear of the training centre, when are they due to come to fruition? Has the Minister secured an agreement with the developer to replace existing buildings with new structures? If so, will this meet the future needs of the centre?
Considering the Reserve Defence Force is due to be more closely integrated with the Permanent Defence Force, it would be appropriate for it to have the same protective clothing as the Permanent Defence Force. Those who give up their time voluntarily cannot be expected to serve side by side with professional soldiers where one group has the best quality protective gear while the others are sloshing around in unsuitable gear. It is time to look again at this matter and provide clothing that is geared towards the individual.
To answer the first of Deputy Costello's questions, no agreement has been entered into by, or on behalf of, the Department with any third party. The matter was subject of an application to the local authority for planning permission and that permission, subject to conditions, was granted some time ago. One of the conditions stipulated that the development must be carried out solely within the property owned by the applicant — which one would expect — and that no part of the development should encroach on the rights of adjoining property owners without prior consent of the owner. I presume this refers to the Department of Defence. My Department does not intend to pursue this proposal. There is no agreement in place. Refurbishment works were carried out in that building this year and money has been allocated for further works next year. There are no plans to sell, lease, loan, or otherwise dispose of any part of the property to any third party.
I understand the point the Deputy is making about integration between the Permanent and Reserve Defence Force. There are 1,500 wet suits for each of the four formations. Therefore, there are some 6,000 suits for a total reserve complement of approximately 9,500 members. It is a matter of acquiring an additional 3,500 wetsuits. I will look favourably on this. I am currently engaged in detailed and difficult discussions on the Estimates with the Minister for Finance. I estimate the expenditure on the additional wet suits would range from €1.25 million to €1.5 million. I will make the case for it to the Minister for Finance.
I welcome the Minister's positive response towards finding the necessary money to provide wet suits for the reserve.
The Minister said refurbishment works have been carried out on the training hall. My information is that the existing centre is not up to scratch and something more substantial is needed to meet the needs of the Reserve Defence Force in the area.
The military has informed me that the current accommodation is quite suitable. Refurbishment works have been carried out in the RDF facilities in Thurles this year. As a result of the modernisation, the facilities now include offices, a lecture room and a reception area. It is intended to provide modern office furniture, floor covering and IT facilities in 2007.
Deputy Costello's points about providing standard equipment, such as wet suits, for the Reserve Defence Force are well made. Is the Minister satisfied with the amalgamation process of the Reserve Defence Force to date?
It is going pretty well and we are on target. It is currently under review and we have not had too many complaints. However, when involved in a process such as this, one will inevitably get some complaints. We are doing our best to meet any complaints that arise.
7 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he will offer a commitment that no member of the Defence Forces will be ordered to participate in EU battle group activities overseas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32355/06]
12 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Defence the progress made with regard to Irish involvement in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32349/06]
41 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will reconcile his assertion, articulated in responses by him to parliamentary questions, that Irish commitments to EU battle groups will not necessitate extra defence spending with the demand made on radio on 4 October 2006 by Defence Forces representative association PDFORRA for more funding and manpower in order to meet their new commitment to EU battle groups. [32259/06]
46 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Defence the level of commitment of members of the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps that Ireland will devote to a future EU battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32263/06]
57 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence the position with regard to Ireland’s participation in the formation of an EU battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32261/06]
59 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the further developments in Ireland’s involvement with EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32267/06]
177 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent of discussions to date in regard to Ireland’s participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32565/06]
178 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent of the training offered to members of the Defence Forces in anticipation of participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32566/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 12, 41, 46, 57, 59, 177 and 178 together.
I have on many occasions in the House set out the background to EU battle groups, the development of which is strongly endorsed by the United Nations, and Ireland's position on them. Following the Government decision agreeing to Ireland entering into discussions with like-minded nations on a possible contribution to a battle group, a delegation from the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces met with their Swedish counterparts in Stockholm. The detailed parameters of a possible contribution by Ireland to the Nordic battle group are being worked through and are close to finalisation.
The potential Defence Forces contribution will involve an EOD-IEDD contingent with its own security detail, together with staff posts at the operational and force headquarters. The total number of personnel involved is expected to be somewhere between 80 and 100. However, it must be remembered that this level of commitment will only arise should the battle group be called upon to undertake an operation. In addition, battle groups are only deployed for between 30 and 120 days. Any contribution to a battle group will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time set in the White Paper on Defence and will have no adverse impact on our existing peace support operations.
A number of issues are currently being finalised and I expect to shortly bring the matter to Government for a final decision. As I have previously stated, any deployment of the Irish contingent as part of the battle group will be a matter for sovereign decision, which in our case means the requirements of the triple lock must be satisfied.
Turning to the question of the voluntary nature of participation by members of the Defence Forces in battle groups, a battle group is simply another vehicle under which the Defence Forces may participate in overseas peace support operations and, as such, the standing arrangements for participation in such missions will continue to apply. In general, the despatch of any personnel on overseas missions, including peace support operations, is undertaken, as far as possible, on a voluntary basis. That said, however, it would be unacceptable if a mission to which the Government and Dáil Éireann were committed could not be undertaken simply because we could not get a sufficient number of volunteers. As such, all members of the Permanent Defence Force are liable for overseas service, subject to the provisions of the Defence Acts. I refer in particular to the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, which excludes people who were enlisted prior to that enactment.
There are no plans for the involvement of the Naval Service or the Air Corps on overseas operations. However, individual members of the Naval Service or the Air Corps may be deployed on overseas peace support operations, as they have been in the past.
The Government's White Paper on Defence, published in February 2000, set out a medium-term strategy for defence covering the period up to 2010. A major objective of the strategy is to ensure that Ireland has a world-class military organisation capable of carrying out the roles assigned to it by the Government, both at home and abroad. This objective requires an ongoing modernisation process, including an investment programme, to ensure that the Defence Forces are properly equipped for these roles. With the extensive investment in new equipment and training over the past number of years and with the current policy of continual recruitment to the Defence Forces, there is no requirement to increase expenditure on equipment or manpower to meet battle group commitments. As I have already stated, any proposed battle group commitment can be met from within the existing ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time.
Ireland's proposed contribution to the Nordic battle group is based on capabilities and equipment already available to the Defence Forces. A palette of potential offers, ranging from niche capabilities up to, and including, an APC mounted infantry company together with support elements, was identified as part of the study on battle groups undertaken by the interdepartmental working group I established to examine the issue. As such, the capabilities and the requisite equipment in respect of each potential offer already resides within the Defence Forces and any commitment from the palette will not give rise to additional manpower or expenditure requirements.
Regarding training for battle groups, most training will take place in the contributing member states, that is, Irish troops will mainly be trained in Ireland. That said, some level of joint training with other battle group elements will be an imperative. The extent of any such joint training and whether training will extend to exercising is a matter for decision by battle group participants. No such training has taken place to date.
The Attorney General has advised that there is a constitutional impediment to training of foreign troops in Ireland. As such, there are no plans for training of foreign troops in Ireland. However, as we are not a framework nation that should not be a problem. Sweden has confirmed, as framework nation for the Nordic battle group, that there will be no requirement for joint training or exercises by the Nordic battle group in Ireland.
That was an interesting answer. The Minister said the personnel involved should be deployed on a voluntary basis as far as possible. Will the Minister agree that section 4 of this year's Defence (Amendment) Act provides for the secondary conscription of Defence Forces personnel to undertake overseas services? Until now, the attitude of the soldiers in the Defence Forces, and I am mindful of the word "defence" in that title, was civic-minded and the numbers volunteering usually exceeded the numbers required. That attitude has been welcomed throughout the world in terms of United Nations missions abroad.
Will the Minister communicate with PDFORRA whose general secretary expressed major concern at the annual conference last week about the shift that section 4 of the Defence (Amendment) Act allows? I do not know if the Minister is aware that the general secretary stated that personnel involved in these activities have always done so on a voluntary basis and that the organisation would pursue all means to defend the voluntary rights of its members on this matter. That could create a crisis and I urge the Minister to ensure, if possible, that the situation that existed prior to the 2006 Act, and perhaps even prior to the 1993 Act, is endorsed in that members who join the Defence Forces should only be obliged to serve overseas if they volunteer to do so.
Am I correct in stating that the majority of members of the Defence Forces join to defend the State's sovereignty rather than take part in overseas missions or battle groups in operations throughout the world? Since our foreign affairs position has changed in that we will now take part in battle groups, will consideration be given to have 2006 as the cut-off date and that those who joined prior to that would be excused from any secondary conscription for operations overseas?
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the speech by the general secretary of PDFORRA. I am very familiar with the speech; I listened to it as it was delivered and, along with everybody else in the hall, applauded enthusiastically when it ended. It was a very good speech.
Regarding compulsory deployment, the general position has been that when the Army wants people to take part in an overseas mission it uses volunteers, as the Deputy correctly stated. In fact, it is usually over-subscribed, which was the case in the present instance in Lebanon. I am open to correction but I understand that since 1993, the Minister for Defence has been able to deploy people compulsorily if a sufficient number of volunteers do not come forward. I understand also that on occasion there have been deployments of non-volunteers under the legislation when there was a shortage in specialist areas such as cooks, drivers, engineers, technicians etc. That situation will continue.
I understand that people who enlisted pre-1993 are excused from being deployed on Chapter VII type missions. If it is the law since 1993 that only people who enlisted prior to 1993 are excused, it makes little sense now to say we will excuse everybody who enlisted up to 2006. We would be unable to deploy anybody in that case other than people who may join in the future.
Or those who might volunteer.
People who volunteer will not be deployed in that case. If we were short a vital member of staff such as an explosives expert, engineer or medic we would not be able to deploy them. We would have to go without them if we did not get somebody to volunteer. I am sure the ordinary troops and those specialists will volunteer but it is a residual right of the Government.
We are signed up to be on standby for the Nordic battle group from 1 January 2008 for a period of six months. If the Nordic battle group is deployed, subject to the triple lock mechanism we are committed to joining that battle group if it is to be deployed in certain circumstances. That is a commitment by the State and the State must do everything to ensure it meets that, including ensuring its domestic laws allow it comply with that commitment, if necessary.
The Minister said there will not be any joint training in the context of the battle groups in Ireland and that that is not required because we are not a framework nation. In terms of the legislation we discussed before the summer and the proposal for assembling the battle groups prior to deployment, there would be areas where the troops would be assembled to allow troops from a number of nations to come together and await the signal for redeployment to the theatre of conflict. Is it a possibility or is it encompassed in the existing legislation that such an assembly could take place in this jurisdiction?
That is not possible. The Attorney General has advised that no foreign troops bearing arms under foreign command are entitled to be on Irish soil.
What about Shannon Airport?
Those troops are passing through. The situation postulated will not come to pass. The deployment of the assembly will be within the framework nation and everything will happen quickly after that.
Does the Minister foresee a constitutional referendum on the matter of permitting troops to serve or train in Ireland?
No.
8 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Defence if there has been an increase in the number of female applicants to the Defence Forces since the reduction in the height requirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32354/06]
65 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Defence the details of the new campaign to attract more women into the Defence Forces; his views on the comparatively low number of women in the Defence Forces; his views on whether the change in the height restriction for joining the Defence Forces will attract more women; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32180/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 65 together.
I am keen to increase the number of women applying to join our Defence Forces. To facilitate this, with effect from 1 September 2006, I reduced the minimum height requirement for entry into both the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force from 162.56 cm, 5'4", to 157.48 cm, 5'2". This change, which applies to both males and females, has the effect of increasing the annual recruitment pool of females from 60% to 90% and males from 97% to 98%. It is too early to gauge whether there has been a corresponding increase in the number of female applicants to the Defence Forces. However, I will closely monitor the situation in the coming months.
Height is not the only issue in encouraging more women to apply to join the Defence Forces and I have recently initiated more general research in this area. Following a tendering process TNS mrbi, an independent market research company, was awarded the contract to undertake research into the issue of recruitment and retention of women in the Defence Forces. The research will test women's attitudes to military life and a career in the Defence Forces. The research, which has commenced, will include interviews with serving female members of the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force and members of the public. The results of the research will inform policy in this area for the future.
The Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women in the Defence Forces, including the Army, the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Reserve Defence Force, and to the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activities. Women are eligible, on the same basis as men, for participation in operational and ceremonial activities, for assignment to all military appointments, for educational and training courses and for promotion. All female personnel undergo the same training and receive the same military education as their male counterparts. When considering how to encourage more female personnel to the Defence Forces it is important to bear this in mind.
When will this report be available? The Minister requested the Department of Education and Science and other groups to send in information on the reluctance of females to apply to join the Defence Forces. Is that material available?
Ministers always say this when they do not want to answer a question but I am glad Deputy Timmins asked me that question.
Did he place the material in the Oireachtas library this morning?
No, I want to enlighten Deputy Timmins. The research will be available in eight weeks' time.
Regarding the second question, the Department wrote to a list of organisations and I was disappointed with the response. The only group to respond with concrete proposals was, believe it or not, the ICA.
Was there a response from the Minister for Education and Science?
No.
I am surprised at the Minister for Education and Science. I will have to take it up with her.
Other groups wished us well and thought it was a good idea. The Department also invited submissions from the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, and have not had a response from either.
When were these proposals sought? Is there still time for groups to respond?
How many women are working in the Defence Forces at present? Will the Minister explain why the number is so low, apart from height restrictions?
We sought proposals in the middle of last year. Most groups, apart from PDFORRA and RACO, responded but the responses did not advance the cause. A response that congratulates us on the idea is very different from one with concrete suggestions.
I propose to issue a tabular statement on the number of women working in the Defence Forces. The latest figures available show 9,837 males in the Defence Forces and 545 females. The position is somewhat better in the reserve, with 7,141 males and 2,433 females. Only 60% of females over 18 years of age were eligible to apply before the height requirement was reduced, making 90% now eligible. Misunderstandings exist in the female population about life in the Army despite the best efforts of recruiting officials in the Defence Forces. They produced literature and visited schools to explain what an attractive life it is.
It is like politics.
The number of females applying has increased. Some 5% to 6% of the Army is female, but last year 9.5% of applicants were female and 10.5% of recruits were female. The number recruited is proportionate to the number applying. We are trying to increase the number of females applying by increasing the pool from 60% to 90% and by carrying out research to determine what other measures must be implemented to make the Army more attractive to females.
Some 25% of members of the reserve are female while the figure for the Permanent Defence Force is 6%. The same rules apply to the reserve and the Permanent Defence Force. The height restrictions for both have been reduced.
The Minister's decision to reduce height restrictions is welcome. I fought for this for many years because the restrictions mitigated against females disproportionately. The Minister has referred to other issues that discourage females from joining. It is more than a year since he wrote to various organisations and the response is disappointing. These organisations have expertise in various areas, yet the State must spend money on researching information that should be forthcoming from them. The Minister's officials work very hard but I would appreciate if the Minister would provide Opposition spokespersons with a copy of the initial letter and the responses he received.
I do not see any objection to that and will discuss it with my officials. I intended to commission research in any case and had sought Government approval for it. The responses provided no new ideas and this disappointed me, in view of the range of organisations contacted.
Height restrictions are the same in the reserve as in the Permanent Defence Force, yet the number of women joining the reserve is five times the number joining the Permanent Defence Force. It would appear the reasons women are not joining the Permanent Defence Forces are much deeper than simple issues of height. There must be serious matters that make the Permanent Defence Force an unattractive option for women. I agree that the Minister should invite further submissions and perhaps give the various spokespersons a package with material that could be distributed to schools.
I look forward to discovering the results of the research. I wrote to the organisations and asked for their suggestions on how to attract more women into the Defence Forces. The research will go deeper than this aspect. Women who have served in the Defence Forces will be interviewed about their experience of life there and women who have not served in the Defence Forces will be interviewed about their perceptions of life in the Defence Forces. Both perceptions and experiences will be compared. It will be an interesting report, which I expect to receive in approximately eight weeks. I have no difficulty with publishing it. If Deputy Costello believes it is a good idea to write to the various organisations, I have no difficulty with sending them a reminder.
9 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the ongoing bullying and harassment of PDFORRA officials within the Defence Forces; and the steps he will take to address the problem and to ensure that a directive that members of the forces who carry out representative duties must not be disadvantaged or discriminated against is no longer ignored. [32314/06]
I assure the Deputy that any allegations of bullying and harassment in the Defence Forces are treated with the utmost seriousness. There are extensive processes in place to protect the rights of Defence Forces personnel, including PDFORRA officials. These procedures give robust protection and I urge PDFORRA officials to avail of them if they feel there are issues to be resolved.
As I have stated in the House on previous occasions, a wide range of measures have been put in place to deal with issues in this area. An external advisory committee, chaired by Dr. Eileen Doyle, was tasked with examining this issue in the Defence Forces and the committee presented their original report, "The Challenge of a Workplace", in March 2002. This independent report addressed a wide range of interpersonal issues within the Defence Forces and its contents and recommendations were accepted in full by the Department.
An independent monitoring group was established in May 2002 to oversee the implementation of these recommendations and its progress report, "Response to the Challenge of a Workplace", was launched by my predecessor on 24 September 2004. Arising from the Doyle report, a number of steps have been taken. Firm guiding principles have been set out in the Defence Forces dignity in the workplace charter. A major educational awareness programme is ongoing throughout the Defence Forces. A new administrative instruction on interpersonal relationships was introduced in March 2003. The instruction and a user's guide were distributed to every member of the Defence Forces.
Designated contact persons, DCPs, have been fully trained and are deployed throughout all Defence Forces posts and barracks, both nationwide and overseas. The DCPs facilitate the operation of the formal and informal procedures that may be used by any party wishing to institute a complaint. An independent, external confidential freephone helpline and counselling service was set up for members of the Permanent Defence Force in March 2003. An independent pilot project of exit interviews seeking the experiences and views of outgoing members of the Permanent Defence Force was conducted. Leadership training has been given by external experts and has been the subject of NCO focus groups with an emphasis on "training the trainers". Changes in cadet school instruction have been initiated, with issues concerning the ranking, selection and training for cadet school instructors being addressed.
Defence Forces regulations, administrative instructions, policies and procedures have been reviewed by an equality steering group under a Labour Court chairperson. The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces has now been appointed. An officer within the Defence Forces human resources management section has been assigned responsibility for equality matters. A training circular entitled military code of conduct for students and instructors in all training environments was issued in 2004 and was followed by an extensive series of associated workshops for all relevant personnel.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The specific matter raised by the Deputy is currently the subject of a claim by PDFORRA under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Permanent Defence Force. By agreement with PDFORRA, discussions under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved. Accordingly, the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on this issue at this time.
I welcome the Minister's reply. He is correct that the Doyle report made a number of recommendations, many of which have been acted upon. Does he consider it strange then that the president of PDFORRA said at its conference last week that certain barrack commanders punish, harass and charge PDFORRA representatives and deny them access to courses and overseas duty in order to force them out of the association? The president of the association made a very specific charge. Is the Minister concerned about it and how does he propose to find out if there is a basis for the charge and if there is ongoing discrimination, punishment or harassment of PDFORRA representatives as happened in the past? It happened when PDFORRA was first set up and continued for a while. I, like everyone else, hoped that the advent of the Doyle report would have stopped some of the harassment and victimisation of PDFORRA representatives. Hopefully, the Minister will take some action on foot of the comments of the president of PDFORRA, Willie Webb.
As Deputy Ó Snodaigh rightly acknowledged, the situation was examined by Dr. Doyle in 2002. She discovered a number of difficulties in respect of people making complaints about bullying. She made a number of recommendations, which were implemented, as outlined, in 2004. The situation is being kept under review because the Chief of Staff has a very personal interest and takes a hands-on approach in trying to eradicate bullying or any perception of bullying in the Army to the greatest possible extent. This means that the follow-up to the Doyle report is being reviewed again next year.
I was surprised at the PDFORRA president's comments for a number of reasons, particularly in light of all the internal procedures that now exist for dealing with bullying. If one examines the earlier question about the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, one can see that 12 cases have been referred to her, after the internal procedure failed, following her appointment on 1 December 2005, none of which relates to bullying.
I was doubly surprised by the PDFORRA president's remarks because I know that the specific allegation referred to by Deputy Ó Snodaigh that PDFORRA members are being discriminated against or bullied because of their membership of the association or because they are making representations has been the subject of a specific complaint. This complaint has gone to the appropriate subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration council. When something goes to this council, both the Department and the other party, namely, PDFORRA, have a duty to maintain confidentiality. I have not inquired as to how matters stand because I know I am not supposed to talk about it in detail.
10 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence his views on concerns expressed by the PDFORRA General Secretary at their annual conference that agreed procedures and criteria laid down by Defence Forces headquarters in relation to promotions within the Defence Forces have not been properly implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32307/06]
19 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence the procedures and criteria for promotion within the Defence Forces; if the promotion criteria and procedures are being adhered to; if he will respond to the criticism by PDFORRA at their annual conference of current practices in relation to promotions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32257/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 19 together.
The regulations governing the promotion of enlisted personnel are provided for in Defence Force regulations A 10, part II, as issued by the Minister for Defence. The more detailed procedures and criteria for the promotion of enlisted personnel are further provided for in "A" administrative instruction, Defence Forces, part 10, as issued by the deputy chief of staff, support.
Promotions to the rank of corporal are effected by the general officers commanding of formations, in accordance with the Defence Force regulations A 10, paragraph 38 and Defence Forces, "A" administrative instruction, part 10. Promotions above the rank of corporal are effected by the deputy chief of staff, support, in accordance with the Defence Force regulations A 10, paragraph 42 and Defence Forces, "A" administrative instruction, part 10.
The Defence Forces internal grievance procedures allow individual personnel who feel that procedures have not been applied properly to appeal to higher authority. The Defence Forces have been actively engaged with PDFORRA in examining the current promotion systems since early this year through a subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration council with a view to agreeing a new revised promotion scheme.
The Minister stated there are two separate systems, one below the rank of corporal and one above. Do we have a standardised system that is adhered to fairly and strongly by the relevant people? Part of PDFORRA's criticism was that individual senior officers more or less take the law unto themselves and determine the criteria. Two tiers of criteria seem to operate, namely, the standardised criteria and the informal criteria applied by individual senior officers.
At the end of his reply, the Minister mentioned that a review will take place of the new promotions criteria to be established. Will the Minister elaborate on what that will entail, when we can expect it and how it will operate within the various ranks?
I do not have any independent evidence that the present promotional system is not strictly adhered to as intended. A number of experts are of the view the present system must be updated and the Department of Defence has accepted that. Departmental officials and PDFORRA are discussing a mutually agreeable new system and that reply also applies to the final question. The matter is in conciliation and arbitration and they are working it out between them. Ultimately, whatever scheme they agree will come to me for approval, and we will consider the details. I want to let the two parties involved in conciliation and arbitration work it out between them.
11 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the situation with regard to the investigation into the death of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32333/06]
39 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the investigation into the death of a person (details supplied); if the exhumation and examination of the persons remains has taken place; the results of that examination; the way the investigation will proceed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32176/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 39 together.
On 2 February 2006, I received a report from Mr. Sean Hurley, whom I appointed to carry out an independent review of the interaction between the Department of Defence and Defence Forces and the parents and family of Private Kevin Barrett in the aftermath of his tragic death, on 18 February 1999, while serving with the 84th Infantry Battalion in Lebanon. Mr. Hurley examined in detail how the Department and the Defence Forces interacted with the Barrett family after Kevin's death and identified clear failings and shortcomings.
Immediately on receipt of Mr. Hurley's report, I contacted the Garda Commissioner and asked him to provide me with his early views on any possible assistance the Garda Síochána might be in a position to provide. The Garda officer assigned to the case continues to examine the files of my Department and the Defence Forces on the case, with a view to determining whether the Garda Síochána can provide any assistance in the matter. Liaison arrangements have been established between the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces, who continue to provide the fullest co-operation to the Garda Síochána.
To date the Defence Forces have assisted in providing access to the considerable number of witnesses associated with the case and have also facilitated the visit by the investigation team to Lebanon and Israel. The weapon which fired the fatal shot was handed over by the Defence Forces to the Garda Síochána for tests. At the request of the Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces also arranged, with the agreement of the UN, for the return to Ireland of the billet in which Private Barrett died. Garda inquiries are ongoing and when completed, I expect the Commissioner will contact me in the matter.
The scope of the Garda investigation and the manner in which it proceeds is a matter for the Commissioner. My understanding is the Garda investigation may be completed before the end of this year. I understand any decision regarding the exhumation of Private Barrett's remains, if considered necessary by the Garda Síochána to complete its investigation, would be a matter for the family of the late Private Barrett. I have no further information in this regard.
I am sure the Minister and his representatives keep in contact with the Barrett family to inform them on the investigation. I hope the investigation can be brought to a speedy conclusion. Were all the witnesses involved in the incident available for investigation or questioning?
I thank the Minister for his reply and I agree with Deputy Timmins. I presume the Barrett family is kept informed at every stage of the investigation. The Minister mentioned the exhumation of the remains would be an issue for the family. Does the Garda Síochána consider it to be an essential part of the investigation? Has any progress been made on it?
I keep the family informed. I do not know whether all witnesses were available. I handed the matter over to the Garda Síochána and a Garda investigation is being conducted at the level of chief superintendent. I hope it will be concluded by the end of the year.
We should not discuss exhumation orders in the House. I am in close touch with Mrs. Barrett, Kevin Barrett's mother, and she has no objection to an exhumation order. Whether such an order is necessary for the Garda investigation is a matter for the investigation team and I leave it to them.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
