Jimmy Deenihan
Question:69 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the recently published second report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. [25784/08]
Priority Questions.
Defence Forces Ombudsman.
I welcome the second annual report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, which covers the period January to December 2007. This is a further milestone in the development of the office, which became operational on 1 December 2005 and which represents a significant development in the modernisation of the military redress of wrongs process. The Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 provides that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent in the performance of her duties and it is not considered appropriate for the Minister to report on her behalf or to give details in respect of her reports on individual cases.
The ombudsman reported an increase in the number of referrals to her office from 26 in 2006 to 76 in 2007. She also reported that 15 of the 2007 referrals were carried over from 2006 and that eight were from former members of the Defence Forces. I acknowledge that the increase in the number of referrals arises from an greater awareness of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, as well as rising confidence among members of the Defence Forces. I welcome this development.
The input of the ombudsman has assisted the Defence Forces in the revision of a number of HR procedures, including the selection processes for career courses and overseas service. The recommendations in the ombudsman's reports to me have also informed the revision of selection processes for promotion, a new version of which is currently being progressed with the representative associations through the conciliation and arbitration scheme. In this regard, I note the ombudsman's recognition of the continued co-operation that she has received from the Defence Forces and my Department. I remain committed to the successful implementation of the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004.
In her report, the ombudsman highlighted the challenge of identifying appropriate and proportionate remedies while retaining due regard to the practicalities of the military environment. I fully support her proposal to engage in a constructive dialogue with a view to identifying appropriate solutions. With this in mind, my officials wrote to the ombudsman earlier this month indicating my Department's desire to engage with her in this task.
The ombudsman reported 30 referrals in respect of non-selection for promotion, 13 in respect of non-selection for career courses or overseas service, 29 in respect of other issues and four in respect of complaints of bullying and harassment. With regard to the latter category, I understand from the ombudsman that one of these was withdrawn, the second did not fall within her jurisdiction, the complaint was not upheld by her in respect of the third and the fourth is being processed.
The report of the ombudsman refers to resources and office accommodation. I am advised that the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces recently achieved a steady staff level of four, consisting of the ombudsman, an investigating officer, an office manager and clerical support. The Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is currently located in Hatch Street, Dublin 2. I have supported the request from the ombudsman to the Office for Public Works in respect of the provision of alternative accommodation. My commitment to the success of the office of the ombudsman extends to ensuring that, in keeping with overall public service standards and requirements, appropriate staff levels and other resources will be available to it. My Department is in discussions with the ombudsman on these issues.
At the launch of her report, the ombudsman was quite scathing with regard to staffing, the level of which is simply not adequate to allow her to carry out her functions properly. The ombudsman was in situ for nine months before a second member of staff arrived. It appears there is no interest in supporting the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, which was established by the House.
The ombudsman is operating in what is described as an "environmentally sick building", which has extremely poor ventilation and an inadequate heating system. The position of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is an innovative one. Ireland is ahead of other countries in establishing such a position. I understand the UK authorities are considering the steps that have been taken here in this regard.
The ombudsman's caseload has increased by 192%. At the launch of her report, she apologised for the delay in issuing decisions in respect of cases. Despite what the Minister said earlier, there is surely an argument in favour of staffing her office properly and moving it to adequate accommodation. If additional staff and accommodation at a new location are provided, the ombudsman will be in a position to carry out the brief that was given to her by the House — not the Minister or his Department — and deal efficiently with the complaints received by her office. I am sure the Minister agrees that, in the interests of natural justice, complaints made to the ombudsman should be heard sooner rather than later and dealt with in an adequate manner.
I agree with Deputy Deenihan's final point. It is extremely important that people can make complaints to the ombudsman. That is why we introduced legislation to establish her office in the first instance.
I am informed by my officials that there has been a high turnover of staff in the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. I do not know the reason for this. The difficulty is that there is no similar office with which we could compare and contrast the workings of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The Ombudsman for Children has 15 staff at her disposal. However, she received 750 complaints last year as opposed to the 76 received by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The Ombudsman for Children also has a research and advocacy function on behalf of children. We are involved in ongoing discussions with the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in respect of staffing.
I take Deputy Deenihan's point regarding the building in which the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is housed. The ombudsman made a request to the OPW to be provided with more suitable accommodation and we have given her our support in this regard. We contacted the OPW on a number of occasions in respect of this matter. In view of the Deputy's question, I will renew my representations to the OPW.
Will the Minister give a firm commitment to the effect that the issue of staffing resources will be addressed? I understand that the ombudsman made a submission in respect of this matter in June 2007 but that no action was taken. Will the Minister ensure that the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces will be housed in proper accommodation as soon as possible?
I will give two commitments. First, we are engaged in discussions with the ombudsman in respect of staffing and these will continue in a constructive manner. Second, and as regards accommodation, I am not responsible for the activities of the OPW. We already made a number of representations to it but we will renew these.
Overseas Missions.
Jack Wall
Question:70 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Defence the role played to date by the Defence Forces contingent serving with EUFOR in Chad; the main difficulties being encountered to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26049/08]
Ireland has deployed 411 personnel to the UN-mandated European Union military mission to Chad and the Central African Republic. Some 371 personnel are deployed with the 97th infantry battalion at Goz Beida in the south east of Chad and 22 are deployed at the force headquarters in Chad. In addition, 18 personnel, including the operation commander, Lieutenant General Pat Nash, are deployed in the operational headquarters in Paris. Some 60 members of the Dutch Armed Forces, comprising an armoured scout platoon, have deployed with the Irish Battalion at its headquarters at Camp Ciara, Goz Beida.
The EU force, as defined in UN Security Council Resolution 1778 of 2007, is authorised to support the UN by contributing to protecting civilians in danger, particularly refugees and displaced persons. The mission is also mandated to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and the free movement of humanitarian personnel by helping to improve security in the area of operations. The mission is also mandated to contribute to protecting United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment and ensure the security and freedom of movement of its staff and associated personnel.
Initial operational capability for the EUFOR mission was reached on 15 March 2008. This marked the start date for the 12-month duration of the operation as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1778 of 2007. Full operational capability is expected to be reached by end of this month. When fully deployed, the EU force will comprise up to 3,700 personnel. As of mid-June, a total of 3,048 personnel have deployed to the mission area. EUFOR troops already deployed have been warmly welcomed by the local population and authorities. This is due in part to the information campaign undertaken by EUFOR throughout its area of operations and the professional manner in which troops from all member states are acquitting themselves on this mission.
Personnel of the Irish-led multinational battalion currently conduct patrols in and around Goz Beida, the Djabal refugee camp and sites for internally displaced persons, IDPs, within its area of responsibility. The Irish battalion's area of responsibility, which encompasses 76,000 sq km, equates to an area the size of Munster, Connacht and Leinster together. The battalion has continued to liaise with local contractors, authorities and NGOs. Such liaising had been established by personnel of the Army Ranger Wing during their recent deployment to Chad.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Almost 450,000 refugees and internally displaced people who fled the violent and horrific conflict in Darfur are living in refugee camps along the border between Chad and Sudan. Irish troops are responsible for protecting and securing the area around these camps to ensure that the refugees can live free from fear of attack and that humanitarian aid can be safely distributed to them.
The theatre of operations for the Chad deployment poses serious logistical challenges due to the nature of the operation and the mission area and environment. However, the primary difficulties encountered to date by the Irish contingent are mostly associated with the weather, that is, extreme heat and the imminent arrival of the wet season, which will reduce mobility in the region.
The days prior to my recent visit to Chad had been particularly tense in the region, when EUFOR Irish troops, deployed to protect Djabal's IDP-refugee camps 4 km north west of Goz Beida, received incoming fire from an unknown group. Irish personnel returned warning fire. There were no casualties. On 14 June 2008, some 234 members of various NGOs were evacuated to Camp Ciara. They were given food, water and bedding in camp. Included in this figure are the UNHCR personnel who were evacuated at their own request by the Dutch contingent which is deployed with the Irish 97th infantry battalion. They were also brought to Camp Ciara where they were accommodated until it was safe for them to return to their own compound. The situation in the Irish battalion's area of responsibility is currently calm.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. In regard to what were seen as disappointing remarks by UN officials on Irish participation, the media have reported that the Minister and the Chief of Staff, Lt. General Earley, sought to have the matter rectified. Can the Minister confirm that the matter has been put to bed and that harmony has been restored?
Concerns have been expressed about air protection for Defence Forces members in the area. Has France provided the necessary protection or are the newspaper reports that two helicopters have been hired correct?
Will the deadline for the mission be extended beyond March 2009? There have been indications that the Minister may decide to extend the mission in order to ensure continuity and further involvement by UN troops.
In regard to Deputy Wall's first question, comments were made to an Irish newspaper on 18 June by a representative of the UNHCR. Within hours of the statement, the UNHCR officially contacted the Chief of Staff and me to apologise for those remarks and to thank the Army for the work it has done on the ground. Later that day, I met the regional representative of the UNCHR in Camp Ciara in Goz Beida, who personally apologised to me and thanked me for the Army's efforts in regard to the evacuation of UNHCR staff. During the previous day, I met the special representative of the UN Secretary General, who expressed similar sentiments. I regard the incident as closed and we will work together with UNHCR staff to fulfil our mandate to the best of our abilities.
I will respond in detail to Deputy Wall's question on air assets later in the context of parliamentary questions which specifically raise the matter.
I want to clarify the issue of the deadline. I read a newspaper report which claimed the Government was getting worried because I emphasised that the deadline is 15 March 2009. I was asked a straight question regarding the length of time decided on by the Cabinet for the deployment of troops to Chad. We decided to deploy them for 12 months, from 15 March 2008 to 15 March 2009. I do not know how anybody could have interpreted that to mean that I was worried. A mid-term review will be conducted next month and it is intended that a traditional UN blue helmet mission will be ready to replace the current EUFOR mission in Chad before 15 March 2009, so there will be no hiatus. If that is successful, I do not doubt that we will be approached to contribute to the UN mission but if the ambitious deadline is not met, the present operation will without doubt be continued in some shape or form and, again, we will be asked to contribute. That decision will be taken by the Government. I will study the military operation, consult with the Army and travel to Chad to review the situation on the ground before bringing my recommendations to the Government. Giving a straight answer to a straight question should not imply that I am in any way worried or that I mean something other than the plain words uttered in the English language.
Defence Forces personnel who live in my constituency, of whom there are many, appreciate the Minister's visit to Chad and the media coverage it received. It is important that we have regard for the loved ones of personnel serving in the region.
In regard to the extension, there have been reports in the media that the UN is declining to meet the financial implication of the mission to Chad. Extending the deployment will obviously entail further costs. Will negotiations be entered into with the UN if that happens? The total mission cost is projected to be €77 million, which will put pressure on the Department of Defence in the current economic downturn. How will that be addressed?
The cost will be €57 million, a large part of which covers the transportation of equipment to the region. Normally, contributing countries to UN-led missions are reimbursed for most of the costs they incur. If a mission is organised by the European Union or the African Union at the behest of the UN, each country carries its own costs. I do not know whether a hybrid arrangement can be reached if the UN is unable to step up to the mark but that is a matter for negotiation.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:71 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Chad and the situation of the Irish troops there. [25785/08]
I visited Chad from 16 to 18 June 2008 to see at first hand the work of Defence Forces personnel serving with EUFOR. I was accompanied on my visit by the Secretary General of my Department, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, Lt. General Dermot Earley, and Kyle O'Sullivan, Ireland's ambassador to Nigeria, accredited to Chad. On arrival in N'Djamena, I met with Chad's Secretary of State for National Defence, General Hassan Saleh Al-Djinedi and, afterwards, with Mr. Victor Da Silva Angelo, the special representative of the UN Secretary General, who is head of the UN mission in Chad, MINURCAT.
In my meeting with General Hassan Saleh Al-Djinedi we discussed the role of EUFOR. I outlined the mandate and the neutral and impartial nature of the force. I specifically pointed out Ireland's neutral status and that our key concern and the reason for Ireland's participation was to create a safe and secure environment for refugees, internally displaced persons, IDPs, and the distribution of humanitarian aid. We also discussed the difficult security situation on the ground.
In my meeting with Mr. Victor Da Silva Angelo, I discussed the security situation in the camps and the ongoing work on the deployment of police and gendarmerie units. The special representative pointed to the difficulties involved in progressing the return of IDPs to their homes because of the fraught security situation on the ground and the lack of support available to returning IDPs. He noted that the difficult security situation is also impacting on humanitarian workers and their capacity to service the camps and advised me that the first contingent of police and gendarmerie commanders had just graduated from the UN course and that he expected to see significant progress on policing by the end of the rainy season. In referring to events over the previous few days, the special representative referred to the important role the Defence Forces had played in safely evacuating and providing shelter for the humanitarian workers in Goz Beida.
I also met with the deputy force commander, Colonel Derry Fitzgerald and other senior Irish officers based in EUFOR force headquarters, who briefed me on the security situation on the ground.
Additional information not provided on the floor of the House.
On 17 June 2008, I visited Camp Ciara, which is the headquarters of the Irish-led multinational battalion. The standard of the camp and the facilities in it are very impressive, particularly when one considers the distances and logistics involved in transporting the equipment and constructing the camp. Great credit is due to the advance party for the magnificent effort it has put into preparing the ground for the main contingent. After a series of briefings and lunch with the troops, I addressed them and congratulated them on the tremendous job they are doing under extremely difficult conditions and terrain. I conveyed to them the best wishes of the Government and the Irish people in the work they are undertaking.
The Irish personnel are already making a significant difference on the ground and are enhancing Ireland's international reputation as neutral, impartial and professional peacekeepers. I was very impressed by the motivation being shown by our troops in the performance of their duties in difficult circumstances, their energy and the good atmosphere in the camp generally.
The days prior to my recent visit had been particularly tense in the region. EUFOR Irish troops, which were deployed to protect Djabal IDPs and refugee camps north west of Goz Beida, received incoming fire from an unknown group. Irish personnel returned warning fire. There were no casualties. The Defence Forces personnel, along with their Dutch counterparts, were also involved in the evacuation of humanitarian workers, NGOs and staff of the UNHCR. A total of 234 personnel were brought to Camp Ciara where they were accommodated until it was safe for them to return to their own compounds.
While at the camp, I met representatives from the international organisations and Irish personnel from Concern. The local UNHCR representative in Goz Beida, Mr. Jose Fischel de Andrade, thanked me for the action which the Defence Forces had taken in evacuating humanitarian personnel, including UNHCR staff, and in accommodating them in the camp. Unfortunately, I had to cancel a scheduled visit to the UNHCR refugee camp and the IDP site due to the prevailing security situation. However, I did meet with some of them near the camp before departing. I am pleased to report that the situation in the Irish-led multinational battalion's area of responsibility is currently calm.
I thank the Minister for responding to my calls for helicopter support for the force in Goz Beida. I understand two helicopters are now in place. The mission has been successful to date and we should recognise the work of the Minister, his Department and Lt. General Pat Nash in regard to arranging the logistics. Transporting the equipment to Chad was a major task and it is important to acknowledge it was carried out efficiently. To date, things have gone well.
I have one specific question. Two unmanned air vehicles, spy drones, owned by the Army were lost in Chad. Was this due to technicalities or as a result of hostile fire? Also, can the Minister tell us of the cost of each unit? It is important this issue is clarified.
Two helicopters, which have not yet been allocated, will be provided to the Goz Beida area. I appreciate Deputy Deenihan's remarks in that regard. Also, I appreciate his remarks in regard to what has been done to date. I will pass on his comments to the Army.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that I visited the camp and was very impressed, taking into account the distances and logistics involved, with what has been done in a very short time. I would also like to inform the House that the Irish troops and their EUFOR colleagues are making an enormous difference on the ground. The rate of attacks by bandits on defenceless people and aid workers and so on has reduced by approximately 95%, which is a significant contribution.
On the specific question raised by Deputy Deenihan, as I understand it the vehicles cost approximately €70,000 each. The vehicles are covered by warranty. Given the first vehicle was never found we are not in a strong position to argue about what happened. However, I understand the second vehicle malfunctioned and discussions in that regard are ongoing with the supplier.
The Government has been specific in regard to the non-continuance of the mission beyond the agreed date. Will the Minister agree that given the logistics are now in place and that the troops have settled in and have found their feet it would be practical to consider some extension to the duration of time the force will spend in Chad?
I agree with the Deputy that much of the €57 million was spent on transporting the equipment to Chad, a factor which will have to be taken into account in consideration of a request for an extension to the mission.
Waste Disposal.
Liz McManus
Question:72 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Defence the reason he gave his approval for plans to dispose of cylinders of a potentially lethal chemical, hydrogen cyanide, at a Defence Forces facility at Manor Kilbride, County Wicklow; the risk analysis of the proposed disposal that has been carried out; the consultation there has been with local people regarding the plan; if the Defence Forces will be paid for the operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26050/08]
In June 2007, I was asked by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, if the Defence Forces would provide explosives for use in the disposal of a number of hydrogen cyanide cylinders in the possession of a private company and for a site on which they could be disposed of safely.
The disposal of commercial hazardous waste is not a matter for the Department of Defence or the Defence Forces. The involvement of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces in this particular matter is solely in response to a specific request for assistance from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That assistance is conditional on compliance with all planning, environmental and public health and safety legislation. A full legal indemnity in favour of my Department has also been sought from South Dublin County Council. The question of payment has not been raised by my Department as its role arises in response to a request from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Any recoupment of costs in this instance is a matter for South Dublin County Council.
Officials from my Department and representatives from the Defence Forces have participated in discussions on this matter together with representatives of a number of State authorities and agencies including South Dublin County Council, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Wicklow County Council, the Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive, and the Health and Safety Authority. All these bodies are working together to develop a plan to remove and dispose of the material in a safe and responsible manner. South Dublin County Council, as the relevant local authority in this matter, has lead responsibility.
Local authorities have substantial powers under the Waste Management Act 1996, as amended, to enable them to tackle problems associated with the disposal of waste. Under section 55 of the Act, a local authority has the power to order as it sees fit measures to be taken in the disposal of waste. Section 56 also empowers local authorities directly to take appropriate actions to prevent or limit environmental pollution caused by waste.
South Dublin County Council proposes to use its statutory powers under section 56 of the Act to arrange for the safe disposal of the cylinders. As the lead agency, South Dublin County Council is responsible for the development and implementation of the disposal plan together with the public information and awareness process. In this regard, a fully risk assessed plan has been developed and is being independently risk assessed for South Dublin County Council.
I thank the Minister for his response. The plan to move seven cylinders of hydrogen cyanide from a safe place in Dublin to a remote Army camp in County Wicklow has been the source of much local concern and criticism. Is the Minister aware, for example, that his colleague, Deputy Joe Behan, has called for the Taoiseach to transfer the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, out of his portfolio given the approach he has taken to this particular plan?
Perhaps the Minister will advise me as to how widespread is this loss of confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as a result of what is essentially a debacle. There has been no public consultation on the matter, the only public understanding of which came about as a result of a leak to the media.
As I understand it, the Department identified four sites from which one was chosen. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House the location of the other three sites and outline why this particular one was chosen. Why was the burn-off and explosion which was due to take place on 23 June cancelled? Was this related to the sabotage of the Army camp in question?
In an effort to re-assure people, will the risk assessment be published? What security checks have been carried out on the British company that will undertake this work?
While I can understand the logic of the questions raised by Deputy McManus — I know she is representing her constituency and wants to get answers for her constituents — I must respectfully suggest that many of them would be better addressed to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and South Dublin County Council. The Department of Defence involvement in this matter relates only to the provision of a site. However, I will try to answer those of which I have some knowledge.
As regards the Deputy's comment in respect of the removal of the waste from a safe to a remote location, South Dublin County Council has decided the original location of the cylinders was not safe and that an uncontrolled escape of the hydrogen gas from there could have lethal consequences. In this regard, it decided to exercise its powers under the Waste Management Act 1996 to ensure this material is taken to what it believes is a safe site and destroyed by an agreed and safe process.
As regards what any of my colleagues did or did not say about the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I must confess I did not hear any comments in that regard. I have every confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The Minister for Defence would not want his job.
Deputy McManus correctly stated that four sites were examined. The site was selected on the basis that the other three sites did not meet the criteria in terms of safety. I do not know the locations of the other sites. However, I will obtain that information and communicate it to the Deputy.
The Deputy is correct that the burn-off and explosion was cancelled as a result of sabotage on the Army camp. The matter is under investigation by the Army. Security at the camp is being reviewed. The Deputy will appreciate I cannot say much more in this regard.
Security checks of the UK company is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department of Defence simply seeks from that Department a guarantee that it has met its requirements in regard to safety, planning and so on. Once we receive that assurance and are provided with an indemnity we give the go ahead for use of the site.
Obviously, I have put these questions to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, my difficulty is that I have not received a response to them. This, too, may be the reason Deputy Behan is calling for the head of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
On the legal indemnity, has this been provided to the Department of Defence?
The answer is "No". I do not have it yet, but I will have it before the actual procedure takes place. If it had taken place last Monday as planned, I would have insisted on having that indemnity before we allowed it to go ahead on our property.
Defence Forces Retirement Scheme.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:73 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the age profile of the Defence Forces; the way the age profile compares to those of other EU armies; if he will increase the retirement ages of officers and other ranks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25985/08]
The age profile of the Permanent Defence Force is presented in a tabular statement which follows. There are no plans at present to extend the retirement age of officers or other personnel in the Defence Forces. The 2000 White Paper on Defence and the earlier Defence Force review implementation plan both identified the requirement to address the high age profile of the Defence Forces. The plan recommended reductions to retirement ages in an effort to address the age profile and fitness of the Defence Forces.
The retirement arrangements for officers and other ranks differ. However, the key element in military life — the need for personnel to maintain a level of fitness for combat readiness — is similar throughout the Defence Forces. This requirement must be balanced with the need to retain experience and expertise, particularly at managerial level. Apart from the overriding requirement of combat readiness, any increase in retirement ages would have cost implications and would affect the career path of personnel further down the ranks. While it would permit some personnel to lengthen their careers, it would act as a disincentive for others whose career aspirations would be diminished.
Very few officers currently retire at age 54 in the rank of captain or age 56 in the rank of commandant. This information will be circulated to Deputies. Officers more commonly retire from the rank of lieutenant colonel at the maximum retirement age for that rank, which is 58. A claim to increase the mandatory retirement age to 60 years for officers serving in ranks up to and including lieutenant colonel was received from the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. The claim has been the subject of correspondence between the Department and the representative association. The Deputy will appreciate that as discussions under the scheme are confidential, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time.
In the case of enlisted personnel, persons who enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force before 1 January 1994 may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. However, the retirement arrangements are different for persons who enlisted on or after 1 January 1994. Enlisted personnel in the rank of private may not automatically continue beyond 12 years' service, and enlisted personnel in the rank of corporal may not serve for more than 21 years. Enlisted personnel in the rank of sergeant may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 50, while those in higher ranks may continue in service up to the age of 56.
Neither the Defence Forces nor my Department maintains comparative data on the age profiles of other armies within the EU. It should be recognised that the profile of national armies varies considerably between countries in terms of both their make-up and their roles. Consequently, it would not be possible to make a meaningful direct comparison of age profiles with these armies.
|
Age |
% Officers |
% NCOs |
% Privates |
% Recruits |
% Cadets |
% Overall |
|
Under 20 |
0.22 |
5.56 |
53.42 |
19.44 |
3.57 |
|
|
20-24 |
13.73 |
2.45 |
27.03 |
43.15 |
48.61 |
16.56 |
|
25-29 |
21.48 |
12.63 |
21.82 |
3.42 |
31.94 |
18.18 |
|
30-34 |
14.54 |
13.33 |
8.01 |
10.67 |
||
|
35-39 |
11.66 |
16.56 |
8.15 |
11.56 |
||
|
40-44 |
7.90 |
20.39 |
13.79 |
15.18 |
||
|
45-49 |
7.38 |
15.73 |
9.16 |
11.17 |
||
|
50-54 |
14.91 |
12.08 |
4.75 |
8.70 |
||
|
55-59 |
7.01 |
6.82 |
1.74 |
4.28 |
||
|
60 + |
1.18 |
0.15 |
||||
|
Average age |
37.67 |
41.02 |
32.49 |
20.39 |
23.19 |
36.10 |
Will the Minister confirm to the House that there are currently more servicemen on pensions than in active service? I saw a statistic to this effect in one of the national newspapers recently. I know the Defence Forces are different, but in all other Departments in the Civil Service the ratio is three active personnel to every one retired person. That is the general ratio across the Civil Service. If the mandatory retirement age was 60 for personnel at officer level, this would redress the balance somewhat. It seems 54 is quite young for a captain to retire. Life expectancy is much higher now than when these retirement ages were set some time ago. In addition, it is obvious that fitness levels among the Army have increased considerably. If we in the House had to retire at 54 we would all, apart from Deputy Collins, be leaving politics at this stage.
The Deputy may speak for himself in these matters.
This is an issue the Minister should consider when preparing the next White Paper. I understand it is currently the subject of talks. I remind the Minister that the mandatory retirement age in Canada is 60 and in Austria it is 65.
It might not be any harm if Deputy Deenihan's suggestion were taken on board and we were all made to retire at 55.
Deputy Deenihan mentioned there were more people in receipt of Army pensions than there are serving Army personnel. I do not know whether that is the case, although the numbers are close. I will find out for the Deputy. Even if it was the case, however, it would not worry me unduly. People put in their service on the basis that they will get a pension after so many years and when they retire they are entitled to their pensions. Army pensioners tend to be healthy people and have comparatively long lives.
People retire at a younger age in the Army. They have to do so because they need to clear the way for younger people who have reasonable expectations of promotion but do not wish to spend their whole lives waiting to be promoted. In addition, the Army age profile needs to be reasonably low because the role of the Army has changed considerably in recent years. The focus is now on peace support operations abroad. When one considers environments such as Liberia, the Lebanon, the Balkans or Chad, one realises that a certain minimum level of fitness is essential. I remember headlines some years ago, before some of the recommendations in the first White Paper were implemented by my predecessor, former Deputy Michael Smith, in which the Irish Army was dubbed "Dad's Army".
On the question of figures, the average age——
I will allow Deputy Deenihan a brief supplementary question and then the Minister may reply.
The figure reported in the national media was that there are currently 10,378 ex-servicemen and 10,353 active servicemen, which means there are 25 more on pension than in active service. I am not referring to people who want to retire, but if a captain at 54 years wishes to stay on, can that opportunity be granted to him or her? If a captain must retire at 55, while privates retire at 60——
The Deputy's point is made.
It does not make sense that those commanded by a captain can stay for another five years while he or she must retire.
The average age of officers is 36.67, that of NCOs is 41, and that of privates is 32.49, which seems to be just about right. As I have already indicated to the House, a specific proposal has been made and is currently being discussed. We will see what comes of that.
Will the Minister give it favourable consideration?
That concludes Priority Questions. We will now move to ordinary questions.