asked the Minister for Defence the proposals that he has to extend the recruitment of women into the Army; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Recruitment.
11.
asked the Minister for Defence the number of additional personnel it is intended to recruit to the Defence Forces; the number of places which will be reserved for women recruits; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for Defence the proposals he has for extending Army recruitment this year and over the next few years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 20 and 23 together.
An extra 610 men are being recruited to the permanent Defence Force during November and December. This is in addition to the 400 recruited in October.
The strength of the permanent Defence Force is determined from time to time in the light of military requirements, and does not differentiate between male and female members. Because of the non-combatant role of female personnel, enlistment for general service is being confined to male personnel at present.
Is provision being made in the current Estimates for a further recruitment campaign in 1986?
It is hoped to recruit during 1986 to ensure that the strength which will be established following the completion of the present campaign will be maintained.
Is the Minister referring to establishment strength?
No. I wish we could be at establishment strength but the strength that will pertain following the present recruitment campaign is the level we hope to maintain during 1986.
The Minister says that there were 400 new recruits in October and that there will be 610 in November and December but are we to take it that none of these will be a woman?
Yes.
Can the Minister confirm that no women have been recruited to the Army for the past three or four years?
I could not say precisely, but no women have been recuirted to the Army during the past number of years.
The Minister is a misogynist.
How can the Minister say there is no differentiation——
The Deputy is entering the realm of argument.
The Minister has said that women are not being recruited to the Army but said also that there is no differentiation in the recruitment of males and females for the Army.
I did not say that. I said the strength of Defence Forces personnel is determined from time to time in the light of military requirements and does not differentiate between male and female members. I did not make any point on recruitment.
The Minister is saying that women are recruited to some administrative role in the Forces as opposed to a combatant role. May we take it then, that the 1,010 recruits to whom he referred will all be engaged in combatant roles, that none will be in an administrative role?
The Deputy misunderstands the position about combatant troops. All male troops, irrespective of the duties they may be undertaking, are combatant troops and are so trained. Female members of the Defence Forces are never engaged in a combatant capacity.
This must be the final supplementary on this Question.
Is that a rule of the Army, or when was it decided that women would not be recruited in a combatant capacity?
That has been the way always and I understand it is the way also in other European countries as well as in the armies of all free democracies.
Why is the Minister opposed to recruiting women to the Defence Forces since their recruitment is provided for in legislation that was enacted here?
I am not opposed to the recruitment of women to the Defence Forces. The Deputy has ignored the point I am making, that is, that women are confined to a non-combatant role.
I know all about this. I was there when the legislation was being processed.
Knowing is not necessarily understanding. Women are not permitted to engage in the Army in a combatant role. Consequently, the roles they can perform are necessarily limited unlike those that can be performed by a male soldier. The numbers in our Defence Forces are tight in terms of the demands on them but if those numbers were to be diluted further by way of diluting the present intake with personnel who would not be entitled to discharge all the duties of a male soldier — the demand generally being of a combatant nature — the burden falling on the remaining members would become even heavier.
The Minister will be aware that the duties of a soldier include more than duties of a combatant nature——
This is argument.
——and that the recruitment of more women who would fulfil the functions which this House determined they should fulfil, would mean that an equal number of regular male members would be released for combatant duties and that his argument falls on the logic of that statement.
I am surprised at Deputy Molloy, a former Minister for Defence, putting the matter in those terms because that is not how the Army operate.
I am calling Question No. 12.