asked the Minister for Defence the reason women are excluded from the Army Apprentice School; if his attention has been drawn to the criticism of this practice recently expressed by the Chief Executive of the Employment Equality Agency; if it is intended to open the Army Apprentice School to women; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Females in Defence Forces.
11.
Apprentices in the Permanent Defence Force are required to live in barracks and due to lack of suitable accommodation it has not been found possible to date to provide for an intake of female apprentices. The question of the provision of such accommodation continues to be considered in the context of competing demands on scarce resources. A recent letter from the Employment Equality Agency in relation to this matter is currently under consideration by the Department and the Minister.
That reply is extraordinary. Is the Minister aware that I have previously asked questions here about the recruitment of women in the Army and the fact that it has ceased completely in the past few years? In those cases the reply was that women could be recruited only to non-combat positions and reference was made to lack of accommodation. Would the Minister now agree that the apprentice school is totally a non-combat area quite suitable for the recruitment of women and that there appears to be discrimination against women in the refusal to allow women into the apprentice school? I am sure the Minister is aware that the facilities which would be available to women for training in engineering and various other skills are being denied to them at present by this discrimination.
This question applies to apprentices in the Permanent Defence Force. The Minister would like to point out that it has not been found possible to date to provide suitable accommodation for female apprentices in the Army Apprentice School in Naas or in the Air Corps Apprentice School in Baldonnell. At this time the question of provision of accommodation continues to be considered in the context of competing demands on scarce resources. In relation to female apprentices, it has not been possible to date to provide suitable accommodation for them in the apprentice schools.
I put to the Minister that there is accommodation there for males at present. Why must that be reserved for males? Why not all females and make accommodation available elsewhere for males? That is not a suitable answer. Accommodation is available. It is simply that the Minister decides it is to be available only for males.
This is leading to argument.
If the accommodation is available for males why is it not available for females?
Accommodation for females is not available in the apprentice schools.
They do not want them.
In view of the representations made by the Chief Executive of the Employment Equality Agency, will the Minister call on the Minister for Defence to look at the whole equality provisions in the Defence Forces in so far as no female cadets have been recruited and females who went through the identical training course as officers are not being considered for posting in Lebanon, for example? Now the apprentice school is, so to speak, another breach of equality in the Defence Forces. Will the Minister undertake to ask his colleague to look at the general question of equality in the Defence Forces?
I will, but the question refers to apprentices in the Army Apprentice School. As the Deputy is aware, the Employment Equality Act does not apply to employment in the Defence Forces. Nevertheless, the policy of successive Governments has been to provide access by women to membership of the Permanent Defence Force to the maximum extent possible, having regard to the financial constraints and to the roles in which women can be employed in the Defence Forces. In this regard, since 1980 24 female cadets, 40 females, other rank, seven female medical officers and one female dentist have joined the Permanent Defence Force. The Minister has already got the communication from the Employment Equality Agency, and I will draw the attention of the Deputies interested in this to the Minister's attention and he will deal with the matter.
12.
asked the Minister for Defence (a) the number of females in the Defence Forces of each rank and (b) the comparable figures for males; and if he has plans to increase the number of females being taken into the Defence Forces.
Part of the reply containing the statistical information sought in the question is in the form of a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.
The strength of the Permanent Defence Force is reviewed from time to time in the light of current strengths and commitments. Because of the non-combatant role of female personnel, enlistment has had to be confined to male personnel in recent times. It is not possible at this stage to say when the next intake of recruits for general service will take place.
Strength Schedule as at 31 January, 1988 Officers
|
Rank |
Lt Gen |
Maj Gen |
Brig Gen |
Col |
Lt Col |
Comdt |
Capt |
Lt |
2/Lt |
Total |
|
Male |
1 |
2 |
9 |
33 |
131 |
439 |
575 |
293 |
59 |
1,542 |
|
Female |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
13 |
12 |
— |
25 |
|
Total |
1 |
2 |
9 |
33 |
131 |
439 |
588 |
305 |
59 |
1,567 |
Cadets
|
Male |
63 |
||
|
Female |
4 |
||
|
Total |
67 |
Other Ranks
|
Rank |
Sgt Maj |
BQMS |
Coy Sgt |
CQMS |
Sgt |
Cpl |
Pte |
Total |
|
Male |
45 |
52 |
279 |
366 |
1,637 |
2,587 |
6,743 |
11,709 |
|
Female |
— |
— |
— |
— |
2 |
15 |
16 |
33 |
|
Total |
45 |
52 |
279 |
366 |
1,639 |
2,602 |
6,759 |
11,742 |