Vol. 1090 No. 2
116. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence to outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she intends to bring forward a Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54261/26]
The triple lock neutrality protection is deeply valued by the Irish people. It was the basis on which the Irish people were encouraged to vote for European referendums, on the basis that the Irish people value their neutrality and an independent foreign policy. The Government proposes to get rid of the triple lock. It is not reform; it is not change - it is getting rid of the triple lock. Ultimately, a Government that commands a majority will be in a position to deploy troops to any international force as it sees fit. There is growing concern about that, including in these Houses. I ask the Minister for an update on the legislation.
I appreciate that we have had these discussions on a number of occasions. I look forward to debating this as the legislation comes through the Houses. It is important that we have these discussions, and that we have a debate as to what exactly is in the Bill, what is not in the Bill and what the intention of it is. I appreciate that there are very strongly held views on this matter, so I appreciate this opportunity to discuss it prior to the Bill moving forward.
I want to be clear on what the Bill does not intend to do. It is not to remove Ireland's military neutrality. As a Government, we are very clear that the purpose is to adjust and amend the Defence Act so we can continue to either dispatch our Defence Forces personnel for service outside of the State, or make sure they stay part of the peacekeeping missions they are currently part of. We know that is being impacted at the moment because of the triple lock. This is not to remove our military neutrality or to align us with any other military force. This is to make sure that we can continue to deploy our service personnel, our men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann, overseas for peacekeeping missions.
Government approval for the text of the Defence (Amendment) Bill was received on 9 June. The Bill was published on the Oireachtas website and will be progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. Obviously, we are on the last sitting day, but my intention is that we would bring it to the House as early as possible in the new term. While the precise timeline will depend on the schedule, my intention remains to see the legislation enacted and commenced at the earliest opportunity. We had said initially it would be by the end of this year, but I intend and hope to move it as quickly as possible.
The principal reform proposed in the Bill is the removal of the requirement for a United Nations Security Council mandate as part of the existing triple lock mechanism. The two other elements are a Government decision and the approval of Dáil Éireann, so it is not just for any Government and would require the approval of Dáil Éireann. That will remain in place. It is the Government's view, and very much my view as well, as I have outlined previously and am again happy to do so today, that the current arrangements allow the permanent members of the UN Security Council - the UK, Russia, China, the US and France - to effectively veto any new mission or potentially close down a mission, as has been the case. I do not believe that any other country should have the ability to constrain Ireland's sovereign decision-making through the use of a veto or the threat of a veto.
No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in the 1960s. No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in 2006. No other country will have a vote on this Defence (Amendment) Bill. It will be decided here. These are the tests that we set sovereignly in this Parliament. That is all about it. All of this craic is neither here nor there. These are our decisions about where we see fit to deploy Irish personnel. That is ultimately what this is about.
All the objects that the Government talks about achieving, such as that the world is changing or we need to invest in our defence, are not prevented by the triple lock. We should invest in our defence. We should be strong on neutrality and strong on defence. I absolutely agree with that. The Minister talks about the need to ensure that Defence Forces personnel have the ability to deploy internationally and are not prevented from participating in rescue missions. I have no problem at all with head No. 7. Actually, most of the legislation is fine. It is just head No. 8 that is a fundamental problem and a fundamental change. That is recognised by the Minister’s coalition partners, or at least all apart from two or three at the top of that political party. They are very concerned because they know this will potentially constrain our ability to have an independent foreign policy as it undermines our neutrality. Perhaps the Minister might conclude that it does not end it in the final assessment, but it does undermine it potentially.
I would ask the Deputy a number of questions. First, does he trust Óglaigh na hÉireann? Does he trust our Defence Forces? If he does, then he trusts them to make the decision.
The triple lock, as amended, will ensure-----
It is not their decision; it is our decision.
No. The Deputy should listen to me. If he trusts the Defence Forces-----
I do trust them.
-----to make a recommendation, because that will still be included in this, they will make a recommendation to the Government and will assess the type of mission we are talking about in the way they currently do. Does the Deputy trust the people of this country to elect the people they want to be elected?
Does he trust them to make that decision? That is how we democratically form a Government here.
The triple lock, as amended, would ensure that we have recommendations from Óglaigh na hÉireann, which knows what it is doing and has for decades deployed its troops on peacekeeping missions. These are troops that we respect. We know they are highly trained and well respected across the world. They will continue to make those recommendations under the amended legislation. It would then be put to this House for us to decide, as democratically elected people who form Governments in a democratic way, unlike in certain other countries, including Russia, that currently have a say in how we deploy our troops. We would then make the decision and there would be oversight.
There is nothing here to suggest that we are going to start sending troops off to war. It would be under the exact same status as the current peacekeeping missions. Deployment would have to be recommended by our Defence Forces. It would have to be approved by people who are democratically elected in this country, not the likes of Russia or China or anybody who should not have a say in how we deploy our troops.
The Minister said it would be on the same basis as it is currently, when that is plainly not the case. She is getting rid of the requirement for a UN mandate.
I will tell the Minister who I do not trust. I do not trust the likes of NATO-aligned organisations such as Partnership for Peace. Frankly, given the trajectory of their political positioning on the Middle East, there are many people at the top of the EU that I do not trust in terms of their foreign policy objectives, given the cover they gave to Israel in recent years in the context of the genocide. I do trust the Defence Forces and I do trust the people of this country.
I ask the Minister whether she trusts the people of this country to make the decision. If she does, why does she not put the matter to a referendum, given that this was the basis on which many people were asked to vote in the Nice and Lisbon referendums? This matter was central to those referendums.
The Minister knows quite clearly-----
The triple lock is not in our Constitution.
-----that the decisions in the Lisbon and Nice referendums were based on things such as the Seville Declaration. I expect that many people changed their minds because they were given reassurances. Those reassurances are now disappearing into dust because of the policy of the Government.
This is why we need this debate. To be quite frank, we are talking about amending legislation. The triple lock is not in our Constitution. Our treaties are in the Constitution. The triple lock was never part of our Constitution. We were a militarily neutral country before we voted for the treaties and before we introduced the triple lock. We will continue to be a neutral country. The attempt to suggest that we need to have a referendum to change our Constitution for something that is not in our Constitution is trying to thwart what the actual debate is here.
We are very clear, and if one looks at the legislation-----
It does not have to be in the Constitution to have a referendum.
On what? A referendum is to amend the Constitution.
It is not.
This is not in the Constitution.
That is a constitutional referendum.
Please, Deputy Ó Laoghaire.
There are other kinds of referendums. Of course there are.
The Minister should continue.
The world has changed. I trust-----
Let us invest in our Defence Forces and ensure we deploy on UN missions.
This is the debate we will have. The Deputy can shout things-----
We must move on to the next question.
I do have time and must say that the world has changed. The people I speak to recognise that the world has changed.
So do we.
The people I speak to do not like the fact that Russia has essentially removed, or will remove in the coming months, all our peacekeeping troops from UNIFIL, where we have been for decades. That is because of the triple lock. That is what we are trying to amend and adjust, not anything else, contrary to what is being suggested here.
117. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Defence if her Department is satisfied with the level of support being provided by the Department to witnesses from the Women of Honour participating in the Defence Forces tribunal, with particular regard to one-to-one support provided before, during and after testifying; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54533/26]
I look forward to coming back to the topic of the triple lock in a few questions' time.
I have read with extreme concern the reports over the past week on the lack of support provided by the Department of Defence to Women of Honour, whose members are participating in the Defence Forces tribunal. I absolutely understand that it is important to guarantee the independence of the tribunal and I also understand that limited supports are in place, but it is vital that we listen when victims of abuse within our Defence Forces tell us that what is in place is inadequate, especially when, in testifying, they are reliving some of the most difficult moments of their lives. Will the Department commit to providing additional, one-to-one, customised support for those testifying in the tribunal?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I have met a number of the women from the Women of Honour. I have met them in my Department and in different manners or at different meetings. I have nothing but respect and admiration for each and every one of them. I fully appreciate and have no doubt that what they are going through now is retraumatising for many of them. I have no doubt that their having to tell their stories and experiences time and again is very traumatic and difficult for them. That is why, when I met them earlier this year, I did so with the ambition of assisting and providing them with whatever support I could before the tribunal started. The Deputy is right that the tribunal is independent. It is important that we allow the process to take its course. My intention in meeting the women and listening to their concerns was to put in place whatever supports we could. I thank the women because some of what was said to me at the meeting was very difficult for anybody to have to relay again.
We discussed the need to provide counselling supports. Different mechanisms were being put in place but we were asked whether we could do more than that. Following the meeting, I engaged immediately with my colleague Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health, and asked her whether she could put in place a structure, similar to what we have had under other types of tribunals or inquiries, that would provide a counselling service to members of the group who have been or will be attending the tribunal. This is separate from some of the things that have been put in place.
The HSE has said that the service is now set up if there is anybody who wants to engage, and that it is willing to provide this support. This has been relayed. An engagement mechanism and supports are ready. A specific package of counselling measures has been set up for the tribunal once the information that has been requested from the group is received. If there are individuals who feel they are not getting the support they need, there is a mechanism in place. Once we know who they are, we can identify what support is required. I appreciate that they will not necessarily tell me who they want to work with, or who they are engaging with or supporting, but we do have to get that information to be able to pass it on.
There are a number of other supports available to serving and former members of the Defence Forces, and I can touch on them in the next answer.
I appreciate that the Minister has taken the time to listen to victims and survivors, and I appreciate her respect and admiration. I share her respect and admiration for the very difficult thing these women are doing. I completely understand that the tribunal is beyond the scope of the Minister's remit and this House. However, psychological and pastoral support for those giving testimony has been provided by the Department to a limited degree and it should continue to provide it.
When survivors of abuse are saying the support is not adequate, it is vital that they are listened to and appropriate action is taken. When the supports are not in place, we limit participation in what is an incredibly important process. It is appalling to me that, instead of any active referral or support, many have described receiving a list of numbers and emails for various charities, one of which does not even provide clinical mental health services. That is absolutely unacceptable.
I commend the courage of Women of Honour. I commend the courage of those who are testifying. We know that, for survivors of abuse, recounting what has happened to them can be extremely retraumatising. We need to be able to support survivors throughout that.
I thank the Deputy. I fully agree.
What I want is to make sure that people are proactively engaged with and supported and that they are not handed a list requiring them to go off and try to find support themselves. That is exactly why I met with the Minister for Health and asked that there be something specific and tailored to the tribunal. I have already asked my officials to re-engage to make sure that, if there is information needed by the HSE so that what I have described can happen, and if it is not happening, it should be provided immediately.
Like the Deputy, while I am aware that the tribunal is independent, I am very much conscious of what we are seeing in the media every day. We are hearing the testimonies and seeing people having to relive some of the most traumatic times of their lives. I am very conscious of this, so I have asked my Department to reach out and make sure that if there is a gap where information has not been provided or cannot be, it addresses it.
There are other supports. There is Lena support by Inspire, which is a 24-hour external confidential helpline and counselling service. This is a matter of referral or appointment. There is both telephone and face-to-face counselling, so there are a number of different options. Separately, there is the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, which is funded through the HSE and includes counselling and a 24-7 service.
If there is a gap here, my intention is to address it.
I am glad to hear that intention. I request that the Minister keep my office up to date on how her office is dealing with this. I am aware that some of these supports are in place, but, as was reported a few days ago, several people who have gone through this have said that, while giving evidence, the only assistance offered to them if they became distressed was the opportunity to pause proceedings and have a glass of water.
While an employee assistance programme like Inspire, which the Minister referred to, is good to have, it is not an adequate support for someone who is testifying on their abuse. The answer to someone testifying about their abuse for hours and needing support should not be to ring a number and have to retell their entire story. If help is not being made readily available, if it is not easy to access, and if survivors are saying it does not meet their needs, action must be taken.
Those participating in the Defence Forces tribunal are doing so in the interests of justice and truth and to ensure that this level of abuse never happens again. We all benefit from the maximum possible participation. I am concerned, on foot of these reports from participants, that we are allowing a situation where people feel they must stay silent to protect their own mental health. We need to do everything we can to avoid that.
I fully agree. For any tribunal or inquiry, particularly where we are talking about such sensitive information and such traumatic experiences, people must be trauma informed. That must absolutely be the case. We have been assured that those who are involved and who are engaged with the tribunal have been trauma informed and trauma trained. The type of training that has been provided was outlined at the public hearing on 16 June. I am committing to ensure that if there are gaps or issues, we will make sure that where the HSE support service that has been set up through the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, following our engagement, is not getting to people and they feel they only have the lines that were made available at the beginning, we will try to rectify that. It is my intention to ensure that people know where the supports are and can access them. Unfortunately, the tribunal is independent in the context of what happens before it.
I acknowledge that.
It is a matter for the judge to progress, but I am assured that people are trauma informed. I will take the Deputy's point and go back to my Department on it specifically to ensure that absolutely everybody has received that training.
118. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure that their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category affected as a whole. [54263/26]
In the context of the previous question, I submitted another question that was ruled out of order, which is fair enough. I probably did not word my question as precisely as Deputy Gibney worded hers. I record my concern about legal representation in that regard. It is important to say that.
This question relates to another welfare issue. I will keep raising this issue. There is scope for the Department to take action here. It can look after the people affected without in any way conflicting with legal cases. I do not want to hear about legal cases. I know the Minister is going to talk about them anyway. Ultimately, the Department can make health and redress interventions without in any way undermining those court cases. Airport personnel were put at risk by chemicals.
I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I know he is committed to this issue; I am too. I have in recent months spent some time travelling to different barracks and Army bases and meeting with personnel. What I see all over the country is their professionalism, dedication and commitment. I am proud of that, and I know they are take great pride in the work they do. The health, safety and well-being of our Defence Forces personnel is front and centre in everything that I and the Department do. When we talk about capital investment and investing in equipment, infrastructure and accommodation, and additional finance to improve pay, terms and conditions, it is all with the ambition of ensuring that the health and well-being of our Defence Forces personnel are front and centre.
As the Deputy said, there are ongoing litigation challenges. I will not get into specific detail. It is only a short time since we last had defence questions, so while I do not have a huge number of updates for him, I can say, as I did on the previous occasion, that the courts took a number of cases under active case management. I am advised that the State Claims Agency remains open to engagement. It is important that is known in order that we can try to resolve this issue. More recently, what has happened is that agreements have been reached between a number of parties to engage in formal mediation discussions. It is important that we allow mediation to continue and ensure that nothing we say here will impact that.
A number of individuals have opted to bring their cases through the personal injuries process. It is important that we respect their decision to so and make every effort not to impede the process. In the other instances I have outlined, efforts are under way to see if mutual agreement can be reached.
Approximately 23 cases have come to the fore. We have different processes and ways in which we can engage with each of those individuals. What I want to do is to ensure that it is as straightforward a process as possible. I appreciate that has not been the case for many people. I appreciate that this has been going on for much longer than anybody would like. The measures to which I refer, the State Claims Agency and the mediation process are there. I encourage people to continue to engage with that process.
These types of issues of collective harm, collective abuse in some instances and collective injury are things that the State does badly. We can see it. The Minister previously served as Minister for education. We have seen many examples in that area. The response of the State is always to tell people that they can go through the courts. If people do not go to the courts, there is an issue with that. We set up redress schemes and if people do not make a claim within a certain timeframe, they are excluded. We have the recent example of the women who attended Dunderrow National School. Women who were in the same class as Louise O'Keeffe were prevented from bringing forward redress. The point is that when enough pressure comes on, the State eventually remembers - and it knows, in truth - that it does not have to do everything through the courts. If a category of people have had wrong done to them, the State has other measures available without even accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from looking after the health needs of these men and women. She knows that perfectly well.
I disagree that people are being pushed into the courts. The situation is exactly the opposite. I have said in the Chamber many times since I started taking these questions that the State Claims Agency is there and wants to mediate and work directly with people in order that cases do not go directly to the courts. Steps and procedures have been put in place over years so that people can seek mediation and can go through a process that is not adversarial and does not require them to go to the courts or to take on legal representation. This can be worked through.
The number of cases increased before the most recent mediation outcome. There were 11 or 12 cases and there are now 23. There is a process for all of the people affected. Each case is different. That is what may be different to other places that the Deputy has referenced. Each case is different. There has already been an acknowledgement that at the time, personal protective equipment, PPE, needed to be better. That is why I say now that the investment we are putting into our Defence Forces is not just to provide the best capabilities and types of technology but also means that we are putting in place equipment that is safe and protects our personnel. We have a clear process here and I encourage everybody involved to go through the process. They will be supported. The agency is there to work with them.
The Minister said that she is not pushing anybody to the courts. I am not a doctor and cannot make a clinical decision, but if people suffered negative health outcomes that they believe have a connection to their clinical exposure, and they have never taken a case, how precisely is the Government going to help them? They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made claims and gone to the courts. They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made a claim and gone to the courts. None of this is necessary. We know what happens in Australia and the Netherlands, and in other areas of this State. Of course, every case and category is different, but the same principle applies. The State can assist people with their medical requirements and can provide ex gratia payments. It can provide a number of different things without accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that because her previous Department, the Department of education, has done it numerous times. The Department of children has done it numerous times - usually under political pressure, but it has done it. There is nothing to stop the Minister doing it. This is not going away. How is the Minister going to address the needs of those people who were exposed to these chemicals - and this is the key detail - who have not taken cases or made a claim against the State? How is the Minister going to help those people?
Referring to other countries is not helpful in this instance because the situations are not comparable. We have 23 individuals who have brought forward cases, and I fully respect their right to do so. I would prefer it if, through that process, there was mediation in order that the issue could be resolved as quickly as possible. That has been the case for one of the people in question whose case was resolved satisfactorily. If people have issues and concerns, it is important that they come forward and raise their cases. Beyond that, we have a process that people can use. We have a mechanism with which people are already engaging. I ask them and encourage them to continue to engage through that process.
I do not think we can equate this situation with what is happening in the Department of education. What the Minister for education is doing is to ensure that we establish how issues were responded to in our schools at the time. That is exactly what is happening with the tribunal here. The tribunal, which we discussed and which was brought forward through the Women of Honour, will also look at this issue, how it was responded to and how it was dealt with. There is a mechanism there that is similar to what we are doing in education.
119. Deputy Duncan Smith asked the Minister for Defence to provide an update on recruitment numbers for the Defence Forces as of July 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54380/26]
Will the Minister provide an update on recruitment numbers for the Defence Forces as of this month?
We are all committed to strengthening recruitment to and supporting retention in the Permanent Defence Force. The military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,823 personnel on 31 May, the most recent date for which we have a figure available. Last year saw modest though significant growth of nearly 200 in the overall strength, with a total of 790 inductions achieved. This is the highest number we have had in 20 years. The number of personnel who discharged was at its lowest level in more than five years. I am determined to build on this and have set a target of 850 inductions for 2026. As of 31 May - again these are the most up-to-date figures available - there were a total of 289 inductions, comprising 188 into the Army, 26 into the Air Corps and 75 into the Naval Service. I am pleased that there continues to be very strong interest in careers in the Defence Forces, with a total of 16,510 applications received in 2025 and over 10,000 applications received to end May of this year. The challenge now is to ensure that the target of 850 is achieved.
A draft strategic workforce plan prepared by the Defence Forces has recently been submitted to me for consideration. As the Deputy will be aware, the aim of this process is to provide a pathway to the achievement of a strength of 11,500, inclusive of civilian personnel, commensurate with level of ambition 2. Increases in application numbers and in the overall strength of the Permanent Defence Force over the past three years demonstrate that the key enabling measures the Government has introduced to support and drive Defence Forces recruitment and retention are yielding results. I appreciate it is slow and we need to maintain that momentum and do even more. These measures include significant progress on pay, increases in the maximum ages of recruitment and retirement respectively, the extension of private secondary healthcare to all personnel, the application of the provisions of the working time directive - which had been sought for some time - subject to certain exemptions, and increases in patrol duty allowance.
The Minister is 100% correct that we all want to see recruitment to our Defence Forces continue. However the figures she has given far from the 11,500 sought by the Commission on the Defence Forces by 2028. The Minister mentioned 850 a year. Is that the height of the ambition? It is not going to take us near 11,500.
I will mention a couple of issues. The first is the single public service pension scheme. RACO and PDFORRA have been in contact with the Minister a number of times about this. Has she had any update on that from the Department of Finance or the Department of public expenditure?
On housing, I recently received a reply from the Minister in respect of a parliamentary question on derelict houses in the Curragh and at other barracks around the country. In that reply, she stated that the hope is to bring these houses back into habitable condition. This is what we need to do to improve recruitment to our Defence Forces. We need to look at the pension scheme and we need to provide housing for those who want to enter our Defence Forces, regardless of whether they have families.
I agree that there are lots of things we need to do. It is not just about pay. We also need to invest in our accommodation and in equipment and technology. Our investment in counter-drone technology and radar equipment is something Defence Forces personnel are excited about. The level of training involved and the ambition there encourages people to want to be part of that, so we need to invest in our infrastructure with the aim of enabling greater levels of recruitment.
I recently opened the university students’ accommodation complement, USAC, building in Galway, which is a 69-bed, state-of-the-art accommodation facility that was completed at a cost of €12.3 million, and the block 4 accommodation building at the Naval Service Base, Haulbowline, which will accommodate an additional 74 personnel. I also visited Gormanstown Camp, which is in my constituency. It is an impressive facility and will eventually provide for the training of up to 900 recruits. We want to keep increasing the numbers, but infrastructure is required to allow us to do so. Instructors are also required, and that is something we are working on. The beds are not the only thing; it is also about ensuring that we have the instructors to be able to reach those numbers.
There is no single issue here. This is about housing, pensions, pay and conditions. Has the Minister dealt though with the representative organisations on the single public service pension scheme? She might confirm that and let us know whether there is any update.
The Minister mentioned all the other barracks, and that is very welcome and everyone who supports the Defence Forces will welcome that. However, the Curragh has been neglected when it comes to housing. On the basis of the Minister's reply to my previous parliamentary question, there are 63 derelict houses there. Can I get a commitment that she will expedite work on those houses?
I cannot let this opportunity go without mentioning the Curragh of Kildare and what is happening there. I am in contact with the Department, but I ask the Minister to come back as quickly as possible to all the public representatives in Kildare South. This is a huge issue for everybody from the area, and it cannot continue. It has been a month since the scoping meeting was held, and we still do not have an update on what is going to happen next.
I acknowledge our representative bodies. It is my intention to meet them late in summer. I will be writing to them to that effect. I have already spoken to some of them in respect of this matter. Obviously, whether it is public service pensions or anything else relating to the public service pay agreement, we are working and, where we can, engaging directly with the Department of public expenditure and reform. I have made very clear my views to the representative bodies on the progress I would like to make, but we have to work very closely with the Department. The moves towards the next public sector pay agreement are already starting. We need to make sure we can square off what was agreed in the previous one but also start to look forward to the next one. The Defence Forces representative bodies have representation now they are part of the umbrella body as well.
On infrastructure, A body of work to look at all the infrastructure, etc., that we will in the future is in the process of being concluded. This will feed into the next capital plan. I have no doubt that as part of that the ambition is for the Curragh to be transformed and that there is further investment there. That will require another budget and, obviously, I will be seeking as much as possible in that. I want to be as ambitious as I possibly can.
I thank the Minister.
If I could address the final issue, I am very conscious this has been going on for some time. We are engaging extensively with a number of different stakeholders, but I will come back to the Deputy on that.
I thank the Minister.
120. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Defence if she will examine extending the EU victims directive (details supplied) to cases that are prosecuted by the military police or the Director of Military Prosecutions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54260/26]
When is the victims of crime Act 2017 going to apply the Army? The Women of Honour have pushed for change so that if there is abuse within the Army there will, we hope, be mechanisms to deal with that, but what about women who are abused by Army personnel who are not in the Army? The Minister knows of this case and I am not going to go into any names or details but it shines a light on how we have a situation where a woman who was abused by an Army officer - and potentially another woman as well - has not been able since 2022 to get information on her case. Nothing is being done by the secretive military tribunals that are operating in the Army.
I thank the Deputy for raising this. I am aware that she has been engaging on this matter and has been trying to make progress. That is certainly something I want to see happen as well.
This was looked at before, so there had been engagement previously when the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 was brought forward. At that time, a decision was taken for various reasons that it did not extend to offences under military law and so it would not be possible to include in the legislation at the time. While it may not be the same, since then the Defence Forces, though they are excluded from this, have been very clear that where appropriate they adhere to the principles of the Act within the military justice system and this is reflected in the Defence Forces victim's handbook. In saying that, because of a number of different meetings and engagement I have had, I have asked my officials to look at this again, so there are deliberations taking place. As part of this process, the military authorities have recently provided advice on the matter. That advice is under consideration. I would like to see them included in this, quite frankly, so while a decision was taken for different legal reasons previously, I have asked for that to be looked at again. In particular, there are a number of different things. There needs to be not a greater level of oversight but a greater ability to hold certain structures accountable and to ensure that where our Defence Forces and military personnel are independent, at the same time there is very clear process where I as the Minister, together with the Department, have a role or function in ensuring there is that significant level of accountability. The work of the external oversight body is also really important here.
We spoke about the Women of Honour earlier. We have heard some of the absolutely atrocious accounts from women who have been abused doing their duty and in their job and it is absolutely essential the workplace is one where women feel safe and all personnel feel safe. That is why the work of the external oversight body is important. It is important also that the Defence Forces are working with that body, as I know they are.
I have very little time left, but I want to put on record that the woman in question was abused by an Army officer using military equipment and surveillance technology, which is extremely scary.
She made a complaint, which has never been pursued. She found out that a court martial was taking place but it was about smaller charges that were nothing to do with the woman or the other woman either. The feeling of the victim was that this was being facilitated, like an organised pay off of this predator. This may not be true but that was her feeling. Is this officer retired? Is he eligible to retire? Does he have a clean record? Does he have a pension? Will we end up seeing him working in Leinster House? The victim's belief is that the military prosecutor has evidence of a very dangerous man but for some reason, the Army does not seem to be concerned because it has not prosecuted him on those charges. Why would the Army not want to prosecute somebody?
Are we at war or something? Why is it so secretive? Why does the Minister have no jurisdiction over what is going on in the Army? I see a letter arrived a day before this question was due in which the Minister says she has no role here. This is just outrageous.
From my previous answer, what I want to ensure is that there is a level of oversight and jurisdiction, where there needs to be. At the moment, I am not satisfied that is the case. I will not go into details on the individual in question or any individuals. I have relayed that there are certain things I cannot do at the moment because of how things stand. I am keen to make changes so that there is an appropriate level of oversight. I would again stress that a lot of people in the Defence Forces are very keen to make sure that it is an environment in which people feel safe. I believe it is but where issues arise there are mechanisms in place to support and assist people. The Value Our People survey that was done recently highlights a number of significant challenges that still exist but importantly also where improvements have been made and where there is more work to do. This Value Our People survey will be carried out on a continuous basis so that we can assess what is changing within the Defence Forces, how people are feeling, what challenges are still there and how we can improve. With Patricia King and others through the external oversight body and the work of the Defence Forces themselves, a lot can and will be done in the time ahead.
This man said of one woman that he would attach her to a concrete block. He said of another that he would set fire to her. Should this person be getting a pay off from the Army? No, of course, he should not. He should have been put on trial. We have to end a situation where these military prosecutions are secret and where the Minister for Defence does not even have the right to intervene. In a letter to the victim, the Minister said that such matters were internal to the Defence Forces and that she had no statutory role and she was considering what options she had. I trust the Minister will look into this, because I know she has an interest in gender-based violence from her previous role. She is the Minister who can do this and can apply the victims' directive. This officer was involved in a GoFundMe campaign, where rapists' names were used as a joke by the various men who contributed to it. I do not think rape is funny and the Army should not either. That GoFundMe campaign was left up for a long time. Why is the Army a law unto itself in relation to gender-based violence? We know it will deal with soldiers but when women are abused the Army has authority over people. It has uniforms, power, weaponry and surveillance to abuse women. Women outside the Army should be protected from people in the Army and should have the same rights as any other woman.
Once the GoFundMe campaign the Deputy mentioned was brought to the Army's attention it was taken down immediately. However, the very fact that it was up, or as the Deputy said, the content in it, was completely inappropriate. We need to continue to focus on a number of things. Legislative change is required so that there is oversight where it is needed. I am looking at that at the moment, not just in terms of the victims' charter but also in other ways. The external oversight body, which was only established in April 2023, is working with the Defence Forces to make changes where needed. I regularly meet the chair, the chief of the Defence Forces and others specifically on their work.
As we know, the tribunal is under way at the moment. While I anticipate there will be recommendations from the tribunal, we are already starting to work on some of those in terms of complaints' procedures and in terms of mechanisms that had not been functioning appropriately in the past and how we improve them. I am trying to move ahead and not just wait for any recommendation. We are actually working on them now. I appreciate that it is a very difficult time for a lot of people. At the same time, we need to make sure we are responding to this and putting in place the appropriate mechanisms.
121. Deputy Catherine Callaghan asked the Minister for Defence the role she envisages for the Defence Forces in international peacekeeping and peace support operations over the next decade; the likely contribution of Ireland to future United Nations and European Union missions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54553/26]
As a former UN peacekeeper, I am keenly aware of the proud role Ireland has played in international peacekeeping for almost 70 years. With the nature of conflict and traditional UN missions evolving, what does the Minister envisage Ireland's role in international peacekeeping will look like over the next decade?
I thank the Deputy for the role she has played and for her service to the State. I acknowledge all of those who have served on UN missions and who are currently abroad on missions. We recognise that overseas service is a core task of the Defence Forces. Many men and women join the Defence Forces because they want to take part in international peacekeeping and peace support operations. I envisage we will continue to play a significant role in this area in the decades ahead. We have to. We have to make sure we have the ability to deploy our troops overseas and partake in significant missions, focused on peacekeeping, prevention and training, which they do at the moment. It remains an important element of military life. The opportunity to participate in meaningful overseas missions with unique operational experience, professional development opportunities and the ability to contribute directly to international peace and security is essential. The one thing members of the Defence Forces say to me when they come back is how they can feed back the experience they gain to our troops here. There is also what they bring to the table. When I am abroad I meet regularly with my colleagues, whether the Polish, French, Spanish, UK or Italian minister. They always say Irish peacekeeping troops are well respected and what they contribute and bring to the individual missions is essential. We want to maintain that.
Looking ahead, I expect that we will continue to contribute to various types of missions, namely, peacekeeping, peace support, conflict prevention and crisis management operations, where they are in accordance with Irish law and international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. The focus and debate now is on the triple lock and how we amend it to make sure those vital missions, whether it be peacekeeping, conflict prevention or crisis management, can continue and that we can continue to send greater numbers of troops abroad, particularly at time when over 300 of our troops will be returning from the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon after this year. That will not be renewed and we still do not know what that might look like. I can touch on what that might be in my next answer.
I welcome the Minister's response. As someone who has served overseas, I recognise, as the Minister mentioned, that the future of peace support operations may look very different to those that have shaped previous peacekeepers, like me. Looking ahead, does the Minister see Ireland's overseas contribution remaining focused? She has already said that it will always be in accordance with Irish law and international law and the principles of the UN Charter. Does the Minister see that these will be on UN missions, particularly in Africa where many peacekeeping and stabilisation challenges are likely to arise or does she envisage a greater role for Ireland in EU-led peace support operations, or maybe a combination of both? With that in mind, what capabilities does Government believe the Defence Forces will require over the next decade to fulfil those missions effectively? Are we likely to see a greater emphasis on areas such as intelligence, cyber capabilities, drones, force protection, medical support and specialist training, alongside our traditional peacekeeping roles?
There are a number of things here. What I would like to see - unfortunately, it is not happening at the moment - is that we would have further UN Security Council missions. We have not had any new ones since 2014. That is because the Security Council is not operating as it should. We have other missions that our troops are currently on. A number of personnel are serving in Entebbe in Uganda and in the Middle East. At the moment, my concern for those troops is that those missions could come to an end in the same way that Operation IRINI and the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon have because of the lack of support from individual members of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is my ambition that we could see future UN peacekeeping missions. Beyond that, where that is not possible, we are working with the CSDP missions through the EU. This means much smaller missions. If we look at the overall number of peacekeeping missions we are involved in and the number of troops abroad of just under 400, about 70 of them are not in UNIFIL. All of the various missions are quite small. What we bring to the table, however, is a high level of training. There is a big focus on some of the missions on cyber security, maritime security and bomb disposal, where we have a high level of training from our history. There are different options. As we develop our capabilities, we will be able to do more.
I thank the Minister and fully support that. Ireland's reputation overseas has been built not only on the professionalism of our peacekeepers but also on the confidence serving personnel and their families have had in the supports and protections associated with overseas UN service. Whether future deployments are UN-led missions in Africa, EU-led peace support operations or other international stabilisation missions, can the Minister assure the serving members of the Defence Forces and, critically, their families that they will continue to receive the same high standards of welfare, support, operational protection, medical care, post-deployment support and recognition that generations of Irish UN peacekeepers have rightly expected?
I cannot commend our Defence Forces enough on the level of training our personnel get. That is evolving and changing all the time. I was recently in a barracks where there was new technology that enables our Defence Force personnel to train in tanks in a simulated fashion. It allows as many as possible of them to train where there is not the capacity in actual tanks. So, we are now using new equipment. It is Irish companies devising these types of technologies. It means they have the most up-to-date level of training and importantly when they then travel overseas that they have the equipment and the resources they need.
I cannot stress enough the regard in which Irish troops are held. Quite a number of personnel from other battalions have been killed in Lebanon in recent months where there has been crossfire between Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah. In many instances where there have been casualties, Irish troops have come to their aid and through their own resources and own capabilities have been able to support others as well as themselves. It is really important we continue that emphasis on working with each other, supporting each other and also supporting other troops on the ground.
Deputy Callaghan is taking Question No. 122 on behalf of Deputy Barry Ward.
