Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 2010

I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 50 together.

MINURCAT was established under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1861 of 14 January 2009 to replace the EU-led EUFOR TCHAD-RCA mission in Chad and the Central African Republic with which in excess of 400 Irish Defence Forces personnel had been serving since May 2008. Ireland has participated in MINURCAT since the transfer of authority from the EU to the UN on 15 March 2009.

In January 2010, President Déby announced that he wished to see the UN military element of the mission withdraw from Chad. Since then, staff in Ireland's mission to the UN have met UN officials on numerous occasions to ascertain the future of the MINURCAT mission. Our officials made clear Ireland's concerns regarding the future of the mission and our need for a substantive renewal of the mission after 15 March 2010 when the then extant mandate was due to expire. Our representatives pointed out that, in the event that the mandate was not renewed, it would not be possible to extract Defence Forces personnel and equipment. Moreover, under both national and international law, Ireland cannot remain in Chad without the cover of a substantive UN mandate.

In the event, the Security Council, on 12 March, agreed a technical roll-over of the mandate to 15 May 2010 to allow for ongoing discussions on the mission's future with the Chadian Government.

There was further engagement with the UN by our representatives highlighting to it the very real concerns on the part of Ireland in regard to the mandate and the impact of the onset of the rainy season. In this regard, we acted in close co-ordination with our Finnish colleagues and there was more or less daily contact between our officials in Dublin, Helsinki and New York.

Not alone was there uncertainty regarding the extension of the mandate but even if it was extended, there was no certainty in regard to the overall duration of the mission, the number of troops that might be retained in the mission, the sectors to which they may be deployed, the nature of the mandate and the role and authority of troops within the mission. Given the uncertainty of the situation, the imminent onset of the rainy season and on the basis of the military and policy advice available to me, I brought the matter before the Government which accepted my recommendation that it was necessary to withdraw the Irish contingent from MINURCAT.

I assure the House that this was not a decision the Government took lightly. Ireland's clear preference was to remain in this mission. In the days leading up to the Government's decision, I spoke twice and at length with Under Secretary General Le Roy in the UN department of peacekeeping operations to emphasise the seriousness of the situation and impress on him the importance of some reassurance from the UN on the mission mandate. Regrettably, the under secretary could give no reasonable assurance and I, therefore, advised him that I had no option but to recommend to Government that we initiate the process of withdrawal.

At no stage did the under secretary suggest that the timing was sensitive in terms of ongoing discussions or ask me to withhold publicly announcing the decision. If anything, he indicated he understood Ireland's predicament and the difficult position we faced. During my discussions with the under secretary, I asked him to revert to me urgently if there was any significant change regarding the future of the mission in the days following the Government decision. I told him I would leave the door open for as long as possible and that I would consider reversing the decision should we get some assurance regarding the continuation of the mission in the immediate future.

On 30 March 2010, Ireland's ambassador to the UN met Under Secretary General Le Roy and formally advised him of the Government decision to withdraw its contingent from MINURCAT. The under secretary indicated that he understood the reasons behind Ireland's decision. He said there would likely be no final decision by the UN until May in the knowledge that was too late for Ireland to withdraw its contingent. The ambassador highlighted Ireland's continuing commitment to the UN and reassured the under secretary of Ireland's future participation in UN missions.

I welcome the Minister, congratulate him on his new portfolio and look forward to a very good working relationship with him. I also extend my best wishes to the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dermot Earley, and his family following the announcement of his premature retirement on medical grounds. Lieutenant General Earley showed great leadership not only in the Defence Forces, but also on the playing fields of Ireland and in his community.

There were a number of reports in the national media, including RTE, from UN officials that they felt the Minister's announcement of the withdrawal of the Defence Forces from Chad undermined delicate negotiations which were ongoing at that time in N'Djamena between UN officials and the Chadian Government and that it probably supported the case of those who did not want the UN in Chad. Will the Minister confirm that?

Alain Le Roy, the under secretary for peacekeeping, expressed concern about the withdrawal of the mission before and after the announcement. John Holmes, the UN humanitarian chief, also expressed concern when the Minister made the announcement. Will the Minister confirm that when he made the announcement, the United Nations was very clear Ireland would withdraw its troops?

In view of the fact hundreds of thousands of refugees in these camps will be unprotected, what arrangements will be put in place to replace the Irish mission? Will the Minister confirm whether he will withdraw all the equipment from Chad or will he leave some there?

I thank Deputy Deenihan for his best wishes. I had the opportunity to visit Lieutenant General Dermot Earley on two occasions and I agree with what the Deputy said.

On the press reports that the Irish decision might have undermined delicate negotiations, I have been unable to find any reliable source at UN level to indicate that. Long before my appointment, my predecessor and the officials explained very clearly to the United Nations the difficulties that would arise in regard to the mandate expiring in the middle of May and the fact the rainy season was imminent and that there was a considerable amount of Irish equipment there which needed to be taken out. The best estimates were that, at an absolute minimum, eight weeks would be required to withdraw the troops and equipment. People may not understand that when the rainy season starts, there are de facto no roads in Chad. Whatever limited travel is possible is by helicopter or aeroplane. That is a very grave difficulty. We obviously had concerns in regard to the UN mandate because we could not be there without it. We had concerns about the safety of troops and about the equipment, which Deputy Deenihan mentioned, that could not be taken out if that were to arise.

The day after my appointment, I spoke to the under secretary on the telephone and explained to him all these difficulties. To be fair, this matter had already been explained in some detail by my predecessor and by defence officials. He understood that was the position and he did not indicate the decision would create any of the difficulties mentioned in the press reports. Unfortunately, not only was he unable to give a guarantee that there would be a renewed mandate, which would have been an unreasonable request of him, but he was unable to give me a strong indication that there was confidence that there would be a renewed mandate. I telephoned him again a number of days later before the Government meeting. The situation had not changed and it was not expected to change.

Current indications are that if there is a renewed mandate, there is a question about the numbers mandated and the kind of mandate that may arise or whether there will be a mandate. That was always the situation as can be seen from that which arose last January and, more particularly, from the limited nature of the renewal that arose in March.

I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to senior ministry. It is well deserved and I have little doubt he will do a fine job in his new position. I extend my best wishes to him. I also express my personal sadness that the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dermot Earley, has been forced to retire due to a debilitating illness. His early retirement is a sad development and I convey the regrets of the Labour Party on the loss of a fine officer. I trust Lieutenant General Earley has a good quality of life. I extend my party's sympathies to his family on this unfortunate development.

On the withdrawal of troops from Chad, I made a short visit there in January 2009. I also watched a slideshow of the conditions that pertain in the country during the rainy season. It is regrettable that the Irish contingent in Chad had to be withdrawn. Nevertheless, the safety of our troops must come first in all circumstances. Unfortunately, there appears to have been little choice but to withdraw the contingent.

By the end of the year, only approximately 70 Irish troops will be serving abroad. Is it possible that troops may return to Chad this year? If not, is any other theatre of operations being actively considered by the Department or are discussions taking place about Irish troops serving in other trouble spots?

To return to the issue of Chad, it is reported that the Chadian authorities have been able to strengthen the country's army and have purchased fighter jets, for which they have employed mercenary pilots. What is the military position in Chad, as reported to the Minister? Will the strengthening of the Chadian armed forces make any significant difference in regard to the capacity of the Chadian authorities to deal with the horrendous humanitarian problems the country is experiencing?

I thank Deputy O'Shea for his good wishes. He has the advantage of having had the benefit of a visit to Chad. The Deputy is correct that the strength of the Chadian military has been increased. The Government's preference was to have been able to continue in the MINURCAT mission. It is true, however, that considerable improvements have taken place and the impact of Irish and other United Nations troops has been positive. Nevertheless, the Government wanted to continue to participate in the mission. It is generally understood, however, that owing to the conditions that prevail in Chad, the decision to withdraw our troops was necessary. It was not possible to keep the decision secret although in any event, no one suggested it was either necessary or desirable to do so.

While there have been some improvements in the position in Chad, the Government's clear preference was for a renewal of the UN mandate at the current level, rather than at the level at which it may, according to speculation, be renewed — if it is renewed. We would like to have been part of any such renewed mandate.

On the future role of Irish troops, we have an ongoing commitment to the United Nations to provide 850 troops. Anyone who deals with defence matters will be aware of the triple lock requirement which applies when more than 12 troops are involved. The triple lock, which involves a Government decision, United Nations mandate and approval by the House, remains in place.

Looking back over previous missions, few would have predicted that Irish troops would serve in Chad when Liberia, Eritrea and other trouble spots were having the benefit of the input of Irish troops. Unfortunately, the state of the world is such that there is generally no great shortage of places where troops are required for deployment. The Government is well disposed to fulfilling our mandate in that regard.

We intend to avail of this opportunity to do a substantial amount of what may be termed "housekeeping" to bring equipment up to date and provide training. Those who have been serving overseas also need rest and a break. A considerable amount of work needs to be done and there is no danger that Army personnel will have a slack period, as it were. In any event, we have a commitment to the United Nations which we intend to fulfil when the UN requests us to do so. As Deputies will be aware, EUFOR has submitted a request to retain a small number of Irish troops — approximately 50 — in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We will accede to this request which was received in recent days.

To repeat my earlier question, who will protect the refugee camps the Irish mission was protecting? What arrangements are in place to do the work the Irish contingent was doing very successfully? The Irish personnel on the successful Chad mission earned considerable international respect arising from the manner in which they operated.

Is it the Minister's intention to leave some equipment behind in Chad given that some of it has been used extensively and it would be expensive to transport it to Ireland? Will the Minister confirm that Ireland's hard won reputation in the United Nations, which it has built up since the Congo mission, has not been undermined in the UN or among our peacekeeping partners as a result of this decision? It is important that the Minister provides this reassurance.

I assure the House that our standing with the United Nations remains high. There are strong indications that we will receive further requests for assistance from the UN. As I indicated, Irish troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina will remain in the country for a much longer period than anticipated. They were due to return to Ireland in July but will now remain until the end of the year, assuming the mission's mandate is renewed. While I understand the mandate will expire in mid-October or thereabouts, difficulties are not envisaged in that regard and Ireland does not have any difficulty in this respect with the United Nations.

Deputies O'Shea and Deenihan asked a question about the United Nations mandate and the protection of people in the camps and so forth. I understand there are currently approximately 3,400 UN troops on the MINURCAT mission. This figure is likely to be scaled back by almost one half to around 2,000 troops. Questions arise about how these troops will be deployed. I do not have information on that issue at this point. As Deputy O'Shea noted, however, the capacity of the Chadian authorities to address some of the issues they face has improved.

One welcome development which must not be overlooked is that many emerging African nations are in a position to provide troop support to the United Nations. This is, in some instances, highly desirable and I have no doubt the United Nations has been giving the matter consideration, particularly as some host authorities in particular regions have welcomed the development. That is not to say that our troops will not have a role in future. The Government is more than happy to examine any proposal from the United Nations and there are strong indications that such proposals will be forthcoming.

Two issues arise with regard to equipment. I understand it would not make sense to move certain equipment and it would be beneficial to people on the ground in Chad if it were left in place. Nonetheless, the mission's military equipment will be returned to Ireland. The arrangements are made through a private contractor. I understand that the cost is probably in the region of about €8 million, but virtually all the cost is borne by the UN.

I still have concerns that we can have up to 850 troops serving abroad, yet the indications are that we will only have 70 towards the end of the year. Every effort should be made to make sure that our troops, who are up there with the best when it comes to peacekeeping, should be available for all these trouble spots and areas of human suffering that are unfortunately too prevalent around the world.

I raised with the Minister's predecessor an Amnesty International report on the prevalence of rape in the camps. When I visited Chad, we were not allowed enter the camps. We were on a hill overlooking the camps, which can be quite large and many of which came together in a random way. Every effort should be made in future missions run by the UN to ensure that there is a good deal of power for the military to become more involved on the ground so that such violence against the person is reduced to a minimum and eliminated where possible.

I share the Deputy's concerns and his views on what should be done. Much would depend on the type of mandate operated by the UN. The current mission is under a Chapter VII mandate, which brings some freedoms and some restrictions. There are suggestions that any future mandate is likely to be under Chapter VI, which removes the role considerably further away from the direction Deputy O'Shea and many others would like to see it going. There are logistical, cultural and other problems which have to be addressed when the mandate is of the nature outlined by Deputy O'Shea. In situations where this is required, and where organisations of the calibre of Amnesty International are doing a wonderful job in the human rights area, it is incumbent on the UN to pursue those issues.

Apart from our responsibility or willingness to participate on a military level, it is fair to say that Ireland's participation in the UN, via the ambassador, the Minister and the Department, is very highly regarded. We have historically been pursuing issues of this nature and have a particular standing with the UN in diplomatic terms and in terms of the respect that has been built up by the Defence Forces on UN missions over several decades.

As part of the Estimates process for 2010, the Department sought to implement measures which would bring about the savings, or the equivalent thereof, as identified in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. As part of this process and to achieve a reduction in current expenditure, the Minister for Defence proposed a cut to the Naval Service patrol days in 2010. The planned number of patrol days for 2010 is 1,480.

The Naval Service has a concurrent multifunctional role as the State's primary sea going agency. On any given patrol day, the Naval Service can carry out a number of tasks on behalf of other State agencies, such as the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency , the Garda Síochána and the Customs Service of the Revenue Commissioners. Naval Service patrols at sea undoubtedly act as a deterrent in the fight against drug trafficking. However, this role is increasingly governed by intelligence-led operations and greater co-operation between both national and international agencies.

Government measures to improve law enforcement on drugs, including the establishment in 1993 of a joint task force involving the Garda Síochána, the Customs Service and the Naval Service, have helped to maximise the effective use of Naval Service resources in combating drug trafficking. There is close co-operation between the civil authorities and the Naval Service in discharging this important mission.

Internationally, the establishment in 2007 of the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre — Narcotics has led to a greater focus on intelligence exchange among countries to tackle large drug shipments by sea. The MAOC-N was set up by seven European countries, namely, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Europol, the European Commission and the US joint interagency drugs task force are observers at the centre. The centre is designed as an international co-ordination force with access to national tasking agencies and requires participation and resources from all active members. The Garda Síochána and the Customs Service have full-time officers based at the centre in Lisbon. Irish Naval Service personnel travel to the centre when requested by the joint task force.

I am therefore satisfied that with these initiatives in place, the Naval Service can continue to battle successfully against the threat of drug smuggling within its revised patrol pattern for 2010.

The country is overcome with drugs at the moment and all communities, be they urban or rural, are affected in some way by drugs. In view of the fact that most of these drugs are coming in by sea, surely the Minister would agree that cutting back the number of naval patrol days was a retrograde step. The savings that will be made by cutting back by 200 days will be lost when we examine the health implications, the money spent on prison places and the cost of crime that often leads to drug-related murders. If we consider all the negative factors, we must conclude that this was a very foolish decision.

The Naval Service has proven that given the resources, it can be very effective. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to Operation Seabight, which intercepted €200 million worth of high quality Colombian cocaine, according to the naval authorities, although some media estimates put the figure at €600 million. We can only imagine the damage that would have done to this country. Due to the work of our Naval Service, in co-operation with other local and international agencies, the shipment did not come into this country. That is proof of the effectiveness of our Naval Service.

Various commitments were given in this House by the Minister's predecessor that the three Naval Service vessels aged over 30 years would be replaced, namely, the LE Emer, the LE Aoife and the LE Aisling. On 24 February, the former Minister for Defence gave a commitment that two off-shore patrol vessels and an extended patrol vessel would be introduced. Has a Government decision been made on the provision of those three vessels? Finally, is it possible to reverse the decision on naval patrol days?

We all share Deputy Deenihan's concern about the impact of drugs in our society. A substantial proportion is imported by sea and unfortunately, the people involved in this business have found all sorts of ways to get the narcotics into the country.

Patrolling per se is not a hugely important part of the system for detecting the arrival or the possible importation of drugs. As electronic surveillance and automatic identification systems of one kind or another have become more sophisticated, especially at the centre in Lisbon, the Naval Service is generally called on to intercept a vessel that is already under way. Naval Service vessels happen by chance to come across ships importing illegal drugs on a far less frequent basis. There are, therefore, three important parallel developments: internal co-operation between agencies here; international co-operation, which I announced in the answer; and highly sophisticated surveillance systems, which are now available. All of these play an important role. At that point, in most instances, the role of the Naval Service comes into play and it is called on to deal with the issue. It has proved itself to be extraordinarily adept and highly professional in dealing with that matter. The Naval Service is to be commended for the manner in which it does so.

Deputy Deenihan also asked about vessel replacement and we will shortly reach a parliamentary question on that specific issue. I will provide a formal answer then, so perhaps we can deal with it at that stage.

I disagree with the Minister to some extent. If there is a presence at sea it certainly operates as a deterrent. The lack of naval vessels along our shoreline means that drugs are coming into the country aboard cruisers and smaller vessels. The coastline of Kerry alone is 300 miles long, so it is impossible to intercept everything unless there is a continuous naval presence. If he has the information to hand, can the Minister quantify the number of interceptions that were made last year by the Naval Service? If the Minister can provide them, I would like to know the most recent statistics available concerning drug seizures and their total value.

I think we will reach the question, as there are only four more before it. As regards the Naval Service's joint operations annually, in 2006 there were three operations where the Naval Service was called in. In 2007, the figure was five, in 2008 it was also five and in 2009 it was two. I do not have an approximate value for the drugs found on those occasions, but I will try to get it for the Deputy.

To revert to the Deputy's original point, I agree with him that there is a deterrent value in having ships on the ocean waves and that is recognised. In practice, however, because of the nature of electronic surveillance, as well as Garda and customs service information, it is more common that it is the genesis of a report. Naval patrols are, of course, conscious of suspicious movements of vessels of all sizes and they do have a role in that regard. The primary law enforcement role, however, lies with the Garda Síochána and Customs and Excise officials. That is where the joint operations, which have been under way for some time, are of such value.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 52 and 53 together.

Within the available resources, the Government is committed to maintaining the strength of the Defence Forces at a level of 10,000 all ranks, for which Government approval has been secured in the context of budget 2010. This reflects the reductions in personnel recommended in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes.

I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force as at 31 March 2010 was 9,877, comprising 8,051 Army, 800 Air Corps and 1,026 Naval Service personnel. As numbers in the Permanent Defence Force have dropped below 10,000, recruitment will be carried out in 2010. Detailed planning on the number of general service personnel to be recruited, and the timing of such recruitment in 2010, is currently ongoing within the Department and the Defence Forces in the context of the available resources and operational priorities.

With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, I intend to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively across all roles while contributing to the necessary public service economies. I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government, both at home and overseas.

The Minister's answer is not much different from the last reply that was provided in this regard, which was on 11 March. It contains nothing specific. My concern is that the Defence Forces are now down to 9,877 which is 123 below the 10,000 level. Some 400 troops are returning from Chad and by the end of the year we may have only 70 troops serving abroad. Is there a danger, therefore, that there may be a temptation not to go ahead with recruitment? It is most important that young people are recruited into the Defence Forces as soon as possible. Quite apart from careers in the armed forces, there is also the issue of taking people off social welfare in some instances and, in other instances, releasing jobs that others can take up. Is there not a case for having a recruitment competition whereby panels could emerge from which people could be called throughout the year as positions become available? As things are progressing, it seems that at best it may be quite late in the year before recruitment takes place, but that is not good enough in this day and age.

The Minister referred to the Defence Forces being a credible organisation. I am concerned, however, that with more of our troops at home, there may be a temptation in the current economic climate not to recruit. In that case, the strength of the armed forces would not come back up to 10,000.

Deputy O'Shea is right in that we all have to contend with the difficulties thrown up by the current economic situation. However, as I explained in the original answer, the Department and the military authorities are discussing exactly where the most serious need arises. There is a requirement within the Army itself and there are also specialist roles in the Naval Service and Air Corps. We have just been talking about the Naval Service's role in many important areas. All of that is being examined and I understand from the officials on both sides that progress is being made.

In the couple of weeks I have been in this job, I have only had an opportunity to visit three barracks. It was educational to talk to staff in the barracks and hear their concerns directly about the make up of numbers and their requirements. At this point, although not having quite read myself fully into the job, it is clear to me that we need to undertake recruitment. In the initial stages, it will be important to recruit for those areas which have specific requirements. I am well disposed to Deputy O'Shea's suggestion that panels be set up because people retire for a variety of reasons and further vacancies will be likely to arise. I am concerned to ensure that the strength in all cases in the various sectors will be sufficient to enable the Army to carry on its functions in a credible manner. I think we would all agree that is desirable.

When does the Minister expect to announce that recruitment will take place for the Defence Forces? In the 2007 programme for Government a commitment was given that not alone would the numbers reach 10,500, but also that there would be 300 personnel in training at any one time. However, that commitment was subsequently renegued on by the Government. The McCarthy report suggested numbers should be reduced to 10,000 but numbers have fallen below that. It is important the numbers are restored to 10,000 as soon as possible. When will recruitment commence? A large number of officers and ordinary members of the Defence Forces appear to be leaving prematurely and taking early retirement. Has the Minister analysed the reason people are leaving early and could he put any incentives in place to encourage them to remain longer? Early retirement seems to be a problem currently.

I accept the point made by Deputy Deenihan with regard to the 2007 programme for Government. It is true that things have changed very dramatically in economic terms since then. The McCarthy report recommended a reduction in numbers from 10,500 to 10,000 and that has been agreed. In response to Deputy O'Shea, when we start recruiting, we should in the initial phase try to ensure people are recruited to areas where there is more urgent need. There is considerable urgency in some areas, but I have not completed consideration of reports from the Department and military officials with regard to those areas. This is an important starting point, but I cannot tell the Deputy exactly how long it will take to start. There will be no delay on my side and judging by indications from both the Department and the military authorities, they are very keen to proceed to ensure we have the necessary numbers in all areas.

The issue of early retirement is an interesting question. In the current economic climate, what is happening is the opposite to what I would have expected. One could understand that in an era when alternative employment opportunities were readily available, army people with their skill sets would be attractive to employers and would be attracted to that option, but there are far fewer such opportunities available now. We are examining the situation to see why people are continuing to leave. I also have considerable concern with regard to the age profile, which is something that had to be addressed some decades ago. This issue is a concern that is separate from the numbers issue and recruitment will be necessary to address it.

It is encouraging that the Minister has indicated he sees merit in the idea of recruitment panels. Before the ban on recruitment was introduced, an individual in my constituency was about to be called, but then the ban was introduced and as a result he was not recruited. He went off then to either New Zealand or Australia. If panels were put in place as early as possible, people with particular skills suited to the Defence Forces might not emigrate. People should be let know they are on a panel and their position on it. If they knew it was likely they would be called, they would be less likely to emigrate. Speed is of the essence in that regard. If we wait to draw up the total requirement in detail, too much time will pass. Whereas not having people in positions at an early date may save the State money, there is a wider agenda to be served. We must get the process going as quickly as possible. It is important that young people are given hope in the current situation.

There would not be an appreciable saving in the event of a delay of a month or so and that should not be a consideration. Recruitment should be targeted at areas where the most immediate need arises. While I am well disposed to the idea of panels, I realise one of their major downsides is the uncertainty of recruitment. In one year 50 people might be recruited from a panel, in another year 80 people might be recruited and then, perhaps in a downturn, only ten might be recruited. It is very difficult to judge a reasonable annual expectation of the number of people to be recruited from a panel. However, panels also have some merit and I will raise the issue with Department officials and the military authorities. In the recruitment campaign we should target the areas of most immediate need and try to address them. We have a shortfall of 123 or 127 personnel currently, which is a small number. I would be happier to target recruitment at areas with specific needs.

How many vacancies will be advertised or has the Minister decided yet how many places will be offered? Obviously, more people will leave from various ranks before the end of the year. Concern about the gratuity also has an influence on people's decisions. They fear the gratuity may be taxed in the budget. It would be no harm if the Minister cleared up that issue. It is important to remember that people will leave this year and more will leave next year. Therefore, any recruitment that will take place should compensate for those people.

The Minister's predecessor had a campaign to attract more women into the Defence Forces. The number of female personnel in our Defence Forces is among the lowest in Europe. Would the Minister consider making a special effort to target more female applications and to make the Army a more attractive career for women? I have been campaigning for some time for a crèche in the Curragh. Will the Minister make this a priority as the need has existed for some time?

I agree with Deputy Deenihan that a number of people will leave and that this must be taken into account in the context of the recruitment campaign. This would give additional flexibility in areas where there are particular needs. I am not in a position to give any advice with regard to the issue of the gratuity. It is one of the great imponderables with regard to the public sector generally that many people who might not consider retirement otherwise see the gratuity issue as a factor. It is impossible to predict how great a factor this is in the military area as much as in any other area.

I would like to be able to establish a means to recruit more women to the Defence Forces and, having recruited them, to retain them for a longer period. Both Department and military personnel have raised this issue with me. It is something we must try to address, particularly in view of the fact that it seems to be addressed more successfully in other countries than has been the case here.