Vol. 585 No. 2
38 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if he has authorised an investigation into the role played by members of the Western Command during the Battle of Jadotville in the Congo in 1961; the terms of reference of such an investigation; when he expects a final report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13647/04]
The Chief of Staff has received a submission from a retired Army officer who served at Jadotville seeking a review of the events of September 1961. The Chief of Staff has arranged for the submission to be examined by a board of military officers. The Chief of Staff has asked the board to make recommendations as to any further action that may be open. Pending the outcome of the examination, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. I will carefully consider any recommendations that the Chief of Staff may make in respect of the issue.
I am glad the Minister has informed us that the case is being reopened after 43 years. Does the Minister agree that the essential elements of the matter are simple and straightforward, namely, that a company of the Irish Defence Forces, under severe attack by 4,000 Katanganese soldiers led by Belgian officers, sustained the attack for five days? They were outnumbered by 20 to one and during the five days inflicted casualties of 300 on the enemy forces without sustaining any fatality themselves, though seven were injured. They withstood the land and air bombardment for five days until, eventually, their ammunition, food and water ran out. The Daily Mail, that organ of rectitude, reported afterwards that they fought like tigers.
Now, 43 years later, their valour and heroism has been almost airbrushed out of Irish military history. Unfortunately, quite a few of up to 350 Irish people who fought at that battle have gone to their eternal reward without recognition of their bravery. I hope that when this inquiry is established it will report back as soon as possible because some of the participants of the Jadotville siege are now in their 80s or 90s and others have died. These people are not looking for money or compensation but for recognition of how bravely they fought and held the fort for five days, until they eventually had to surrender. I would term it the Irish Thermopylae.
I hope there is a comprehensive review, that justice is done and that their valour and heroism is recognised, even 43 years later. I also hope we get some indication as to what mysterious forces were at work which prevented recognition of their valour and bravery for 43 years. This is not how our Defence Forces should be treated. We are proud of what they have done on international service with the United Nations. This battle was a glorious occasion but it has been forgotten. I hope the inquiry addresses that.
As I indicated, the Chief of Staff has established a board of military officers to examine the matter. It would not be fair or right for me to comment further beyond saying that the military board sets about its work in an independent manner, without interference from me or anybody else and there is sound reason for that. Recognition of distinctive roles — medals of honour, military stars or whatever recognition it is finally decided should be accorded, in this or any other case, is done on the basis of strict criterion with which I would not interfere.
However, I would like to respond to Deputy McGinley's request and have the process completed as quickly as possible to facilitate whatever decisions must be taken on foot of it. I will certainly respond quickly to whatever recommendations are made to me.
I appreciate the Minister's support and recognition that time is of critical importance. We should recognise and record the perseverance of people like John Gorman and others, who are still thankfully alive and who participated in that siege. They too hope that no further time is wasted, that there is no foot dragging and that the truth comes out and is officially recognised. I hope the Minister will maintain his interest in the inquiry and ensure this happens.
I assure the Deputy there will be no foot dragging whatsoever.
39 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the proposed role of the Pilatus aircraft being acquired by the Air Corps; the capacity that is available to the Air Corps to protect this country against airborne terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13473/04]
107 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the total number of aircraft available, both fix wing and helicopters, to the Air Corps with adequately trained staff on a 24 hour basis; the call out time in the event of a terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13659/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 39 and 107 together.
The most important defence against a terrorist attack is detection and prevention by the security forces. While the Garda Síochána has primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State, one of the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid to the civil power, meaning in practice, to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána. The various components of the Defence Forces are active in this regard, providing such assistance as is appropriate in specific circumstances.
A key issue in detection and prevention is the availability and effective analysis of information and intelligence. The likelihood of a terrorist threat to Ireland is being continually assessed and there is ongoing contact and very good co-operation between the Garda and the Defence Forces in this regard. The advice available to me suggests that there is no reason to believe at this time that Ireland or Irish airspace is a direct target. However, it is prudent that we take precautions and keep matters under continuous review.
The assets available to the Defence Forces are related to the level of threat and are considered appropriate in this regard. An air defence capability requires the integrated use of aircraft, radar and air and ground based weapons systems. The Defence Forces have a limited ground-to-air capacity, and that has always been the position. The new trainer aircraft will enhance the airborne elements of our air defence capability. However, we will still continue to operate a limited air-to-air and air-to-ground defence capability.
The Air Corps has a total of 21 fixed wing aircraft and 15 helicopters in the fleet. Outside that it would be inappropriate of me to go into detail about the readiness, deployment arrangements or speed of deployment or redeployment of air defence assets. However, all aircraft have adequate numbers of operationally trained aircrew who can operate from Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, which is available on a 24 hour basis as required, and that the shortest call-out time applicable in the Air Corps in certain circumstances is two minutes.
The role of the Pilatus aircraft being acquired for the Air Corps is as a pilot trainer aircraft to train Air Corps pilots in basic flying and in air combat techniques. The aircraft can also be armed with machine guns and rocket systems.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Defence Forces have one Giraffe mobile air defence radar with a range of up to 40 km and eight Flycatcher mobile air defence fire control radars with a range of 20 km. Twenty-four Bofors L70 air defence guns were purchased from the Royal Netherlands Air Force following the events of 11 September 2001. These weapons are controlled directly by the Flycatcher radars. The projected capability of these guns allows for the simultaneous protection of four airports plus a reserve. The Defence Forces also have six Bofors RBS missile launchers for use with the Giraffe radar. The radar systems have the capacity to detect overflights by aircraft and the air defence regiment is fully trained in the use of the guns. The weapons systems on the new Pilatus aircraft will provide a further capability in terms of air defence.
Ireland has traditionally had a limited military air capability. Aspirations to broaden the range of available air based capabilities are understandable but have to be balanced against real world constraints. Given the enormous costs involved, few small countries possess the ability to provide a comprehensive air based defence capability. The choice must then lie between maintaining an essentially token force to address all dimensions of national defence or seeking to perform a selected range of tasks to a professional standard. The latter option has been the one chosen in Ireland.
Before dealing with the question, I pay tribute to Air Corps Second Lieutenant Raymond Heery who lost his life when his plane crashed during a training exercise last week. This emphasises once again the risks we ask members of the Defence Forces to take for us on a regular basis.
Given that the Air Corps has been so short of aircraft, the acquisition of the Pilatus aircraft is a welcome development. What is the total value of the contract and when will the rest of the aircraft be delivered? Does the Minister accept that these aircraft are, effectively, only suitable for training purposes and that they have no real defensive capacity in the accepted sense? What capacity has the Air Corps to defend Ireland against airborne attack, particularly an airborne terrorist attack?
I join Deputy Sherlock in expressing sympathy to the Heery family on the death of one of our young pilots, Captain Heery, in very tragic circumstances.
Regarding air defence, the Defence Forces have one Giraffe mobile air defence radar with a range of up to 40 km and eight Flycatcher mobile air defence fire control radars with a range of 20 km. Twenty-four Beaufort L70 air defence guns were purchased from the Royal Netherlands Air Force following the events of 11 September 2001 and these weapons are controlled directly by the Flycatcher radars. The projected capability of these guns allows for the simultaneous protection of four airports plus a reserve. The Defence Forces also have six Bofors RBS missile launchers for use with the Giraffe radar. The radar systems have the capacity to detect overflights by aircraft and the Air Defence Regiment is fully trained in the use of the guns.
The weapons system in the new Pilatus aircraft will provide further capability in terms of air defence and would include machine guns and rocket launchers. The Pilatus is primarily a training facility for the Air Corps. It is a vitally important acquisition because training pilots is one of the most essential tasks the Air Corps must perform in terms of the various roles it will subsequently be asked to perform for the Government and the people. It is essential that the pilots have this facility. Three of these aircraft have already landed here. Later this month and before the end of June the next five, bringing the total to eight Pilatus aircraft, will havearrived here. The total cost is approximately €60 million.
What action would the Minister order, as Minister for Defence, if he were told a hijacked aircraft over the Atlantic was heading in this direction and threatening to crash into a key installation or a city centre? Is it not the case that in such a situation all that could be done would be to appeal to some other country, probably Great Britain, to intercept the plane on our behalf? Does he consider that to be acceptable? I am not suggesting that we spend large sums of money on acquiring fighter aircraft. However, we should have some policy for providing protection against airborne attack.
Some of the richest countries in the world with defence budgets which would shock Deputies McGinley and Sherlock and myself, are unable to deal with the type of circumstance Deputy Sherlock has outlined. I do not want to speculate on such matters. It is clear we have limited ground-to-air and air defence capacity. It is also recognised that nothing can be done to defend against the type of terrorist activity carried out in Madrid. That scenario was far removed from that envisaged in Deputy Sherlock's proposition. However, it illustrates the variety of challenges that can arise in terms of a terrorist attack.
We live in a community of nations where terrorist attacks are usually not just a problem for one particular country but for the world community. As I have emphasised on many occasions, the clearest and most decisive way to deal with such problems has always been effective — detection, intelligence and suppression of a cell before it reaches the stage outlined by Deputy Sherlock. In addition, very critical questions arise in the kinds of circumstances he has outlined, because many bogus things are happening in the world. How truthful is the information? Is this a rogue aircraft or is it totally innocent? Will the people on the aircraft be given an opportunity to regain control? How much time is there to intervene? I do not want to speculate on these matters, but they are very serious.
Deputy Sherlock and others are entitled to ask but, needless to say, in dealing with them and in being absolutely truthful with the public, one must recognise the essential facts. One of those is that the largest and richest countries in the world are grappling with how to confront such situations. We are part of a community of nations that constitutes the EU and with our partners try to the extent we can to confront these issues. I hope the scenario described by Deputy Sherlock does not happen. However, the level of threat to this country as defined by the Garda Síochána, which is responsible for this area, is nothing like that.
40 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Defence if, in view of the fact that the Air Corps air ambulance is not a dedicated service, and that the equipment it carries reflects its multi-purpose role, if he has satisfied himself with allowing this service to continue, and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13475/04]
Among the roles assigned to the Air Corps under the White Paper on Defence is the provision of air ambulance services. The Air Corps provides a limited air ambulance service subject to the nature of the mission, available aircraft and other operational commitments. To this end, the Air Corps deploys an Allouette helicopter for daylight missions and, subject to availability, a Dauphin helicopter for night-time operations and also for some neo-natal transfers. In certain circumstances, both the Beechcraft and the CASA Maritime patrol aircraft have been used in the air ambulance role. In addition, the new Lear Jet can be configured for air ambulance and patient transfer.
Each aircraft deployed carries a selection of mission specific medical equipment, the scale of which meets the requirements of each transfer. In this regard, the Air Corps has worked closely with hospital specialists to procure specific equipment and fittings for both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
Air Corps helicopters operate from both airports and, where available and deemed safe, hospital helipads. Most transfers are airport to airport with onward transfer by land ambulance. All air ambulance taskings are passed to the Air Corps by a regional ambulance controller.
The provision of this service is on an "as is" basis. The level of service offered reflects the multi-purpose role of the Air Corps. The Air Corps has clearly stated the available capability to hospitals and health boards. The question of whether to use the service is a clinical decision to be made by relevant medical staff on a case by case basis having regard to the nature of the available service and the best interests of their patients. In this regard, my Department has recently entered into discussions with the Department of Health and Children to formalise the current service arrangements under a service level agreement. The service provided, limited as it is, is well regarded by those who use it and who understand the nature of the service. For so long as that remains the case, I will continue to offer the service.
I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I too sympathise with the family of the young pilot who died so tragically.
It is not my intention to bash the Air Corps, but the facts speak for themselves. The Beaumont study of 2000 shows the Air Corps service to be a farce. People who are desperately ill awaiting transfer for urgent treatment must wait an average of 12.25 hours for an Air Corps helicopter to arrive. However, the Air Corps has other jobs to do. It spends more time carrying Government Ministers than it spends doing mercy missions, and it is based in Dublin and therefore unavailable. That means that the 400 to 600 potential missions that should be done are not done. A total of 200 missions was carried out in 1997, decreasing to 86 missions in 2001 and people die as a result.
Would the Minister not agree that the answer is in the recently published study into the all-Ireland helicopter emergency medical service feasibility study, which is two years overdue, which states very clearly that this inter hospital service would work at a cost of €12 million plus €4 million annual running costs? That would include the cost of the helipad at Beaumont Hospital which is urgently needed. It would help our hardworking ambulance men to transfer people, say babies with meningococcal meningitis, and save their lives. What good is it to a baby fighting for its life to have to wait for this very essential service? Does the Minister not agree that the service is more needed than the six new Air Corps helicopters the Minister spoke about five months ago and in respect of which tenders have been issued?
Plans have been made to mind President Bush, but it is more important to mind our people. Charity begins at home. Why will the Minister not sanction the helicopter emergency medical service, which needs just one helicopter? The report speaks of consultation between the Department of Defence and the Department of Health and Children. Does the Minister not agree that it is imperative that the helicopter emergency medical service is established, especially in light of the findings of the Hanly report? The Garda has a dedicated helicopter because it feels that such a service is needed when crime takes place. What about people? Is the Government's priority military operations, President Bush, crime or the ill people of Ireland?
It is quite unfair of Deputy Cowley to suggest that there have been deficiencies in the Air Corps's attempts to provide a helicopter medical service.
The service is not dedicated.
It is equally unfair to suggest that a higher priority is given to the transport of Ministers or others than to urgent missions to transfer patients to hospital. There were 96 missions in 2003, involving the Dauphin, Alouette, Casa, Beech, Cessna and S61 aircraft. The missions took a total of 240 hours. I pay tribute to the Air Corps, which has a wide variety of roles and provides services such as search and rescue, ambulance and ministerial transport. The Air Corps responds to its various tasks as quickly as possible.
The Deputy referred to an announcement that was made about helicopters. Following the announcement, I established a civil military procurement group to decide on the type of aircraft that would be most suitable. The needs of the health service were to be considered in that context as one of the roles of the Air Corps. Unfortunately, developments in the search and rescue service in the west meant that the matter had to be reconsidered. I hope in the next week to advertise in the journal for tenders for six new helicopters.
I do not disagree with the Minister's contention that the Air Corps does a good job. It is not the fault of the Air Corps that it does not provide the dedicated service for which there is such a great need. Will the Minister make the case for the need to replace the Air Corps service with a dedicated service? A man is now paralysed for life and is in a wheelchair because the Air Corps was not available to bring him where he needed to go. He paid a high price.
Will the Minister not consider the establishment of a dedicated helicopter emergency medical service? A report that has been overdue for two years states that we should put in place such a service. The Minister arranged the commissioning of the report North and South. Will the Minister not take all of us, including the Air Corps, out of our misery by deciding to proceed with a dedicated helicopter emergency medical service?
I have indicated that the dedicated service issue is the subject of discussions between my Department and the Minister for Health and Children. I ask Members to bear in mind that the primary responsibility for providing such a service does not rest with the Minister for Defence. I am anxious to ensure that we will do as much as possible to provide enhanced health services using the facilities of the Air Corps and the acquisitions we made.
I thank the Minister.
41 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the serious deficiency in the standard of the search and rescue service available in the north-west; and when he expects to have a fully comprehensive service restored to these regions. [13648/04]
104 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which his Department is capable of meeting the requirements of the air and sea rescue service; if he has improvements in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13656/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 41 and 104 together.
The Irish Coast Guard has overall responsibility for the provision of maritime search and rescue services within the Irish search and rescue region. The Air Corps provides the search and rescue service off the north-west coast while a private operator, CHCI, provides the service from Dublin, Shannon and Waterford. I announced late last year that I had decided to withdraw the Air Corps from the search and rescue service. The decision was made following a considered assessment of the ability of the Air Corps to return to and to maintain a full 24-hour service in the north-west. Deputies will recall that the service had been restricted following an unusually high incidence of sick leave among the winch crews. There is no plan to reconsider the decision to withdraw from the search and rescue service.
The Air Corps will continue to provide its current limited service while the coast guard makes alternative arrangements for the return of a full search and rescue service in the north-west. I have been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, that proposals are under assessment and that a final decision is expected shortly. Air Corps pilots will continue to train in search and rescue techniques. It is envisaged that they will support limited non-maritime search and rescue services.
I regret that the Minister does not seem to have any plans to return responsibility for search and rescue services to the Air Corps, particularly in the north-west. I am sure the Minister will agree that the Air Corps provided an excellent service when it operated in the north-west and other parts of the country. Its staff acted as we have come to expect of them. Does the Minister agree that the current circumstances in the north-west are unacceptable in that we do not have a 24 hour service? When an emergency arises in the north-west, as has happened on numerous occasions since last January when the service was taken over by a private company, the service is often unavailable.
I understand that the service that is available in the north-west is limited. The facility to respond to calls does not exist after 7.30 p.m. When a request was made for assistance last Sunday morning, a helicopter in Sligo was unable to respond to a call from Sligo where a young man lost his life. We had to depend on assistance from Baldonnel, but the helicopter was halfway to Sligo when the young man's body was found. Such a case illustrates the difficulties we have because the north-west is so exposed at present.
The Minister said in his reply that responsibility has been given to a private company. Such a transfer was envisaged on 2 January last. What is the position of the transfer to the private company? When will the company assume full responsibility? When will it be able to provide a full 24 hour service to that area? The seas off the north-west coast are probably more treacherous than any in Ireland, if not Europe. It is a serious problem, but nothing seems to be happening. We have half a service. The Minister should bear the responsibility because he withdrew the facility from the Air Corps in the first instance. He has a responsibility to restore some sort of service before there is further loss of life.
I will not evade any of my responsibilities as Minister for Defence. Deputy McGinley is well aware that responsibility for the provision of search and rescue services does not lie with the Minister for Defence, but with the Irish Coast Guard. Such services are provided by CHCI at Waterford, Dublin and Shannon. The Air Corps continues to provide a limited service pending the provision of a full 24 hour service by CHCI. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has indicated to me that his Department's discussions with CHCI about the provision of a full service are in their final stages and that the matter is being treated with extreme urgency. The service being provided by the Air Corps in the interim undertook three missions in January, two in February, four in March and two in April. Some 14 people were rescued during that time.
I cannot be expected to take the blame for my decision to discontinue the Air Corps service, given that I was unable to guarantee continuity of the emergency life-saving service. On the basis of the information given to me by the Air Corps, I would not have been in a position to provide the service on a full-time basis — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — until March 2005 at the earliest. When I received indications from CHCI that it would be in a position to provide a full-time service at a much earlier date, I naturally had to face my responsibilities in that regard. I am anxious to help in any way I can.
The Air Corps is still involved in missions and will have a full winch crew for little less than half the monthly requirements. That is the very best I can do. I am anxious to see the Irish Coast Guard and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources complete the arrangement with the private company which will take over the provision of this service and which has provided an excellent service throughout the rest of the country.
I thank the Minister for his guarantee that he will do everything to maintain a comprehensive service in the north-west. I also associate myself with the comments of my colleagues on all sides of the House in conveying our deepest sympathy to the father, brother, sister and family members of second lieutenant Raymond Heery, another brave Air Corps person who lost his life tragically.
42 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the steps that are being taken to address the serious shortage of medical officers which is currently less than half of the establishment level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13474/04]
The military authorities advise that the current establishment for medical officers in the Permanent Defence Force is 51 and the current strength is 20. In common with other public sector health service providers, the medical corps encounters difficulty in the recruitment and retention of medical personnel. The Department of Defence, in consultation with the director of the medical corps, is seeking ways to recruit additional medical personnel, notwithstanding these difficulties.
Over the past number of years, the medical corps has had difficulty in attracting more than one or two medical officers per year into the service. Part of the difficulty in attracting applicants may be due to the unique nature of military medical officer appointments. Service in the medical corps is not a professional training employment comparable to non-consultant hospital doctor appointments or vocational training schemes in general practice. Where no military medical or dental officer is available, suitable local arrangements are made with civilian medical and dental practitioners to ensure that the appropriate level of professional care is available to members of the Defence Forces.
I raised the issue of the shortage of medical personnel in the Defence Forces in December 2002. RACO, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, described the military medical service as being close to collapse because of the critical shortage of medical officers. At that time there were 33 medical officers serving in the Defence Forces and it is alarming to find the figure has fallen to 20, about 40% of the recommended number. How many of the current 20 medical officers are serving with troops abroad and how much is paid by the Defence Forces each year to civilian doctors who provide care in the absence of the appropriate medical personnel?
One can come to the House prepared for as many questions as possible, but I do not know how much is paid by the Defence Forces to civilian doctors. I can find that out for the Deputy. He should bear in mind that many services are provided by civilian medical personnel for the Defence Forces, and those services supplement the medical services supplied by permanent medical staff in the Defence Forces.
There is a genuine problem in attracting medical personnel to the Defence Forces. We have considered a variety of ways of attracting such personnel and will continue to work on the problem. Suggestions have been made by colleagues in the House and I am considering them. We have two serving medical officers in Liberia, one of whom came from the private sector and is on a short-service commission.
When I raised this matter in December 2002 the Minister told me the Department, in consultation with the director of the medical corps, was endeavouring to seek ways to recruit additional medical personnel. It appears nothing has been done since then. Is it the Minister's intention to bring retired medical personnel back into the Defence Forces?
That suggestion has been made to me and I am considering it. It is not the usual or traditional practice in the Defence Forces to take such action but we are faced with a quite significant problem and we must consider every option. In 2003 we had one medical officer on a short-term commission who came from the private sector. There was no successful recruitment in 2002. Three medical officers were hired in 2001, one in 2000 and one in 1999. This is not for the want of trying.
I hope this will not be misinterpreted but we are dealing with what is probably one of the fittest, most health-conscious group of people in the country. It is due to the nature of the tasks that must sometimes be performed that the medical expertise needed must be of a high standard and as widely available as possible, particularly when we are undertaking missions abroad.
43 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence the military capability shortfalls highlighted at the EU Defence Ministers’ meeting in early April 2004; the pledges the Government has made in terms of rectifying these shortfalls; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13464/04]
49 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the recent two-day meeting of the EU Defence Ministers in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13388/04]
51 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the development of EU rapid reaction battle groups by 2007 agreed at the April 2004 EU Defence Ministers’ meeting; if Ireland will be participating in such battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13465/04]
65 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the meeting of Defence Ministers of the EU and acceding states that took place in early April 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13463/04]
111 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which he has discussed with his EU colleagues the means of combating terrorism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13663/04]
112 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the discussions he has had with his EU colleagues in the matter of European defence and security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13664/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 43, 49, 51, 65, 111 and 112 together.
I welcome this opportunity to update the House on discussions on European security and defence policy. On 5 and 6 April, I chaired an informal meeting in Brussels of Defence Ministers of EU member states and accession states. A number of such informal meetings have been held in recent years. The meetings have been a useful forum for informal discussions in the context of the ongoing development of European security and defence policy. The April meeting provided us with an opportunity to review and discuss the major issues in the ESDP mandate of the Irish Presidency. As the meeting was informal, it was not a decision-making forum and no formal conclusions were drawn.
On 17 May I will chair a meeting of Defence Ministers in the framework of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, at which formal decisions regarding the issues discussed at the informal meeting will be taken. The first item on the agenda was capabilities development. As the House will be aware, the Irish Presidency has been mandated to take forward work on the further development of European military capabilities to carry out Petersberg Tasks operations. In particular, we were tasked to develop a European capabilities action plan, roadmap and capability improvement chart. The purpose of the roadmap and chart is to facilitate Defence Ministers in guiding the process of capability development to best effect. Ministers reviewed progress to date and supported our approach to developing the roadmap and capability improvement chart. We then turned our attention to the second agenda item, the headline goal 2010. We had a useful exchange of views on the draft headline goal 2010 document as prepared by the EU Council secretariat. The views expressed at the meeting have been useful in guiding ongoing work.
The first day's session concluded with an exchange of views on the EU military rapid response paper as presented by Secretary General and High Representative, Javier Solana. The paper recommends that work on rapid response should be focused on four areas: rapid reaction capability, including qualitative and quantitative criteria; decision-making and planning; relations with the UN; and relations with NATO. The paper refers to the need for rapid response capabilities which should be clearly identifiable in the form of coherent rapid reaction battle groups. There was general support for the battle group concept and Ministers considered the way ahead with a view to achieving concrete results as soon as possible in the field of capabilities available and deployable at very high readiness, including battle groups, in support of the UN. Work on the battle groups concept is ongoing and the aim is to agree a concept by the end of June 2004. An initial battle group capability is envisaged in 2005 and a more extensive capability in 2007. This concluded the first day's meeting.
When the meeting resumed on 6 April, the first matter for our consideration was the proposed European defence agency. The overall aim of the agency is to support the development of the Union's crisis management capabilities. Our debate was informed by an update by the head of the agency establishment team. Ministers voiced continued support for the work of the team with a view to adoption, by June 2004, of the necessary Council decision for the creation of the agency.
As Deputies may recall, the European Council held in Brussels in December 2003 confirmed the EU's readiness for an ESDP follow-on mission to the UN mandated NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia Herzegovina. This was discussed as the final agenda item with particular reference to lessons learned from previous operations. The meeting ended with a working lunch at which discussion on the follow-on mission to SFOR continued in the context of EU-NATO co-operation.
Discussion on terrorism, the other theme for the working lunch, focused on the ESDP aspects of the recently approved European Council declaration. Ministers generally agreed that this issue is primarily for Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in the first instance.
I again remind the House that as the meeting was informal and not a decision-making forum, no formal conclusions were drawn. I will be chairing a meeting of Defence Ministers on 17 May in the framework of the GAERC which will be a formal meeting at which decisions in relation to ESDP will be taken. I look forward to briefing the House on the outcome of that meeting in due course.
What are the perceived military shortfalls in this country as far as the European Union capability improvement chart is concerned? How much will it cost to make up the shortfall? In the light of these commitments, is it expected that Ireland will have to increase its defence budget as a percentage of gross domestic product?
Will the Minister expand on the discussion he has had on Ireland's relationship with NATO? Will the expanding relationship with NATO have any effect on our status as a neutral State?
I do not anticipate any demands on the Exchequer in regard to the capability improvement chart and the shortfalls, as they relate to countries that have a significant investment in the defence area, whereas Irish investment up to now has been primarily related to basic needs that had to be met independent of European security and defence issues. All the acquisitions in which we have been involved are primarily directed at upgrading facilities and equipment to meet our UN requirements. I do not envisage any change in the demands made on Government by me as Minister for Defence.
It was always envisaged, notwithstanding the recognition of the independence of NATO and the EU, that in certain areas the relationship between the EU and NATO would be developed. Deputy Gormley will be familiar with the Irish contingents involvement in the UN mandated missions, SFOR and KFOR, run by NATO. These primarily reside around the heavier type of transport equipment and facilities for Petersberg Tasks operations or UN missions where there would not be the necessity for the duplication of assets. It would make no sense that member states involved in Petersberg Tasks operations in EU-UN mandated mission would purchase equipment that was already available, particularly equipment used in the heavy transport area.
There are no implication for our traditional military neutrality in anything in which we are engaged. We are primarily trying to improve the capacity in the European Union to undertake Petersberg Tasks and not have a repeat of the situation where countries stood idly by during terrible atrocities in Europe and seemed incapable of intervening. The debate on the rapid reaction force and other areas is primarily to ensure that UN mandated missions can be undertaken more quickly and effectively with greater inter-operability and the quality of what we do, both militarily and civil, can be enhanced by these arrangements.
What is the role of the meetings of the Defence Council, given that NATO countries as well as neutral countries such as Ireland and Austria are involved?
Was the deteriorating situation in Iraq discussed and, if so, what conclusions were drawn and were views expressed on the role of UN troops in Iraq?
Discussion took place on UN-EU relations, but not in the context of Iraq. As I mentioned in the course of my reply, these informal meetings take place between Defence Ministers over a number of years under different administrations to enhance the European security and defence policy and to examine the historically proven gaps in capabilities and to what extent, without compromising fundamental principles, we and others can assist each other in the provision of Petersberg Tasks operations, undertaking missions more effectively and quickly and conflict prevention.
We have never exercised our minds in the past to the degree we might have done on the actions that need to be taken on conflict prevention. We seem to undertake the missions when the holocaust, the genocide, the murder and mayhem has taken place. I share the concerns of Members at the reasons we are not in a position to try to offset or intervene in developing crises at an earlier stage. That calls for working together, inter-operability, partnership, training exercises and so on.
In the context of European defence and security, to what extent does the Minister expect responsibility to fall on the Department of Defence and the institutions of the State in combating terrorism? What role does he expect the Defence Forces to play and to what extent have his EU colleagues impressed on the Minister the role to be played by the Irish authorities? Are the available facilities adequate to meet all eventualities in such circumstances?
As Deputy Durkan knows, I chair the task force on emergency planning. At all those meetings, one of the first reports is from the Garda authorities and the Defences Forces on the threat assessment. Most of the work involves Departments and agencies gearing up their facilities whether in terms of protocols, investment in vaccines by the Department of Health and Children, improvement of safety procedures on aircraft and in airports, the responsibilities of the local authorities, the question of how to deal with a nuclear accident and the acquisition by my Department of detection and screening kits and of nuclear, biological and chemical suits — I think we have purchased approximately 7,000 of those. In the first instance, it is a continual assessment by the Garda and the Defence Forces and then upgrading, getting greater co-ordination and ensuring that all the elements that go into emergency planning are developed and enhanced and are capable of dealing with as much as we can humanly think about.
As we all know, a priority of the EU seems to be the development of a common defence policy whereby member states would come to each other's assistance. At these ministerial meetings which the Minister chairs during the Presidency, is the formulation of a common defence policy ever discussed? Is the Minister precluded from participating in such discussions due to our so-called neutrality? At what stage is the common defence policy? Does the Minister believe we should participate?
We do not have discussions on a common defence policy. We have made it absolutely clear on numerous occasions that any discussions, decisions or recommendations on going down that road, which is not on the map at present, would have to be put to the people. We have no intention or proposals in that regard.
At the meeting on 17 May, will the Minister raise the question of the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners with his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon? As an EU member state, we have a duty to raise it. In the context of NATO, will the Minister raise it when he meets his American counterpart?
Deputy Gormley knows the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have already expressed their grave concern in regard to the pictures that have appeared in the media. They are abominable and I will have no hesitation in raising my voice at the appropriate time in this regard. In terms of human rights and the dignity of people, anything done which sets out to humiliate and degrade persons to that degree is totally objectionable and reprehensible.
Do I take it that at the Council meeting, the Defence Ministers will issue a statement reaffirming the fundamental protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
Obviously, we must conclude our work on that agenda. This item has arisen in recent days but, as I have indicated, I will be anxious to use my voice in whatever way I can to enforce what is recognised all over the world as the way prisoners should be dealt with. As I said, what happened in Iraq is totally reprehensible and objectionable.
On the question of shortfalls in military capability, is the Minister telling the House that as far as our military capability is concerned, there are no real shortfalls? If there are shortfalls, will the Minister be quite specific in outlining them?
I already indicated to Deputy Gormley that these are in the heavy end of military equipment. As the Deputy knows, I have an ongoing acquisition policy funded primarily by the sale of assets to improve the ability and capacity of our Defence Forces in terms of their safety and our ability to undertake missions previously impossible for us. Three or four years ago, there would have been no way I could have recommended to the House, the Government or to the people to send a mission to Liberia. Were it not for the acquisition of the DROPS, the armoured personnel carriers, the medical equipment and the communications systems involving up to €100 million investment, we could not have undertaken that type of mission. I have said many times that I want to have an independent approach to the missions we undertake under United Nations' mandates. To do so, we need our own equipment and facilities. As I said, we could not have undertaken the Liberian mission two or three years ago but for these acquisitions.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
