Vol. 611 No. 5
56 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Defence the situation regarding the decentralisation of the civilian staff at the Department of Defence; the number of persons who will move; the number who have indicated that they wish to move; if a suitable site has been obtained; and if so, the location and cost of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38130/05]
The Government decision on decentralisation announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 3 December 2003 provides for the transfer of my Department's Dublin-based Civil Service staff to Newbridge, County Kildare. The number of staff to be relocated to Newbridge is 202.
While the Office of Public Works has identified a suitable site in Newbridge for the Department's new headquarters, negotiations on the acquisition of the site have not yet been completed. For this reason, it is not possible to give a firm date or cost for the move. Every effort is being made to expedite the process. Some 385 personnel, 60 of whom are currently serving in the Department, have volunteered to relocate to Newbridge.
How many Dublin-based civil servants wish to relocate to Newbridge? I fundamentally disagree with the principle of moving Department headquarters around the country. The Department of Defence is not moving too far but if it is looking for a site in Newbridge, it will prove quite expensive. Recently someone told me of a small property in Newbridge which sold for an outrageous sum. A few miles from Newbridge, there are thousands of acres in the Curragh. The Minister for Finance is moving the Army headquarters to the Curragh, yet he is moving the Department of Defence to Newbridge. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the move, I do not understand the logic of this. If the Minister wants to undertake this move in a practical, pragmatic and cost effective manner, the Department should move from Newbridge to the Curragh along with the Army headquarters.
Some 385 personnel, of whom 60 are currently serving in the Department, have volunteered to relocate to Newbridge. The acquisition of a site is the constraint most likely to delay the relocation of the Department. The Office of Public Works is making every effort on behalf of the Minister to achieve a successful outcome. Discussions are ongoing between the Office of Public Works and Kildare County Council regarding the site. The move of Coiste An Asgard will coincide with the Department's move to Newbridge and the Defence Forces headquarters will be relocated to the Curragh. As relocation to Newbridge is very much oversubscribed in comparison with other Departments, there will be no difficulty getting people to transfer and I hope it will be a successful move.
Does the Minister agree the purchase of a site in Newbridge is holding back the move? The site will cost a phenomenal sum of money yet literally two miles down the road is the Curragh training camp where the Department has thousands of acres and fantastic access. I do not understand the logic of the move to Newbridge, irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with decentralisation. If the Department locates in Newbridge, a site will have to be sourced at a huge fee but if it locates down the road in the Curragh camp, thousands of acres are available. Will the Minister of State ask the Minister to consider this suggestion?
I will be happy to raise the Deputy's views with the Minister. However, the Office of Public Works has shown considerable expertise in trying to identify sites for headquarters. There is a logical explanation for proceeding with this site. However, I will ask the Minister to keep the Deputy informed in this regard.
The Minister of State may not be able to respond to the following question but if he could, I would appreciate it. As regards members of the Defence Forces living in married quarters in barracks, there is a serious case in my constituency where people have been put on to the side of the road. They have been asked to vacate——
That is a separate question.
If we are asking large numbers of people to move, is the wrong signal being sent if those who have served us so well, as the Minister of State rightly said in a previous reply to me, are being dumped on to the side of the road in this way?
I will be happy to pursue the point the Deputy just made. I agree this must be done in a co-ordinated way. Some 20 members of staff from the Department's Dublin offices wish to decentralise to other locations. These staff will be facilitated as soon as possible when requested for transfers by other Departments. Over the next six months, vacancies arising in this way will be filled. The Department will proceed to transfer staff and fill vacancies according to protocols in a phased way taking account of our business priorities and service delivery needs.
There is another aspect to the numbers the Minister of State gave us, that is, who wishes to decentralise. I received a reply to a parliamentary question on 2 November on the risk assessment done by the Department and in which it was very forthcoming on issues such as loss of corporate memory, loss of key staff to execute tasks contained in the plan, corporate isolation and possible loss of high performance culture. Is the Minister satisfied the people who are to decentralise will satisfy the risk analysis done?
There is a big difference between the Curragh and Newbridge. One difference is that there is a train line to Newbridge which may well be an attractive proposition to people relocating. We should not lose sight of those aspects of decentralisation.
I agree with the Deputy that corporate memory and experience and personnel family matters are vital issues in the context of the relocation of people. The approach of this process of decentralisation is that it is done on a voluntary basis. I agree with the Deputy in regard to the train line. We have seen the plans under Transport 21 and it is a very attractive incentive for people to move to places like Newbridge. Good transport facilities are vital and will be a great incentive for people to move to some of the locations. Given the problems on the M50, people would be glad to move to places to which there is greater access transport-wise for all members of the family. This must be done on a voluntary basis and in consultation with those involved. Consideration must also be taken of people's family situations.
57 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his attendance at the EU’s General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in November 2005; his views on the agreement reached between all 25 EU Defence Ministers at the GAERC on the completion of the EU’s military requirements catalogue; the 18 battle groups involving 26 nations which have been formed and were discussed at the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38199/05]
84 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if the completion of the EU’s military requirements catalogue will result in increased armaments expenditure by Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38206/05]
113 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if the completion of the EU’s military requirements catalogue will result in increased armaments expenditure by Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38200/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 57, 84 and 113 together.
The Minister for Defence attended the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, meeting in Defence Ministers formation on 21 November 2005. Ministers discussed progress in developing military capabilities, current issues relating to civil-military co-operation, and the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Under military capabilities, the discussions focused on the requirements catalogue 05, the single progress report and the headline goal questionnaire. Comprehensive planning and security sector reform were discussed under civil-military co-operation.
The requirements catalogue 05 is the first step in the delivery of headline goal 2010. It identifies the forces and capabilities needed against which member states will be invited to make offers through the headline goal questionnaire. It is a planning document and, therefore, it imposes no obligations on member states in terms of capability development or the provision of specific capabilities.
At the battle group co-ordination conference in November 2005, member states gave commitments for up to 18 rapid response elements-battle groups. Each rapid response element-battle group will be on stand-by for a six month period and with the exception of one slot on 2009, all slots out to 2010 are now filled. Currently, there is one rapid response element-battle group on stand-by and from January 2007 there will be two on stand-by.
I have a number of specific questions in regard to this important matter. The reports from the November meeting state that 18 battle groups involving 26 nations were announced and discussed at the meeting. Can the Minister of State indicate whether Ireland is considered to be one of the 26 nations involved in battle groups? If that is not the case and Ireland does decide to join an EU battle group, will we be joining one of the 18 that have been formed or will we form an additional battle group?
Can the Minister of State inform the House what capabilities have been identified that we will make available? What exactly will be our military capabilities contribution and what additional costs will arise from this?
I dealt earlier with the issue of battle groups. I stated we are committed in principle to becoming involved, subject to finding the right way of doing so. The Minister is currently reviewing the report produced last week by the interdepartmental group. Some work remains to be done on that area. We will obviously revert back to the Deputies who have referred to this issue.
Is the Minister stating categorically that we are not yet part of a battle group?
Currently, Malta is not involved either and Denmark has opted out. All the other EU states are involved. We are committed in principle to joining, but we must get it right. That is a matter for discussion between my colleague, the Minister for Defence, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The issue will be discussed at Cabinet. There are many ways in which one can become involved. The headline goal involves everything from humanitarian assistance and Petersberg Tasks chapter 7 to peacemaking. Involvement is based on voluntarism. Each operation is examined separately. The system is based on the triple lock principle. My colleague, the Minister, has made that very clear. We will make up our mind at the time about the kind of involvement we choose. It is a very open agenda. This is the kind of discussion that has taken place. We are at the very early stages. Any involvement will require the triple lock — the UN mandate, a Government decision and the issue would have to come before the Dáil. There is still much work to be done on this. We are committed in principle, subject to finding the right way to get involved.
If we are committed in principle, will we join one of the existing 18 battle groups or will we be forming a new one?
As I stated, Malta is not currently involved and Denmark has opted out. It would be wrong of me to make any particular commitments as to how we would become involved. I ask the Deputy to bear with us on that. We are now near to making a decision and as soon as a decision is made we will go to Cabinet. There will have to be some co-ordination between my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. We will revert back to the Deputy very shortly.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council, which is also part of this process, approved the final requirements catalogue for the battle groups. Is the Minister of State aware this was validated using computer assisted operational analysis provided by NATO? Does he agree that interoperability with NATO principles underpins the entire capabilities improvement programme and that such interoperability compromises the State's neutrality? It was strange that in the Department's report on the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting it did not mention this whereas the British report on the same issue stated the information was provided by NATO. Is there something to hide?
What peace functions does the Minister envisage will be provided by the equipment and weapons included in the capability improvement charts? These refer to attack helicopter battalions, field artillery battalions, cruise missiles and precision guided munitions. Can the requirements catalogue be forwarded to the defence spokespersons, as previously requested? I thought the Minister had agreed to do this.
With regard to the requirements catalogue, it would not be appropriate for me to go into this in detail, as it is a restricted document. However, the catalogue includes a wide range of equipment to support all types of operations, from humanitarian relief, up to and including peacemaking, which of its nature may involve combat with opposing forces. Deputies will recall the situation in the Balkans where the opposing forces were effectively standing armies. In any similar scenario, the full range of combat resources and combat support elements would need to be available to a rapid response element-battle group which might be deployed in any such situation.
We can discuss the minutiae of all that is involved in these issues but the reality is that there are needs out there and, much and all as we would like it, this world is not peaceful. There are many troubled regions. I make no apology for reverting back to the situation in Liberia where the UN mission is a robust chapter 7 mandate. In some of these situations we will have to work side by side with people who have bigger and more robust equipment and are more powerful than us. In my experience, our involvement in Liberia ensured humanitarian workers and NGOs were able to go into the countryside, inoculate people and save lives. It is a very exciting prospect for the nation.
I assure the House we will get it right in regard to the triple lock. At some of these meetings, I accept we will have to work side by side with people who have an involvement with NATO. We will make sure we get it right. We will go through the process of the UN, the Government and the Dáil. That is a very important safeguard as regards the sovereignty of the nation.
58 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Defence the amount of revenue obtained from the sale of property in his Department; the percentage of same which was re-invested in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38126/05]
The Government, on 15 July 1998, approved a programme of evacuation and sale of six barracks considered surplus to military requirements. The barracks in question were located at Ballincollig, Fermoy, Castleblayney, Naas, Kildare and Islandbridge, Dublin. The value of sales-disposals completed to date in respect of the six barracks, the subject of the July 1998 Government decision, together with additional military property which was surplus to military requirements, is in the region of €90 million.
The increased level of expenditure on equipment for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service was made possible by the Government's decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper of 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment.
Investment in new equipment for the Defence Forces is provided for under various subheads of the Defence Vote relating to defensive equipment, mechanical transport, aircraft, ships and naval stores, engineering, communications and information technology equipment etc. All elements of the Defence Forces, the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and the Reserve have benefited from the investment in new equipment. Over the past six years, over €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers and the Javelin missile system for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps.
The programme of investment is continuing apace. Last January, my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing over €60 million. Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers will be added to the current fleet. It is expected the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of this year.
There are also ongoing acquisitions of modern equipment for use by soldiers on operational duties. The individual soldier is now required to carry an array of equipment while engaged on such duties. In that regard, one of the essential ongoing equipment acquisition projects concerns the provision of a modern integrated protection and load carrying system for members of the Defence Forces. This involves, inter alia, the personal protective equipment consisting of body armour and helmet. The aim is to have a new, lighter protective system which is compatible with all current and future systems required for each soldier.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
A tender competition was held for the provision of body armour for individual soldiers. An order has been placed for 6,000 units for delivery in 2006. In addition, a separate tender competition for helmets was also held for the acquisition of 12,000 helmets. An order has been placed for the helmets, which will also be delivered in 2006.
A tender competition for the replacement of the existing FN 9 mm Browning automatic pistol is now in train. It is expected that an order will be placed in the first quarter of 2006. In addition, an order has been placed for the provision of 400 general purpose machine guns for delivery in 2006.
The equipment issued to the Defence Forces is in keeping with the most modern requirements and the highest international standards. Alongside the investment in equipment, there has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure in the Defence Forces in recent years, also made possible by the Government's decision. Over €178 million has been spent between 1999 and 2004 on the capital investment programme for the upgrade of barracks to provide the Defence Forces with modern accommodation, operational, training and recreational facilities. This year's Estimate for my Department includes €19.4 million for such capital works with a proposal to allocate €21.8 million in 2006. I have included, in tabular form, a list of the major projects carried out between 1999 and 2005.
The programmes to which I have referred reflect that massive steps have been taken in recent years to modernise Defence Forces equipment and infrastructure and that substantial efforts are continuing on both fronts. The continuation of investment in infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces remains a top priority for the Minister for Defence.
|
Barracks |
Project |
Date Contract placed |
Project Cost |
|
€ million |
|||
|
Collins, Cork |
Men’s Dining Hall |
22 January 1999 |
2.19 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Ammo Depot Upgrade services |
12 April 1999 |
5.96 |
|
Casement |
New Hangar 5 |
22 July 1999 |
6.33 |
|
Collins, Cork |
New NCO’s Mess |
30 March 2000 |
1.71 |
|
Curragh Camp |
New Pool and Gym Upgrade |
23 May 2000 |
8.20 |
|
Cathal Brugha |
CIS / Engineering Building |
29 May 2000 |
2.94 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Clarke Bks. — A and B Blocks |
24 August 2000 |
1.59 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Stores 1, 2, 3 and 4 |
1 September 2000 |
6.92 |
|
Casement |
Const. of Transport W/Shops |
12 September 2000 |
1.06 |
|
Curragh Camp |
New Transport Technical Stores |
31 October 2000 |
2.30 |
|
Collins Cork |
Storage Facility — Armoury |
30 November 2000 |
3.32 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Refurbish Block 3 Connolly and Block 8 Plunkett |
30 November 2000 |
3.70 |
|
Collins Cork |
New Gymnasium |
6 December 2000 |
2.70 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Connolly Bks. Accom. Upgrade |
6 December 2000 |
3.18 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Ordnance Transport Schools |
6 December 2000 |
3.46 |
|
Curragh Camp |
New NCOs’ Mess East |
11 January 2001 |
2.66 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Combat Support College — Main |
23 January 2001 |
6.67 |
|
Cathal Brugha |
P and Q Accommodation Blocks |
31 January 2001 |
.96 |
|
Curragh Camp |
NCOs’ Mess West |
31 January 2001 |
4.44 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Vehicle Garaging, Curragh Camp |
8 August 2001 |
4.62 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Refurbish Kitchen — Officers’ Mess — Ceannt Bks |
20 September 2001 |
1.08 |
|
Casement |
No. 3 Support Wing HQ |
26 November 2001 |
3.00 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Combined Vehicle Workshops |
2 January 2002 |
9.03 |
|
Casement |
Resurfacing of Runways |
26 June 2002 |
6.40 |
|
Cathal Brugha |
Upgrade Accommodation Block |
30 August 2002 |
1.88 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Container Storage Yard |
9 September 2002 |
.99 |
|
Coolmoney Camp |
Upgrade Works Waste |
24 September 2002 |
1.02 |
|
Renmore, Galway |
New Cookhouse and Dining Hall |
25 September 2002 |
3.35 |
|
McKee Bks. |
Upgrading of G Block |
9 October 2002 |
1.92 |
|
Coolmoney Camp |
Upgrade Huts and Ablutions |
15 November 2002 |
1.21 |
|
Costume Bks. |
New Storage Facility |
21 November 2002 |
1.98 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Special Storage Building |
18 September 2003 |
2.11 |
|
Custume Bks. |
New NCOs’ Mess |
26 September 2003 |
1.24 |
|
Naval Base |
New Technical Stores |
26 September 2003 |
2.57 |
|
Naval Base |
Upgrade Billet Blocks |
4 November 2003 |
1.53 |
|
Curragh Camp |
Workshop and Office Facilities, Plunkett Bks. |
31 August 2004 |
1.74 |
|
Cathal Brugha |
Upgrade Battalion HQ |
17 September 2004 |
1.37 |
|
Casement |
Upgrade Other Ranks Accommodation |
21 September 2004 |
1.30 |
|
Sarsfield, Limerick |
Upgrade Accommodation Block |
21 September 2004 |
1.03 |
|
Renmore Galway |
Refurbish Storage Facility |
22 October 2004 |
2.12 |
|
Custume Bks. |
Refurbish Brigade Headquarters |
10 November 2004 |
2.42 |
|
Barracks |
Project |
Date Contract placed |
Project Cost |
|
€ million |
|||
|
Sarsfield Bks., Limerick |
Refurbish and Extension of Dining Hall |
22 June 2005 |
2.05 |
|
Curragh Camp Connolly Bks. |
Refurbish Accommodation Block 7, |
18 August 2005 |
1.54 |
|
Finner Camp, Donegal |
Refurbish Accommodation Blocks |
7 September 2005 |
1.04 |
|
Cathal Brugha Bks., Dublin |
Refurbish Accommodation Blocks L and M |
7 September 2005 |
1.54 |
|
Custume Bks., Athlone |
Refurbish Main Accommodation Block |
3 November 2005 |
4.22 |
|
Collins Bks., Cork |
Upgrade of Brigade Headquarters and Medical Facility |
24 November 2005 |
2.71 |
|
Renmore Bks., Galway |
Refurbish Accommodation Blocks 1 and 2 |
1 December 2005 |
1.59 |
I want to reconfirm that all the money obtained for sales of properties has been used for the purchase of equipment or the upgrade or replacement of facilities. Will the Minister of State tell me whether the Minister of Defence has any other plans to sell property in order to finance the equipment programme he outlined or will the money come from normal Estimates?
My understanding is that all the money has been used but I will revert to the Deputy if any further information needs to be shared with him on the issue. On the second question, there are no plans to sell any other barracks.
59 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Defence the efforts being made by his Department to bring to justice the prime suspect for the brutal murder of two Irish soldiers in Lebanon in April 1980; if he has held discussions with US authorities regarding the extradition of the main suspect, who is a naturalised US citizen; his views on whether Ireland may be able to pursue a prosecution under the Geneva Conventions; if the family and relatives of the two soldiers are being kept informed of the situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38163/05]
The case to which the Deputy refers concerns the killing of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne while serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, in 1980. The question of the measures open to Irish authorities to bring the alleged perpetrator of this crime to justice has been examined in detail in the Department of Defence in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office.
The Attorney General has advised that there are no provisions in Irish law which provide a basis for Ireland to pursue a prosecution against the alleged perpetrator. The Attorney General indicated, however, that, while untested and potentially difficult, it might be possible for Ireland to pursue a prosecution under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. While this appears an outside possibility, the Minister for Defence nevertheless asked the DPP, who would be responsible for pursuing any prosecution, to review the matter. The DPP is examining all the available evidence in the case with a view to determining whether any case can be mounted against the alleged perpetrator. The country with primary jurisdiction in this case is Lebanon. At the request of the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs through the Embassy of Ireland in Cairo, which is accredited to Beirut, has conveyed to the Lebanese authorities our earnest desire and determination to see the alleged perpetrator brought to justice and to advise them that we will assist in whatever manner we can, should the Lebanese authorities be able to bring him to justice. As recently as 10 November 2005, the Irish ambassador to Lebanon met the Prime Minister of Lebanon and discussed the matter with him.
The Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs are also in contact with the US authorities, where the alleged perpetrator resides as a naturalised US citizen. The US authorities have been kept apprised of developments in the case. The Minister for Defence will continue to explore such avenues as may be open to him to seek justice in respect of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne. However, it will be appreciated that the long passage of time since the tragic incident will create its own difficulties in terms of mounting a prosecution, even if we can make the alleged perpetrator amenable to justice.
The Defence Forces continue to maintain contact with the Barrett and Smallhorne families through annual ceremonies commemorating deceased members of the Defence Forces. This year, to mark the 25th anniversary of the death of Private Derek Smallhorne, a wreath-laying ceremony organised by the Fifth Infantry Battalion was held at his graveside in Palmerstown Cemetery, Dublin, followed by Mass at the garrison church in McKee Barracks. The ceremony was attended by Private Smallhorne's daughters, sisters and brother.
The reply is most disappointing. When the Minister for Defence spoke on this matter in the Dáil, he gave a commitment that no stone would be left unturned in the quest for justice for these men. I am sure the Minister of State has seen the correspondence I received from representatives of the families in which they asked again whether this matter could be raised on Question Time. That was on 15 November, 25 years after the deaths.
It is an awful state of affairs that the Government does not have the power to pursue this matter. A person who came to this country claimed that the murderer had not been brought to justice, despite the fact that the authorities here have known for a number of years where he was residing. If that is the case, why has no action been taken? It is disappointing that the Minister of State has given a long-winded reply to the question.
As I indicated in my reply, the Attorney General has fully explored the case and there are no provisions in Irish law which would provide a basis for Ireland to pursue a prosecution against the alleged perpetrator. He also indicated, as I said, that, while it is untested and potentially difficult, it might be possible for Ireland to pursue a prosecution under provisions of the Geneva Convention. While this appears an outside possibility, the Minister for Defence has asked the DPP, who would be responsible for pursuing any prosecution, to review the matter. Certainly, we share the Deputy's concern on this matter but have to await the DPP's legal opinion. The issues of factual evidence and jurisdiction arise. I will convey the Deputy's views to the Minister and we will do all we can but there are legal complexities. We appreciate the trauma involved for the families.
One of the alleged killers is a naturalised American citizen. Does the Minister of State know whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, raised this with Condoleezza Rice? It would seem appropriate to do so, given that the American authorities and the Bush administration in particular seem to have no difficulties in asking for the extradition of citizens, even Irish ones, for undermining, for example, the American economy in the case of Seán Garland. We now know that the United States has not only sought extradition but has bundled people into planes, which, we believe, passed through Shannon Airport and other European airports with no repercussions. Does the Minister of State not accept that there is an inconsistency between what the United States demands from others and what we can get from them?
The case can be made that this issue should be raised with the US authorities. I am uncertain whether my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, raised it with Condoleezza Rice but I did say that both my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are in contact with authorities in the US, where the alleged perpetrator resides as a naturalised US citizen, and have kept them apprised of developments in the case. I concur with the Deputy that this is another avenue of communication and we will do anything we can in that regard. We will maintain contact with US authorities over the coming weeks.
I would like to approach this matter from a different angle to Deputy Gormley. Does the Minister agree that this is somewhat hypocritical? We are not willing to extradite some people for whom the United States has prima facie evidence that they should stand trial there.
I agree with the policy of attempting to find the people responsible for the murder of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne, which happened in 1980 in Lebanon. However, in December 1983, a member of the Army and a garda were murdered in Ballinamore, County Leitrim, yet we are now contemplating an amnesty for the perpetrators. How can we reconcile going to America to bring back somebody alleged to have committed a murder in 1980 with considering an amnesty for someone who may have committed a murder in County Leitrim in 1983?
It is not appropriate to make that type of comparison in this situation. Issues have arisen which must be pursued. I appreciate the strong feelings expressed by a number of Deputies on this issue. We must follow due process and await the DPP's legal opinion and there are complex issues with regard to jurisdictions which are not entirely within our control. We will do everything possible and I will remain in contact with the Deputies.
The Minister of State has acknowledged that he will remain in contact and I will be obliged if he will let us know when progress has been made.
I will do that.
60 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if the Government task force on emergency planning has met since the 7 July 2005 bombings in London to consider the way in which Ireland will deal with such a terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38173/05]
The Government task force on emergency planning continues to meet on a regular basis, most recently on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. A special meeting of the task force was convened on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 at short notice in the aftermath of the London bombings of 7 July. The next meeting of the task force is scheduled for tomorrow morning. In addition, the interdepartmental working group on emergency planning, which is chaired by the Office of Emergency Planning, also continues to meet on a regular basis. Potential threats to the State arising from international terrorism are continually monitored and preparedness is reviewed by those involved, principally the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. The current advice available is that while the Garda authorities recognise that the terrorist threat to Europe may currently be high, in regard to Ireland it is low.
International links have also been important as a means of sharing expertise and resources. The European Union continues to develop programmes to improve co-operation within the EU to prevent and limit any consequences of threats. This was given new impetus by the EU declaration on combating terrorism, agreed under the Irish Presidency in 2004, which, among other aspects emphasises the benefits of co-operation and co-ordination.
Arrangements regarding national security issues that may arise are primarily a matter for the Garda Síochána. Emergency planning preparations are designed to ensure that as far as possible, the necessary advance planning is in place to deal with the consequences of any incident that may arise.
The Minister for Defence will continue to report regularly on a confidential basis to Government on emergency planning and to promote collaborative approaches at Government task force and interdepartmental working group levels so as to enhance co-ordinated emergency planning and the corresponding response and management capacities of the State.
Can the Minister of State estimate the current level of threat to Ireland? Is there a need to update the national emergency plan in the light of the attacks on London on 7 July last? I read in a newspaper on 7 November that a meeting of senior security officials had emergency talks, while a separate group responsible for detailed planning to deal with major terrorist incidents, the Government task force on emergency planning, is to meet. Will the Minister of State tell us the up to date position?
The potential threats to the State arising from international terrorism are continually monitored, principally by the Garda and the Defence Forces. The advice available to me is that while the Garda authorities recognise that the terrorist threat to Europe may currently be high, with regard to Ireland it is low. The awareness of the situation could change rapidly and that warning ensures that vigilance is maintained. In so far as possible the objective has been to confine and control threats before they translate to destructive action. Those principally charged with the precautionary activities, the Garda and the Defence Forces, are key to the process and they analyse information to assess potential vulnerability so as to facilitate resources being deployed in the most effective way.
With regard to emergency plans, the Garda, the Defence Forces, local emergency services and other bodies such as Civil Defence regularly take part in simulated exercises both within their own structures and collectively as part of their ongoing training policies. The Garda has primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. The potential threats to the State arising from international terrorism are continually monitored by them in co-operation with the Defence Forces. Accordingly there are strong structures in place and the planning is comprehensive.
Will the Minister of State agree that the group set up after the attacks of 11 September 2001 has no legislation to underpin it despite the fact that it meets every month, that no additional funding has been allocated to it since then, that this is a clear indication that the Government does not take any threat seriously and that this group, if ever called on, will not be able to do what it is supposed to do?
There is not necessarily a need for legislation with regard to the management of crises. In this area, the situation can change rapidly overnight. The key point is that we have co-operation between Departments and that a committee is in place. We have that. Resources are available within Departments and in a crisis they are made available. I am therefore satisfied there is no need for legislation. We have many areas of co-operation, many interdepartmental groups working at Government level on all sorts of issues. In this area the key point is to have the right kind of co-ordination among the right people, and with the Garda, Defence Forces and Civil Defence involved, the right approach is being pursued.
Is the Minister of State aware that the Defence Forces Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan, said at the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers or RACO conference that the best way to deal with terrorist threat is to invest in the intelligence services? Can the Minister of State say if the Government has plans to invest more money in the intelligence services?
The most important defence against any terrorist attack is detection and prevention by the security forces. The advice available to me suggests there is no reason to believe at this time that Ireland or Irish air space is a direct target.
It is important that we are clear on our capabilities with regard to defending ourselves from terrorist atrocities and that people are not misled. As we know from experience, in the light of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and more recently those in Madrid and London, there is no 100% protection against terrorist attacks. The important issue is that we make appropriate arrangements and take such precautionary measures as are necessary on the basis of information available to us. Vigilance, effective intelligence-gathering and analysis are essential and must be the primary means of protection. No country can protect itself fully. Even those with large defence budgets and possessing air defence establishments have difficulties in meeting these and other challenges.
Ireland's defence capabilities are relatively limited. However, the assets available to the Defence Forces are related to the level of threat and are considered appropriate and adequate in this regard. I agree with the Deputy that intelligence and co-operation with our colleagues, in particular our EU colleagues, is crucial in this regard.
61 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his speech to the biennial conference of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38197/05]
On 29 November 2005, the Minister for Defence addressed the biennial delegate conference of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, in Cavan. The Minister sought to make his address relevant, informative and positive and discussed topics of interest to military delegates, their colleagues and to the wider community. Those topics included the representative process, partnership, Defence Forces arbitration board, defence spending, the White Paper on defence, EU battle groups, volunteer corps unit, overseas numbers, bullying and harassment, future pay policy, equal opportunity and the review of measures with a view to maximising the number of women applicants into the Defence Forces. The Minister is satisfied that his speech was well received by the assembled delegates and is grateful to the Deputies for their interest in his address which can be accessed from the Department's website, www.defence.ie.
Among the issues raised by RACO were the White Paper on Defence, partnership, modernisation agenda, promotion system, child care, public service pay system, benchmarking, arbitration, medical review, retirement age, disaster relief and military representation in the Portuguese Defence Forces. It is clear that the Minister covered a very wide and comprehensive agenda in his address to RACO.
Does the Minister of State intend to invest more in military hardware because of our peacekeeping and peace enforcement obligations? The Minister of State did not respond to my earlier point. Following on from what Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan said at the RACO conference, are there plans to invest more money in the intelligence services? Can the Minister of State give me a direct answer?
That would be a matter for the interdepartmental committee and the steering group. It is an important area in which we should invest. Intelligence is critical in terms of prevention. I share the Deputy's views on this matter and will report them to the Department.
With regard to military hardware, the Government continues to review its investment in such equipment. Clearly there will be more investment in the years ahead because of the increase in budget and the sale of property which gives us an opportunity to invest more in equipment.
At the RACO conference the Minister raised the serious issue of the percentage of officers serving overseas. I note that the Minister for Defence has today tabled a motion to the House seeking to redeploy troops to Sierra Leone. In his capacity as Government Whip, will the Minister of State agree to bring that motion before the House rather than a committee? The tradition was for such motions to come before the House but in recent years it has been brought to committee. In view of the comments made by the Minister at that conference, will the Minister of State agree to bring it to the Dáil?
As I said earlier, the Minister has stated that he is simply reviewing the role of officers serving abroad. He is not in any way reviewing the number of personnel, which is set at 850. That will remain constant.
On the remit of the Liberia contingent, I warmly welcome the extension of its involvement to Sierra Leone. As Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development I visited Sierra Leone and witnessed the major need for our personnel. It is important that we extend our remit to meet that need.
On the Deputy's last point, I will, if at all possible, bring that particular motion before the House. He would prefer it to be raised in the House rather than at committee level and I will endeavour to do so.
The Minister of State is very positive in his replies and has made important points. I hope there will be action on the matters raised. The Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, is participating in RTE's television coverage of the budget. Is this a legitimate reason for him to miss Question Time?
Hear, hear.
I hope the Minister is not wearing a gun.
He is having his photograph taken.
It is rare that there is such a fantastic audience for Question Time. I mentioned at the outset that the Minister is in the RTE studio. I assume Members from other parties are also there.
Has the Minister got his weapon with him?
I hope he has left his bazooka behind.
It is important that representatives of the Government should communicate the issues under discussion today in the public domain. It is quite normal that the Minister should be at the studio. I will convey Deputy Sherlock's good wishes to him.
Will the Minister be paid for his appearance on RTE?
He should stay there.
Deputies are aware that the Minister will not be paid for his appearance on RTE television.
62 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence the establishment for medical doctors in the Defence Forces; the number of doctors serving; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38136/05]
The establishment for medical officers — doctors — in the Permanent Defence Force is 47. The current strength of medical officers is 23. Of these, two are on leave of absence without pay and five are serving on a short service commission, of which two are serving in Liberia. The services of civilian general practitioners are regularly engaged to provide primary care when medical officers are not available. The Defence Forces are dependent, in the normal course, on civilian health care facilities for secondary and tertiary hospital services.
I am not sure I heard the Minister of State correctly. Is it the case that the establishment is 47 and 23 are serving?
Yes. We are short of numbers.
I consistently hear the Minister talking about the reorganised and well established Defence Forces and the amount of funding he allocates to this end. In this instance, however, only 50% of the required personnel are in place. What plans does the Minister have to increase this number?
This matter is being resolved through partnership. In particular, we work closely with the Department of Finance on this issue.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
