Billy Timmins
Question:36 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence his plans to extend the retirement age of officers and other ranks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12112/06]
Priority Questions.
Defence Forces Retirement Scheme.
There are no immediate plans to extend the retirement age of officers and other ranks in the Defence Forces. The White Paper on Defence 2000 and the earlier Defence Forces review implementation plan recommended a reduction in retirement ages in an effort to address the age profile and fitness of the Defence Forces. More recently, however, the retirement age for people recruited to the public service has been increased. Improvements in the age profile in the Defence Forces have been achieved through a programme which included early retirement packages, regular recruitment and short-term contracts.
A key element in military life is the need for personnel to maintain a level of fitness for combat readiness. There is constant need to balance this requirement with the need to retain experience and expertise, particularly at managerial level, in the Defence Forces. I will continue to monitor the needs of the Defence Forces in this area and, mindful of ongoing experiences in other areas of the public service, will introduce changes if required.
I acknowledge that the age profile of members was a significant issue for the Defence Forces prior to publication of the White Paper and that there were concerns about ensuring that members' fitness levels were commensurate with the duties required of them. The Minister hit the nail on the head at the end of his contribution. There are two aspects to this issue, the officer corps and other ranks. Some movement has been made by the Minister with regard to other ranks, and rightly so. The period of service has been extended to 20 years for those who came into the forces after 1994. That was a good idea as much expertise is amassed in that time.
I ask the Minister to perhaps review the issue for personnel who reach the age limit and who have certain qualifications that would be required for managerial posts. An administrative side, consisting of IT for example, is needed in addition to the operational side of the Defence Forces. Certain skills are needed that can only be required over a period of time. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the age profile is constantly kept in check.
With regard to the officer body, I am aware that commandants retire at 56, which is very young, as the Ceann Comhairle, to whom I listened on television on Sunday night a few weeks ago discussing people's ability to do jobs regardless of age, will appreciate. Such personnel may have much expertise but are caught in no man's land. At 56, a person, while still relatively young, may be too old to take up another job. The Pensions Commission report states that no pension should be given out until age 50, after 30 years' service. Many professions are looking at extending the retirement age because of the increased life expectancy.
I ask the Minister to examine two issues. The first concerns the officer body, where commandants retire at 56. This should be considered in view of the fact that our increased overseas commitment has placed a strain on the officer corps. Many officers have to leave the Defence Forces at 56 years of age, despite having much expertise that could be put to valuable use. The same applies to other ranks. After 20 years' service, their expertise could perhaps be used in the administrative side of the Defence Forces.
The statistics for retirement by commandants on age grounds, as opposed to voluntary retirement, show that 26 retired voluntarily in 2000, while only three had reached the age of retirement. In 2001, five retired on age grounds, with 29 retiring voluntarily. That is the trend. Many of the commandants are retiring voluntarily and are not compelled on reaching the stipulated age. In other words, they retire at an age under 56.
Deputy Timmins will be aware that the maximum retirement age for officers ranges from 47 for a lieutenant, which is at one end of the scale, to 63 for a lieutenant-general, at the other end of the scale. I appreciate Deputy Timmins's comments regarding the age profile of the Army. We must keep the age profile below a certain level. That was the main criticism levelled at the general profile of the Army in the 1980s.
With regard to retaining people, I presume the Deputy is referring to people of officer and non-officer rank who have acquired certain qualifications. I will keep the matter under ongoing review.
With regard to the officer corps, what is commonly known in the Defence Forces as a hump period may occur. In the early 1970s, for example, a larger number than usual were taken in, and there were three or four years when officers were caught in that trap. The Minister correctly pointed out that the number of officers who have retired on age grounds has been small, and I appreciate that, but in the next few years that number may increase just for a short period, and perhaps action can be taken for that cohort.
We will keep the matter under review.
Overseas Missions.
Joe Sherlock
Question:37 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide assurances that any decision taken on whether to commit Irish troops to a new EU peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo will satisfy the triple lock mechanism; when a UN decision on this mission is likely; when a Government decision will be made; when Dáil Éireann approval will be sought; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12077/06]
Following a request from the United Nations, the EU is examining the provision of a supporting operation, under an EU flag, for MONUC, the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Various options for the mission are being considered within the EU, which has indicated that it is positively disposed towards supporting MONUC. Fact-finding missions to the Democratic Republic of Congo and to the United Nations in New York have been undertaken.
The main purpose of the mission is to be available to support MONUC during the upcoming election process. The EU will not substitute for MONUC, but rather will provide a supporting role in the event of unrest during the election period. The current plan is that a protection force, possibly up to 400 troops, will be located on the ground, probably in Kinshasa. Outside of that, there will be an over-the-horizon force, either in Europe or possibly in a neighbouring state, ready to deploy should it be required. Total numbers could be approximately 1,500.
Germany will provide the operational headquarters for the mission, which will be based in Potsdam. The force headquarters, which will be supplied by France, will be based in Kinshasa. Germany and France will together provide approximately two thirds of the force. The mission is in the initial planning stages. The specific structure, organisation, tasks and roles of the force and the contributors to it have yet to be fully elaborated. This should happen over the next couple of weeks.
Ireland is positively disposed towards the proposed mission and supports a positive response from the EU to the UN. In this regard, Ireland wrote to the chairman of the EU military staff confirming that Ireland was prepared to offer up to ten headquarters personnel for the mission subject to national decision-making procedures, which will be adhered to. Our proposed contribution is well in line with that of other contributing member states and has to be looked at in the context of our existing major commitments to peacekeeping operations in Africa and the Balkans.
I assure the Deputy that any contribution will satisfy the requirements of the Defence Acts in terms of participation. Discussions are ongoing in the UN on an appropriate mandate for the mission. As the proposed offer involves fewer than ten troops, Dáil approval is not required in this instance. I cannot state specifically when the UN Security Council resolution will be passed or when a Government decision will be made. However, I expect this to be in the next few weeks, given that the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo are due in June. I understand that Germany, which will lead the force, expects to deploy at the end of May or the beginning of June.
The Minister and everybody else is aware that the security situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is extremely volatile. It appears the country has been in the grip of civil war and subsequent humanitarian disaster since the 1960s. The elections scheduled for June have been postponed a number of times due to security concerns. There is no doubt that any mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo for Irish troops would be extremely dangerous. Is the Minister assured that our troops have the necessary training and experience for this? He referred to this partially in his reply. Do the troops have the experience to deal with the situation in the country? I do not mean this as an insult to Irish troops. However, I recall that three years ago French authorities rebuffed an offer by the Irish Government to send Irish Rangers to join the UN mission in the Congo to help stabilise the State. Will the Minister provide reassurance on this point? What is the envisaged length of time for the mission?
I will answer the Deputy's last question first. If Irish troops are committed, it is envisaged that the mission will last approximately four months. I appreciate the Deputy's comments regarding the security situation on the ground. The Deputy will appreciate that a heavy force is already in the Democratic Republic of Congo. MONUC consists of almost 17,000 appropriately armed troops.
The United Nations has requested the EU to supply a force, of a rapid reaction type, to help during the election period. That would be available to help if disturbances occured during the election period. The force will consist of two elements, 400 troops on the ground based in Kinshasa and more than 1,000 troops based either in a neighbouring state or somewhere in Europe, which can be called upon if required. We have written to the EU military council to make an initial offer of up to ten officers, who would be based in headquarters. That would either be in Potsdam or Kinshasa. The offer is being considered and we have received a reply stating the appropriateness of the offer.
Approximately 1,000 troops will be provided by France and Germany and 500 will be provided by all the other countries. Our offer is well in line with proposals made by other countries, though I will not go into detail on those.
The safety of our troops always weighs heavily on me and the Government when a request is made for their deployment overseas. We and the military authorities are satisfied that Irish troops are sufficiently trained and have sufficient force protection assets such as body armour to ensure they will be safe in the Congo. This was carefully weighed when we decided to respond positively to the EU request.
As our defence and peacekeeping operations expand is the Minister confident the triple lock mechanism will be maintained? I have concerns that, due to the length of time UN, Government and Dáil decisions, required for the triple lock, take, the Government may in future try to subvert it by sending troops on missions without the conditions having been satisfied. I and the Labour Party regard the triple lock as a vital mechanism and we are determined that it should be maintained.
I am delighted Deputy Sherlock takes that view because I also believe it is a vital mechanism and should be maintained. Deputy Gormley agrees, meaning there is virtual unanimity in the House that it should be so, and I assure him that every time Irish troops are committed abroad the requirements of the triple lock will be rigidly adhered to. The first element of the triple lock involves a Government decision to commit troops abroad. The second part is a UN resolution. The third element is a Dáil motion, which only applies when more than 12 troops are committed. In this case we have offered ten and if it is accepted we do not, strictly speaking, need a Dáil resolution under the Defence Act 1954, I will recommend to the Government that the proposal is discussed in the House.
So the triple lock does not apply.
I am surprised the Minister has abandoned the triple lock.
All three elements of the triple lock apply when more than 12 troops are committed overseas. When there are less than 12, two elements apply and they have been applied in this case.
Defence Forces Deployment.
John Gormley
Question:38 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if members of the Defence Forces were engaged as added security on the two recent occasions when US President Bush visited Shannon Airport; the number of personnel employed; the cost involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12184/06]
The Garda Síochána has primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. Among 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, which duties include the protection and guarding of vital installations, the provision of certain security escorts etc. As the Deputy will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me, for reasons of security, to comment on the exact nature of the deployment to Shannon Airport on 1 March and 5 March 2006.
The estimated additional cost to the Defence Forces was approximately €60,000 in respect of security duty allowance, food, fuel and hire of equipment.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he confirm that security was breached at Shannon on that occasion by four peace activists? Does he agree we were very lucky that those people were peaceful? Does he share my concerns that security at Shannon could be breached at some stage by terrorists? Is he confident the Defence Forces will be in a position to defend the Irish people from a serious terrorist attack at Shannon? I understand the Minister is responsible for emergency planning but is an emergency plan in place to deal with such an attack? Given the declaration in the Constitution that there is only one army in the State is he happy that the Commander in Chief of a foreign army addressed his troops at Shannon Airport?
I am aware of the incident to which Deputy Gormley refers. I do not have much detail on it but believe it was a minor incident. In such situations the Garda Síochána requests the assistance of the Army, which is entitled to go to the aid of the civil power, namely the Garda, when they are in need of assistance. The Garda made such a request in this case, as is normal when a Head of State, especially one of such a major power as America, visits Shannon Airport. The Army studied the request and was satisfied that it was appropriate to aid the civil power in this case. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, whom I consult on these matters, is satisfied that the amount of troops deployed alongside the gardaí was commensurate with the risk.
Ireland is happy to provide security for any American President who might land at Shannon, regardless of whether the Government of the day or individual Ministers agree with his policies. If, for example, a member of Deputy Gormley's party becomes president of the US and lands at Shannon we will equally provide security for him or her.
I am satisfied that Irish troops have sufficient training. There is a Ranger Wing and the force possesses a wide range of equipment and is provided with specific training for situations of this kind.
As Deputy Gormley said, the Constitution provides that only one legal army can exist in the State. We are satisfied that the provisions for allowing troops to transit through Shannon Airport do not contravene that provision. The Deputy asked if I was happy that the Commander in Chief of a foreign army addressed troops at Shannon Airport. As I understand it no meeting was planned but President Bush happened to meet the troops as they were transiting through the airport and he took the opportunity to talk to them as their Commander in Chief. I do not have any difficulty with that.
The Minister said he was satisfied the Army Rangers could cope with a terrorist attack on Shannon.
I said the Army, including the Rangers.
He did not answer the question on whether an emergency plan existed to deal with an emergency attack on Shannon.
It does.
Can he outline what it entails?
It entails a number of elements. First, the medical fallout will be dealt with by the Department of Health and Children, which has an emergency public health plan to deal with such situations. The Army and the Garda Síochána have had specific training to deal with such an eventuality. It is impossible for me to guarantee we can successfully prevent a terrorist attack. Larger countries than ours have failed to do so but we are as prepared as we can be. If the attack involves chemical weapons or nuclear fallout the specific plans include the deployment of trained staff and equipment, among other things. The matter is discussed at least every month by the emergency planning committee.
Naval Service.
Billy Timmins
Question:39 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence his plans to expand the role of the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12113/06]
The role of the Defence Forces is set out in the White Paper on Defence. The Naval Service provides the maritime element of the Defence Forces and has a general responsibility to meet contingent and actual maritime defence requirements. Arising from the White Paper the primary role of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU. Fishery protection accounts for over 90% of operations.
There are no plans to expand the role of the Naval Service or for the involvement of Naval Service assets in overseas missions, although individual members of the Naval Service may be deployed on overseas peace support operations, as they have been in the past, within a ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time.
Can the Minister confirm that the fleet replacement involving three vessels over the next four to five years, will take place? I will understand if the Minister cannot answer this now but I believe the Naval Service, due to its geographical location, is somewhat apart from the mainstream of the Defence Forces. How many civil servants in the Department are assigned to naval matters? While fisheries protection amounts to 90% of this work and is the primary role of the service, does the fight against drugs need to be escalated? The quantity of drugs brought in by sea has increased over recent years. A greater role could be found for the Naval Service and the Minister should examine the possibility of deploying craft that could react more quickly than the current fleet. Has the Minister considered expanding the Naval Service to assist in the fight against drugs?
I read an article that referred to one of our naval vessels having an operating theatre and medical facilities on board. Does the Minister see a role for this vessel when Ireland assists in humanitarian crises? Depending on the location, this vessel could assist in providing medical relief.
I spoke to officials in my Department today about the replacement of the three ships. Arrangements are being put in place to effect this. We must decide if we are to replace like with like or introduce new ships.
I do not know how many civil servants deal specifically with the Naval Service but most of them probably also deal with other issues. I will retrieve the information and revert to the Deputy.
The role of the Naval Service is set out in the White Paper on defence and we follow its proposals. Some 90% of the role of the Naval Service involves fisheries protection duties. In the opinion of experts this requires a flotilla of eight ships. Each has a life span of approximately 30 years and three are now approaching the end of that period.
The Naval Service acts as an aid to the civil power, so Deputy Timmins's proposal that it assist with drug enforcement and seizures is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government. I cannot unilaterally decide such matters during Question Time.
Concerning humanitarian assistance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is engaged in an initiative to position supplies for use during future humanitarian crises. I do not see a role for the Naval Service in this regard. Such supplies would be airlifted to ensure quick delivery to locations that have suffered as a result of a tsunami or an earthquake.
In a committee meeting I suggested humanitarian matters should be under the remit of the Department of Defence rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs. I trust the Minister is fighting for that extension to his portfolio. The Department of Defence is the one Department that could do this task correctly and we will support the Minister in his efforts to achieve this. I see a role for the Naval Service in humanitarian backup and supply to coastal countries. The ship with medical facilities on board could be used as a floating hospital.
The Minister has referred several times to the White Paper published in 2000. Has he any plans to review that paper, given the escalation in the fight against drugs, the events of 11 September 2001 and the evolution of battle groups? Perhaps it is time to produce another White Paper on defence.
I appreciate the confidence Deputy Timmins has in my ability to wrest extra responsibility from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Fine Gael will be in Government before this measure is implemented.
In that case Deputy Timmins can do it himself. He wishes that I do the work for him.
The White Paper was designed to run from 2000 to 2009. I will consider producing another when the present paper has run its course. Many initiatives are contained in this paper, such as the reserve, and these will not be completed until 2009. When the present White Paper has been implemented, another programme will be implemented by this Government over the next ten years.
The Minister should take his lead from the Minister for Agriculture and Food — a new programme every 18 months.
I work through one plan before moving on to the next one.
European Defence Agency.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:40 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the meeting of EU Defence Ministers in Innsbruck, Austria, on 6 and 7 March 2006 during which it was decided to create a common defence research and technology fund to reduce the gap between EU and US spending on high-tech military equipment. [12076/06]
The steering board of the European Defence Agency, EDA, met in Defence Ministers formation in Innsbruck, Austria, on 7 March 2006 and one of the items discussed was the need for a new mechanism for joint investment in research and technology projects. The EDA is proposing to establish a category A or opt-out programme with an associated budget. The first area of joint work being considered is force protection and the detection and neutralisation of a range of threats to military personnel, vehicles and installations in the context of ESDP missions. The agenda item was premised on the view that category A or opt-out programmes would enable more member states to contribute to the overall research and technology effort, would allow each member state to take its own decision on whether to contribute to such a programme and would leave control firmly in the hands of member states that choose to contribute.
While discussions took place at the meeting on the outline concept of such a programme, significant further elaboration and refinement is required before decisions can be taken, probably at the next steering board meeting in May. Participation in any EDA programme is a matter for each member state on a case-by-case basis and the EDA does not have the authority to force states to contribute to, or participate in, any particular programme.
The main focus of the EDA is on obtaining better value for existing spending levels and securing improvements and greater efficiency, especially in the area of research, technology, manufacturing and procurement. Ireland has advocated that the EU should prioritise the development of qualitative aspects of capability development. This view, and a recognition of the need for greater efficiency and effectiveness in defence expenditure, is shared by many of my ministerial colleagues at EU level at a time when the majority of member states, including Ireland, have no plans to increase their defence spending.
The EDA is an important forum through which the EU can seek to improve competitiveness and efficiency in the defence equipment sector which has been notable for fragmentation and duplication. While Ireland is not a major consumer of defence equipment in relative terms, we should encourage developments which improve market efficiencies or which may yield some economies of scale for equipment procurement for the Defence Forces.
I agree with greater efficiency and better value but I am concerned about the concept behind the research and technology fund. Is the Minister aware that Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, stated that the purpose of the fund is to spend more together and more efficiently on research and technology? The press release stated that the Ministers reviewed three possible approaches to increasing spending and collaboration on defence research and technology. How does that square with the Minister's claim that the commitment to the EU will not involve increased military spending? Will the Minister make a commitment that the State will not participate in this fund and increased spending in the future? If he is not giving that commitment, how much money does he intend to spend on the first aspect he mentioned and will this research and technological forum cover aspects of military nuclear research?
In his question Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to this matter being decided in Innsbruck on 6 and 7 March. This is incorrect. No decision was taken. It was discussed in a general way and the view around the table was that it will have to be teased out more before any decision, even a decision in principle, is taken. If a decision is taken at the May meeting or a subsequent meeting to go ahead with this programme it will be for each state to decide whether to participate. Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to a statement by Mr. Javier Solana. While I am aware of Mr. Solana's views and he has his own brief, the defence ministries of the member states have no plans, collectively or individually, to increase expenditure in the short term. Ireland is no exception.
What is proposed is a system to get better value for the money we are spending. The defence equipment, research and technology markets are fragmented. Individual countries purchase their equipment, research and technology. The goal of the EDA is to create a centralised market whereby they purchase together in the hope of getting greater value for money. It is not a matter of spending more but of maximising the value we are getting from existing expenditure. On the surface it appears we have no great reason to join this because what is proposed is joint investment in research and technology, initially in force protection such as body armour. As far as I am aware there will be no nuclear aspect to that.
Ireland spends no taxpayers' money on military research and technology. However the technology and research used by civil firms, particularly in computing and communications, is increasingly being integrated into military technology. Items produced by civil companies may be used by the military, for example truck gear boxes made by a civil company could end up in army trucks although that was not the initial intention. A number of Irish companies supply components for other companies which finish up in military hardware produced elsewhere. If Irish companies could achieve economies of scale as a result of the joint approach proposed by the EDA, I would look positively on it. It is not immediately apparent that the benefits will be sufficiently significant. We must return to the drawing board at the next meeting, in May, which I will attend, and see precisely what is proposed. I will examine it from the perspective of private Irish companies rather than that of the Government because it spends no money on military research and technology and has no intention of doing so.
Will the Minister make a commitment to present the proposals to the Oireachtas before a decision is taken in principle?
I presume Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggests that if it is decided in Innsbruck to develop the concept, before we opt in I should bring it back to the Oireachtas.
Yes.
Okay.