Billy Timmins
Question:1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the role Irish troops will play in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL II; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32434/06]
Priority Questions.
Overseas Missions.
John Gormley
Question:5 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the situation regarding the mission of Irish soldiers to be deployed to Lebanon; the number of troops involved; their duties; the locations where they will be stationed; if the overall mission is required to disarm Hizbollah; if this deployment will require the approval of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32459/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 5 together.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, was originally established on 19 March 1978 under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, following the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, with a mandate "to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, to restore international peace and security and to assist the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area". The Secretary General of the United Nations concluded that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Resolution 425, thus partially fulfilling UNIFIL's original mandate. Since then, UNIFIL has continued to operate in southern Lebanon. The mission continued to focus on the remaining part of its mandate, namely the restoration of peace and security in the region, through observing, monitoring and reporting on developments in its area of operation, liaising with the parties, with a view to correcting violations along the line of withdrawal, the so-called Blue Line, and preventing the escalation of hostilities.
Ireland has participated in UNIFIL since 1978. Between May 1978 and November 2001, the Defence Forces had an infantry battalion with an approximate strength of 540 personnel in Lebanon, together with approximately 100 personnel in UNIFIL Headquarters and the Force Mobile Reserve. Since November 2001, a small number of Defence Forces personnel continued to serve at the force headquarters in Naqoura. Five personnel are currently deployed at the force headquarters.
In response to the crisis of July and August 2006, the UN decided, under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, to extend the mandate of UNIFIL to the end of August 2007, and to increase its troop strength from approximately 2,000 troops to a maximum of 15,000. The council also decided that, in addition to carrying out its original mandate under Resolutions 425 and 426, UNIFIL would also monitor the cessation of hostilities, accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout Southern Lebanon and extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons.
The nature of the expanded UNIFIL mandate is such that its role is to be considerably more robust than it was prior to the adoption of Resolution 1701, while still operating under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. UNIFIL will assist the Government of Lebanon in exercising its authority throughout the UNIFIL area of operations. It will take all necessary action, acting in support of the Government of Lebanon, "to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind". UNIFIL is not charged with disarming the Hizbollah. The question of disarming Hizbollah is a matter for the Lebanese Government. Moreover, it is recognised that this can only take place in the context of an overall political process in the region.
Following on from the ceasefire, which took effect on 14 August 2006, the Government here has been monitoring the situation. As the Deputies will appreciate, given our other existing commitments, the Defence Forces have limited resources to contribute to this mission. Against this background, an option was identified whereby Ireland might partner Finnish troops and provide a protection detail to a planned Finnish engineering company. On 3 October 2006, the Government authorised, subject to Dáil approval, the despatch of a contingent of the Defence Forces to UNIFIL. The necessary enabling motion was approved yesterday.
Following detailed discussions between the Defence Forces and their Finnish counterparts, including a joint reconnaissance mission to Lebanon, the current plan envisages the deployment of a Finnish engineering unit with an Irish protection detail in the eastern sector area of Lebanon. The planned Irish contingent will consist of approximately 150 Defence Forces personnel. The five Defence Forces personnel currently serving in Lebanon will continue to be deployed at the UNIFIL force headquarters.
The Finnish and Irish engineering unit will carry out tasks in support of UNIFIL and also some humanitarian work, including dealing with unexploded ordnance clearance and reconstruction. While the Irish element will be tasked primarily for reconnaissance, security and protection duties associated with the engineering works, it will also be available to undertake other tasks at the request of the UNIFIL force commander. Deployment to UNIFIL will take place on 30 or 31 October 2006 and, if approved, will bring the total number of Defence Forces personnel serving overseas to about 830 which is below the ceiling of 850.
Initial deployment would be for one year subject to renewal of the mandate and a satisfactory review of the mission at that time. In line with standing policy that the duration of any deployment should be set at the outset of a mission, it is considered that Defence Forces involvement in UNIFIL should not exceed a maximum of two to three years in duration.
The troops will be leaving around 31 October. Does the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, plan to visit the troops before Christmas or will he visit the observers already out there before the troops are deployed?
The Minister will be aware that this additional commitment, which we in the Fine Gael Party support, will place additional strain on resources. Does he plan to increase the strength of the Defence Forces? How will he deal with the additional strain placed on Defence Forces resources in Ireland, given overseas commitments?
Has the Minister had discussions recently with either the Israeli ambassador or the Iranian ambassador based here in Dublin or with representatives of the Lebanese and Syrian embassies in London? Has the Minister for Foreign affairs engaged in such discussions? If not, would the Minister for Defence consider meeting them before Irish troops are deployed in the area? These are the countries with influence in the region and if difficulties arise it is important we have a direct link to someone who can bring influence to bear in the area.
I will clarify the situation on deployment for Deputy Timmins. The first advance party, consisting of four specialist personnel will travel to Lebanon on 14 October, that is, next week, to make the necessary advance contacts at ports, airports and so on. The second advance party, consisting of 35 personnel, will deploy to Beirut on 24 October and the balance will leave on either 30 or 31 October.
I have no plans to increase the size of the Defence Forces. Under the White Paper for the reorganisation of the Defence Forces the personnel limit was reduced to 10,500 on the basis that we would equip and train them to the highest possible standard. When the mission in Liberia ends next year there will be further personnel available to partake in overseas duties.
My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, generally speaks to ambassadors. I do not know of any discussions he may have had with the ambassadors mentioned but I will ask him and return to the Deputy on the matter. I will talk to the Minister for Foreign Affairs before deciding whether I should meet these representatives. I had one rather fraught meeting with the Israeli ambassador, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the time four UN personnel were killed by Israeli munitions.
Was the Minister carrying his gun?
No, I was unarmed that day. I was armed only with my genius.
The Minister was lightly armed in that case, perhaps even still unarmed.
Deputy Timmins asked if I plan to visit the troops in Lebanon. I will do so, after they deploy, around mid to late November.
The Minister stated yesterday and repeated today that this mandate is considerably more robust than the previous one. Does this mean we could be drawn into hostilities at some stage?
From what the Minister stated yesterday and today, the nature of our role in assisting the Lebanese Government is not clear. Deputy Coveney said yesterday we will be assisting the Lebanese Government to disarm Hizbollah. Is the Lebanese Government mandated to disarm Hizbollah? Are we not mandated to assist it in doing so and, if so, are we not thereby disarming Hizbollah indirectly?
The Minister stated the disarmament of Hizbollah will only take place in the context of an overall agreement. What does he mean by this? Does an overall agreement involve Syria and Iran sitting at the table? Does it involve addressing the question of the Shebaa Farms, a disputed territory, and the Gaza Strip and West Bank?
The mandate is more robust. In my reply I quoted the terms of the UN resolution laying out the mandate for UNIFIL. It includes the phrase "to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council". This is not a typical run-of-the-mill Chapter VI-type resolution. Chapter VI-type resolutions generally come into play when a ceasefire is in operation, as it is in this case, admittedly. Generally, Chapter VI operations involve patrolling, monitoring and observing.
It is contemplated that attempts may be made to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its mandate and it is given the right to resist those attempts by forceful means. The provision, although not covered by a typical Chapter VI-type resolution, is designated a Chapter VI provision by the United Nations.
I take the point Deputy Gormley made yesterday that the people of Lebanon probably just want a Chapter VI mission rather than a Chapter VII mission. However, we have already engaged in Chapter VII operations. Such missions involved Liberia and Kosovo, and we are therefore well aware of the dangers.
The disarmament of Hizbollah is a difficult matter which has been fudged somewhat by the United Nations. The general understanding is that it is a matter for the Lebanese Government. Granted, part of our UNIFIL mandate in southern Lebanon is to support the Lebanese army as it redeploys through the region and re-establishes its authority. It is very unclear whether it is envisaged that UNIFIL troops will be accompanying the Lebanese army in confronting and disarming Hizbollah.
When the UN General Secretary referred to an overall agreement, I believe he meant it would certainly involve the Shebaa Farms. This is central to the issue. I cannot see how the agreement would not involve Syria and it may possibly involve Iran but I do not know the exact parameters of the General Secretary's statement. He was referring to an overall political settlement, just as disarmament took place in a part of this country in the context of an overall political settlement. I would imagine the settlement in the region in question would involve all the interested parties. It would certainly include Syria but I am not quite clear about Iran.
Has the Minister plans to increase the overseas allowance? He may have indicated at a recent conference that he would examine this matter.
A number of memorials were erected in honour of Irish troops who lost their lives in Lebanon. If a new contingent goes to the region, could it determine whether they need to be repaired or replaced?
Hizbollah clearly has a great interest in the Palestinian problem. As part of the overall settlement, will the West Bank and Gaza Strip not also be discussed?
On Deputy Gormley's question, I would imagine "yes" is the answer. The Palestinian question cannot just be syphoned off.
On the question of overseas allowances, I said at the PDFORRA annual conference that if the association were to request an increase in overseas allowances, it would be considered most sympathetically.
Defence Forces Personnel.
Joe Costello
Question:2 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the recent report, A Voyage of Understanding; his views on the report’s findings of low morale in the Naval Service; if he will address the many issues highlighted in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32597/06]
The Naval Service is the maritime element of the Defence Forces and has a general responsibility to meet contingent and actual maritime defence requirements. The Naval Service operates eight general purpose patrol ships. All eight ships are involved in coastal and offshore patrolling and surveillance for the State in that part of the seas where State jurisdiction applies, such as internal waters, territorial sea and the Irish sector of the exclusive economic zone.
The main day-to-day role of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the European Union. The service is tasked with patrolling all Irish waters from the shoreline to the outer limits of the exclusive fishery limits.
The current exclusive fishery limits extend to 200 miles off shore and cover an area of 132,000 square miles. The Naval Service currently patrols the entire 200-mile limit and periodically patrols beyond these limits to protect specific fisheries. These patrols are carried out on a regular and frequent basis and are directed to all areas of Irish waters as necessary. The number of patrol vessels on patrol in Irish waters at any one time varies between three and seven. The Naval Service is committed to having at least three vessels on patrol within the Irish exclusive economic zone at any one time. There are 1,682 patrol days per annum.
The reorganisation of the Naval Service was designed to ensure that, when fully implemented, all personnel would spend alternate periods of two years in a shore-based appointment followed by a ship-based appointment. Two years in a ship-based appointment does not imply that people spend two years at sea. This is managed locally by the flag officer commanding the Naval Service. However, where there are shortages of skilled personnel within the Naval Service, it may be necessary for personnel to carry out sea-going duties more frequently.
The impact of seagoing is well understood by Naval Service personnel at all levels and the service endeavours to operate a planned approach to the rotation of personnel between sea and shore.
Other than for able seamen, there is no particular problem with maintaining sea-shore rotation for personnel. There are, however, individual cases where this may not be exactly maintained. For example, personnel regularly apply to extend their period at sea beyond two years.
I am very much aware of the report referred to by the Deputy. On 19 September I held discussions with PDFORRA and I hope we are moving towards a resolution.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I am pleased that in our meeting we agreed to a process to examine this issue and find potential solutions. A further series of meetings will take place between the deputy chief of staff — support — and PDFORRA over the coming months. The purpose of the meetings is to examine the complex issues raised by PDFORRA with a view to exploring a possible resolution. I will be monitoring progress in this area closely.
It goes without saying that members of the naval service go to sea. My Department and I are committed to ensuring that the Naval Service and the Defence Forces as a whole offer a challenging and rewarding career and a supportive working environment.
The Minister said he is aware of the report on the effects of long-term sea patrols on family life in the Naval Service, entitled A Voyage of Understanding. It is a large tome and it makes a number of conclusions, the first of which states:
Without in any way wanting to sound dramatic, the service as experienced by the surveyed membership is in crisis. This crisis is fixable given Government action only.
My question relates to the low morale in the Naval Service. A large cohort of people were surveyed in the PDFORRA study. More than 300 people were surveyed in total, including 212 serving members and 134 spouses. It is heart-rending to read some of the information on families and children and the references to breakdowns, depression and stress. These arise from what seems to be a very poorly managed service in respect of shore and sea rotation.
Everybody acknowledges that recruits join the Naval Service to go to sea. However, they are profoundly disappointed by the manner in which the system operates. It is very difficult to engage in family life, in spite of the expression of support for family life in the Constitution. The personnel feel so much could be done so easily and that management, in itself, cannot rectify the problem. Rather, it is felt that it can only be rectified directly through ministerial involvement. Can I take it from the Minister that there will be such involvement?
Deputy Costello is right. It is a big tome and it took me a long time to plough through it. I do not necessarily accept all the conclusions in the report. We do not have time to engage in a long debate on its intricate details, but I note that the situation seems to have worsened somewhat in recent times. I accept Deputy Costello's point that PDFORRA and the Naval Service are of the view that this requires ministerial involvement. That is why I decided to get involved personally. I called a meeting between the relevant army officers, PDFORRA and myself on 19 September. We set up a group comprising representatives from PDFORRA and the Naval Service as well as the deputy chief of staff on the support side. I have asked them to try to solve this problem. I will keep the situation monitored and I have told them to come back to me with a solution by January. I will sit down with them again in January, at the very latest.
From my discussions with the deputy chief of staff and the relevant officials in the Naval Service, together with the recruitment campaign that is underway at present within the service, I am reasonably confident that we will be able to solve this issue. As I said, I have taken personal charge of it because I realise it requires ministerial involvement and I am monitoring the situation. My approach is hands-on in this matter.
I welcome the Minister's reply. He is acknowledging and accepting the first recommendation in the report to the effect that the Minister should establish a formal review of the operation and management of the Naval Service regarding the patrol policy at sea. He is reviewing the situation.
The second recommendation is that he should immediately reduce the length of long-term sea patrols as an interim measure, pending the implementation of long-term changes.
I suppose one could say I am formally reviewing matters. That committee is formally reviewing it. Its members are working together to come up with a better way of doing things. Nothing can be done in the interim. We are making an attempt to get a more humane system. However, I do not necessarily accept all the conclusions in the report, as I said. For example, if one takes the number of patrol days we envisage, 1,680 per annum, it would require a ship to be at sea for 200 to 220 days. The maximum we expect anyone on ship duties to be at sea is about 160 days. In some cases, that has been exceeded. The statistics show that, in 2005, a total of 29 personnel served more than 180 days. In 2006, a total of 56 served more than 180 days. I have noticed a considerable worsening of the situation and that is why I have taken a hands-on approach. We are hoping to make one strenuous effort between us to get this matter sorted out.
Overseas Missions.
Finian McGrath
Question:3 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Defence if, further to his commissioning of an Army inquiry into the events at Niemba, Congo on 8 November 1960, preliminary findings have been made; when the full report of the inquiry will be made available to Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32433/06]
As the Deputy is aware, I undertook during Priority Questions on Thursday, 23 February 2006 to ask the military authorities to revisit this matter in light of the questions raised by him on that date.
The Chief of Staff appointed a senior officer to examine all aspects of the Niemba ambush in the Congo in November 1960. Due to the diversity of this investigation, this process has taken some time. I understand that, in the course of his examination, the officer interviewed both survivors and also contacted other interested parties both at home and abroad.
I have been informed by the Chief of Staff that the report is being finalised and I hope to receive the final version by the end of this week. I will then study its contents and, in particular, its findings and recommendations prior to deciding what action should be taken.
I thank the Minister for his response. I have a number of detailed questions. Is the Minister satisfied that the official Army version of the Niemba massacre, which shows that nine members of an 11-man Irish patrol died that day, will be upheld by the inquiry? If not, will the Minister explain to the House why the Army's version of events, which has been shown to be wrong in the recent excellent book, The Irish Army in the Congo, 1960-1964: The Far Battalions, by Dr. David O’Donoghue, has been allowed to remain uncorrected for almost half a century? If, as now seems likely, the Army inquiry finds that eight men died at Niemba and that a ninth, Trooper Anthony Browne, died three miles away some days later in another incident, will the Minister correct the statement he made to the House in this regard earlier this year?
Will the Minister also consider reviewing the Army's treatment of the two Niemba survivors, Mr. Tom Kenny and Mr. Joe Fitzpatrick, who claim their good names have been impugned as a result of the Army's incorrect history of the Niemba incident? As regards the broader issue, we need to be very sensitive towards the serving and former members of the Defence Forces and the families of these men.
Deputy Finian McGrath is somewhat premature with some of those questions. He is asking whether I will correct the official version if the report finds that it is incorrect. I have not read the report yet, as it has not come to hand. I do not want to anticipate what is in it. If the report points out that the official version is wrong, of course we will deal with it. If I said anything incorrect on the record of the Dáil, I will be more than happy to correct it. We will study the report in that regard. Any complaints the two men have as regards their treatment or alleged treatment by the Army can be brought to my personal attention. They have brought a few matters to my attention and we have been in touch with them. Before I comment in detail on what the report will reveal, I would like an opportunity to read it first. I am sure the Deputy can understand that point.
Is the Minister satisfied that the inquiry which is being carried out has been very detailed and professional?
It has been a very detailed and diverse professional inquiry. That is why it has taken up to eight months.
Defence Forces Ombudsman.
Billy Timmins
Question:4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence if any of the 12 reports received by him from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces to date recommended or stated that a complainant had been wronged or had a justified concern; if so, the details of same; the remedy which has been taken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32435/06]
The Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces was established under the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004. On 19 September 2005, Ms Paulyn Marrinan-Quinn SC was appointed by the President, upon the recommendation of the Government, as the first Ombudsman for the Defence Forces.
The function of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is to act as the ultimate point of appeal for an administrative investigation into complaints made by members, and former members, of the Defence Forces against another member, former member or civil servant of the Department of Defence. The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces may investigate a complaint in respect of an action or decision, which may have adversely affected the complainant personally. The action or decision complained of must have occurred no earlier than 1 December 2005.
As I mentioned in my speech to the 2006 annual PDFORRA conference, to date, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces has sent me 12 reports on individual cases relating to the PDF with which she has dealt. I have either responded to or I am in the process of responding to the ombudsman in respect of each of these reports. The Minister for Defence is obliged to inform the ombudsman of the measures taken or proposed in response to her recommendation.
The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is, in accordance with the Act, independent in the performance of her duties. She is required to report annually to the Dáil. In these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate for me to report on her behalf or give details as regards her reports on individual cases, complaints already submitted to the ombudsman, the status of those complaints or her current treatment of those cases.
I am happy to inform the Deputy that the primary focus in these cases has been on selection for promotion, courses and overseas service. I can also indicate that the reports of the ombudsman have made a valuable contribution to the ongoing updating of selection procedures in these three areas.
I do not wish the Minister to take up the role of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, but perhaps he can answer this question. If a wrong has been done, is it the Minister who will seek to right it in the first place? Does the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces make recommendations in her reports as to what action might be taken by the Minister? Can he indicate how many of the 12 reports to date affect former members, as complainants, and how many affect serving members? Finally, has the Minister recommended any disciplinary action to date on any of the reports or what action has he taken in respect of them? I would be obliged if he would elaborate on those points.
Again, I am not attempting to avoid answering Deputy Timmins's question, but the Office for the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is modelled on the public services Ombudsman. The public services Ombudsman gives an annual report to the Dáil outlining the complaints she received and how they were dealt with by the relevant Departments. Under the legislation, the Ombudsman will hear the complaint and give her findings to the Department of Defence outlining whether the complaint has been upheld and, if so, what action is recommended. The Minister is obliged to convey to the ombudsman the action taken. This is contained in the annual report, which is due to be published shortly.
On Deputy Timmins's question about former and serving members, subject to correction, they were all made by serving members. Of the 12 cases reported to the ombudsman, nine preliminary and three final reports have issued. The ombudsman found in favour of the complainant in eight cases, and against the complainant in four. In the eight cases in question, six related to selection processes for career advancement courses, and two related to selection processes for overseas service.
Question No. 5 answered with QuestionNo. 1.