Vol. 647 No. 3
107 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence his views on the threat to Irish troops by a spokesman for rebel forces in Chad that they would be regarded as a hostile force due to their deployment with the French in the EU force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6828/08]
108 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on his meeting on 13 February 2008 in Paris with the Chad mission operational commander, General Pat Nash; and the position in regard to the proposed deployment of Irish troops in Chad. [6402/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 108 together.
The European Union military mission to Chad and the Central African Republic is being mounted in response to a direct request from the United Nations Security Council. This is the most widely supported military operation conducted in Africa by the EU. France will be making a sizeable contribution to the EU force of 3,700. However, France will be only one of 14 EU troop contributors on the ground in the mission area. When staff in the operational headquarters in Paris are taken into account, more than 20 EU member states will be represented, including the three EU neutrals, Sweden, Austria and Finland. Ireland is expected to be the second largest contributor of troops to the mission, which aims to protect civilians in danger, particularly refugees and internally displaced persons, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and protect UN personnel. The mandate for this mission is robust and will be conducted under Chapter VII of the UN charter. EUFOR is committed to conducting its operations in a neutral and impartial manner and operates in full co-operation with the United Nations.
On 2 February 2008, a Sudanese-backed rebel column, consisting of 300 pick-up vehicles, each with ten to 15 combatants, advanced on Chad's capital, N'Djamena. Intense fighting ensued between the rebels and the Chadian forces on 2 and 3 February 2008. The situation in N'Djamena is now reported to be calm and the Chadian Government is in control. The recent incursion by rebel forces is a matter for the Chadian authorities and does not fall within the remit of the EU mission.
As for the threat posed to Irish troops to be deployed as part of the EU force, the military authorities have assessed the recent actions by rebel forces as an attempt to influence the situation on the ground prior to the EUFOR deployment. While at least one rebel group has declared that it considers itself in a state of war against the French or any foreign army on Chad's territory, it is thought unlikely that it will attempt to engage with EUFOR troops.
I assure the House that ongoing threat assessments are carried out in mission areas and the Department continually reviews both personal equipment and force assets to ensure Defence Forces personnel are appropriately equipped to fulfil their roles. The planned deployment to Chad will be no different. While no mission is without danger, I am satisfied that all appropriate security measures are in place to ensure the safety of all Defence Forces personnel serving overseas.
On 13 February 2008, I visited the mission's operation headquarters, OHQ, in Paris and met the operation commander, Lieutenant General Pat Nash. He briefed me on the current situation and the plans for recommencement of deployment of EUFOR troops to the mission area.
Lieutenant General Nash confirmed that the situation in Chad has now stabilised. However, the urgent necessity to provide security and protection to the refugees and displaced persons in camps remains. While mindful of the need to minimise risk, I re-affirmed the Government's strong commitment to the humanitarian objectives of the deployment.
Lieutenant General Nash also assured me that the broad range of capabilities required to deploy the EU force has now been generated. He also informed me that a total of three role 2 medical facilities, plus air assets, will be provided. In addition, each battalion will have its own role 1 medical facility.
Deployment of EUFOR personnel to Chad commenced on 12 February 2008. Lieutenant General Nash is confident that the capabilities required to support EUFOR's main force deployment will be established by mid-March 2008. By this time, he is planning that the mission will achieve initial operational capability, with at least 1,200 troops in theatre. Planning for the follow-on deployment of all three multinational battalions, including the Irish battalion, can then commence. The logistics of deploying the multinational battalions require extensive planning as the vast majority of equipment etc. will arrive in Douala port in Cameroon and will be transported from there to the relevant operational sector. Lieutenant General Nash is satisfied the OHQ will have the necessary logistical arrangements in place to accommodate this. Ireland and Sweden will be the first of the multinationals to deploy. The mission is planned to reach full operational capability by mid-May 2008.
A total of eight members of the Permanent Defence Force are currently deployed with the mission in Chad. All are reported to be safe and well. A Defence Forces engineering reconnaissance party travelled to Chad yesterday to examine the requirement to put in place the necessary infrastructure to enable the deployment of the Irish battalion to Goz Beida in south-eastern Chad.
The deployment of approximately 50 Army Ranger Wing personnel to the mission area is scheduled for tomorrow. It is expected the main deployment of approximately 400 Irish troops to the mission area will be completed by mid to late May 2008.
Does the Minister take seriously the threat posed by the spokesperson for the rebel forces? Does the Minister agree that in the recent attack on the capital, the rebel forces displayed more organisation, showed better capability and were more highly mobile than had been thought previously? Has an effort been made to contact the aforementioned spokesperson, who appears to be able to speak freely to the media, including the Irish media, to assure the group in question that the Irish are an impartial force despite being on the same mission as the French? It does not mean they have the same historical connection with Chad as do the French. Moreover, what public information campaign, if any, is under way in Chad at present to confirm Irish impartiality and that their deployment to Chad is purely on humanitarian grounds to protect internally displaced persons and refugees from Sudan?
I take all threats seriously. As I noted in my initial reply, there always will be a certain element of danger. This is a Chapter VII operation and is similar to any operation in a troubled African country such as, for example, Liberia, where great fears were expressed in advance of the mission but which ultimately worked out very well. This statement was made by a representative of one rebel group. As Deputy Deenihan is aware, there is a number of rebel groups, which appear to agree on one thing only, namely, a change of government. Their political objectives and to an extent even their military objectives appear to be widely diverse.
In addition, there also is a number of roving bands of what one would describe as bandits rather than rebels. They operate on the Chadian-Sudanese border and appear to pose the greatest threat. One must put this matter into context. This was a single statement by one spokesman for one of many rebel groups that operate in Chad. Although I agree with Deputy Deenihan that the rebels displayed more military ability than had been anticipated in their recent operations, they did not attempt to engage the French forces, who were present flying the French flag, nor did they interfere with any EU forces, to whom they were in close proximity. This indicates that their targets, apart from the Administration in Chad, are generally soft targets, such as unarmed civilians, aid workers etc. They are most unwilling to confront any army that is properly constituted and armed.
The force commander, his staff, all members of the Government and other Irish parties who speak on this matter are at pains to point out that this is a humanitarian mission. We have no brief for either the Government in Chad or the rebels. Our sole aim is to protect the unfortunate victims of the conflict in Darfur and those across the border in Chad and the Central African Republic.
I have the greatest confidence in the commander of the multinational force, an Irish general called Pat Nash. He has considerable experience and is highly capable. He decided he would wait until sufficient logistical supports and enablers were put in place to ensure the mission would be as safe as it could possibly be made. That is his duty and he has kept us informed throughout. It is our job to provide sufficient protection for the troops and to ensure they are trained sufficiently to ensure they will remain safe in this hostile environment. We have done so.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I take it from his remarks that the safety and security of our troops is paramount and that he is satisfied the 50 rangers who are embarking tomorrow will have sufficient protection.
Does the Minister believe an event similar to that which occurred in N'Djamena could happen again? It is a question of the capability of the Irish troops to withstand any attacks and of ensuring their general safety. Am I correct in believing the troops are as safe as possible?
That is precisely the point. There will be no circumstances in which there will be no element of danger. We are entering a very troubled African country in a more or less constant state of rebellion. The rebellion is supported by Chad's powerful neighbour, Sudan, whose regime is in turn supported by the Government of China. There are constant efforts to disrupt the political system in Chad and one could not, under any circumstances, describe the circumstances that obtain as not being attended by some degree of danger. Deputy O'Shea analysed the matter very well in stating we have made conditions for our troops as safe as possible under the circumstances.
On the question of a possible repeat of the incident in N'Djamena a couple of weeks ago, my information suggests the rebels were decisively defeated, dispersed and forced to retreat towards the Sudanese border. The rebels, who are in two different groups, have not yet crossed the border and are still in Chad. Military intelligence suggests they would be quite incapable of mounting another operation this side of the rainy season, which begins in the first week of June. It will not be practical to operate during that season and it will, therefore, be the latter part of the year before they are capable of posing a threat again. In view of the fact that the rebels are supported strongly by Sudan and China, of which there is ample evidence, anything is possible. They may attack again.
I understand the rebels have regrouped and captured a town in Chad. Is the Minister aware of this? Given that China is playing a major role in supporting Sudan, has the Irish Government made any direct approach to the Chinese ambassador regarding his country's involvement with a view to influencing what is happening in Chad?
I understood there were four rebel groups involved in the recent attack on the capital. Are there other rebel groups that can avail of the same type of support in mounting similar operations?
There are other rebel groups but I do not believe they would be as capable of mounting similar operations. They are more like bandit groups. They operate opportunistically, join together and dissipate fairly quickly.
On Deputy Deenihan's question, my information is that the rebels who attacked N'Djamena will not be in a position to make a comeback until the end of the rainy season.
Approaches to the Chinese authorities would be quite futile because the Administrations of both China and Sudan have stated publicly they have nothing at all to do with the rebels in Chad. At a diplomatic level, we must take China's word for it, although we might have information to the contrary.
109 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the projected total cost of the air transport required to transport and logistically support the Defence Forces deployment to Chad. [6829/08]
The proposed deployment of a Defence Forces contingent to the UN-mandated EU operation in the Republic of Chad and the Central African Republic will be the most expensive operation on which the Defence Forces have ever been deployed.
As the House will be aware, Chad is landlocked and nearly 2,000 km from the nearest port facility. There are few, if any, roads and little infrastructure over which to transport personnel or equipment. It is, therefore, essential that the contingent be completely self-contained and capable of undertaking its operations without depending on the availability of immediate re-supply or reinforcement. Owing to the remote location of the mission's area of operations, deployment and re-supply of the contingent will be mainly by air and therefore expensive.
It is estimated that the cost to the Department of Defence Vote arising from the Defence Forces' participation in this mission for 12 months will amount to approximately €57 million, including Ireland's €1.3 million contribution to common costs. Provision to meet the additional costs of the operation has been made in the Department of Defence Estimate for 2008. Preliminary estimates indicate that the cost of transportation of Defence Forces personnel and equipment to the mission area, including re-supply and rotation flights, will be in the region of €20 million.
I appreciate that participating in this mission will present many challenges for the men and women of the Defence Forces but the Government is committed to ensuring that all of the necessary resources are provided. While the expenses associated with the mission are substantial, the mission will be undertaking a vital task in providing basic security for over 400,000 refugees, many of whom are fleeing the crisis in Darfur.
Does the cost of transport include the cost of providing helicopters from the Irish zone to Abeche, where the Italian hospital will be located?
No. Deployment of the initial entry force will cost €3.8 million, the initial deployment of the main contingent will cost €10 million, rotation flights will cost €2.4 million and re-supply flights will cost €3.4 million.
There will be three rotations. How many re-supply flights will there be in total, taking into account ammunition, medical services etc? If a casualty requires treatment in Ireland, will there be transport available immediately? When there is a serious accident, one is supposed to get from where it occurred to a hospital within seven hours. Will this be possible?
I stated that, of the total of €20 million, €2.4 million will be spent on rotation flights.
I asked about the helicopter backup service that will be available for medical purposes.
Absolutely. I assure the Deputy——
Is the provision of the service built into that cost?
It is not built into that cost but the Deputy can be assured that three Role 2 medical facilities are being provided and they will include Medevac facilities, both air and ground facilities, to take people to hospital as necessary. There will also be facilities to fly people outside the Sudan if necessary.
Will the Irish mission have dedicated helicopter capability or will it rely on others?
No particular group making up the multinational force has dedicated helicopter capability. The area is divided into a number of zones. The capabilities are provided centrally and they will be available equally to all the participants in the mission.
The distance between Abeche and where the Irish troops will be operating is approximately 160 km. The guideline is that it would take an hour for a helicopter to fly from there to the Irish zone to transport casualties or personnel affected by disease and an hour for it to travel back. Therefore, it would be preferable if the Irish troops had a helicopter on site to enable them to bring personnel, where necessary, to a level two hospital. Has the Minister provided for that possibility?
You appear to have forgotten that I am not the commander of the force. The force commander and his staff organise all the details.
You are expected to know all about this.
I ask the Minister to reply through the Chair.
They tell me they are satisfied that all arrangements that can be made to make the mission as safe as possible have been made.
Is the Minister satisfied with that?
This is a priority question in the name of Deputy Deenihan and I ask the Minister not to engage with other Deputies.
If other Deputies ask me questions, I would like to respond to them.
Under Standing Orders the Minister is not allowed to answer questions from other Deputies on Priority Questions.
Other Deputies have concerns.
We will be moving on to other Deputies' questions very shortly.
I note Deputy Deasy had a statement in a newspaper this morning about that. Somebody brought the matter to the attention of Deputy Deasy and instead of bringing it to our attention, he brought it to the attention of The Irish Times. That is not a responsible way to carry on when people are worried about their relatives in Chad. It is irresponsible and headline grabbing.
Those questions are in the Minister's Department and we will see if he will answer them.
I am not the commander——
The Minister, no less than anybody else, will obey the Chair.
Yes.
This is a priority question to be answered by the Minister only to the Deputy in whose name the question is tabled. I request the Minister to reply through the Chair and not be distracted by any other Deputy.
I am satisfied that everything that can be done to make the mission as safe as possible has been done.
I request the Minister to investigate that aspect.
110 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if a cost benefit analysis was conducted on the decentralisation of elements of his Department to Newbridge and elements of the Defence Forces headquarters to the Defence Forces training centre in the Curragh Camp; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6830/08]
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Finance announced in his budget speech in December 2003 that a total of eight Departments would move their headquarters from Dublin to provincial locations. As part of this programme, all my Department's Dublin-based Civil Service staff are relocating to Newbridge and the Defence Forces headquarters will relocate to the Curragh. In coming to its decision on decentralisation, the Government took account of a wide range of factors in selecting suitable locations and Departments and agencies.
Immediately following the announcement of the programme, a decentralisation implementation group was appointed to prepare an overall implementation plan in consultation with all the organisations involved, including my Department. My Department has produced implementation plans for the group, setting out the detailed arrangements that will be put in place for relocation, such as risk assessment and mitigation strategies, service and business continuity, and business processes and systems. These plans are being progressed in preparation for the move. The relocation of my Department to Newbridge and of the Defence Forces headquarters to the Curragh will take place in 2009.
Given that the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces are currently co-located in Glasnevin and Infirmary Road, surely the fact that the various functions and roles of both will be split, with one being located in the Curragh and the other in Newbridge, will not lead to good administration. In terms of functionality, would it not have been preferable if a single relocation was made to Newbridge rather than splitting the two bodies? Was a cost benefit analysis carried out prior to this decision being made? The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces will be based in Newbridge while most of his staff will be based in the Curragh. In terms of administrative purposes alone and the flow of information, and given the proximity in which the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces work, this move will create many problems down the road. It is probably too late to change the decision, but I question how well it was thought through. Surely it would have been preferable for the Government to opt for one location, and well and good if that is Newbridge given the spin-off that would result from the relocation, but dividing the two bodies in terms of location will lead to many logistical problems down the road.
As the Deputy will be aware, Newbridge and the Curragh are quite close to each other. We live in the age of instant communications. The Chief of Staff and more than 40 personnel, including two deputy chiefs of staff, will be co-located with the Department in Newbridge. We have had extensive discussions with the military and the Civil Service about this matter and they are quite happy with the arrangements.
It is probably the first time this Department will be split. The feedback I got from some of the staff affected is that they are concerned about the future operational aspect of this arrangement.
If the Deputy says that, I must take his word for it, but I have always shown myself to be open to representatives. If anybody in the military or the Department has anything to say to me, he or she can come and say it to me, and I have not heard one word of complaint about this.
111 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the progress made on providing a workplace child care facility in the Curragh Camp; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6831/08]
A request to provide crèche facilities for members of the Defence Forces has been made by the Defence Forces representative associations. The Defence Forces partnership steering group, which was established following from Partnership 2000, has tasked a partnership sub-committee with examining the issue of the provision of child care facilities under a number of headings, including demand for places, location and cost. A report from the sub-committee on the feasibility of undertaking such a project is awaited.
This report has been awaited for almost a year. Will the Minister place more urgency on demanding completion of this report?
The Minister made great play out of trying to attract more females into the Defence Forces and he launched a campaign in that respect some time ago. Female members deserve a family-friendly workplace and for younger women, in particular recently married women, surely a child care facility in the workplace is critical in attracting more women into the Defence Forces. Such a facility is one of the many incentives the Minister must ensure is put in place. I appeal to the Minister to make such provision a priority and to ensure that this committee, which has been lingering for almost the past year in its work on this project, reports to him as soon as possible. He should set a deadline for completion of this report.
I will make inquiries about that. I understand the committee will report on it shortly. For a positive decision to be taken, we would have to be satisfied that the demand for such a facility would justify the capital expenditure because it would involve not only premises but equipment etc. We would also want to be satisfied that its operation would be self-financing as the other six State crèches, provided under the Civil Service provision of crèche scheme, are expected to be.
In terms of such a facility being self-financing, it would not require a great deal of money. I understand that there is a space in the Curragh that could be easily adapted for this type of facility. The main cost probably would be on the employment of personnel rather than the creation of a new space for the facility or the use of special equipment, bearing in mind that the equipment required for crèche facilities is generally not very expensive. Right across the public service crèches are available, even for people in this House I understand. I do not believe that expense should necessarily be a deterrent for the provision of this facility, which is being demanded by military personnel.
My information is that only six crèches are being provided across the public service, each with about 30 places, which is relatively small in the general scheme of things, and they are all expected to be self-financing.
