Vol. 673 No. 3
104 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Defence if it is planned to close further barracks and posts; if contingency plans are being prepared for the implementation of possible future decisions to close individual barracks or posts and transfer the units and personnel concerned to other locations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3611/09]
The closure of barracks and the consolidation of the Defence Forces formations into a smaller number of locations is a key objective of the White Paper on Defence. The dispersal of personnel over an extended number of locations is a major impediment to essential collective training. It also imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barrack management, administration, maintenance and security. The consolidation process is designed to facilitate higher training standards, while also freeing up under-utilised resources and personnel for operational duties.
The development and increased capability of the modern Defence Forces, when taken together with the improved security situation along the border, removed the rationale for having seven barracks and posts along the border and provided the opportunity for consolidation of units in a smaller number of locations. In framing the 2009 budget the Government, therefore, decided to reduce the number of army barracks to bring it more into line with operational requirements of the Defence Forces and to achieve economies of scale.
My Department and the Defence Forces continually review Defence Forces requirements in relation to barracks, infrastructure and other military installations. While further consolidation is desirable from an operational and training perspective, it will be important to let the most recent changes bed down. As such, there are no immediate plans for further barrack closures.
Does the Minister agree that there should be an agreed format in consultation with PDFORRA and RACO for the orderly closure of barracks if such closure is decided? Let us face it, the White Paper suggests a number of barracks may have to be closed. An orderly approach was not taken in the announcement of recent closures.
I have no difficulty with Deputy Deenihan's suggestion. The particular closures we are discussing and which have just taken place were part of a budget announcement and it is not permissible to discuss aspects of the budget in advance so we can prepare for their implementation. This was the difficulty.
Surely the fact that the principle is in the White Paper means it need not have been announced in the budget.
It was decided as part of the budget process. If further barracks closures take place it would be preferable if it were decided outside the budgetary process so advance consultation could take place. However, it could not take place in this case because it was part of a budgetary process.
It strikes me that in the context of the cuts indicated between 2009 and 2013 some discussion must have taken place with regard to further barracks closures. The level of cutbacks this year is €2 billion and it will be €4 billion next year and the year after, €3.5 billion the following year and €3 billion the year after that. Is it realistic for the Minister to tell the House that there will not be barracks closures as part of these savings?
The savings we have decided on at present is almost €2 billion in current expenditure for the remainder of 2009. This is across Departments and includes the pension levy. As Members will have seen in today's newspapers, the Department of Defence has played its part. The savings contributed by the Department of Defence to this year's €2 billion, which is all we have discussed, does not include barrack closures.
How can we believe the Minister today when he came down to the people of Longford two weeks before the election and in the presence of local Deputy, Peter Kelly, pledged that Longford barracks would not close on his watch? With the demand for building land at an all-time low it makes no economic sense to close Longford barracks. Does the Minister understand the trauma and hurt caused to the wives, partners and children of army personnel who served in Longford?
With regard to funding arising from the disposal of the installations closed down has any determination been made as to what use precisely it will be put? Will it be used to upgrade or improve the Defence Forces or aspects of their activity? Will a portion or all of it go to the Exchequer?
I made that commitment in good faith. The economic situation changed dramatically since then and the Department of Defence was asked to come up with savings. The only way we could make savings under some subheads was to close a number of barracks. This was done along the Border area where the British had closed practically all of their installations in view of the disappearance of the security threat.
I understand the difficulty and trauma of the people of Longford which has been communicated to me. I have friends in Longford too. Deputy Bannon may not know it but I have good friends——
No kidding.
Indeed I have.
The Minister has very few left.
The Minister used to have.
I hope I still do.
The Minister has not visited Longford in recent times. There is no welcome for him.
All the Minister has is photographs and memories.
Allow the Minister to conclude.
I passed through it quite recently and a few people waved in a very friendly manner at me.
They seemed very friendly, Minister.
It is lucky the Minister is a small little man and he was not seen.
The Minister left very quickly.
Maybe they were only trying to encourage me to stop.
With regard to Deputy Durkan's question there is an arrangement in the Departments of Defence and Finance that the proceeds from the sale of Department of Defence assets go to the Department of Defence. That has been the case traditionally. We use the proceeds to improve the infrastructure and equipment available to the Army. The money will be coming to us.
105 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Defence if there are plans to impose pay cuts for personnel serving at any level within the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3500/09]
As the Deputy is aware, the Taoiseach announced yesterday a series of measures taken as part of the implementation of the framework for stabilisation, social solidarity and economic renewal. One measure announced was on the method of achieving savings of €1.4 billion on the public service pay bill. The bulk of the proposed savings will be achieved through a new pension-related payment to be made by public servants. This will apply to members of the Defence Forces. I reflect the Taoiseach's view, expressed yesterday, that this is regrettable. However, it is clear that strong action is needed to address the economic crisis that now confronts us.
The levy will apply across the public service and is not specific to the Defence Forces. The Government appreciates the tremendous work that has been done and is being done by the Defence Forces at home and in many troubled areas of the world and the sacrifices that members and their families make in the cause of international peace.
The development and modernisation of the Defence Forces in the past decade comprise one of the big success stories of public sector modernisation. The process of modernisation created great challenges and demands for the Defence Forces. The men and women of the Defence Forces have, over the years, risen admirably to those challenges. They are now being asked, along with other public servants, to raise to the current challenge and I have no doubt they will do so with the same sense of public service they have displayed in the past.
I take it from what the Minister has said that the levy will apply to all Defence Forces personnel. If so, does he consider it fair that personnel in relatively low-paid ranks will have to pay it? Will it apply to allowances, such as that paid in respect of service in Chad?
I take Deputy O'Shea's point that many people in the Defence Forces are not particularly well paid. I will not get into an economic debate about it; suffice it to say the levy applies across the public sector. There are staff in other sections of the public sector who could equally be regarded as not being terribly well paid, yet they must also accept the levy. As the Deputy knows, it is being applied according to a sliding scale such that it rises as one goes up the salary scale. The levy will apply to all members of the Defence Forces.
On the question of allowances, I am aware that allowances for serving overseas are not taxable. Whether the pension levy applies to them is still not decided. It will be a matter for discussion by the Government and it will be clarified when the legislation to implement the levy on contributory pensions is introduced in the House. The simple answer to the Deputy's question is that I do not know as yet.
The total reduction for the Department of Defence is to be €140 million, €50 million of which was to be used to make the pay award on 1 September. This award is now not being paid. This €50 million stays with the Exchequer. However, I am not quite clear on a certain figure. The statement on the Department's position indicates there will be pay and non-pay savings but I find it hard to understand the remark that savings of €15 million will be found across a range of defence expenditure categories, including equipment purchase. There are already headings pertaining to procurement and I therefore want to know the distinction. Could the saving of €15 million also have an impact on pay?
It will not have an impact on pay. It is an additional €15 million we were asked to find during the course of the recent social solidarity negotiations.
106 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which it is intended to enhance coastal surveillance with particular reference to the need to assist in the detection of drugs or people trafficking; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3532/09]
222 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if it is intended to increase the strength of coastal surveillance and defence with particular reference to the need for increased air and sea rescue services and coastal surveillance to combat drug trafficking; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3793/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 106 and 222 together.
The Naval Service comprises 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.
The Naval Service provides 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. At present, fishery protection activity accounts for roughly 90% of all Naval Service patrol time. However, as the need arises, Naval Service vessels may be deployed to other duties such as offering aid to the civil power and drug interdiction operations.
The current exclusive fishery limits extend to 200 miles offshore and cover an area of 132,000 nautical square miles. The Naval Service currently patrols the entire 200-mile limit and periodically patrols beyond it 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 eight. The Naval Service is committed to having at least three vessels on patrol within the Irish exclusive economic zone at any one time. Naval Service patrols are complemented by assistance provided by the Air Corps. The Air Corps maritime squadron carries out aerial surveillance of territorial waters using the two CASA maritime patrol aircraft.
The Irish Coast Guard has overall responsibility for the provision of maritime search and rescue services within the Irish search and rescue region. In accordance with the roles assigned to them by Government in the White Paper on Defence, the Defence Forces are committed to providing support to the civil authorities, including in regard to search and rescue operations. In this regard, the Naval Service and Air Corps provide support to the Coast Guard as the need arises and within their available capability.
Responsibility for the prevention of drug trafficking and people trafficking rests primarily with the Revenue Commissioners and An Garda Síochána, respectively. However, the White Paper on Defence provides for a security role for the Naval Service and the Air Corps to assist and support the civil authorities in this most important work. Government measures to improve law enforcement in regard to drugs, including the establishment in 1993 of a joint task force involving An Garda Síochána, the Customs Service and the Naval Service, have helped to maximise the effective use of Naval Service resources in combating drug trafficking. The Air Corps provides air support and, on occasion, carries the Customs National Drugs Team in an observational capacity for the purpose of monitoring vessels suspected of drug trafficking and other illegal activities. There is close co-operation between the civil authorities and the Naval Service and the Air Corps in discharging this important mission.
Does the Minister agree that, in the current economic downturn, assistance of the civil power by the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps is required more than ever? Does he not agree that it would be a good idea to ascertain the means by which the backup service might be enhanced, having regard to previous successes in this area and the likelihood of a greater threat in this area in the future?
I do not foresee any diminution of the service we are providing. On the enhancement of coastal surveillance, the Deputy will be aware I am doing my best at Government level to obtain replacement vessels for the Naval Service that will be more effective than some of those used at present. This, in itself, will certainly enhance the service.
In the context of the considerable savings being sought at present, is there not a case for a much more integrated approach in regard to the effort of the Defence Forces, Customs and Excise and Garda Síochána to combat the drugs problem? Many in the fishing industry in Ireland contend there is not sufficient or effective surveillance of vessels fishing illegally in our territorial waters. I hear this quite frequently.
I know the Minister has a specific role, which he has outlined. Is it not about time the relevant Ministers got together to formulate a plan that makes maximum use of resources and improves co-ordination in coming to terms and effectively dealing with the importation of drugs into this country? All the available anecdotal evidence indicates that far more drugs are coming into this country than are being detected. In many ways it appears Ireland is being used as a landing place for drugs to be moved on to places elsewhere in the European Union. What evidence does the Minister have that this is the case, anecdotally or otherwise? I remain to be convinced that we are using and co-ordinating our resources to best effect to combat what is the major scourge and social problem in our country.
I accept what Deputy O'Shea said. It was decided in the early 1990s to set up a joint task force comprising the Revenue Commissioners, who have primary responsibility in this regard, the Naval Service and the Garda Síochána. When intelligence is received on a possible drug importation into the country, the task force gets together to monitor the situation, to prevent the drugs coming in and hopefully to arrest and successfully prosecute the people responsible.
There is a view that we would detect more drugs if we had more ships. That is basically correct. Nevertheless, if one looks at the matter logically, taking into account the length of our coastline and the area covered by the exclusion zone, no matter how many ships we had we would still not be able to detect all the drugs coming into this country. Currently, the system is intelligence-led. When intelligence comes in, the task force is put together and everything follows on from there. I am always open to new suggestions if Deputy O'Shea has any specific proposals on further integration and co-ordination.
Is the Minister satisfied he has sufficient manpower in the Customs and Excise and the Garda? Is he satisfied also that he has sufficient facilities for those two groups of people to monitor the huge south-west Cork coastline, which is the targeted zone for the importation of drugs?
In reply to a parliamentary question on Wednesday, 26 November 2008, the Minister indicated that the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre-Narcotics, based in Lisbon, is designed to tackle smugglers bringing drugs from Europe, Latin America and West Africa? The Minister informed me in that reply that the centre is operated by seven countries, namely, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.
The Deputy is giving information rather than asking for it.
He is being encouraging.
I want to know how effective is the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre that was set up in Lisbon on 25 July 2007. How is it operating? Is the Minister satisfied that we can now detect all the illegal importations of drugs into this country? Drugs are the scourge of humanity and they will be the scourge of this country unless they are curbed.
I do not disagree with much of what Deputy Sheehan is saying. I am satisfied with the sufficiency of manpower and facilities to patrol not only the south-west Cork coast, but the coast generally. I am satisfied also that the best possible use is being made of the existing facilities and that the customs officers and the Coast Guard in particular are doing a tremendous job. Of course, if we had more personnel and greater facilities we could do more. There is only so much personnel and facilities one can afford at any one time, but I do not know of any country in the world that could not use even more resources in the fight against drug trafficking.
The centre in Lisbon was, as Deputy Sheehan indicated, established on 25 July 2007, which is just more than a year and a half ago. The information I have is that it is operating well and is making a significant difference. In reply to another question, I do not think it is possible to detect every attempted importation of drugs but I am told that the centre is making a significant difference and that will be reflected in future years.
We are well over time. I will take a final supplementary question from Deputy Deenihan.
Will the Minister clarify whether the Naval Service can only get involved under the direction of either the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? If the Naval Service is suspicious that a yacht or other vessel may be carrying drugs, is it not possible for it to get involved without direction?
Yesterday, the Taoiseach indicated there would be cutbacks in defence spending such as on equipment. He was not precise about the effects. Will that affect the acquisition of a replacement Naval Service vessel which, as the Minister is aware, is critical?
As I already outlined, the position is that when something comes to the attention of the Garda Síochána, a task force is put together involving the Naval Service.
But it cannot operate independently.
No. What happens if something comes to the attention of the Naval Service is that it contacts the Garda Síochána and takes direction from it. That is my understanding of how the system operates.
Regarding the €15 million to which Deputy O'Shea adverted earlier, that will not affect our programme of Naval Service vessel replacement. We are evaluating tenders on the replacement of those ships and that will be completed shortly. It will be a decision of the Government as to whether we can order new ships at that point. That was the original decision. I have to go back to Government on that.
In view of the importance of this question, I will allow a final brief supplementary question from Deputies O'Shea and Durkan.
I do not wish to give the impression that I do not believe good progress has been made. I do not have any illusions about anything close to all shipments coming into the country being intercepted. I recall reading that on the south coast of England local people were employed to walk the coastline because they would be able to identify any strange ships, whereas a stranger would not be able to differentiate between yachts, which is the type of vessel that blends in. To the best of my recollection that was a customs operation.
In addition to the Naval Service resource, the Minister has access to military intelligence, which rightly is highly regarded. The Minister made the point that the big seizures have been intelligence-led and that is the most economic and efficient way of doing it. To what extent is military intelligence involved in this process in regard to human trafficking in addition to drugs?
Arising from his earlier reply, does the Minister agree that in the context of the policing of the large and pivotal coastline in a European context that it might be effective to increase air surveillance, which can cover a greater distance and has been proven in other areas? Will the Minister also indicate the extent to which GPS can be utilised in the fight against people and drug trafficking, which is being done in a number of other jurisdictions, especially in Latin America?
Regarding Deputy O'Shea's question, military intelligence is involved but I do not know to what extent. I do not know what percentage of its time is allocated to people trafficking or drug trafficking. It puts a heavy focus on internal security of the State, as the Deputy is aware, in regard to members of foreign-based terrorist groups in particular.
Firearms are also being brought in with some of the drug shipments.
I appreciate that.
With regard to Deputy Durkan's comments on air surveillance, the navy can get involved in one scenario outside the structure of a task force. The CASA aircraft occasionally carry members of the drug teams in an observational capacity to monitor and so on. I cannot disagree that if we had sufficient resources, more air surveillance would be useful.
107 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Defence if, in view of the recently published second report of the independent monitoring group, he is satisfied with the progress that has been made by the Defence Forces in the areas of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3612/09]
146 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the recently published second report of the independent monitoring group in regard to human resource management and workplace culture within the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3495/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 146 together.
I was pleased to launch the second report of the Independent Monitoring Group, IMG, on 17 December last. I would like to especially thank Dr. Doyle, the members of the IMG and all the other parties, both within and beyond the Defence Forces, who contributed to the completion of this comprehensive and timely report. The IMG was established in May 2002 by the then Minister for Defence to oversee the implementation of recommendations arising from the Doyle report, the Challenge of a Workplace. The first report of the IMG, Response to the Challenge of a Workplace, was presented in September 2004.
The 2004 recommendations placed emphasis on improving human resource management and workplace culture, including dealing with the issues of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. Four years later, the second report of the IMG provided a systematic review of progress. The 2008 report highlights the initiatives undertaken by the Defence Forces in the area of human resource management and workplace culture since 2004. The report confirms that the culture of the Defence Forces organisation is evolving positively and notes that the recorded number of incidents of unacceptable behaviour is low.
In 2008, the IMG reported a high level of awareness among military personnel of the centrality and challenges of human dignity in the mission and culture of the Defence Forces. This was particularly evident in the focus group research at home and overseas. The group reported that the message had percolated that bullying or harassment is not tolerated in the Defence Forces. It commented that the contrast between the readiness of personnel to discuss the issue of unacceptable workplace behaviour four years ago and in 2008 was very marked and concluded that leadership at all levels has communicated the message and heightened awareness. Culture change is not a destination, but rather a journey where every member of the Defence Forces has a role to play. It must be ensured this crucial issue is kept to the forefront in the activities and procedures of the Defence Forces. I am committed to regularly reviewing progress and performance and this is reflected in the programme for Government.
The report includes many recommendations to chart the way ahead in continuing to meet the demands for dignity and equality in the military workplace. It contains in excess of 40 specific recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations will require the concerted and combined effort of both the military and the Department. I look forward to being kept informed of progress in this regard. I am satisfied the Defence Forces are on the right path and they are to be commended for the major progress achieved to date. I am confident this process will be carried forward with enthusiasm and will be further advanced and consolidated in the coming years.
I welcome the report and I thank Dr. Eileen Doyle and her committee for producing it. It demonstrates clearly the major cultural change in our Defence Forces and we must all acknowledge the progress made. What is the timescale for implementing the various recommendations in the recent report for further improvement? Will another review be conducted in a few years?
There is a distinction between training in a battle theatre environment and training in a barracks. I am sure that balance is being maintained because more robust communication is required in battle conditions than in an enclosed barracks. Will the Minister expand on this? Have complaints been made to Army personnel regarding field exercises other than those that occurred in the past in enclosed circumstances in barracks?
I agree with the Deputy regarding the major cultural change and I appreciate his acknowledgement of the progress made.
A total of 40 recommendations arise from the 2008 report and, with regard to his question on the timescale, a new report will be made at the end of 2013. I take his point about the difference between the barracks setting and the field setting. There has been controversy about this, which resulted in some communication. The IMG made a number of recommendations to deal with this, which include: new systems aimed at ensuring new entrants understand what constitutes inappropriate behaviour; systems to ensure appropriate and targeted corrective actions are developed and implemented in order that the necessary robust training is completed in an effective manner; and instructors are to be given ongoing support and information to ensure they are sufficiently confident in their knowledge to deal with incidents on the spot. This point has been well made. The IMG has taken it into account and made recommendations to deal with it.
The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces recently appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence, Equality and Women's Rights and I was heartened by what she had to say regarding the complaints being made and the culture in the Defence Forces. I asked her whether the culture in the Army was that one should not let the side down whatever one's complaint and one should keep everything in-house. She indicated there was a healthy culture and people who worked closely together brought their concerns and complaints forward. They must first go through the Army disciplinary system before contacting the ombudsman.
As the Minister said, the culture is "evolving positively" and we should all rejoice in this, as our Defence Forces are performing to a high level in the context of respect for one another. Will the Minister confirm that is his experience since he took up office? Has there been a significant change in that regard? What is the rate of change? A few years ago, there were reports that led one to believe the level of harassment, including sexual harassment, within the Defence Forces was high but the IMG and ombudsman's reports do not seem to bear that out.
When I took on this job in 2004, it coincided with the first IMG report, Response to the Challenge of a Workplace. The change in attitude and culture since has been significant. There is a recognition and realisation throughout the Defence Forces from top to bottom that bullying, harassment and inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated.
As the Deputy acknowledged, two systems are in place. If one is not satisfied with the outcome under the redress of wrongs system, one can appeal to the ombudsman. There is also a conciliation process within the Army under which one can make a complaint of unacceptable behaviour. Both systems have worked well. The establishment of the ombudsman's office has made an enormous difference. All the work done to make everyone, and not only new entrants, aware of their rights and on the new training for instructors has made a significant difference. The appointment of an equality officer and various other initiatives taken as a result of the initial IMG report in 2004 have made a huge difference in my experience.
If the Minister has the figures to hand he might advise how many complaints of sexual harassment have been made over the past four years. Could he confirm that the Ombudsman has moved into a new office? There was a big issue recently that the office was not suitable for the service she was providing.
I will let the Deputy have the figures for the past four years. All I have with me are the figures for 2007. I remember asking for the figures for 2008, but they do not seem to have arrived. In 2007 there were seven applications for redress of wrongs. Of these, three were not upheld, one was withdrawn and three cases are ongoing. There were four complaints of unacceptable behaviour, one of which was upheld and three were not upheld. In 2007 the Ombudsman reported that seven complaints were made specifically to her office alleging inappropriate behaviour or bullying.
I understand that the OPW drew the Ombudsman's attention to new premises. I do not believe they proved to be satisfactory. I have again contacted the OPW to facilitate the Ombudsman at the earliest possible opportunity.
108 Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Defence the number of civil servants from his Department serving abroad and their grades and ranks; the appointments they hold; if it is intended to increase this number; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3602/09]
My Department has nine civil servants serving with a number of different missions abroad as follows: one principal officer based in Brussels whose responsibilities span the delegation of Ireland to the Political and Security Committee and the liaison office of Ireland for Partnership for Peace, who also acts as a representative to European Defence Agency; an assistant principal officer who works full time as part of the delegation of Ireland to the Political and Security Committee; an assistant principal officer whose responsibilities span the liaison office of Ireland for Partnership for Peace and the European Defence Agency; an assistant principal officer who is a seconded national expert to the European Council, Athena Financing Mechanism; one higher executive officer who serves in the liaison office of Ireland for Partnership for Peace; one administrative officer is attached to EULEX Kosovo mission in the role of administrative reporting officer; one executive officer in the delegation of Ireland to the Political and Security Committee; one clerical officer in the liaison office of Ireland for Partnership for Peace; and one senior first secretary who is on temporary secondment from the Department Foreign Affairs as political adviser to the Chad operation commander of the force, General Nash based in Paris.
It is not my intention to increase the number at the present time.
How many military personnel from the Permanent Defence Force are serving abroad?
From the Permanent Defence Force——
That is beyond the scope of the question.
At the moment it is in excess of 500.
I am referring to those serving in Brussels and Mons.
I will get that information. The number is small. It is in single figures.
Is it intended to reduce the military personnel serving in both Brussels and Mons and increase the number of civil servants?
There is no immediately plan to do so. However, I will get the number of military personnel, which is very small.
We have time for one brief supplementary question. There is no point in going on to another question in the remaining 90 seconds.
The point I am making is that it is very important that military personnel should be aware of what is happening in Brussels and Mons to influence policy and decision making in the Army. It should not be left up to civil servants to serve in Brussels and Mons. Military personnel should be kept involved at all times and there should be no major reduction in the numbers there.
I accept that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
