Vol. 711 No. 2
18 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if any contact has been received from the United Nations or other bodies regarding proposed Irish participation in peace support missions; if he had indicated to the UN and other bodies that Ireland is interested in participation in peace support missions in the immediate future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23667/10]
Ireland has offered, through the UN standby arrangements system, UNSAS, to provide up to 850 military personnel for overseas service at any one time. This figure equates to some 10% of our standing Army, excluding reserves, and demonstrates Ireland's commitment to the cause of international peace. This is the maximum sustainable commitment we can make to overseas peacekeeping operations. Following the recent withdrawal of the Irish battalion from the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad, MINURCAT, Ireland is currently, as of 21 May 2010, contributing 167 Defence Forces personnel to 12 different missions throughout the world.
With regard to future deployments, Ireland receives requests, from time to time, in regard to participation in various missions and these are considered on a case-by-case basis. When considering any particular request, the existence of realistic objectives and a clear mandate, which has the potential to contribute to a political solution, consideration of how the mission relates to the priorities of Irish foreign policy and the degree of risk involved are among the factors considered.
Apart from a recent European Union request to despatch members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces, EUTM Somalia, being carried out in Uganda, no other deployments are planned or envisaged at this time. Five Irish personnel took up duty with the mission at the end of April 2010. No requests have been received from the UN for deployment of personnel to other UN missions.
Following the recent withdrawal of the MINURCAT contingent, the Defence Forces are undertaking the essential and extensive maintenance of equipment. We have also begun the process of examining further options for Defence Forces overseas operations and this examination is ongoing. Participation in overseas operations over the years has given Defence Forces personnel the opportunity to develop skills and competencies through practice in operational situations. Ireland has built up a fine reputation in the field of international peacekeeping and a considerable volume of international goodwill has resulted. The Government is committed to the continued participation by the Defence Forces in international peacekeeping, in particular on UN blue hat operations.
In January we had 758 military personnel serving overseas, but the Minister tells us that number is now reduced to 167. Our international credibility with the United Nations and with our fellow European Union member states is at stake. Our involvement in UN and EUFOR missions gives us a special footprint and a certain amount of authority as an international player. This international reputation will be damaged unless we have more involvement abroad, and that involvement should be at battalion level rather than sending out small numbers of personnel to various places.
Does the Deputy have a question?
How can the Defence Forces keep training personnel at a certain intensity with no mission? That is surely not sustainable. The Minister made a commitment in the House that he would increase the number of those serving in Kosovo, for example. Can he confirm whether he intends to increase those numbers further?
I agree that the posting of Irish troops overseas has contributed very positively to our international credibility. We have a standing commitment to have 850 personnel overseas, and that would best be served by having a detachment at battalion level, as the Deputy proposes. At this point no mission has been mentioned in terms of an Irish involvement. As I said in my reply, we require a period to deal with issues that have arisen in regard to equipment, as well as issues such as leave and so on that arise after a long and intensive mission. We will look at any proposal put to us by the United Nations. Our dealings with that body suggest it is likely to ask us to partake in missions. When and if that arises, we will consider the proposal on the basis of the considerations we have always taken, including the type of impact the mission is likely to have.
In regard to his question on Kosovo, I assume the Deputy meant to refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina where we are, upon request, retaining our troops until the end of the year. We were pleased to be in a position to accede to that request.
Does the Minister agree that missions abroad, including that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are important in terms of our foreign policy and, by making us players at the United Nations, afford us greater influence abroad? Will the Minister confirm that he has made direct contact with the UN regarding the possibility of future missions? Has he confirmed to the UN that we have a contingent available should it be required in the immediate future?
We are members of the UN standby arrangement system and our deployment of 850 personnel is available for call-down, as the UN is aware. When I was having discussions with UN representatives with regard to the mission in Chad, I made clear we would be available for future missions. I have no doubt that proposals will be put to us in the not too distant future at which point we will consider them according to the criteria I outlined in my reply.
19 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether the Irish Red Cross Society should be fully independent of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23666/10]
The Irish Red Cross Society is an autonomous body, established by the Irish Red Cross Society Order 1939 pursuant to the Red Cross Act 1938. The society is an independent charitable organisation with full powers to manage and administer its affairs through its governing body, the central council. Membership of the council is by way of appointment by the Government or by election in accordance with the rules of the society.
The order establishing the society sets out its primary objects and powers which include acting as a voluntary aid society in times of war or peace. The Act of 1938 permits payment to the society of funds by way of grant. The society has certain rights arising from the Geneva Convention. Under the convention, the Government is required to discharge certain obligations to the society including: ensuring the independence of the society; protecting the emblem; and allowing it access to prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention is given effect in Irish law through the Red Cross Act 1954, the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act 1956 and the Geneva Conventions Act 1962, as amended in 1998. National societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their Government and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the international Red Cross movement.
On 18 May 2010 I met with the vice chairman and secretary general of the society who explained to me the intended changes to the manner in which it is organised. The changes are intended to implement a better governance structure and confirm the society's independence from Government. I support its aims in this regard as set out in the report of the working group on governance. This will require substantial amendments to the Irish Red Cross Society Order 1939. Officials from the Department of Defence and the society are due to meet shortly to agree the specific changes required to the 1939 order.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am pleased to hear of his recent meeting with the Irish Red Cross Society. Does he not agree that the primary legislation was introduced in a period when war was imminent and there were different forces at play in terms of the role the society might play? This was a time when there was a general concern about invasions, bombings and so on. In regard to independence, the council of the Irish Red Cross has 42 members, 16 of whom are nominated by the Minister. The chairman is also nominated by the Minister and the fact that there has been no chairman in place since December is causing major problems. What concerns me is the adverse publicity that continues to emanate, albeit the most recent I saw was on a blog. There is a need for this to cease and for nomination of the 16 members and chairman of the council to pass from the Minister. I would like if the Minister could elaborate on the proposals put to him by the members of the Irish Red Cross with whom he met on 18 May.
Deputy O'Shea stated that primary legislation may be required. While this may be the case at some point in the future, particularly bearing in mind the Deputy's points regarding adverse publicity in respect of the Irish Red Cross and the impact this is likely to have, which cannot be positive, I am disposed to making the changes that can be made fairly quickly. Following my meeting with the vice-chairman and acting chief executive officer, I believe that the commitment of the Irish Red Cross is beyond question in terms of delivering on its mandate. I believe the obligation on Government to allow the Irish Red Cross to operate independently is a major consideration and must be respected. Notwithstanding this, as the Deputy stated, the Government has the right to nominate approximately one third of the members of the council, namely, 14 of the 42 members. Often, the number of appointments exceeds 14. The Deputy also referred to the need to appoint a chairman, a matter I hope to dispose of in the next few weeks. This will be an important element in moving the Irish Red Cross forward. We all share the aspiration that it be allowed to operate with the maximum possible level of credibility.
Can I take it that the Minister has in mind a definite person for the position of chairman, the urgency of which appointment the Minister obviously accepts? The Minister has not dealt with the issue of whether it serves the independence of the Irish Red Cross that 16 of the 42 members on the council are appointed by Government. Perhaps also he will address my question in regard to the proposals put to him from the acting chief executive officer and vice-president. What will be the composition of the council under those proposals?
I do not recollect any issue being raised or any difficulty being expressed in regard to the composition of the board and the fact that the Government nominates one third of its members. There are a number of recommendations, one of which pertains to the manner, for example, in which the chairman will be appointed. This process is likely to take some time and is one of the reasons for the delay in replacing the former chairman. It may well be that the appropriate way to deal with this would be to appoint an interim chairman pending completion of at least the first phase of what is required in terms of allowing the Irish Red Cross to move towards independence.
I am aware of the adverse publicity which the Irish Red Cross has unfortunately attracted. We need to take action but to do so carefully to ensure we overcome that difficulty.
20 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the proposals he had made to ensure the deterrent impact in having ships on the ocean waves is maximised, in view of the reduction in the Naval Service patrol days; if he believes, that in view of the threat posed by drugs importation, and the costs it imposes on the health and justice budgets, that additional expenditure in preventing the importation of drugs would offer value for money and enable savings in Justice and Health; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23668/10]
The Naval Service operates eight general purpose 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 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 these limits to protect specific fisheries. These patrols are carried out on a regular 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. All vessels are multi-tasked in the sense that they also undertake general surveillance, security and other duties while on patrol.
Responsibility for the prevention of drug trafficking rests primarily with the Garda Síochána and Revenue Commissioners. However, the White Paper on Defence provides for a security role for the Naval Service to assist and support the civil authorities in this important work. Naval Service patrols at sea undoubtedly act as a deterrent in the fight against drug trafficking. However, increasingly this role is governed by intelligence-led operations and greater co-operation between national and international agencies.
Government measures to improve law enforcement in regard to drugs, including the establishment in 1993 of a joint task force involving the Garda Síochána, the Customs Service and Naval Service, have helped to maximise the effective use of Naval Service resources in combatting drug trafficking. There is close co-operation between the civil authorities and Naval Service in discharging this important mission.
Internationally, the establishment in 2007 of the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre — Narcotics, MAOC-N, has led to a greater focus on intelligence exchange among countries in tackling large drug shipments by sea. MACO-N was set up by seven European countries and is designed as an international co-ordination force with access to national tasking agencies and requires participation and resources from all active members. The Garda Síochána and Customs Service have full time officers based at the centre in Lisbon. Irish Naval Service personnel travel to the centre when requested by the joint task force.
Intelligence sharing and international surveillance capabilities played key roles in Ireland's largest drug seizure. In 2008, the Naval Service intercepted a yacht off the coast of west Cork and seized cocaine with an approximate value of €675 million. I am, therefore, confident that the current level of naval patrols, in conjunction with the intelligence initiatives, are effective in preventing drug importation.
While I agree with the Minister that intelligence-led operations are very much the norm now, surely he will agree, as mentioned in his reply and previously on Question Time, that one must have a constant presence of naval vessels in our territorial waters to act as a real deterrent to people intent on smuggling drugs into the country. The reduction in patrol days in 2010 sends out the wrong message. We are down almost 200 patrol days since 2009. In 2005, there were 1,681 patrol days. Despite the large number of drugs which are obviously coming into this country from South America and other parts of the world, as evidenced in operation Seabight, the number of patrol days has been reduced to 1,480.
I met recently with members of the Naval Service who are concerned about recruitment to the service to ensure it has the personnel to fulfil its commitment and the Government's commitment to ship replacement. The Minister will be aware that the Emer, Aoife and Aisling are past their natural usage. Perhaps he will give a commitment in regard to the patrol days at sea and the replacement of the aforementioned vessels.
While patrol days are an important element of surveillance, they are increasingly less so in the context of the type of monitoring possible, in particular when one takes account of the work of the Lisbon centre, the co-operation between the relevant countries and the advanced co-operation between the Garda Síochána, Customs Service and Naval Service. Surveillance in this regard is much improved, which is a factor in it being possible to operate with enhanced levels of capability even in the context of reduced patrol days, which arise from the strictures set by the economic situation we are in. The Naval Service, no more than any other element of Irish public service, is impacted on by this. Nevertheless, it is possible in the current climate to provide much enhanced levels of surveillance because of international co-operation and automatic identification systems on vessels, which means that it is possible to track from Haulbowline, which I visited last week or the previous week, the movement of all vessels in Irish waters and even prior to their reaching Irish waters. The level of intelligence available to the Navy makes the importance of patrolling considerably less than it would have been in the previous era. Nevertheless, we all acknowledge that the Navy has an important role to play and patrolling is an important element of that.
As Deputy Deenihan said, there is an issue regarding the replacement of the vessels. The economic situation has had an impact on this issue and it is being kept under review.
Have the plans to replace the three vessels been shelved? Am I correct in understanding that is the case? The Minister's predecessor told us that the plans were at an advanced stage. Will the Minister clarify this and state if these plans have been put on the back burner and that the vessels will not be replaced in the immediate future? Will he give a commitment on a timeline for their replacement?
Detailed and extensive contract negotiations are close to conclusion and at that point a decision will have to be made on the timing of the purchase of vessels and no more than any other element of public service that will have to be considered in the context of the current budgetary constraints. A considerable amount of work has been done on foot of the tender competition. I am not in a position to say at this point when a final decision will be made but it is clear that the question of replacing naval vessels is one that must be kept under review.
21 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence if he will appoint a Brigadier General Director of the Reserve Defence Forces in order that the Reserve Defence Forces have a meaningful voice at general staff level [23665/10]
In accordance with the Reserve Defence Forces Review Implementation Plan, the Reserve Defence Forces was re-organised along similar lines to the Permanent Defence Force in October 2005. The reserve now mirrors the Permanent Defence Force with the Army Reserve organised within a three brigade structure and a Reserve Defence Forces Training Authority. In addition there is a Naval Service Reserve.
General officers commanding and the flag officer commanding the Naval Service are brigadier generals and a commodore, respectively. They are in command of both permanent and reserve units within their particular formation. Consequently, all units within formations, both permanent and reserve, are represented at general level and there are no plans to appoint an additional brigadier general specifically for the Reserve Defence Forces.
The strength of the Army and Naval Service Reserve at end April 2010 was 6,304. Recruitment to the reserve recommenced in May 2009 after a temporary suspension. Recruitment is ongoing, subject to an overall strength of 7,671 not being exceeded.
As at 30 April 2010, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force was 9,856. Within the available resources, the Government is committed to maintaining the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at a level of 10,000 all ranks, for which Government approval has been secured in the context of budget 2010. This reflects the reductions in personnel recommended in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. This reduced strength requires a flexible and adaptive response in order to maintain the delivery of defence services.
The prevailing economic environment and the associated resource constraints have impacted on the entire defence organisation. The financial situation is such that it is not possible to provide the level of resourcing that was available in recent years. Within the reduced resource envelope, the Department and the Defence Forces are working closely to prioritise the operational requirements of the Defence Forces and I fully support this approach.
The Department and the Defence Forces are currently examining options, including re-organisation, to ensure the continued delivery of defence services to the greatest extent possible. At this stage I have received no recommendation regarding the future of the appointment of the director of reserve forces, or any other appointment. I would expect, however, that any recommendation I receive will take account of the current and future requirements of the Reserve Defence Forces.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. The Reserve Defence Forces is aggrieved that it does not have an adequate dispute resolution mechanism similar to that in place in PDFORRA and RACO in terms of the Permanent Defence Force. The reserve is also of the view, rightly or wrongly, that its director should be a member of RACO in that if a brigadier general was to be appointed director, a brigadier general would not be a member of RACO but would be a member of the general staff.
There are major concerns among the members of the Defence Forces Reserve. The recommendations in the McCarthy report to reduce by two thirds its resources and size has not been implemented. The strength of Defence Forces Reserve is now 6,394 compared to 23,000 in 1960. I am sure the Minister will agree that in the context of its strength members of the reserve are concerned that the reserve is under threat and that we are moving towards a point where its viability could be very much in question.
I am aware of the points made by Deputy O'Shea regarding concerns the reserve and its representatives have. I had a meeting with them and attended its annual general meeting in the Curragh some weeks back. These issues are ongoing and can be addressed over a period of time.
If I were to look back at the recommendations in the White Paper, produced almost ten years ago, and the plan that was implemented in 2005, it seems that all the key components have been acted on and at this point perhaps we need to look to the future of the reserve in the context of a new White Paper. It seems open to the interpretation that the plan that was implemented and agreed has not been as successful as one might have hoped. That is something we want to resolve. The position of the Reserve Defence Forces is important and one to which we are committed. We want to have the best possible outcomes in that regard.
Can the Minister assure us that the issue of the appointment of a director of the Reserve Defence Forces will be part of the discussions on the White Paper, which is in preparation, and the value for money review? In the context of achieving value for money, it could best be achieved if members of the reserve were happy in terms of from where the director of the reserve is appointed, which would improve morale. It is now very low, if not at an all time low.
As the Deputy will know, in many respects tensions are not always negative. If the effect of them is to impact negatively on morale, that is something worth considering. Work on the White Paper is not yet under way. There will be an opportunity for the reserve and its representatives to have a positive impact in that respect. I have undertaken that account will be taken of its concerns and recommendations prior to the finalisation of the value for money report. There is an acknowledgement that they have concerns and that account will be taken of them.
22 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the progress made on agreeing an employment control framework for the Defence Forces that would enable some recruiting and promotions to resume; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23698/10]
Within the available resources, the Government is committed to maintaining the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at a level of 10,000, all ranks, for which Government approval has been secured in the context of budget 2010. This reflects the reductions in personnel recommended in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes.
I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force as at 30 April 2010, the latest date for which figures are available, was 9,856 broken down as follows: 797 for the Air Corps, 1,023 for the Naval Service and 8,036 for the Army.
Officials from the Department together with the military authorities are currently engaged in a review of the structures and posts required to meet the operational requirements of the Permanent Defence Force within the reduced numbers. Following on from this review, discussions will commence with the Department of Finance to agree an employment control framework for the Defence Forces, which is sustainable within a figure of 10,000 serving personnel in the Permanent Defence Force.
The position with regard to promotion is that once the employment control framework has been agreed with the Department of Finance, sanction for promotion will be delegated to the Department of Defence, with ongoing control monitoring by the Department of Finance on a monthly basis, to ensure ongoing compliance with the overall parameters and controls set by Government for each sector.
With regard to recruitment, as the Deputy will be aware, I have recently approved the recruitment of 40 recruits to the Naval Service. In addition, the military authorities will shortly advertise for some limited recruitment to the Army. While these are challenging times, my priority is to ensure that the Defence Forces are organised, equipped and staffed in a manner which will ensure that they can continue to deliver the services required of them by Government.
I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government both at home and overseas.
Is the Minister aware that a commitment was given that the employment control framework would be agreed and presented to the Department of Finance by the end of April?
It is now a month since that date and this has not happened. My understanding is that it has been sat upon or, some would say, is now suppressed or bogged down in the Department of Defence. Will the Minister take a hands on approach here? It is critical that the employment control framework gets to the Department of Finance as soon as possible.
I remind the Minister that the Defence Forces, perhaps more than any other Department, have complied with everything asked of them. They responded to all requests concerning reduction in numbers, from 15,000 not so long ago to 10,000 now. They have been held up as a flagship for other civil servants and Departments and are now being treated very unfairly because of non-movement due to the employment control framework.
I assure Deputy Deenihan and the House that the delays from the original date mentioned by the Deputy in regard to the employment control framework have arisen because of the additional work required. I can assure him absolutely there is no foot dragging on the part of the Department or the military authorities. It is a very important exercise and one which must be dealt with subsequently with the Department of Finance.
I agree strongly with the point made by Deputy Deenihan in regard to the progress made by the Department of Defence. It is incumbent on all of us who have a role to ensure the Department does not suffer on foot of that when across the board cuts are made. Sub-departments are in a better position to absorb them because they have not been to the fore in addressing this situation to the extent mentioned by Deputy Deenihan.
I wish to stress the urgency of agreeing the framework on which, at this moment, 200 jobs are hanging. If 200 jobs were created in this country tomorrow morning, there would be major announcements about it. There are 200 people waiting to take up employment when this is agreed and surely that is enough of a reason to expedite the measure.
Will the Minister also confirm that the mentioned figure of 10,000 is both a maximum and a minimum figure, and not a ceiling? Is he aware that 200 jobs are dependent on the employment control framework which deals with the strength and structure of our Defence Forces?
I have no doubt progress will be made within the figure of 10,000 personnel agreed for 2010 and also within whatever may arise from the employment control framework proposals which, in any event, must be agreed subsequently with the Department of Finance. The figure of 10,000 is the employment number agreed for 2010 and, as I stated, we have already commenced the process of recruiting to the Naval Service. When I was answering questions last month I made the point that we needed to fill the posts in a targeted way to ensure we would have the capacity in each individual area to make sure that the services which are required of the military, the Naval Service and the Air Corps authorities can be fulfilled.
