Vol. 730 No. 3
43 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied with the level of support available to the Defence Forces to deal with severe weather emergencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8273/11]
Last Friday, I chaired my first meeting of the Government task force on emergency planning. When I was appointed as Minister for Defence, I discovered I was responsible for this area. The meeting, inter alia, reviewed the response to the most recent spell of severe weather. I am satisfied that a significant and important role was played by the Defence Forces during the emergency. While the Defence Forces are not a principal response agency, as defined in the framework for major emergency management, they provide assistance in an aid to the civil authority role under the multi-agency framework. The representation on the task force of my Department and the Defence Forces ensures the fullest co-ordination and co-operation with the appropriate lead Department in the event of an emergency. The Defence Forces are also represented on eight regional working groups that have been established under the framework to co-ordinate the work of the principal response agencies. Furthermore, designated members of the Defence Forces based around the country act as liaison officers to local authorities on an ongoing basis. I am satisfied that this arrangement works well.
The various procedures in place nationally and locally were seen to operate effectively when the Defence Forces responded to all requests for assistance received from the civil authorities during the recent period of severe weather from 27 November 2010 to 26 December 2010. All assets, resources and capabilities of the Defence Forces nationally were made available to the task force and its inter agency co-ordination committee during this period, for the purpose of providing assistance when it was not possible for other agencies and organisations to respond. The co-ordination committee, which met almost daily throughout the emergency, asked the Defence Forces to concentrate its support effort strategically on the HSE, mainly in relation to mobility tasks. Approximately 70% of all aid to the civil authority operations conducted by the Defence Forces were in support of the HSE. This proved to be an effective approach as transport was provided to HSE staff, including palliative care and community nurses who were visiting patients. Health workers, particularly doctors and nurses, were transported to their places of work and between hospitals as the need arose. Assistance was provided to those involved in the delivery of meals on wheels. Focused ice and snow clearing operations were carried out throughout the country. Particular efforts were made to maintain the safety of public infrastructure and key transport hubs. Overall, the response of the Defence Forces proved to be extremely effective.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Defence Forces are equipped to the level required to carry out any tasks that may be asked of them? I refer particularly to the emergencies associated with flooding and cold, snowy weather. Are there any plans to augment the equipment of the Defence Forces? Is it not the case that the Defence Forces have to be requested to make assistance available, as they cannot make such decisions themselves? Is the Minister familiar with cases in which local authorities were slow to ask the Defence Forces for help because they were worried it might reflect badly on their own capabilities? Can the Minister, in his capacity as a member of the emergency task force, ensure the Defence Forces are called in to help at the earliest opportunity, rather than at the very end? Their involvement should be not be the last resort. It should be called upon as soon as possible in these situations.
The Deputy is right to say the Defence Forces have to be requested to assist the civil power. The Department of Defence chairs the task force and is well represented on it. Essentially, a co-ordinating operation is implemented through the task force. The Department primarily responsible becomes the lead Department. My understanding is that the assistance of the Defence Forces was provided in all circumstances in which it was sought. The Deputy asked whether we are equipped to the level required. The Defence Forces were not found wanting when called on to address the recent weather difficulties. One of the great difficulties we encounter when dealing with the level of snow that fell in November and December is that it is always pointed out that additional and more sophisticated equipment could be purchased. There is a contrast between the type of equipment available to us and that used to deal with snowstorms in Chicago, where major difficulties of this nature are regularly encountered. The United States authorities have much more equipment of a far more sophisticated nature than we have in this State, simply because they deal with these sorts of incidents with greater regularity. The equipment we have is designed for a type of event that occurs infrequently. It is clear that we need to keep the matter under review. If a major effect of climate change is that extreme snow events take place with greater regularity in Ireland, we may have to review our equipment requirements. As matters stand, I am satisfied the Defence Forces have the equipment required.
There appears to be resistance to calling in the Army to undertake footpath clearance. Kildare was, I believe, the first county to request such assistance. This type of work provides major benefits, including for hospitals. Is there a hierarchy of issues for calling in the Army and, if so, are footpaths at the lower end of it?
The Defence Forces can be asked to provide assistance in accordance with the agreed multi-agency framework for major emergency management. This can include, where necessary, dealing with the issue of footpaths. Representation on the task force by my Department and the Defence Forces ensures the fullest co-ordination and co-operation with the lead Department — in the circumstances which occurred in November and December 2010, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was the lead Department — in determining how the resources available are to be prioritised. Whether it is footpaths or national and local roads, ultimately the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government determines priorities based on the difficulties being experienced and resources available.
44 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Defence the planned developments at Custume Barracks, Athlone, County Westmeath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8274/11]
The Department is engaged on an ongoing capital building programme designed to modernise and enhance the training, operational and accommodation facilities available to members of the Defence Forces. Under this programme there has been considerable capital investment in Custume Barracks. The most recent major projects include the construction of a new gymnasium, refurbishment of the Watergate Building as office accommodation and a gas and water main upgrade. The construction of new armoured vehicle garaging is under way in addition to the provision of new underground services and associated works. There are also plans to upgrade the electrical transformer later in the year. Approximately €4.5 million of the capital budget has been invested in Custume Barracks over the past three to four years.
45 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the contributions Ireland has made or is considering making to the recently established EUFOR Libya military mission; if he envisages that the Nordic battle group will be deployed in this context; and the assurances he has received that EU forces operating as part of EUFOR Libya will not be confused with the forces of EU member states which are attacking Libya as part of Operation Unified Protector. [8389/11]
On 1 April 2011, the Council of the European Union adopted the decision, underpinning the mandates of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011), establishing an operation called EUFOR Libya to stand ready to support humanitarian assistance in the region if requested by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA. This decision provides the legal framework for Operation EUFOR Libya. However, any decision to launch the EU military operation would require a further decision of the European Council and must be preceded by a request from OCHA.
The aim of this mission would be to contribute to the safe movement and evacuation of displaced persons and support, with specific capabilities, the humanitarian agencies in their activities. To ensure the European Union is in a position to respond quickly to any such request from OCHA the Council decision provided for the establishment of an operational headquarters in Rome to undertake initial planning for any such mission. It also provided for the appointment of an operational commander. Ireland has been requested by the operational commander to deploy two Defence Forces personnel to the headquarters in Rome. This matter is under consideration in my Department and any such proposal will be subject to Government approval under the Defence Acts.
At present, the UN position is that there is currently no requirement for the deployment of military assets for humanitarian purposes. OCHA has reiterated that military assets should only be used for humanitarian purposes when all civilian alternatives are fully explored and it is operating on this basis. Therefore, it is unlikely the European Union will be called upon to deploy such a mission in support of OCHA in the immediate future.
As I understand it, there are no plans to deploy the Nordic battle group as part of the EUFOR Libya military mission and we did not have any discussion in that regard. If deployed, EUFOR Libya would not be an occupation force but an operation to support humanitarian assistance in the region. All EU forces operating as part of EUFOR Libya would honour the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs guidelines on impartiality and neutrality. The operation, if launched, would remain independent of any armed or political faction and exclude any occupation of or attempt to occupy Libyan territory. Any deployment of EUFOR Libya would be conducted in close co-ordination and complementarity with the other international actors operating in the region and neighbouring countries, including Egypt and Tunisia.
While I welcome the news that no definite decision has been made on deploying military personnel, I ask the Minister to indicate that Ireland will not consider deploying military personnel as part of this operation. Notwithstanding the humanitarian justification that may be provided, NATO forces are engaged in aggressive military action in Libya which goes far beyond the scope of humanitarian intervention, particularly in the aftermath of the joint statement made by Prime Minister Cameron, President Obama and President Sarkozy in which they refer to regime change.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Will the Minister provide a firm assurance that Ireland will not in any way provide assistance or deploy military personnel to what is revealing itself increasingly as an aggressive military action for regime change which is contrary to international law? It is increasingly clear that this is about big powers trying to secure their oil and other interests in Libya and does not have anything to do with humanitarian intervention.
I never cease to be amazed at the manner in which the Deputy approaches matters. He may have noticed that if not for the intervention of the British, French and Americans, the population of Benghazi would probably be under Gadaffi's rule and many thousands of civilians would have lost their lives. The town of Misrata is under siege while the town of Ajdabiya has been subject to rocket attacks by the forces of the Libyan leader. Whereas we are not engaged in activities in the region, the deployment that has occurred falls within the United Nations resolution which is designed to provide a degree of protection for the population in that region.
I noticed with some interest that Deputy Boyd Barrett is chair of the steering committee of the international war movement.
It is the anti-war movement.
Last Friday, it engaged in the meaningful act of picketing the European Union offices about Libya. How did that go? Did the Deputy find after the picket that Colonel Gadaffi had stopped bombing and trying to murder his own population? Did he discover that this was a particularly effective approach to take in addressing the intent of a murderous regime?
Deputy Boyd Barrett has an unfortunate propensity to demonstrate public support for international political leaders who lack any real democratic mandate or inhibition in torturing or murdering their own people. In the circumstances, it is not surprising he should have raised his question in this way. While he is pretending, on the one side, to have some concern for the civilian population of Libya, in reality he is clearly a supporter of the Gadaffi regime. It is extraordinary that he publicly attacks western democracies which are seeking to provide protection for innocent civilians and even more extraordinary that he should be opposed to this State, should it be asked to do so, engaging in a humanitarian mission to save lives with our European partners.
I ask the Minister to withdraw what is an outrageous and unfounded claim that I am supporter of the Gadaffi regime. Not only am I not a supporter of Gadaffi, who is a brutal dictator, but I would like to see him overthrown. I have stood on a number of protests in recent weeks with members of the Libyan community who are opposed to Gadaffi and seek his overthrow and did not notice the Minister on any of the demonstrations. One of his former party colleagues, Peter Sutherland, signed an oil deal with Gadaffi in 2004, while Western governments have armed and financed the Gadaffi regime, thereby giving him the means to butcher his own population.
A question, please.
The Minister has no lessons to teach me about opposing dictators.
What is the question?
Does the Minister accept, as many are now saying in Britain, including the British political establishment, and throughout the world, that the Western military intervention in Libya goes way beyond the remit of a claimed humanitarian mission and is actually about regime change, as stated explicitly by Mr. David Cameron, President Nicholas Sarkozy and President Barack Obama? Will we state clearly that we will not involve ourselves in supporting, in any shape or form, an aggressive military intervention to secure oil interests in Libya?
The Deputy seems to be of the view that his protesting is effective in stopping Colonel Gadaffi from butchering his own civilian population. That seems to be the Deputy's rather confused view.
Will the Minister withdraw the claim that I support Colonel Gadaffi?
Unfortunately, so far, the Deputy's protests have not impacted greatly on Colonel Gadaffi.
Neither have the bombings.
Perhaps the Deputy might send Colonel Gadaffi a video of his protesting outside the European Union offices in Dublin. I am sure he will be impressed.
It got rid of President Mubarak.
On the UN position, as I said, there is no requirement for the deployment of military assets for humanitarian purposes. With regard to the role of the NATO-led operation, Operation Unified Protector, to which the Deputy referred in his question, NATO-led forces are committed to full implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. They are taking action to protect civilians and civilian populated areas in Libya under threat of attack and enforcing the no-fly zone and an arms embargo authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. NATO is implementing all military aspects of the UN resolution. It can be taken from the Deputy's comments that he would prefer if there was no intervention of any description by the countries to which he referred and that it would be his preference that Colonel Gadaffi be left alone to butcher as many thousands of civilians as he chooses.
46 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the current strength of the Reserve Defence Forces; his plans for the future of the RDF; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8391/11]
I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Reserve Defence Forces, as at 31 March, was as follows: First Line Reserve, 305; Army Reserve, 5,504; and Naval Service Reserve, 221. A value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force commenced in February 2010 and is ongoing. The review is being overseen by a civil-military steering committee with an independent chair and supported by a working group. It is examining Reserve costs, efficiency and effectiveness, including the progress made with the Reserve Defence Forces review implementation plan which provided the framework for the development of the Reserve until the end of 2009. The steering committee and the working group have engaged in an extensive programme of consultation and sought additional detailed information on Reserve activity. The final elements of these information requirements are being compiled and will then be analysed. This information is necessary in order to ensure a comprehensive and balanced picture of Reserve activity. It is expected the review will bring forward recommendations to chart a course for the future development of the Reserve. I look forward to receiving the report in due course.
Will the Minister provide a breakdown of the non-effective strength of the Reserve? When does he expect the review to be finalised given that it has been ongoing for 14 months?
I hope the review will be finished shortly and that it will give us an opportunity to consider any changes that need to be effected. I see the Reserve as an important part of the Defence Forces and look forward to its continued involvement in the Defence Forces. Some of the plans previously put in place did not work in practice and some aspects had to be postponed. The review will provide a new perspective on the activities appropriate to the Reserve. I look forward to its continued engagement in the Defence Forces.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
