Vol. 802 No. 1
72. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the implementation of the changes he announced for the Reserve Defence Force in November 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21514/13]
The value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, recommended the retention of a reserve of approximately 4,000 personnel, with a broad range of reforms aimed at ensuring a viable and cost effective reserve into the future. A high level implementation group, HLIG, consisting of civil and military personnel, is overseeing this implementation process of the major reorganisation of the reserve. When complete, it will enhance the overall capacity of the Defence Forces to deal with a broad range of contingencies.
A new single force structure underpinned by legislation is now in place since 31 March. All former Army and Naval Service Reserve units have now been disestablished, with both Reserve Defence Force and Permanent Defence Force units organised within the new single force structure. While the reassignment process put in place for members of the reserve to positions within the new structure is at an advanced stage of implementation, it is not yet fully complete. Reassignment offers have been made to individual members. However, members have the right to appeal and I understand a number have done so.
The reorganisation of the reserve dovetails with the recent reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force. This revised structure will improve access to equipment, expertise and appropriate training for members of the reserve. In the current phase of implementation which will extend to 30 September 2013 armed training for members of the reserve has resumed. Co-ordinated training is under way and concentrated on capability development and achieving interoperability standards. This will be met from within the existing reserve training budget. Monetary savings of approximately €11 million in 2013 will be achieved by the reduction in direct expenditure on the reserve.
The changes being implemented are a direct response to the identified need for reform and will assist in ensuring a sustainable and fit for purpose reserve into the future. I am satisfied that the changes being introduced will assist in achieving this goal.
I acknowledge that the members of the Reserve Defence Force welcome the introduction by the Minister of the single force structure. An interesting presentation was made by the said group to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality during the past fortnight and at that meeting its representatives made it very clear to us that it was their opinion that the value for money review on which the Minister had based his amendments to the system was flawed on a number of levels. They said it had failed to make any qualitative evaluation of the input of the Permanent Defence Force into the RDF. They also claimed it had made biased comparisons in its case studies, that it misinterpretd evidence and included no substantial analysis to support many of its claims. In addition, they said it completely ignored the operational capability, experience and output of the Naval Service Reserve.
I ask the Deputy to, please, frame his question.
Will the Minister agree with the members of the Reserve Defence Force who further said the outcome of the value for money review and the latest reorganisation of the RDF ran contrary to international trends? Will he agree that the existing studies of and reports on international comparators and previous studies of the RDF also indicate that this is the case?
The terms of reference for the value for money review were created by my predecessor in 2009. They were prescribed by the Government led by the Deputy's party. I am satisfied that a very detailed and effective analysis was conducted of difficulties within the RDF, including how to make it more effective, how to ensure that it makes a contribution that has value in the public interest and that we use funding wisely. The number of members of the PDF, the cadre who were appointed whose sole task was effectively to mentor members of the RDF, was based on an RDF contingent membership of 9,500, a strength that was never achieved during the 14 years when the Deputy's party was the lead party in government and which resulted in a substantial waste of resources. Members of the PDF who could have been assigned to other duties were given duties that were unnecessary in the context of the real strength. The purpose of the realignment that has taken place and the recommendations for its implementation that I received from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General in the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence are to ensure that there is value for money, that those members of the reserve who, through their community spirit, want to make a contribution are given a greater opportunity to do so and to reintegrate the reserve into the PDF so that there is a closer relationship between the two which I believe that members of the reserve substantially welcome.
The members of the Reserve Defence Force feel that the Minister has an agenda to abolish it. I hope that is not the case. I ask the Minister to reiterate his very strong commitment to the Reserve Defence Force. He constantly mentions what my party did in government but he has been long enough in government himself to be able to stand over the positions he is adopting. I ask him to stand over the position he is adopting in this regard and to indicate that he has no intention whatsoever of forcing the Reserve Defence Force to the point of non-existence through the introduction of regulations and key performance indicators with which it is virtually impossible to comply.
The reason I refer to his party in government is that in so far as there is any challenge to the nature of the value for money assessment that was undertaken it was undertaken under terms of reference, with which I have no disagreement, prescribed by the Deputy's colleagues in government. One of his colleagues who was a senior Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, when dealing with the value for money report at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence suggested that the terms of reference had been designed to produce a particular result. He seemed to be oblivious to the fact that they were designed by him and his Cabinet colleagues when in government.
To say something blindingly obvious to the Deputy, if I had an agenda to abolish the Reserve Defence Force I would have announced its abolition. The abolition of the RDF was one of the assessments made by the value for money audit. I am acting on the proposals and suggestions made to me to make the reserve more effective. If I had an agenda to abolish the reserve instead of announcing a reorganisation in its interests and those of members of the public some months ago I would have announced its abolition. I hope that this issue will go away. I read with great interest the presentation made by members of the reserve to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. They had many positive things to say and they had some understandable concerns but it is very important that we now move forward with the full implementation of the reforms and I look forward to the day when the reserve is perceived by the public as playing a role that has clear public benefit.
73. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he has taken the opportunity to read the transcript from the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association which was before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence on 24 April 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21410/13]
I can confirm that I have read the transcript from the appearance of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and have also read the RDFRA written submission to that committee. The completion of the independently chaired value for money review is an important contribution to the reorganisation of the Defence Forces. Implementation of the approach recommended will ensure that the reserve continues to provide the Permanent Defence Force with appropriate additional capacity for contingency situations. It will also maintain a channel for the provision of a well-trained voluntary military contribution from communities at local level.
The value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for such reviews, which are followed by all Departments. In accordance with these guidelines, a steering committee which included members from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was appointed to oversee the review. The independent chair was drawn from a list maintained by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The members of the steering committee made their recommendations collectively, having regard to the evidence uncovered during the review.
I note the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, is not satisfied with the recommendations of the review. However, I was disappointed at the allegations of bias made. This is a slight on the integrity of the steering committee which is grossly unfair and unfounded. The review was comprehensive and systematic. The subsequent reorganisation proposals were recommended by the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and the Secretary General of my Department. At no stage was there interference by me, as Minister, with those engaged in conducting the review. Following their appointment, I simply awaited receipt of their report when they had completed their work.
I previously stated I would be willing to listen to points raised by the RDFRA and weigh them on their merits. I note there were two dominant and linked themes within the presentation and discussion, namely, reservists with specialist skills from their civilian lives should be better utilised and called up or mobilised in a paid capacity in non-crisis situations and that the ongoing calling up or mobilisation of reservists should be facilitated by employment protection legislation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
This matter was comprehensively dealt with in the VFM review. The role of the Reserve Defence Force remains to augment the Permanent Defence Force in crisis situations. The mobilisation of reservists must be justifiable having due regard to both the gravity of the situation and the potential disruption to reservists, their families and employers. I could not justify calling up reservists in the absence of a clear requirement for additional capacity. Of course, it is a very desirable feature of the reserve that volunteers bring a whole range of talents, skills and experience through their commitment. The VFM review did recommend that the utilisation of the skills of members of the reserve should be considered on a voluntary basis and in an unpaid capacity. This represents a balanced approach to utilisation of the reserve.
I will, of course, take other views on board and look forward to further engaging with the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality on this matter in the future.
I have the transcripts of the presentation and the subsequent question and answer session with the RDFRA at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. It is clear that it has a significant difficulty with the VFM report and its input to it. One major point that stands out is that of training hours. Unless a member of the Reserve Defence Force has met the statutory requirement of undergoing two weeks training, he or she cannot avail of the gratuity available. The RDFRA has made the point that the number of training hours has been halved, meaning that it is difficult to avail of training. There is also the wider issue of employment legislation that will facilitate Reserve Defence Force members, for whom the majority of their time is spent in making an unpaid voluntary contribution, and give them supports in their places of employment, as is the case in other jurisdictions.
The organisation made many positive contributions at the committee. It is asking for an independent review because it believes the potential and skills Reserve Defence Force members bring to the table could be lost. What is the Minister’s view of an independent review based on the RDFRA’s presentation?
We have had an independent VFM review which made a number of key recommendations which are being implemented in the public interest and in that of members of the Reserve. I fully understand and appreciate that people have a difficulty on occasions with change and reform. It always takes a little time for matters to bed down. I know and I am conscious of the fact that there is an amount of reorganisation involved in this and that, for some, inconvenience too. I am particularly conscious that each and every member of the Reserve Defence Force is a volunteer, giving up his or her time. Whether we are talking about the payment of a gratuity or a payment for training days, the payment is, of course, very modest and I would not pretend otherwise.
We are trying to ensure the funding available is directed in a way that is in the public interest. In the context of training days, we are trying to ensure matters are designed to encourage people who are members of the Reserve to actively engage. I am conscious that this is a reserve force and that it is in place to fill a gap, should there be a gap to be filled, and in places where the Permanent Defence Force requires assistance. It is not to provide a separate role for the RDF. That is an overwhelming aspect of the background to how we deal with the RDF and how it is trained. I hope the more integrated training that will be provided will focus on particular roles the Reserve may be able to play should it be called upon.
I do not know the answer to the question I am about to ask the Minister. Has he met with the members of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association to seek the views of its members? It strikes me they are making a constructive contribution to the debate. They are genuinely concerned their members will not be able to meet the requirements in terms of training and they made a statement that the Reserve Defence Force could face being disbanded within three years. I do not know about that, but they have serious concerns. If the Minister has not met them, will he meet them as soon as possible to discuss their presentation and their suggestions? All the Members of this House are sensible people. If there is a layer of civic-minded citizens who want to volunteer and make a contribution to the State in a way that is clearly value for money, we must listen to them. If the Minister has met them, what was the outcome?
There was a consultative process by my officials with members of the Reserve Defence Force following the publication of the value for money report. The Permanent Defence Force, PDF, has been engaged with them also in the context of implementing the changes. I have met with members of the reserve previously. I am always happy to meet with members of the reserve and I had the opportunity when I made my presentation to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, when I was delighted to see that there were members of the reserve in the gallery. I had a very brief conversation with them. I have no difficulty in meeting with them should they want to meet with me, but I am conscious that the value for money recommendations were objectively made by a group which independently examined the way the reserve was working, where there were problems and how those problems should be addressed, not just in the interests of the reserve but also in the public interest, at a time when we must use our resources wisely.
74. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence if a decision has been taken on the participation of Irish Defence Forces personnel in the UN peacekeeping mission to Mali approved by the Security Council on 25 April 2013; if he will report on the Irish troops currently participating in the EUTM Mali; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21507/13]
On 25 April 2013, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2100 establishing a peacekeeping force in the west African nation of Mali. Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council established the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, to be known as MINUSMA, for an initial period of 12 months. The new mission will replace the African-led International Support Mission in Mali, AFISMA. On 1 July 2013, African personnel currently deployed to AFISMA will be basically rehatted to MINUSMA. The UN has initiated a force generation process for MINUSMA with a view to deploying, as soon as possible, an advance headquarters team to work alongside AFISMA force headquarters until the transfer of authority on 1 July next.
No formal request has been received from the UN for Defence Forces participation in this mission. However, the UN has advised the European Union and other potential troop contributors of current shortfalls in key enabling factors, including transport, logistics, engineering and medical. The potential for the Defence Forces to contribute is currently under consideration by the defence organisation. No decision has been made at this stage as to whether Ireland will participate.
Regarding the EU Training Mission Mali, EUTM Mali, 22 member states, including Ireland, are contributing more than 500 troops, including 250 instructors and additional military personnel. The purpose of the mission is to provide military training and advice to the Malian armed forces in order to improve their capacity to maintain security and restore the authority of the Malian Government and the territorial integrity of the Malian State.
Eight members of our Defence Forces were deployed to EUTM Mali on 23 March 2013 for a tour of duty of approximately five months. Of these, one lieutenant colonel is the camp commandant of the Koulikoro training camp, while one commandant is employed in the mission headquarters in Bamako. The remaining six form part of a UK-led infantry training team which is based in Koulikoro training camp and is training Malian armed forces personnel. This element consists of a junior officer and five non-commissioned officers. Training for the first group of 650 Malian armed forces personnel commenced on 2 April 2013 and is progressing well. The Defence Forces training team will train two platoons of Malian armed forces personnel during their tour of duty. The training teams are due to rotate in early September 2013.
As we know, military intervention rarely comes without a price. Too often, we have seen the so-called war on terror become the reason for intervention and this is, seemingly, part of the French argument for moving into Mali. I do not know whether the Minister has noticed, but in the past few weeks international agencies have been warning that northern Mali is about to descend to an emergency level of food insecurity and that if conditions do not improve, we are looking at a disastrous situation. Already, more than 250,000 people have been displaced and the number of refugees is growing. The agencies have been at pains to point out that one in every five households now faces food shortages, categorised as severe in northern Mali and as extreme in the Kidal region.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of a chronic nutritional crisis that kills children every day, the majority of them in the south of the country, where 90% of Malians live. The UNICEF Mali representative, Hector Calderon, has estimated that 210,000 will suffer from life-threatening malnutrition this year and 450,000 will suffer a less severe, but debilitating, form of malnutrition.
I must call on the Minister to respond.
Does the Minister not think the energies of the foreign powers should be more directed towards community projects and towards sorting out issues on the ground rather than the military direction of the French effort?
I wish I lived in the simplistic world the Deputy inhabits in dealing with these issues. Of course, it is important there are not food difficulties and that those that exist are addressed. It is also important that children in difficulty have their problems addressed. UNICEF is part of the same organisation involved, the United Nations. As the Deputy may be aware, the problems - despite the way some people in this State like to paint them - that arose in Mali do not derive from the intervention of the French or the assistance European Union countries or other African countries are trying to provide. They derive from the difficulties and collapse that took place in Mali, both the collapse in takeover of the Government of Mali and, forces, particularly fundamentalist groups, who took over northern Mali.
The Deputy may be interested to know that a report by the UN human rights office in February 2013 on the crisis in Mali revealed serious human rights violations since the beginning of the conflict in January 2012. The report highlights issues which must be addressed in response to the current crisis in Mali if lasting peace and stability is to be achieved, including the serious underlying and neglected ethnic tensions in the country. The report provides a very balanced picture, showing there have been abuses by both the Malian authorities and by the militants in the north. The three main regions of northern Mali, Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu, had been controlled by four rebel groups before the French and African military intervention. The separatist National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, MNLA, and the extremist movements, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, Ansar Dine and Movement for Unity and Jihad were all engaged.
It is important to bring to the Deputy's attention that Ministers in the north were responsible for serious violations, including summary executions, extra-judicial killings and many abuses were carried out in the name of an extreme interpretation of Sharia law. Women, in particular, endured harassment, abuse, sexual violence, rape and reviews by al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups in the north as a form of ethnic intimidation and repression. The recruitment of child soldiers, sometimes as young as ten, by extremist groups is also documented.
The Minister should conclude.
Is the Deputy seriously saying that all of that should have been ignored or should continue to be ignored and that those groups should have been allowed to take over the entire Malian state and perpetrate murder, persecution and rape throughout that state? It was the intervention of the French and African forces that stopped that.
The Minister supports dictatorship.
What is being done now, which is important, is that the EUTM group is not merely providing military training, but is providing training in human rights issues, in conflict resolution and in civilian protection issues. This is an important element of what needs to be done to facilitate the Malian state's return to some level of normality when the promised elections are held next July.
I have no intention of defending what was going on there. However, the same argument was made for the invasion of Afghanistan. Terrible things were happening in Afghanistan, but after ten years, the situation there has got worse.
It is all very well to say terrible things are happening and to decide to go in and sort them out. Very often, we do not go in for the right reasons. I would like the Minister to give me a litany of places that have actually been improved as a result of intervention. In the past ten years there have been disastrous interventions in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.
First, there are still difficulties in Afghanistan. The Deputy is wrong about the situation in Afghanistan because there are substantial improvements in that country compared with ten years ago. However, the Deputy chooses to ignore them.
I am not ignoring them.
Question No. 76 in my name relates to the situation in Afghanistan.
Is the Deputy suggesting that where there is murder, mutilation and rape-----
We know all that.
-----and where women are being violated and limbs are being cut off, the world should turn its back and do nothing?
Is that what the Deputy is suggesting?
That is not what he said.
I do not agree with that point of view.
I would prefer to see the Africans solve problems in Africa.
75. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the savings that will be secured in the Defence Forces budget this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21515/13]
As provided for in the Revised Estimates Volume for 2013, the gross provision for the Defence Votes in 2013 is €895 million. This figure is made up of €680 million for the Defence Vote and €215 million for the Army pensions Vote. The gross provision for 2013 shows an overall reduction of €7 million on the 2012 gross provision of €902 million and is mainly accounted for through estimated reductions in pay and allowances in the Defence Votes under the successor to the 2010-14 public service agreement, known as Croke Park II. These reductions follow further significant reductions which have been achieved in recent years in the Defence Votes. The current economic conditions have necessitated reductions in public sector expenditure in Ireland, including defence expenditure. Having regard to these resource constraints, I have initiated a broad range of measures aimed at maintaining the operational capacity of the Defence Forces. Following a comprehensive review of expenditure, I secured the agreement of the Government to accept my recommendation to stabilise the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel. This is the optimum strength required to fulfil all roles assigned to it by the Government. A major reorganisation of the Defence Forces was initiated within this strength ceiling. This has prioritised operational capability and redeployed Permanent Defence Force personnel from administrative and support tasks to operational units. In addition, equipment procurement continues to prioritise the operational requirements of the Defence Forces. All of this has been achieved within the reduced resource envelope allocated to defence. The measures I have outlined are ensuring the Defence Forces remain fit for purpose. The Chief of Staff has confirmed that the Defence Forces can continue to meet all operational requirements at home and overseas. The Department continually monitors expenditure trends closely on an ongoing basis. No overall savings in 2013 are anticipated at this stage.
Once again, it is welcome that expenditure is constantly monitored by the Minister's military personnel. It is also welcome that Defence Forces numbers have been fixed at 9,500. I would like to remind the Minister of the responses he gave to parliamentary questions approximately two months ago. Does he agree that he accepted on that occasion that military personnel went way above and beyond the call of duty at an early stage in meeting the demand for reform of the public service? Does he agree that he also accepted on that occasion that many members of the Defence Forces were receiving family income supplement, which is a clear indication that their incomes are very low? Does he, therefore, accept that he did not stand up to the mark as he intimated he would on that occasion - at least, that is my understanding of what he intimated - by defending the members of the Defence Forces? Does he accept that the 10% cut in allowances announced shortly after we last discussed this matter will have a very adverse impact on rank and file soldiers?
I disagree entirely with what the Deputy has to say with regard to my defending of the position of members of the Defence Forces. If the Deputy's party had continued in government, I would not have been in a position to secure an agreement from the Government that the strength of the Defence Forces should be maintained at 9,500. If I had not secured the additional funding necessary from the Government in 2012 to facilitate this, we would now be looking at the strength of the Defence Forces falling below 8,000.
It was because I secured this agreement that we were able to recruit new members to the Defence Forces during the course of last year, and I am anticipating that we will again be recruiting later this year when the number of retirements for this year becomes clear.
I am very proud of the fact the Defence Forces have, in fairness to them, implemented substantial reform. They have been ahead of the public service pack in the efficiency with which they have implemented reforms and ensured resources are used very carefully in the public interest. I want to pay public tribute to the representative bodies within the Defence Forces for engaging very constructively in the process that took place with a view to assisting in saving the €300 million that must be saved this year and agreeing change and reform that I hope and believe will have very limited financial impact on members of the Defence Forces but will ensure, overall, that the savings that have to be achieved can be made.
Of course, during the many years when the Deputy's party was in government, members of the Defence Forces consistently had to apply for supplementary welfare allowance and for additional financial help through the social welfare system for a whole range of reasons, so the Deputy should not expect anyone to believe that is a new issue. I am very grateful to the representative bodies for their constructive engagement in the interests of their members and in the context of the public duty and patriotism displayed by them.
Obviously, I do not agree with the Minister. Would he agree it is fair that Army generals - under his proposals, not ours - will lose 14% while Army privates lose 6%? Does he accept it is fair that - under his arrangements, not ours - new recruits to the Defence Forces will enter at reduced salary scales, unlike the arrangements that appear to have been arrived at for teachers and possibly for nurses?
In the context of any savings that had to be effected, I said that in real financial terms they were not large as they affected any individual, but the approach was that the new financial arrangements would have a greater impact on those who were better paid than on those who were lesser paid. I do not know if the Deputy is suggesting that those who are paid less should have been hit to a greater extent, because that is not my view.
If the Deputy's party had not destroyed the fiscal base of this country we would not be in this situation in the first place. We would be in a position whereby, instead of talking about having to reduce resources in a number of areas or, indeed, reduce or contain allowances or salaries, we would possibly be seeing individuals doing a good deal better than they are. The Deputy should not forget that his party practically made this country bankrupt. We are in receipt of €12 billion in aid this year from the ECB-IMF-EU and, without that, we would not be in a position to pay front-line workers the salaries or allowances they will get this year. Indeed, we would not be in a position to maintain 9,500 members of the Defence Forces, let alone look at the possibility of recruiting additional members this year, having already recruited 600 new members last year.
The Minister is not addressing the issue of why one group will lose 14% and the other 6%.
76. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the role of Irish troops in Afghanistan. [21534/13]
On 20 December 2001, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1386 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorising the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan. On 9 October 2012, the UN Security Council extended ISAF’s mandate for a further year until October 2013.
Ireland has participated in the NATO–led, UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan since 5 July 2002, following the Government decision of 2 July 2002 authorising the provision of seven members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the force. The continued participation by seven members of the Permanent Defence Force in ISAF is reviewed annually by the Government.
The most recent decision by the Government was taken on 26 June 2012 when it agreed to continue to provide seven members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the ISAF for a further period from July 2012, subject to ongoing review by the Minister for Defence. The seven Defence Forces personnel participating in the ISAF are all located in ISAF HQ in Kabul and work in planning and administrative roles. The work being carried out by Defence Forces personnel, particularly by those involved in the counter improvised explosive device, C-IED, cell, represents an important contribution to this UN-mandated mission. Planning for the drawdown in respect of the ISAF generally is ongoing and the withdrawal of the Defence Forces personnel from the mission will be co-ordinated within the context of the overall ISAF drawdown plan.
I thank the Minister for his response, but I wish to raise broader issues and ask him about the role of Irish troops in Afghanistan. Does he accept that many people have concerns about their role in this very complex conflict? Is he aware that these concerns arise because, as he mentioned, these are NATO-led forces. Many respect the Irish Defence Forces for their role in peacekeeping around the world.
Another issue which arose in a previous question concerns whether the Minister is also aware of the fact that there are significant civilian casualties every day in Afghanistan. Three weeks ago ten young children were massacred in a drone attack by NATO-led forces and there was no reaction from any government, the European Union and the western media regarding these young people who were blown to bits. I notice that the figures for the past three years show the loss in the region of 600 innocent people.
Does the Minister share my deep concern that in such a situation Irish troops could find themselves being drawn in and that we might lose the respect we have built as an international peacekeeper in the past 40 or 50 years?
We have lost no respect as an international peacekeeper.
I said we might lose respect.
As I meet colleagues inside and outside the European Union as Minister for Defence, I find there is enormous respect for the role played by this country. There is enormous respect for the reality, as well as for the perception that we have no agenda of any description, other than trying to assist in bringing about peace and stability in various troubled regions of the world. That is what our seven members are doing as part of the ISAF. They have engaged in administrative work during the years and made a very important contribution.
One area in which I would expect the Deputy to have some sympathy is the training of individuals to neutralise improvised explosive devices. I presume the Deputy thinks improvised explosive devices are bad and that it is a very good idea to stop them blowing up and killing people. I have no differences with him regarding concerns he may express about people being killed in military accidents. None of us can justify that type of event. Unfortunately, awful tragedies happen in war zones. However, I am always interested in the Deputy's selective condemnation. There is no mention of innocents being blown apart in Taliban bombings. There is no reference to the extent to which women are borne down on by the Taliban and treated as second-class citizens. There is no reference to women being shot for having the impudence in their teenage years to want to be educated. There is no reference to all of these issues. Afghanistan is a difficult and complex country and this has been a difficult and complex conflict. The UN forces are engaged in a process of withdrawal. Ultimately, I expect some forces to remain as an aid to the civil government.
The Deputy is stuck in something of a time warp. He thinks the Soviet Union still exists and that the Cold War is continuing. The main role of NATO, apart from dealing with European-Atlantic security issues, is as a regional body working in co-ordination with the United Nations in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions.
This State has been part of NATO's Partnership for Peace for very many years. I can tell the Deputy that there is no public concern, beyond the concern in his head, and the heads of a small number of people who are still locked into Cold War politics about this State being part of NATO Partnership for Peace, together with all of the other neutrals in the European Union and being able to participate in an organised way in peacekeeping missions in different parts of the world.
I wish to make three brief points. I do not know on what planet the Minister lives but in my introductory speech I spoke about all the civilians who died in Afghanistan. We should not be selective. I am not selective but the Minister's silence on the other issues shows that he is very selective. He was particularly silent over the past couple of weeks, along with the Government and NATO people, about those innocent children being killed in the drone attacks. I did not hear him. He is particularly silent when young Palestinians are being killed every day but that is another issue. To return to the core issue, he said that Irish troops are respected because they have no political agenda. I agree with that part but my problem is that the Minister and the Government and other people in this State are trying to change that agenda. They want to destroy our independence as a peacekeeping force which is respected internationally. He is trying to change the agenda; he is bringing in the NATO agenda. That is what I will fight against. As a Member of the Oireachtas I will defend and protect the Constitution and the citizens of the State. A lot of people subscribe to this view and a lot of voices agree with me.
I have absolutely no idea why the Deputy is shouting and getting so exercised nor can I figure what relevance his rather unnecessary and odd reference to Palestinian children has to this issue, unless the Deputy has something else going through his mind. Let me inform the Deputy that in the context of that issue, I have been a great deal more engaged than he. I have been engaged in talking to some of the leading negotiators on the Palestinian side. I suspect I have visited the West Bank and Gaza many more times than the Deputy has ever done. I advise the Deputy to be careful of the level of prejudice he may display in this House-----
I have no prejudice. That is an outrageous remark. I will raise the issues of any oppressed peoples anywhere in the world and I have done it many times-----
It is not a coincidence that in the context of the question about Afghanistan he diverted to other issues.
I have raised these issues because it is part of my brief. The Minister should wise up.
