Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 2018

Foreign Affairs Council: Defence and Related Matters

As we have a quorum, the meeting will now commence. I have received apologies from Senators Ivana Bacik and Billy Lawless.

The committee will be hearing from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for defence, Deputy Kehoe. He is very welcome. As part of its work programme for 2018, the committee agreed to invite the Minister of State before it to discuss defence matters raised at the Foreign Affairs Council, particularly the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, and other relevant EU-proposed initiatives on defence. This meeting also provides an opportunity for detailed discussion with the Minister of State on all matters relevant to the Defence Forces. I welcome his officials and thank them for the briefing supplied in advance of the meeting.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even when on silent mode, with the recording equipment. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or body outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I call on the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to exchange views on defence matters. I welcome this opportunity to engage with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence and provide an update on Ireland’s position and role in regard to the European Union Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and my recent attendance at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on defence matters on 6 March. My opening statement will provide an update to members on several of the main developments in the EU defence dialogue in recent times. I would also like to provide members with an overview of current peacekeeping missions and to acknowledge the vital role played by the Defence Forces overseas in this anniversary year of Ireland’s first participation on a UN mission in 1958.

In terms of CSDP, Ireland is a strong proponent of the important role the EU can play in support of international peace and security and the UN. It is important, therefore, to remain fully engaged in all CSDP processes. Fully participating in these developments ensures that we have a voice and can influence their evolution. At a time when the world has become a more unstable and insecure place, Ireland remains fully supportive of the efforts of EU member states, within the treaty provisions, to improve the Union's capacity to respond to the challenging security environment, including in the area of defence. Those efforts are being advanced through the implementation of the EU global strategy of foreign policy and security, the Commission’s European defence action plan and enhanced co-operation with international partners, including the UN and NATO.

Ireland's approach to these matters will always be both constructive and realistic. We remain strong supporters of initiatives which improve the capacity of the EU to contribute to international peace and security, particularly in support of the UN and to delivering the necessary capabilities in this regard. Our engagement with our EU colleagues through CSDP currently involves participation in a number of areas.

The Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) held in Brussels on 6 March included an exchange of views on PESCO and on CSDP missions and operations. This was an important opportunity for Ministers to come together to take stock of the PESCO initiative to date and to chart a realistic yet progressive way forward. Discussions were open and constructive and were followed by the adoption of a Council decision detailing the first set of PESCO projects and a Council recommendation on the way forward regarding PESCO implementation. Key areas discussed in respect of the way forward for PESCO were the specific rules governing PESCO projects and the participation of exceptional third states. As members are aware, the Government and the Dáil approved Ireland's participation in PESCO - along with 24 fellow EU member states - last December. The establishment of PESCO represents a further important development in EU co-operation in support of international peace and security under CSDP. Under PESCO, member states will come together in different groups to develop and make available additional capabilities and enablers for peacekeeping and crisis management operations. Participation in PESCO and specific PESCO projects will enable our Defence Forces to further develop their capabilities in support of peacekeeping through collaboration in joint projects with like-minded partners. Joint projects should also drive down the costs of developing and procuring capabilities. Ireland is participating in two PESCO projects as part of the first tranche of PESCO projects agreed via the Council decision by the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) in March this year. Ireland is participating in the German-led project to develop a centre of excellence for EU military training missions and the Greek-led upgrade of maritime surveillance systems. Ireland's participation in PESCO also involves fulfilling a number of common commitments that are detailed in the national implementation plan, NIP. Ireland and other participating member states recently received general feedback on the first NIPs and will participate in further discussions in this area.

Improving military mobility also features as one of the PESCO projects, with the Netherlands as the lead nation and with the participation of 24 member states. Ireland has observer status on this project for the purpose of keeping abreast of developments in the area. This issue has gained prominence on the EU agenda given difficulties that countries have experienced in moving their troops through other EU countries for the purposes of training and exercises. Perceived obstacles, such as diplomatic clearance and customs requirements, as well as the ability of the EU transport infrastructure to carry heavy military equipment, have been identified. On 28 March 2018, the joint communication regarding the action plan on military mobility was published by President Juncker and the High Representative, Ms Mogherini. The action plan builds on the roadmap on military mobility developed in the framework of the European Defence Agency, EDA, and covers a number of areas, which are military requirements, infrastructure, dangerous goods, customs and VAT, as well as cross-border movement permission. These actions are not restricted to the defence area alone but affect areas for which the Departments of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Revenue Commissioners, among others, are responsible. The action plan recognises that full respect will be given to the sovereignty of EU member states over their national territory and national decision-making processes regarding military movements. Ireland welcomes this recognition that our constitutional requirements and national sovereignty relating to this issue cannot be overlooked. The action plan is submitted to the EU member states for consideration and endorsement with the first actions expected to be carried out in the coming months.

The co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD, aims to create greater transparency amongst member states by sharing information on future defence policy, capability development, budgets and investment by member states. Ireland recognises that CARD could potentially offer opportunities to pool capability requirements and provide a more economic and efficient means of equipment procurement. It could also assist capability development for the Defence Forces by combining with others procuring similar equipment and services. Participation in CARD is open to all member states on a voluntary basis, recognising that the defence policies of member states, including defence spending and capabilities, are entirely a national competence. The detailed implementation and information sharing requirements for CARD have been developed by the EDA and are currently being tested through a trial run that commenced in the autumn of 2017. Ireland is co-operating actively with regard to CARD and a bilateral meeting as part of the CARD trial run took place between Ireland and the EDA on 14 December 2017. A report to Ministers on the trial run will be made in November 2018 with the first full CARD expected to be launched in autumn 2019.

Following on from the adoption of the European defence action plan by the College of Commissioners in November 2016, the European Commission launched the European defence fund last June. The purpose of the fund is to promote research and innovation and contribute to the strengthening of the European defence technology and industrial base and to further stimulate the development of key defence capabilities. The fund is divided into two strands or windows, namely, research and capability development and acquisition. The main feature of the capability development and acquisition strand is the proposed European defence industrial development programme. It is proposed that the programme will be funded from the EU budget. The focus of the fund is on the development of new research and technology in the defence sector. Activities under both the research and capability development and acquisition windows will be linked to defence capability priorities agreed by member states. Ireland sees the fund as a means of supporting the development of EU military capabilities for CSDP operations. The regulation on the European defence industrial development programme is expected to be finalised in May 2018 in order to facilitate financing of projects in 2019.

A key embodiment of CSDP in real terms is Ireland's participation in EU battle groups. Participation in EU battle groups supports the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces, together with improved interoperability with like-minded states. Ireland's participation also reflects our support for the UN. Successive Secretaries General of the UN have endorsed the development of the EU battle group concept and our participation therein. Ireland's active engagement in EU battle groups demonstrates its commitment to the development of EU capabilities in the area of crisis management and contributes to our overall credibility within the Union. It also enhances our capacity to influence the ongoing development and evolution of the rapid response capacity of the EU, particularly the role battle groups can play in reinforcing and acting as a strategic reserve for UN blue-hat operations. Participation in EU battle groups further supports our international security and defence policy by helping to secure essential partners for future UN operations. Ireland has participated in the EU battle groups on a number of occasions commencing with the Nordic battle group in 2008. On 6 February 2018, the Government approved Ireland's participation in the German-led EU battle group 2020, which will be on stand-by for the second six months of 2020. The total number of Defence Forces personnel expected to be involved will be approximately 148. However, this level of resource commitment will only arise should the battle group be called on to undertake an operation and should Ireland agree to participate. The Government decision to participate in the 2020 battle group does not presume any future decision regarding deploying the Defence Forces on an actual battle group operation. Ireland's participation in an actual battle group operation would, as always, be subject to the usual triple-lock requirements of a UN mandate and Government and Dáil approval, as appropriate, in accordance with the Defence Acts. Ireland continues to retain the absolute right to determine for itself, on a case-by-case basis, whether it will participate in any particular battle group operation.

In July 2017, I secured Government and Dáil approval for the deployment of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force to serve as part of the EU naval operation against human smugglers and traffickers in the southern central Mediterranean entitled Operation Sophia. In the course of the subsequent deployment of LÉ Niamh from October to December 2017 as part of Operation Sophia, the crew took part in search and rescue operations rescuing 613 migrants and assisting with a further 107 migrant rescues. In addition, the Irish vessel also undertook activities in support of the core task of the mission including gathering information on oil smuggling, patrols focusing on countering illegal arms trafficking, operations to intercept smugglers and monitoring the effectiveness of the Libyan navy and coastguard activity.

Together with other European Union member states, Ireland must continue to play its part in addressing the migrant crisis.

In February the Government again approved the continued participation of the Naval Service in Operation Sophia. This will involve a total of two naval vessels deployed consecutively during the year for approximately 30 weeks. The Naval Service deployment will run from mid-April to the end of November. Operation Sophia’s mission is to identify, capture and dispose of vessels and enabling assets used or suspected of being used by migrant smugglers or traffickers, which includes the capture and disposal of weapons and oil in the possession of smugglers or traffickers. The objectives of the operation are not only to disrupt the activities of smugglers and traffickers but also to prevent further loss of life at sea and reduce the suffering and exploitation of migrants by countering and challenging the criminal organisations engaged in such activities.

EU-NATO co-operation is a feature of the defence landscape within the European Union, given that 23 of the 28 member states are also members of NATO. Sharing strategic interests and facing similar security challenges, NATO and the European Union co-operate on issues of common interest, particularly in the areas of crisis management, new security threats and capability development. A key focus of this co-operation is to avoid duplication of effort in the development of military capabilities and structures, systems and interoperability standards. Co-operation across both organisations also ensures maximum synergy where both are deployed in the same theatre, for example, in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan. In the face of new and emerging security challenges, in particular, cyber and transnational crime, as well as international terrorism, co-operation is essential in developing an effective and comprehensive response to these more complex security challenges.

In 2017 work continued on a common set of proposals for the implementation of the joint declaration on EU-NATO co-operation. The declaration was made on 8 July 2016 and highlights areas for further co-operation. They focus on co-operation in the key areas of countering hybrid threats, operational co-operation that includes maritime issues, cybersecurity and defence, defence capabilities, defence industry and research, and exercises and capacity building. On 14 June 2017 a joint progress report on implementation on the common set of proposals was issued. A further set of new additional proposals building on the key areas set out was agreed to on 5 December 2017, including new topics such as counterterrorism, military mobility and women, peace and security. In conclusions from 14 December 2017 the European Council requested that work proceed in implementing the full set of proposals, including the additional proposals agreed to in December 2017.

Ireland welcomes greater EU-NATO co-operation where it contributes to international peace and security and is focused on avoiding duplication of structures, systems and interoperability standards. This ensures better coherence and effectiveness on the ground in peace support and crisis management operations. It is important to note that the 2016 declaration confirms that EU-NATO co-operation will fully respect the decision-making autonomy of both organisations and not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of any member state. This is a strong acknowledgement that Ireland’s policy of neutrality and non-NATO membership will in no way be affected by enhanced co-operation.

Ireland has always been a strong supporter of the United Nations and UN-mandated peacekeeping operations. Participation in overseas peacekeeping missions is a key element of Ireland’s foreign policy and has been an important dimension in meeting Ireland’s international obligations as a member of the United Nations and the European Union. A central tenet of Irish foreign policy is support for the multilateral system of collective security represented by the United Nations. In that regard, Ireland has taken seriously its obligation under the United Nations charter to make available to the Security Council armed forces, assistance and facilities in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.

Ireland’s peacekeeping story began in the Lebanon in 1958, when 50 members of the Permanent Defence Force were deployed as military observers with the UN observer group in Lebanon. Ireland’s first troop contribution came shortly after in 1960, with its deployment to the UN mission in the Congo. Defence Forces personnel have since served in peace support missions all over the world, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and South America. Ireland’s participation in UN and UN-mandated peacekeeping missions is a tangible demonstration of its commitment to the pursuit of international peace and security. We can be justifiably proud that since our first deployment to the Middle East in 1958, not a day has passed without a member of the Permanent Defence Force being on peacekeeping duty somewhere in the world. It is a very practical expression of the values in which we believe and our commitment to the United Nations. This commitment is also expressed in our engagement in the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy.

Today over 640 Irish men and women are serving on UN duties, with the majority serving in the Middle East, including Ireland’s current contribution of some 375 personnel participating in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. This is a very significant contribution in the context of the resources available for defence. In all my interactions with mission and political leaders in the host countries during my recent visit overseas what was clearly evident was the respect and high regard they held for the professionalism displayed by Irish peacekeepers. When abroad on peacekeeping duties, the Defence Forces are representing Ireland in a very visible and special way and it is a source of pride for people at home in Ireland.

The Defence Forces and the wider defence organisation are making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security and conflict resolution. This is achieved through their professionalism and competence by engaging with the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other international engagements within a bilateral context.

I have broadly outlined the current state of play in a number of international dimensions of Irish defence policy. Committee members have been provided with briefing material on the specific topics mentioned and I look forward to positive engagement on matters they wish to discuss. Next week I will be travelling to the informal ministerial meeting in Sofia where some of the issues I have highlighted will feature on the agenda for further discussion. I welcome opportunities such as this which stimulate debate in the area of security and defence and can ultimately contribute to public discourse. I thank the committee for its kind invitation.

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed presentation. As Deputy Tony McLoughlin has a commitment in the Dáil Chamber at 10.30 a.m., he may ask his questions now.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I have some questions arising from his comments.

Last weekend, there was an indication that officials were sitting on a report from the Defence Forces on pay. Why are there such delays? We have heard much about gaps and personnel shortages in the Defence Forces. What is the current position and what are the Minister of State's views on the shortages? He spoke before about direct entry and re-entry to the Defence Forces as a way of getting people with valuable skills into the military. Will he update us on where the proposals stand and the timeframe in that regard?

The Minister of State has mentioned overseas personnel and the wonderful work they do. As we mark the 60th anniversary of their deployment, will he give us details of the numbers who serve overseas? For those who have not served overseas, will there be an opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future?

The reports in the newspaper on my Department sitting on a report from military management on pay could not be further from the truth. Whoever leaked it or gave the information to the reporter was misinformed. The Deputy is aware of the report of the Public Service Pay Commission published in May 2017. Members of the Defence Forces are highlighted throughout the report. The public service stability programme to restore core pay to 2020 was agreed to last year and members of the Defence Forces will see core pay rise between now and 2020. The Public Service Pay Commission is looking at specialist pay and there have been negotiations between the Department, unions and military management in the past few months.

Military management was asked to submit a discussion document only. It did so in late February this year. It was negotiated in March and into April. From the document, on which the media were briefed last Sunday, came the submission on pilot retention in the Air Corps. It was submitted to the Public Service Pay Commission a number of weeks ago. We are working on further evidence-based data for the rest of the organisation that will be submitted to the commission. I want to have them submitted as soon as possible. Officials of my Department are working with military management in preparing an evidence-based submission to the commission.

On foot of the exact document submitted by military management to my Department in February 2017, a submission on pilot retention has been prepared and sent to the Public Service Pay Commission. It annoys me to hear it alleged that my Department is sitting on something. That is totally untrue. I take the allegation almost personally because I know exactly how hard the officials in my Department are working on the submission. To say they are not working on it is totally untrue. I ask people to reflect on what appeared in the newspaper.

On the gap analysis, the Deputy is correct. This is a White Paper project which was brought forward under my instructions. I expect work to begin on the gap analysis project and the White Paper in the next month or two. My priority is the submission to the Public Service Pay Commission. Military management has raised it with me as its priority. It is also my priority to get this issue sorted out. When that is done, we will work on the gap analysis and the White Paper.

On my appointment in May 2016, I initiated the initiative on entry and re-entry. I am sometimes frustrated by the number of times it has to go between the Department, management and the representative associations. This is something that will happen and I am determined to make it happen. The military organisation has to change. If one examines our counterparts in Europe and beyond, one notes that people who leave the military organisation and gain what may be vital experience in the private sector should be given an opportunity to bring it back to the organisation. The next chief of staff of the Australian defence forces will be a re-entrant. He gained considerable experience in the private sector and has re-entered the military to share his experience.

Direct entry has happened in the Naval Service. It is working quite well, but I want it to work right throughout the organisation, including the Air Corps and the Army.

On re-entry, a number of people, mainly officers and pilots, have come to me to say they want to re-enter the organisation. They have gained experience elsewhere and seen life on the other side, but terms and conditions have to be worked out before we can sign off on it. I understand and hope I can sign off before the end of June, or perhaps in July.

Over 640 personnel are serving overseas. As I stated, the Naval Service departed to engage in Operation Sophia last Sunday week. It is great to see members of the Air Corps and the Naval Service serving alongside members of the Army in the likes of UNDOF and Lebanon through UNIFIL.

The 60th anniversary of the United Nations is coming up, as is the 40th anniversary of UNIFIL. Both anniversaries will be marked. A civil team and a military team will come up with an appropriate ceremony. I want every member of the Defence Forces who served overseas in the past 60 years, from the time of the Congo mission until today, to participate. I hope something can be done in each barracks across the country.

I call Deputy Jack Chambers who is to be followed by Senator Gabrielle McFadden. I welcome Deputy Jack Chambers to his first meeting of the committee. I congratulate him on his appointment as Fianna Fáil party spokesperson on defence.

I thank the Chairman and the Minister of State for attending.

I acknowledge the work the Defence Forces are doing overseas. I welcome the Minister of State's contribution in that regard, but why did he ignore the elephant in the room in his initial remarks? Questions by Deputy Tony McLoughlin on pay, conditions and retention were not mentioned once in the Minister of State's initial contribution. These matters comprise the main crisis facing the Defence Forces in terms of the effect on capability and capacity. What was the reason for ignoring these issues?

I was told on coming to the meeting that I was to talk primarily about the Foreign Affairs Council and also defence and other matters relevant to the Defence Forces. However, I have no issue whatsoever with talking about pay. I could talk about it all day long.

We are seeing a haemorrhaging of numbers across the Defence Forces. Last year over 700 members left, despite 750 being recruited. The Minister of State is below the target set in the White Paper on defence. Is this an acceptable level of haemorrhaging? What is the Minister of State doing to address it?

Does the Deputy want to ask a number of questions?

Has Deputy Jack Chambers more questions to ask?

I have a lot of questions.

We will take all of them together as otherwise we would be under time pressure.

Last year, as many were leaving as were being recruited. What is the Minister of State doing about that issue? He is not matching the target set in the White Paper on defence.

In the submission made by the Chief of Staff division of the Defence Forces the conclusions state 2,831 personnel have left in the past five years. That is the equivalent of 29.8% of the organisation. It is a massive loss of capacity and staff within the Defence Forces. Unless the Minister of State addresses that issue, it is stated the current trend of premature voluntary retirement is not sustainable and that the Defence Forces "cannot continue to commit such a high proportion of its resources to training increasingly large recruit and cadet intakes to the detriment of enhancing and evolving its capabilities to meet the threats of a dynamic operating environment". Members are leaving en masse. They are doing so because the Government has not adequately addressed issues concerning pay and conditions, as demonstrated by the University of Limerick study of the health and safety concerns. Included in that regard are the individual consequences of the many gaps - an increased workload, decreased job satisfaction, a diminution of physical and mental well-being and decreased engagement. This turnover is a race to the bottom and until the Minister of State plugs the hole, we will face serious consequences. What exactly is he doing to deal with the issues mentioned in the University of Limerick study to try to improve retention? The raw figures show that these issues are not being addressed. The Minister of State might mention pilot initiatives regarding re-entry, but they will not address the systemic reasons members are leaving en masse across all sections of the Defence Forces.

Is there a commitment in respect of the duty allowance? What are the Minister of State's plans in that regard? Will he confirm whether there is compliance with the national minimum wage? I am aware of people who worked for six consecutive days at the time of Storm Emma and who were willing to serve in the public interest.

Is the Minister of State committed to implementing the working time directive? Does the Minister of State acknowledge the legality of that directive?

Sorry, will the Deputy repeat the question?

Obviously there is no compliance currently with the working time directive. Is the Minister of State committed to seeing it recognised?

With regard to strength in-station, I have figures that show the 7th Infantry Battalion is 64% below, the 6th Infantry Battalion is 64% below and the 28th Infantry Battalion is 56% below recognised and established strength in-station. I could go on. The figures show between 64% and 79% below recognised and established strengths in-station. What is the Minister of State doing to address the clear issues around the capacity in-station? Is the Minister of State satisfied with that?

Many of the Defence Forces personnel who serve the State have to use the cross-Border initiative because much of the healthcare for them that was there historically, and which was recognised in the context of their pay and conditions, has been removed and worn away. It has peeled away over many years. People who may have been injured on duty may have to wait up to two years, like anyone else, for an appointment. There are consequences of this. PDFORRA has had to introduce an initiative for its members for upfront diagnostics because it could, for example, impact on a soldier's ability to get promoted. If a medical problem has not been addressed or resolved the personnel could be retired on the basis that they are not getting the treatment they need. Is the Minister of State satisfied that many Defence Forces personnel in the State are having to use the cross-Border initiative? Does the Minister of State feel it is appropriate to send our Defence Forces personnel abroad so they can stay in work?

What is the Minister of State doing to address the concerns around the anomaly in the superannuation scheme for post-2013 entrants? I am aware that the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, has recently written to the Minister of State in this regard. Is there a commitment from the Minister of State to address the discriminatory anomalies there? We are aware of other examples where it has been addressed.

In his speech the Minister of State did not make any reference to Brexit. There is perhaps a sub-committee in the Department to address Brexit issues. If Ireland does not get a solution with regard to the Brexit outcome, does the removal of the 3rd Infantry Battalion expose Ireland if we have a lack of capacity in the northern part of the State?

I also want to ask-----

How many more questions?

I am running out of paper.

One second please, I am chairing. I ask that Deputy Chambers would ask just one or two more questions and then I will go to Senator Gabrielle McFadden.

Yes I have two more questions. The national cybersecurity committee probably discusses the issues at EU Council level but how prepared is Ireland to address such serious issues around national cybersecurity? The NHS in the UK nearly ground to a halt with such difficulties, as did one of the county councils in Ireland and the HSE. There are serious international threats and other countries are addressing national cybersecurity concerns. If we do not ensure our critical national infrastructure is appropriately prepared it can have serious consequences. I would like an update on this.

The Minister of State's Fine Gael colleagues in the EU Parliament have proposed amending Ireland's triple-lock system. I am aware that this was a policy of Fine Gael in the 1990s also. Does the Minister of State agree with this proposal? Does the Minister of State want to see this explored or does he want the triple-lock mechanism retained as it currently stands?

I now invite Senator Gabrielle McFadden as I know she must return to the Seanad.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I have to leave early as the Commissioner, Mr. Phil Hogan is in the Seanad Chamber at 11 a.m.

We are here today to discuss matters raised at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on defence and related matters. I refer to the Minister of State's opening statement on Operation Sophia. That work epitomises all that the Defence Forces stand for. The Minister of State spoke of 640 personnel who are serving overseas. How many of those are serving with Operation Sophia? How many deployments were part of Operation Sophia in 2018? They do phenomenal work and it is very serious. What happens to people when they are rescued through Operation Sophia? Where are they taken to?

The EU Foreign Affairs Council is to meet in the next couple of weeks. I am curious about what is on the agenda for that meeting.

I had not intended to talk about pay and conditions of Defence Forces personnel - I did not believe this meeting was about that - but I cannot allow anyone to use Defence Forces' pay and conditions as a political football, so I cannot leave it. I have always done-----

Allow the Senator to finish.

As a politician I have always done whatever I can to support the Minister of State, or whoever is the Minister, and the Defence Forces. I do, however, need to ask some of the questions. I never doubt the Minister of State's pride in the Defence Forces, and I never doubt his or Fine Gael's commitment to the Defence Forces. We all know that pay and conditions are obviously a huge issue. I appreciate that the military management submitted their document to the Department, which has forwarded it to the Public Service Pay Commission. That is, however, all taking a very long time. While this process is happening, members of the Defence Forces are applying for family income support. Some members of the Defence Forces are sleeping in their cars. As a proud supporter of the Defence Forces I cannot accept that any member of the Defence Forces who wears the uniform with pride should ever have to rely on family income support. I cannot accept that we have to wait for the Public Service Pay Commission to come back on this. It should be dealt with.

Previous speakers spoke of retention, which is a huge issue. From information the Minister of State gets on the ground, what is the morale of soldiers? From what I hear it is not very positive. Pay for duty is a way we can restore pay for Defence Forces personnel. This is vital for the serving members.

I was at Farmleigh House for the launch of the White Paper, but there were not too many others there on the day. It was a great day. We spoke of the future of the Defence Forces in the next ten years. Here we are and pay and conditions are still an issue. I would love the Minister of State to address those issues for me.

I am sorry to rush off but I must be in the Seanad Chamber for 11 a.m. I thank the Minister of State.

I thank Senator McFadden. I want to make clear that the agenda states very clearly that the meeting is not confined to the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting on defence issues. The discussion is on any matters relevant to the Defence Forces. The Minister of State has a few questions to answer now.

I will address Senator McFadden's queries first as she has to leave.

The Senator referred to Operation Sophia. The Naval Service deployed on Operation Sophia last Sunday week. A total of 54 personnel is participating in that operation. Since Ireland entered into Operation Sophia the Naval Service has been gathering information on oil smuggling, has focused patrols on countering illegal arms trafficking, has operations around intercepting smugglers and is monitoring the effectiveness of the Libyan coastguard and navy. There is a perception that when the Naval Service picks up migrants they are brought back to the Libyan coastline. That could not be further from the truth; they are actually brought to Italy to a safe haven.

Any migrant that the Irish Defence Forces picked up was either transferred to another vessel and then transported, or we transported him or her ourselves. It is one or the other.

The family income supplement was raised. Fewer than 100 members of the Defences Forces are in receipt of the family income supplement. I think "family income supplement" is a bad name for it. It is a family payment. There are many people in different organisations in the private and public sectors who are in receipt of the family payment. It is there for a specific reason depending on the circumstances of a family. A three-star private, who is on €27,000, could have five kids, for example. Do we increase the salary for that person because he has five kids? The reason the family income supplement is there is to support that person because he - or she - has five kids; I do not want to be sexist by just saying "he". We cannot just increase someone's salary by 20% because he or she has five kids. That is the reason for the family income supplement, which is now more appropriately called the family payment. Between the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, I think there are 165 or 170 personnel in receipt of the family income supplement. There are members of staff in the Department of Defence and right across every Department in receipt of it. I am not sure how many members of An Garda Síochána are in receipt of it. Family circumstances are the reason for that payment.

The morale of the soldiers was raised. If there is one thing I do, it is to speak to the soldiers. We would not have an Army without the enlisted and the privates. For me, that is the Army. We depend on them. They are the guys and women who will go to the front line. The officers do an outstanding job as do all members of the Defence Forces. No one has come to me about sleeping in cars. This is another rumour that is out there. I have spoken to PDFORRA and there is assistance available, whether a family income supplement payment, support through the representative organisations or support through the Defence Forces themselves or the Department; there is support out there for these people. I believe if anyone was sleeping in a car, I would know about it by now. This rumour is going on since I came into government in 2011. They were even sleeping in cars when Deputy Chambers's party was in government. This is going back and I have no hard evidence to say people are sleeping in cars.

I think the Deputy was here when I addressed the Public Service Pay Commission with Deputy McLoughlin and the process we are going through at the moment.

Are efforts being made to speed that up?

There is a process going on. I wrote to the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and to the Public Service Pay Commission in April of last year. Out of that and the report of May 2017, in October 2017, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, updated the Cabinet and identified the health sector and the Defence Forces as the two priority areas to be dealt with under the Public Service Pay Commission. That was under my instruction. I asked him to prioritise the Defence Forces and he did. That is why we have military and civil management working on a submission at this moment.

In response to Deputy Jack Chambers, I am delighted that Fianna Fáil has a newfound interest in the Defence Forces. In 2011, 2012 and 2013, we continued recruitment and had continuous recruitment into the Defence Forces right through, when the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on justice stood up and said we should stop the recruitment. I hope the Deputy will go back and tell PDFORRA and RACO now that his party tried to stop-----

I did not come for a history lesson. I want to know about the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, and his work.

I want to give the Deputy the background as well.

I ask the Minister of State to deal with the facts of the day and not to bring politics into this.

I am not here for a history lesson. I ask the Minister of State to address the questions I asked.

The Deputy had a great go at me so I think it is only right-----

I ask the Minister of State to stop speaking. He will obey the Chair. We have always had a good working relationship on this committee and the Minister of State is not going to go down the political route. He will answer the questions Deputy Jack Chambers has posed in regard to the present day situation concerning the Defence Forces.

That is okay, Chairman. There was a political charge made to me so I think I have the right-----

I did not make any political charge. I asked questions.

Questions were asked in regard to remuneration, pay in Defence Forces.

The Deputy said I was refusing to address the elephant in the room. It is only right that I do so.

The Minister of State did not mention anything to do with their pay and conditions.

The Minister of State will obey the Chair when he attends this committee.

The Minister of State could have given us an update in his script. That is all.

(Interruptions).

The Minister of State will obey the Chair as well as every other person speaking at this committee. I ask him to proceed.

I absolutely recognise that there are huge numbers leaving the Defence Forces. I am not going to dispute that. We have been competing through a very buoyant economy over the past two or three years. This has always been the case. When the economy was buoyant back in the early 2000s, there were people leaving the Defence Forces and going into the private sector. I outlined to the Deputy the work I am doing with civil and military management on the Public Service Pay Commission. There is and has been pay restoration across the board from very senior level right down to the more junior ranks. One of the issues I addressed when I came in was the pre-2013 and post-2013 entrants. We brought that back up and gave them a 20% increase, bringing their pay back up to €27,000. That was a €5,000 increase for a new entrant coming in as a three-star private.

We have given military management a budget for 9,500 personnel. There is a full budget there for all of that. It is not up to me to do the recruitment. I and the Department will assist but the Defence Forces and military management have taken responsibility for recruitment into the Defence Forces. That is within their space. We provide the budget and they do the recruitment. There is a recruitment campaign open at the moment which is closing next Sunday night. There was recruitment in September and October of last year as well.

There were gaps within the junior ranks of the officer corps. Under my instruction in 2016, the number of cadets was increased to 100 between the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Army. The biggest cadet classes in the history of the Defence Forces are going through at this moment. On Monday of this week, I met with cadets commissioned from the ranks. It is the first time in ten years we have a cadet class being commissioned from the ranks. There are 23 of them being brought forward. That is something I am very proud of and have worked on. It is very important that we give the junior ranks an opportunity to become officers of the Defence Forces. There are outstanding members and enlisted personnel who should be given the same opportunity as anybody else to progress through the organisation.

The Deputy spoke about the University of Limerick study and said there were health and safety concerns. I have been assured by the chief of staff that if there are health and safety concerns, I will know about them. When there were health and safety concerns in the Air Corps, I invited the committee to visit. Deputy Smith and the Chairman brought a number of people to the Air Corps. I think they were very impressed by the new safety regime that has been put in place in the last years. If the Deputy is aware of health and safety issues within the Defence Forces-----

It was in the study.

Through the Chair, Deputy Chambers.

Whatever is in the UL study is being addressed. A military team has been set aside and projects have been set up to address all the issues in the UL study.

Regarding the duty allowance, a PDFORRA claim has been submitted through the conciliation and arbitration process. We are going through a review of conciliation and arbitration at present. I have spoken to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, about this issue. All members of the Defence Forces who were out working in Storm Ophelia or Storm Emma or on any other emergency issue - I will not say 24-7, but long hours - will get an extra allowance for those extra hours. I am not sure what the name of the allowance is, but there is an allowance. I will come back to the Deputy with its name.

My Department officials are working with PDFORRA on the issue of the working time directive.

Through the Chairman, when will the issue of the working time directive be addressed?

I will get the Deputy a full update on it and have it addressed directly to him.

Regarding the gap analysis, I said earlier that there is a project that was in the 2015 White Paper. I have brought forward that project and a military and civil team will be working on it shortly. Now that we are dealing with the Public Service Pay Commission, the team has identified a number of the gaps in the data and so on, so the work that has been done on the pay commission will be able to work directly into the gap analysis. The largest gaps are in the junior ranks, specifically the ranks of captain, lieutenant and sub-lieutenant. The reason I brought in the biggest cadet classes in 2016 and 2017 - I hope to do so again in 2018 - as well as commissions from the ranks, is to address the gaps within the officer corps.

Regarding the RACO budget issue, RACO has been in conversation with officials from my Department, who have subsequently been in contact with and, I understand, met officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on this issue. I have written to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, about this issue as well. This will not affect officers straight away. I recognise that it is a significant issue. It will not affect us for the next three to four years but it will be an issue down the line because of the retirement age for members of the Defence Forces. This is being worked on.

Deputy Chambers spoke about Brexit. We have an assistant secretary - as a matter of fact, the assistant secretary who is with me today - who is responsible for Brexit within the Department of Defence and who attends all the meetings in this regard. I will not say we have a full Brexit team but we have personnel within the Department who are working on this with the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade and other Departments. As the Deputy will understand, security on the Border and so on is a matter for An Garda Síochána. We will, under aid to the civil power, provide assistance into the future, as we did in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s - indeed, as we have always done.

Deputy Chambers also spoke about cybersecurity. A cybersecurity strategy is being drawn up my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Naughten, in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. This is a matter for Cabinet committee F as well, but there are members of the Defence Forces who are based in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and who work on cybersecurity. As a matter of fact, we have members of the Defence Forces who went overseas only recently to work on cybersecurity with members of An Garda Síochána and members of the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment.

Regarding the Fine Gael MEPs' discussion document - I am glad the Deputy called it a discussion document - I of course welcome debate on absolutely anything, like the debate we are having today. Stimulating debate and discussion is very good. I might not agree with everything in the document but that is a matter for the MEPs. In any position I take, including at European Council level, the number one priority is the policies set out within our own State, Ireland's own defence policy. I will not deviate from that. Whether the triple lock, neutrality or whatever else, any decision we make will be based on taking all these matters into account.

Through the Chairman, does the Minister of State want to see our policy of neutrality retained?

Absolutely. Our policy direction for the next ten years is in the White Paper on Defence 2015, and that is what we base all our decisions on. If this is to be changed, that is not a matter for me; it will be a matter for the Dáil and the people of Ireland.

I think that covers-----

I thank the Minister of State. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who will be followed by Deputy Grealish.

I apologise for being late but I have managed to catch up on what the Minister of State had to say earlier. Some of it was to be expected anyway.

Regarding Operation Sophia, which the Minister of State mentioned in his contribution and which has come before the committee on a number of occasions, I have raised concerns in the past about the change from the original operation to Operation Sophia. He explains in his contribution some of the logic behind Operation Sophia. It concerns not just people smuggling, but also oil smuggling and weapons smuggling. Perhaps at some stage he will be able to tell us how successful Operation Sophia has been in respect of the oil smuggling and weapons smuggling, if at all, because most of what we have heard thus far is that the international force involved, now including the LÉ Samuel Beckett, in the Mediterranean is concerned mainly with intercepting the people smugglers, whether in Libyan or international waters. My concern is that I have had a number of reports from different NGOs, some of which are no longer operating in the area because of restrictions placed by the Italians and others, that are concerned that the naval ships in international waters have stood by - "stood to" might be the correct term but I am not 100% sure - while the Libyan coastguard has got aggressive with people in boats which are foundering and people in the water, including those swimming towards those vessels. These people would prefer to be picked up by the international ships than by the Libyans.

The other concern we raised at the time, and which I am still concerned about, is the state of the detention centres to which we are condemning those who are picked up to be returned. A photographic booklet was circulated recently. I do not know how up to date the photos are. It concerns the human suffering inside Libya's migrant detention centres. The Médecins Sans Frontières group has circulated it. The information I have is that conditions have got worse than the horrific portrayal in the aforementioned booklet.

What work is being done by the EU in particular, because this is what we are dealing with-----

On the detention centres?

Yes, what work is being done on the detention centres and on ensuring the Libyan coastguard does not return people to official or unofficial detention centres that are not fit for purpose, that are in industrial units and that house up to 2,000 people with no proper sanitation or food? It has been pointed out that some of those being returned then end up on another boat within a week, which suggests there is some skulduggery behind those running the detention centres or public sales of these migrants are happening. There is an element of this that is worth looking at in terms of foreign affairs rather than defence. I know the Minister of State specifically deals with defence matters, but if the Naval Service is in any way complicit through lack of knowledge then we need to have the knowledge to inform it that it cannot be part of an operation which ends up enhancing or increasing the suffering of migrants.

I have raised my concerns about PESCO and Ireland's association with it being a drift against our neutrality. The Minister of State has discussed this recently. What additional commitments does the Minister of State expect to be placed on Ireland with regard to increasing our capacity and interoperability in the action plan outlined by the President of the Commission, Mr. Juncker, which the Minister of State mentioned in his introduction, on military mobility in particular? This is a man who has committed to a fully fledged European defence union by 2025. He has outlined this and has been honest enough to state this is where he wants to go. His roadmap on military mobility is part of this, and Ireland's association in any way with it is an association with the drift towards an EU army, defence union or whatever title we wish to call it. There is still a full debate required around all of the changes and moves that the Government has signed up to, but today is probably not the day. I might come back to this, but there are a number of other issues I want to ask the Minister of State to address.

Ireland has had a very proud tradition in UNIFIL, and it has managed to keep the peace relatively secure in Lebanon. It has managed to be involved in the area without taking sides. Major General Michael Beary is in charge at present and he came under severe attack by the US ambassador to the UN, who accused him of being partial to Hezbollah. The information I have is that recently the opposite has been happening, in that the Lebanese and Palestinians have huge concerns about his association with particular events. He tweeted photographs of himself celebrating a great event on the 70th anniversary of Israel being founded. Included in the photographs is one of him with what looks like members of the Israeli Defense Forces. This is the wrong message. It undermines him in particular and it looks like he is taking sides. It could endanger Irish troops out there if they are seen in any way to be partial. The advantage we have had over the years is that we have remained aloof. The day he tweeted this was the anniversary of an attack by Israel on UN forces in the area in Qana. I have been told it has not gone down well locally and internationally among a community that would have had respect for Irish troops in the past. I do not know whether the Minister of State can say anything about it, but at the very least we should state that the military should not be associated with such events, especially not when they are involved in peacekeeping in the area. It suggests taking sides. I know the record and I know this is probably not the intention but it is the way it is being perceived.

With regard to other overseas operations, there have been operations in Afghanistan over the years, and only last week the Minister of State replied to Deputy Clare Daly to suggest the Army Ranger Wing was in Afghanistan for various periods over the years. In the past I have asked, first and foremost, what Irish troops were doing on a NATO operation. I also asked what was their role. I was told by a previous Minister with responsibility for defence that their role was administrative. A Ranger Wing being sent to Afghanistan does not suggest administrative duties. We have also been led to believe in the past they were there to work on ordnance and deal with unexploded mines. A different section of the Army deals with this and not the Ranger Wing. I hope the Minister of State will be able to answer why we were not told or tell us that the Dáil was misled in terms of the operations in which Irish troops were involved in Afghanistan.

In this meeting I will stick to dealing with international affairs in the main because, as I have said, we can have many debates about the Army itself. Its established strength is supposed to be 9,500. We have specific UN commitments and this Government and the previous Government signed up to commitments in terms of EU battle groups. The German battle group now has the Army Ranger Wing involved. If numbers continue to deplete and we do not manage to retain people, and my information is that by the end of this year even with new recruits we will have fewer people in the Defence Forces than we did at the start of the year due to an increase in retirements and the number of those who leave, what is the commitment we have at present with regard to the UN and the battle groups and can we live up to it? My understanding is a maximum number of members of the Irish Defence Forces can be overseas at a given time. This was set in the past based on the established strength but we do not have this. Could it be undermined? A key aspect of depletion and retention, outside of the lack of numbers, is the loss of experience and corporate knowledge if we lose people from the top levels of the Defence Forces. We have discussed this previously and I do not know how it can be addressed quickly. It is similar to the Garda and nursing. We can increase numbers, but if we lose experience it will take quite a number of years to regain the corporate knowledge required.

We all acknowledge the tremendous work the Defence Forces do nationally and, in particular, internationally. How many requests are before the Department for Irish troops to participate in peacekeeping schemes abroad? How does the Department pick the schemes to participate in? The Minister said that 640 members of the Defence Forces were serving abroad. Is the Reserve Defence Force allowed to participate in schemes abroad? How many members of the Reserve Defence Force are there and what is the total number in the Defence Forces at the moment?

I will not go over the subject of pay and conditions again as many other members have spoken about them. It is a big issue, however, and we get it all the time. Many members of the Defence Forces are now leaving to join An Garda Síochána, and I have met four such young lads in the past five weeks. I know the Department is making a submission to the Public Service Pay Commission on behalf of the Defence Forces. I tabled a parliamentary question on 27 March calling for this to be submitted within a matter of weeks. Has a full submission been made to the Public Service Pay Commission? Will a copy of the submission be made available to this committee and its members? It is a big issue.

I am led to believe there are a huge number of cases from the Defence Forces at the conciliation and arbitration scheme which was set up a number of years ago. I also tabled a parliamentary question to ask how many cases there were, with a year-by-year breakdown, but I have not yet received a reply. Why is it taking so long for these cases to be determined?

On the question on Operation Sophia, Deputy Ó Snodaigh will know that picking up and rescuing migrants is one thing in which members of the Naval Service are involved, but they are also involved in gathering information on oil smuggling, patrols for illegal arms trafficking and monitoring the effectiveness of the Libyan coastguard and navy. I am due to travel out to the headquarters of Operation Sophia and to visit members of the Irish Naval Service in June this year and I will get a full briefing on some of the issues the Deputy raised.

The Deputy asked for specifics on the number of pick-ups of weapons and records of oil smuggling. Can I get back to him on those? I do not have the numbers to hand. We are only starting to participate in Operation Sophia and I wanted to get out there towards the end of 2017 but I did not get the opportunity to do so. Now that our Naval Service personnel are involved, I will go out a get a full brief of our involvement, as well as answers to the questions the Deputy asked.

The Deputy also asked about the detention centres in Libya. Migrant numbers in detention centres have gone down by 60%, which is approximately 4,000, and I gave the number in the course of a Topical Issue debate with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on Tuesday evening. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade have raised the issue of migrants in detention centres in Libya at EU Council level.

I understand there are official and unofficial detention centres and that some migrants who are supposed to go to official centres are being sold on to unofficial centres. I can supply the Minister with the information I have.

Any migrants the Irish Naval Service picked up were brought to the Italian coast, a safe haven, and we do not return any of them to the Libyan coastguard or to the Libyan navy. We might transfer some migrants to other naval vessels involved in Operation Sophia and they then transport them. If another country picks up 500 migrants and we pick up 100, instead of two ships travelling it makes sense for us to transfer ours to the other naval vessel to be brought to Italy.

Any decision we make regarding PESCO is based on our own domestic policy in regard to neutrality, something which was a priority for us when we joined it. I brought it to the Dáil, I got Government approval for it and I am hiding nothing in this area. We are participating in two projects at the moment, one on officer training and the other on maritime security. We will look at other projects on a case-by-case basis to see if they fit us and whether we could get a benefit from them.

The comments by Jean-Claude Juncker represent his own personal opinion. If we are to have an EU army, it will not be a matter for me, the Department of Defence or any other Department. It will be a decision for the people of Ireland to make. While the previous referendum reflected that, under no circumstances would we sign up to any European army without a decision of the Irish people, and I do not expect such a thing any time soon.

The Deputy asked about UNIFIL and mentioned Major General Michael Beary, who has done an outstanding job over the past two years. We should be very proud of him. There has been peace in Lebanon since 2006 and I heard an interview with him on "Drivetime" last week in which he said there were people in their 20s who did not remember any conflict there. That is brilliant and it is because of the work of UNIFIL and the participation of Irish troops. As head of the UNIFIL mission, Major General Beary is under the authority of the United Nations, and not me. In peacekeeping, it is very important to communicate with both sides, and Major General Beary has been outstanding in this regard. I have received briefings from him and I know that the relationship he has with both the Israeli and the Lebanese sides is very important. He is bringing these people together for the first time ever in bilateral and trilateral meetings. It is monumental to see these people communicating and it is for the betterment of the Lebanese people, as well as for peace and security and for the mission itself. When Mick Beary leaves his position as head of mission, he can look back very proudly on the work he has done for the past two years.

I spent St. Patrick's Day in Lebanon and visited the region to celebrate the 40th anniversary of UNIFIL. The ceremony was attended by the Deputy Chief of Staff Operations of the Defence Forces, Major General Kieran Brennan, and Mr. Ciarán Murphy, assistant secretary in the Department of Defence. I heard feedback from the Lebanese people, including the Lebanese armed forces and the political parties in Lebanon. Everyone was full of praise for Major General Beary.

Peacekeeping is an art and I have only learned that since I was thrust into my current position. It has been a wonderful experience for me to see peacekeeping in operation. Peacekeeping is about bringing all of the people together, communicating with them and ensuring they communicate with each other. If Major General Beary was not in conversation and communication with the Israelis then something would be amiss. It is important that he is involved in all events but he currently operates under the authority of the UN and not under my authority.

I have praised the work done by him before.

I was just surprised by his appointment.

That is okay.

I hope that if an event happens, whether it is arranged by the Lebanese Government or whatever, Major General Beary can attend and be treated the same. I understand and appreciate the art of peacekeeping. I am concerned, however, about this matter being taken out of context and that is what has happened in Lebanon. I want him to be aware that his work has been betrayed as being one-sided and against the mission. Such a misunderstanding has the potential to make things awkward unless it is addressed. I understand that the Minister of State is not responsible for him and that Major General Beary now answers to the United Nations. I raised the issue to ensure that we are aware that the appointment can be viewed out of context, unless it is in context.

I accept the comments made by the Deputy. I know that the Chairman and all of the members of this committee greatly appreciate the work that has been done by Major General Beary.

A question was asked about how many members of the Irish Defence Forces served in Afghanistan. I understand that there were seven members and only one of them came from the Army Ranger Wing. That is a situation similar to other units. Members of the Air Corps and the Naval Service serve in Lebanon with UNIFIL or UNDOF. All members of the Defence Forces deserve the opportunity to serve overseas. The issues that the personnel who served in Afghanistan dealt with were counterfeit identifications, IDs, landmines, etc. Some administrative and staff members were also located in the headquarters.

In terms of recruitment, we have given a budget to the military to recruit 9,500 personnel. I accept that there are gaps in the service and there are challenges. I regularly hold recruitment meetings with the Deputy Chief of Staff, Major General Kevin Cotter, and his staff.

In terms of any mission that the Defence Forces participate in, my number one commitment is to ensure that the Government fulfils of the issues that are sought by the Defence Forces. Whether it is battle groups, UNIFIL, UNDOF or whatever, the number one issue for me is that I am advised by the Deputy Chief of Staff that we are still able to participate and respond to all requests made by the Government and contained in the White Paper on defence.

Deputy Grealish asked what factors are considered when deciding to participate in missions. There are a range of different missions. I can never say that we have an absolute watertight mission where no one will be injured. There is always a risk to life when participating in a mission, and that even applies to missions at home such as personnel working in bad weather conditions during Storm Ophelia or the recent snowstorms.

In terms of personnel participating in overseas missions, my number one priority is not to put people in harm's way, and I rely on the military for advice on safety. However, one must take risks. There has been loss of life with UNIFIL or in the Congo during the 60 years that the Irish Defence Forces have proudly participated in UN peacekeeping missions.

There is no provision for members of the RDF to participate in overseas missions. I have given a full explanation to the Public Service Pay Commission on where we are with submissions. A military and civilian team is working on the matter. I am not sure whether Deputy Grealish was present when I addressed what Deputy McLoughlin asked about the Public Service Pay Commission.

Has the submission been made available to us?

No. I hope the Deputy will understand that the submission contains sensitive material such as evidence-based data. For security reasons, I do not want to hand over some of the submissions.

Deputy Grealish mentioned the conciliation and arbitration scheme and I can confirm that there is a backlog. In 2016, when I was appointed to this office, one of the first areas that I was briefed on was the area of conciliation and arbitration. I pondered the matter for about 12 months. During that time I spoke to the Secretary General of my Department and the Chief of Staff and reached the conclusion that the conciliation and arbitration scheme was no longer fit for purpose. Last January, I appointed an independent chairperson, Mr. Gerard Barry, who has vast experience of working in the conciliation and arbitration area. I await a full report from him on the scheme. I am sure I will be able to implement it but it must have the full support of the civil side, the representative organisations and military management.

Will the Minister of State make the report available to us? I have tabled a parliamentary question on the matter but have not received a response.

I await the report.

Will the Minister of State make the report available to us?

Yes. Once the report is presented to me, I will place it in the public domain.

Will the report outline in detail the number of cases, the length of time, etc?

Yes. I will come back to the Deputy about the matter. Off the top of my head, I have not got that information. The officials-----

I understand. I am happy that the Minister of State will come back to us.

I have not got the information here, but I will contact the Deputy. I want a process that will deal with the issue instead of trying to tackle a backlog which leaves people frustrated. I understand where the Deputy is coming from. Members of the Defence Forces and people from the representative associations have approached me and informed me that they are frustrated by the fact that there is no process. I hope to create a conciliation and arbitration process that is fit for purpose. The world has moved on over the past 20 years and I want an updated scheme that is fit for purpose.

I hope that Mr. Gerard Barry will submit his report to me by the end of June or in July. I do not mind giving extra time as long as there is full agreement on all sides. I know that officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are part of the conciliation and arbitration review group.

I thank the Minister of State and call Deputy Seán Barrett.

I am sorry for arriving a little late. The ball game has changed for us in terms of the role and activities of our Defence Forces because of Britain's proposed withdrawal from the EU. Brexit will leave a big gap in terms of protecting our fisheries rights and many other aspects. I wish to mention the role played by our Naval Service in particular. I would like the Minister of State, perhaps when he gets the opportunity, to present a paper to us on the changes that he deems likely to take place. It is important that we discuss the potential impact of Brexit at this stage. There is a sense of denial among all of us about what will happen when Britain withdraws because I do not think anybody particularly wants to talk about the matter. The impact of Brexit will land on top of us and I would like to think that we are prepared.

We have small Defence Forces doing exceptionally well in the fields they are in. There will be different problems for us in terms of fisheries protection, for example. It is a totally different ball game. I would like to think we are thinking about this and there is some forward planning that we could consider.

I am a former Minister for Defence. Ireland's role in peacekeeping is worth diamonds. We have built up a tremendous reputation and tremendous skills in the art of peacekeeping. It is not just about sending out a couple of hundred troops to wander around the place. They do the job in an expert way. I have been to Lebanon on numerous occasions to see these people in operation. I used to bring my wife with me and she was part and parcel of the entourage. She was brought into the homes of different people. It is about building up trust and communication within a community. They are brilliant and they are quite capable of using those skills in many parts of the world. We should be doing forward planning because of our small numbers and because Britain, which is our next door neighbour, will not be a member of the EU. Our fishery protection rights must also be looked after. We should know exactly what we intend to do. It is a different ballgame when our next-door neighbour is not a member of the same club. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that we do not like talking about it because we do not really want it to happen. It is a fact. There is not enough debate or discussion about this or preparation for it. The role of the Defence Forces will be different in this new context. Are there plans looking forward? If there are could we perhaps get the opportunity of discussing with the Minister of State and his staff what those plans will be?

That is the main point I wanted to make, without interfering with the very good work being done by the Defence Forces in various exercises around the world. We will have to think seriously about where we will be after the exit of our neighbour and what consequences it will have for us. I would like to see it down in black and white so we can consider it.

I apologise that I could not be here before this point. If the Minister of State has already covered something I ask, I can check it in the Official Report. I have a number of points. Our review of Irish Aid, which we discussed last night and will debate today, is looking at the aid and development aid agenda and the tremendous reputation Ireland has as a humanitarian country. It is all about our aid, where it is targeted, the way in which it is untied and the way in which we are so well respected. I still believe that being part of PESCO is undermining that. We are playing with our neutrality.

We are now taking part in an EU military training mission. How much of that will be about our peacekeeping operations? How much will be about what we have been about and not getting caught up in something that has never been part of our agenda? I feel there is a real danger of us being involved in unjust conflicts and I have serious concerns around that.

We discussed our Navy in the Mediterranean during a Topical Issue debate this week. I was delighted to hear what the Minister of State said and I accept that our Navy is not bringing any refugees it finds in boats back to Libya. Our Navy will have to stand by and look at inappropriate behaviour by the Libyan coastguard which is bringing everyone it finds back to Libya and back to detention centres that an EU delegation has suggested should be closed down as soon as possible. There are boats with refugees on them and when they see the Libyan coastguard, an NGO boat or one of the Navy boats, there is a race to get to our Navy or to an NGO boat before the Libyan coastguard can get them. Our Navy will be standing by helpless in situations it is not part of. They are supposed to be involved in the training of the Libyan coastguard yet the eyewitness accounts coming from reputable people who have been there - I spoke to a medic who is just back from working on a ship and working in the detention centres - is that the behaviour of the Libyan coastguard is at times aggressive and brutal. We are putting our Navy in a terrible situation by being part of Operation Sophia.

I am sure someone has raised my last issue. Will we be supporting the UN Secretary General's call for an independent inquiry into what has been happening in Israel-Palestine and the number of Palestinian civilians who were shot by the Israeli army?

I will address the Deputy's last comment first. It is a matter for the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I will not enter onto his ground. As Deputy Barrett knows, one can get one's wings clipped very quickly if one encroaches on another Minister's area.

I agree 100% with Deputy Barrett that the role of the Defence Forces is changing rapidly. It is a conversation that an awful lot of people fear having. Perhaps they do not want to have it or whatever the story is. It is important we explore and exchange views even if people have views that are on totally different spectrums. It is important we share our views.

Deputy Chambers raised the issue of the Fine Gael document on neutrality this morning. It is good to have all these documents out there. People can like it, lump it, agree or disagree with it but it is important we have it because the role of the Defence Forces and the role of Europe are changing rapidly and we have to be able to change with them.

The issue of the fishery rights and the Naval Service was raised. There is a memorandum of understanding drafted between the Department of Defence and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority where it involves the Irish Naval Service. We have responded to every request made by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Agency. We have never failed. I assure the Deputy there is a lot of dialogue going on. The assistant secretary, Mr. Ciaran Murphy, who is sitting to my left, is the lead in my Department on all Brexit-related issues. He has other people within the Defence Forces. He is feeding into the Defence Forces. There is prudent planning and contingency planning going on in the background. For security reasons and because I do not want to alarm people, I will not say we will be doing particular things but we have to think about it. That is happening through the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. All senior officials are talking. An awful lot of work is going on in the background. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is primarily a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine issue. The Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, is the lead on the Department side dealing with our sea fisheries. He is responsible for our sea fisheries and for what will happen post-Brexit. I have no issue with coming back here but it is an issue for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

We will be responding to the requests from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority under the memorandum of understanding, but it is really a policy issue for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Minister, Deputy Creed, in the first instance.

I am sorry to interrupt but my point is that while all this talk might be going on behind the scenes we as public representatives have not been engaged on the consequences that are going to happen once the bell rings. The bell is going to ring very shortly, it would appear, and we do not want to be found with our trousers down at our ankles. There is at least a year's planning in all of this from a political point of view. I understand that the officials are talking and so forth, but there is no need for any secrecy about this. It is a very serious issue that affects ordinary people in the street, the people we represent, and we need to know. This has huge consequences for us. We are stuck out in the middle of the Atlantic, Britain is between us and our colleagues in the European Union and Britain is withdrawing from the European Union. There are huge consequences to this in terms of all the structures that must be put in place regarding the role of the Naval Service and our Defence Forces. However, there appears to be silence about it. Discussions might be taking place in certain rooms in different parts of different Departments, but I am talking about public representatives and if people ask us what we will do about it. We should be discussing this in the Dáil. It is one of the most serious issues this country has faced for donkey's years. Nobody seems to understand the seriousness of Britain withdrawing from the European Union as far as the Republic of Ireland and part of the island, Northern Ireland, are concerned. Everybody is shying away from it. Mr. Davis turned up in the North and the public representatives were not even told he was wandering around there.

This issue has huge consequences for our security people. Can the Minister of State understand? There are guys lying in the ditches who have not gone away. If they feel that their rights are being infringed one can foresee a return, God forbid, to the days we want to forget. Perhaps there might be planning behind the scenes but I am referring to the Oireachtas and the committees I have encountered. All I am saying is that there should be some discussion about forward planning with both the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, in whatever committees should be involved.

With regard to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Mr. Davis, not informing public representatives, Ministers visiting and not letting Members of the Oireachtas know is not unknown in our jurisdiction either.

I was going to suggest that the committee consider inviting the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to talk about Brexit. The policy side of Brexit is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Taoiseach. I understand what Deputy Barrett is saying. Absolutely, there might be Border issues, and we are very aware of that. It is the reason a senior official in my Department is on the committee for the Brexit negotiations. He is feeding information back to the Defence Forces, where prudent planning, preparations and contingency planning are going on in the background. It is not that we are totally ignoring this until the bell rings-----

I am not saying that; I am saying that we are being ignored. We have not had a chance to have an input.

It is probably up to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to give an address to the committee on Brexit. That is up to the Chairman and the members of the committee.

On Ireland and the role of the peacekeepers, I have addressed this in replying to the other contributors who asked questions on the same issue. As a former Minister, Deputy Barrett was honoured and privileged to see our peacekeeping efforts at first hand. I will be inviting all Ministers who have served, from all party backgrounds, to an occasion to mark the 60th and 40th anniversaries of UN and UNIFIL peacekeeping. That is very important because some of these former Ministers made decisions on us participating in these peacekeeping missions. I am adamant about marking that.

I outlined Operation Sophia to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan a few evenings ago. As I said to Deputy Ó Snodaigh earlier, I hope to have an opportunity to visit the headquarters of Operation Sophia next June. We have personnel in those headquarters and I wish to get a full update. This is a new mission for us since the autumn of 2017. We have been participating in it for the last couple of weeks. The ship left last Sunday week so it would be mission ready this week. I will get a full brief on the exact position and what is happening. I will also raise the concerns and questions the Deputy has asked.

What about the centres?

The Taoiseach has raised this previously.

I acknowledged that.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has also raised it. We have not raised it in isolation. Our European counterparts have raised the issue as well and it has been raised at European Council level. I will continue to raise the Deputy's concerns. On her other concerns, I will refer back to the Deputy after my visit to the headquarters of Operation Sophia and give her a full update. I have no issue with returning to the committee after that. If the Deputy wishes to talk to me privately afterwards about some of the concerns she wants me to raise with the head of the mission, I have no issue with doing that for her.

I thank the Minister of State.

I believe I have covered the questions.

Thank you. With regard to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's point about the Mediterranean, statistics were provided in the briefing by the Department. It was a good detailed briefing and we appreciate that. In 2016 and 2017 the Irish naval vessels were involved in rescuing 17,509 migrants. Since Operation Sophia, the total number of migrants rescued in October to December 2017 was 613. There is a dramatic reduction.

There is. This is one of the things I want to find out when I visit. I have been informed that there has been a reduction because there are not as many people leaving the Libyan coastguard as there were previously. They are also better trained and so forth. We are destroying some of the illegal boats that were bringing migrants from the Libyan coastline. That is all part and parcel of Operation Sophia and to deter the migrants from entering these dangerous craft. I accept your point.

When you visit the headquarters of Operation Sophia, will you bear in mind and follow up on the questions that humanitarian organisations such as Médicins san Frontières have raised? They are out there working in the most difficult situations and we must be very cognisant of their concerns. We will leave it to the Minister to ensure that when he is there and speaking to the people who are in charge of the overall operation these questions are strongly put to them. The humanitarian aspect of the work in which our Naval Service is involved is more important. It is rescuing people. It is welcome if there is such a decline in the number of migrants travelling over the Mediterranean, but it does not seem proportionate. There are 613 for a quarter of the year whereas for two previous years there were 17,509 migrants rescued. We appreciate that good work and it is hugely important.

I wish to mention an issue Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan raised with me. She spoke about the Defence Forces working with humanitarian organisations. The Defence Forces had a mission exercise last week in Athlone, Exercise Viking, in which it worked with seven or eight different humanitarian organisations, aid agencies and so forth and it worked very well. I hope we can further explore the Defence Forces working closely with humanitarian organisations.

I understand that since the reorganisation of the Defence Forces nationally, the regulations that govern the operations of the Reserve Defence Force have not been amended. The representative association is anxious that, when the Department is preparing to amend the regulations, it be involved and consulted about the changes.

On the Naval Service Reserve, apparently there is a serious problem with the eye sight standards required to be met to become a member. The standards are higher than those required to join as a permanent member of the Naval Service. Will the Minister of State have somebody look again at the eye sight standards required to be met?

The Minister of State may recall that when he was before the committee two years ago, we discussed recruitment to the Reserve Defence Force. He outlined the difficulties experienced in getting people to join it. We discussed the suggestion of using the institutes of further education and other third level colleges as potential sources of recruits. I was told that one of the advertisements for the recruitment of personnel for the force was during the month of August last year. Most of us know that the vast majority of colleges and educational establishments are closed in August, as well as the months on either side of August. Will the Minister of State ensure the next recruitment drive will take place at a time of the year when colleges are open, not when students are on holidays?

Another issue Deputy Seán Barrett and his colleagues have highlighted is the direction defence policy in Europe is taking. It ties in with the issue of Brexit. In the report to which Deputy Jack Chambers referred, the document which the Minister of State's MEP colleagues brought out, Commissioner Mogherini is quoted as saying: "More progress has been made on intensifying EU defence cooperation in the last year, than was achieved in the last 10 years put together. Big developments are potentially on the horizon." That type of statement by a very senior member of the Commission has to be worrying for us. Perhaps the Minister of State might give us some idea of the sense he has gathered from his colleagues in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's reflection papers? He will recall that when the Commission's reflection paper was published almost a year ago, it included three options for consideration: first, security and defence co-operation; second, shared security and defence; and, third, common defence and security. We would all have to have concerns that the latter, common defence and security, seems to be the one Mr. Juncker and his colleagues in the Commission, some elected Members of the European Parliament and some Ministers are pushing. It is not the policy the overwhelming majority of the people want.

Any policy position we take in the European Union - I am very strong in all of the contributions I make - and every contribution I make reflects national policy. Commissioner Federica Mogherini is a very forceful lady who might have personal views on the direction she wants to take, but members can be absolutely assured that I reflect Irish policy and that any decisions I make are reflective of national policy. I highlight the Irish policy position on every occasion. I am not hiding any issue. It is important that I come before the committee to debate the issues and inform it and the Houses of exactly what is happening in Europe. In my response to Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh on Mr. Juncker's comments on a European Army, I have said this is what Mr. Juncker has been saying for the past three years. It is his personal view. It is a matter for the people to decide. On the Fine Gael document to which the Chairman referred, I welcome any document from any political party that wishes to publish a paper. It is important to have a professional dialogue and that we be able to debate it and that everybody reflect on each other's opinions and respects them.

There is extreme concern. I do not know whether I am at odds with myself on this issue. One hears about discussions on the future of Europe, but it is senior members of the Commission who are talking about and forcing this agenda. They are non-elected members; they are appointed officials, yet they seem to be the ones who are driving this change. I would like to know where the Council of Ministers is in all of this. Who gives Mr. Juncker or anybody in a similar position the right to stand up and say this is European policy? He is a paid official of the European Commission. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, Irish Ministers should say: "Hold on a second - this does not apply to us, as Ireland is a neutral country." We should not have to come to the Oireachtas and defend our neutrality among ourselves. It is time we put a stop to this. If the people were to vote in favour of joining a European common defence and security arrangement, it would not be my choice, but if it was decided by way of a democratic vote, so be it. However, I do not want groups of Commissioners coming to Ireland to have a look around in the North and then tell me about it. It puts a big question mark against where we are going. The Minister of State should not have to defend himself against the points raised by Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh and which I have raised from time to time. We are not part and parcel of a European Army or anything else. We co-operate in the area of peacekeeping.

I take Deputy Seán Barrett's views on board. He must get very annoyed on a Saturday and Sunday morning when he listens to the political programmes, on which observers tell us what is happening in each political party and what we should be doing.

Is it Commissioner Mogherini who attends the Council meetings the Minister of State attends?

Yes.

I will now respond to the questions about the Reserve Defence Force and the changes to R5 and F7. Work is ongoing on both. I understand my officials sought to meet the representatives of Reserve Defence Force, but they were not available in the past few weeks. However, I know that a meeting is planned.

On the eye sight standards required to be met by recruits to the Naval Service Reserve, I understand they are being changed. I was not aware of this issue until it was raised in the House. I looked into it and they are being changed.

Recruitment will be open until early June. Applicants can apply for positions in the Reserve for the remainder of this month and the month of May. I encourage middle management to visit third level colleges or whatever area in which they believe there are potential candidates.

I asked the Minister of State about the cross-Border initiative and healthcare for soldiers and other members of the Defence Forces.

I know that officers have their own private health insurance cover.

I also asked about healthcare for soldiers.

I will revert to the Deputy on that issue.

I am aware of personnel who are being retired because of the waiting list-----

If the Deputy gives me the direct query, I will look into it.

The Minister of State should ask PDFORA which has had to pay for private diagnostics tests. There are personnel who cannot secure a potential promotion and are being retired against their will. That issue needs to be looked at.

I will have my office communicate directly with the Deputy on that issue.

I have a final question. Has the joint committee requested the Chief of Staff to appear before it since this Dáil commenced?

To my recollection, we asked him last year, but he is not the Accounting Officer.

He could still come before us. Would the Minister of State be happy for him to come before the committee?

He is not the Accounting Officer.

He is accountable to the Minister of State.

He is accountable to me, but he is not the Accounting Officer.

Would the Minister of State be happy for him to come before the committee?

This has been ongoing since prehistoric times. He is not the Accounting Officer, although he answers directly to me. I am willing to come before the committee at any time or answer parliamentary questions on the matter in the Dáil. The Secretary General will also appear before the committee. The Chief of Staff is not the Accounting Officer.

If the committee was to invite the Chief of Staff to discuss defence matters, the Minister of State would have to-----

That is a matter for the------

The Minister of State could authorise him to attend the committee.

He is not the Accounting Officer.

The Minister of State will not allow him to attend the committee. He can do so with the authorisation of the Minister of State.

The committee decides who it wishes to invite to appear before it.

I have asked whether the Minister of State will facilitate the appearance of the Chief of Staff before it.

We have been over this ground before. He is not the Accounting Officer.

The committee may invite any person to appear before it without seeking the approval of a Minister or the Department.

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation and dialogue with members. We hope he will raise the issues we have discussed at the forthcoming Council meeting. They are reflective of the views of Irish society, rather than solely those of public representatives. I thank him and his officials for attending.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.10 p.m. and adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 May 2018.
Top
Share