Bernard J. Durkan
Question:6 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the overseas peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions contemplated or envisaged for the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24041/04]
View answerOverseas Missions.
Questions (6)
Oral answers (5 contributions)
Ireland is currently contributing approximately 740 Defence Forces personnel to 21 different missions throughout the world. The main commitments are to the NATO-led international security presence in Kosovo, with 213 personnel, and to the United Nations Mission in Liberia, with 435 personnel. Other personnel are serving as monitors and observers with the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union. Staff are also deployed at the organisational headquarters of the OSCE, the United Nations, NATO and the EU.
In Kosovo the Defence Forces are serving as part of a Finnish battalion with a Swedish-led multinational brigade. A reorganisation and downsizing of the NATO led forces in KFOR was planned and had partly commenced when civil disturbances broke out in March this year in Kosovo. That downsizing has now been deferred to allow the situation to settle. The withdrawal of the Irish contingent was planned as part of this downsizing and was to have been completed by October 2004. However, having regard to the fragility of the peace in Kosovo and subject to ongoing assessments of the situation on the ground, Ireland will continue to maintain an appropriate presence in KFOR in 2004.
Ireland's other current major contribution to peacekeeping is in Liberia. Here, Ireland, together with an infantry company group from Sweden, provides the rapid reaction reserve to the UNMIL force commander. Despite the difficult start to this mission, with the tragic death of Sergeant Derek Mooney of the Army ranger wing in a road accident, the mission is proving successful. Ireland was specifically requested by the UN to participate in a substantive manner in this mission, which is a tribute to the high regard in which the UN holds the Defence Forces. I very much welcome the participation of Sweden as part of the reserve. This type of co-operationis reflective of the changing dynamics in peacekeeping.
Additional information
The range and diversity of arrangements now in place for peacekeeping allow us to work in tandem with like-minded nations to contribute in a very effective and meaningful manner to peace support operations throughout the world. Interoperability with other forces is a key factor in our involvement in PfP and in our preparations over the past few years for the EU rapid reaction force. It is rewarding to see the effects of the hard work put in by the Defence Forces over the past number of years coming to fruition in such a positive way in the peace support role. It is intended that Defence Forces involvement in UNMIL will not exceed two to three years.
In the coming months, we are looking forward to the takeover by the EU of the current NATO led operation in Bosnia Herzegovina, known as SFOR. Ireland has already participated in its first EU mission, Operation Artemis, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and we currently have a number of staff deployed at SFOR headquarters. Subject to the approval of the Government and Dáil Éireann and an appropriate UN mandate, it is proposed that Ireland will contribute in a substantive manner to the EU mission, codenamed Operation Althea, taking account of available resources and ongoing developments in other peace support missions in which we are involved. Planning for participation in Operation Althea is currently ongoing.
No other deployments are planned or envisaged at this time, particularly having regard to the scale of our current overseas commitments. However, as the Deputy will appreciate, situations will no doubt arise where a request will be received for some Irish participation and these will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Has an indication been received from any quarter regarding future peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions other than those which the Minister has outlined to the House? If so, what discussion has taken place?
Discussions have taken place with regard to the proposed takeover by the EU, as mandated by the UN, of the NATO led operation in Bosnia. I understand this will take place in December. Ireland already has 12 people working on that mission and we have agreed in principle to provide 30 and 50 personnel to the force. Some 7,000 are already participating in this operation and they will be replaced by 7,000 new personnel. This mission, known as Operation Althea, is the only current proposal for future peacekeeping operations although the situation will continue to develop.
Does the Minister envisage that the mechanism known as the triple-lock could be an impediment to the participation of Irish troops in peacekeeping missions abroad? I am referring to the requirement for Government approval, Dáil approval and UN mandate and the veto that a member of the Security Council could impose on Ireland's participation. This has happened in the past. Does the Minister consider that it could happen in the future? China imposed a veto when Ireland wished to participate in Kosovo or one of those eastern European countries.
I believe Deputy McGinley is referring to the mission whereby UN sanction was vetoed by China. In effect, members of the Security Council have a veto on such operations. It is our intention that the triple-lock arrangement will continue. Any peacekeeping operations or foreign engagements involving Irish troops will require a decision by the Government, ratification by the Dáil and sanction by the UN. While one could say that some people have a veto which might effectively prevent Irish involvement in peacekeeping missions, any movement to diminish the triple-lock would undermine the notion that the UN is superior in this regard and that Ireland only acts under its aegis. I do not envisage any change in the triple-lock arrangement. The veto is an element of the UN structure but so far as Ireland is concerned, it is the primacy of the UN which is paramount. Such operations must be approved unanimously and if the veto is exercised, that is too bad and means that Ireland cannot become involved. As far as the Government is concerned, the triple-lock arrangement will continue to operate in its current form.
Search and Rescue Service.
Questions (7)
Joe Sherlock
Question:7 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Air Corps is continuing to operate the helicopter rescue base in Sligo on behalf of the Irish Coast Guard despite an announcement in December 2003 that he would remove the Air Corps from search and rescue operations; when military pilots and crew will be withdrawn from such operations; when the privately run CHCI helicopter search and rescue crew will begin operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24183/04]
View answerOral answers (10 contributions)
As I outlined in my reply to Deputy McGinley, the Air Corps has withdrawn from the provision of search and rescue in the north west with effect from yesterday. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which has overall responsibility for the provision of maritime search and rescue services within the Irish search and rescue area has contracted with a private operator, CHCI, to provide the search and rescue service in the north west. CHCI already provides search and rescue services for the rest of the Irish search and rescue area from its bases at Cork, Waterford and Shannon.
I take this opportunity, as I am sure the House would like, to salute the Air Corps for the dedication and bravery shown by its search and rescue crews over the past 40 years. The Air Corps has been involved in some of the most dangerous and daring rescues around our coast, saving more than 3,000 lives. The crews involved undertook these missions in situations that called for the utmost bravery. Many different awards both national and international have formally recognised this down through the years. In fulfilling this rewarding but dangerous task some members of the Air Corps have paid the ultimate price. It is fitting on this occasion to again pay tribute to the crew of Dauphin 248, Captain Mick Baker, Captain Dave O'Flaherty, Sergeant Paddy Mooney and Corporal Niall Byrne who were tragically killed in Waterford in July 1999 while returning from a search and rescue mission.
Bearing all this in mind, it was obviously a very difficult decision my predecessor Deputy Smith had to make last December when it was decided that the Air Corps would withdraw from search and rescue. This decision was taken against what has always been the overriding concern of the Government, and the Air Corps, for the safety of mariners and of anyone who gets into difficulty where SAR can respond. The Air Corps was not in a position to provide the level of service required and so the baton has passed to CHCI, which has proven its dedication and professionalism in this area of endeavour.
This change in provider will not downgrade the level of service provided to mariners or those who live in our island communities. The coast guard mission list includes air ambulance, island relief, medevac etc.
While yesterday was naturally tinged with sadness at leaving SAR, this change marks the beginning of a new era for the Air Corps. Significant investment continues in the Air Corps as a whole, both in infrastructure and in assets. The new Lear jet was delivered at the start of the year and flew more than 78 missions during the Irish EU Presidency. With the delivery of the Pilatus aircraft the Air Corps is engaged in an intensive fixed wing training programme that allows for the continued training of young cadets to the highest standard. This is a very realistic response to the needs of the Air Corps at this time.
Additional information
As I have already outlined, my Department is currently engaged in a tender competition for the acquisition of six new helicopters for the Air Corps. Their primary role will be that of general purpose military operations and training. Primary tasking will include training and operations with the Army, including the ranger wing, security and aid to the civil power, military exercises, infantry interoperability training and limited troop transport. However, these helicopters will also be available to perform air ambulance, aid to the civil authority, community assistance and VIP transport tasks. Air Corps personnel will continue to train to provide a limited non-maritime search and rescue capability within the Defence Forces.
The very significant resources invested in the Air Corps will put it on a very sound footing to meet its commitments to the Defence Forces and to the community into the future.
I take it the Minister is saying the new system is being enforced now and that, as I understand it, there was an impasse between the Department of Defence and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Has that been resolved? Who will fund the new system and which Department will have responsibility for it?
Were we in a position to help in the matter of the Canadian submarine incident?
I am not sure that question is in order, but the first is.
I am not aware of any impasse between the Department of Defence and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Perhaps it existed before I came to this office. The short answer to the Deputy's question is that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will have responsibility for funding this company. It will pay the company for the search and rescue services.
I have a note on the situation with regard to the Deputy's other question, but I require the Ceann Comhairle's permission to read it to the House.
We have limited time for questions. There are only six minutes for the question and at least three Deputies want time on it.
The short answer is that we were in a position to help in the situation.
I add my congratulations to the Minister on his well deserved promotion.
I would like to focus on the role of the Air Corps in the air ambulance. From January 2003 to September 2004 some 116 missions were carried out to the north west by the air ambulance. These missions assisted a range from non-spinal to spinal and neonatal injuries. The air ambulance has been transferred to Baldonnel. Will the Minister consider basing it in the north west so that the flight time between Sligo and Letterkenny General Hospitals and Dublin will be halved? Six highly trained members of the Air Corps reside in the north west but they must be transferred to Baldonnel. Is this decentralisation in reverse?
Ironically, the helicopter available for use by the Air Corps for search and rescue missions in the north west is the same one that will be used by the new company. The Air Corps leased the helicopter from that company, which has taken it back. The helicopter will be based at the same location and it would be an unnecessary duplication of service to base another Air Corps helicopter there. I assure the House that, far from there being a diminution of service as a result of the change-over, the search and rescue service will be immeasurably enhanced.
The Minister stated the reason the Air Corps association with search and rescue services was terminated was its inability to provide 24 hour cover. Does he agree that is slightly misleading because the Air Corps provided cover 24 hours a day, seven days a week? A temporary difficulty relating to the winch crew arose in December 2002, which could have been negotiated and settled at the time. Until that difficulty arose, 24 hour cover was provided and the reason for terminating the contract was based on a dubious premise.
I do not accept the contract was terminated based on a dubious premise. The difficulties with the winch crew resulted in a major outbreak of the Army version of "blue flu" when many people went sick simultaneously. People are entitled to do that, but the Deputy referred to a temporary industrial relations difficulty. Temporary difficulties can recur and it is impossible to guarantee they will not recur. This service is provided to deal with imminent danger to life. It is, therefore, important that a 24 hour search and rescue service is provided, and it is not as if we are plucking somebody out of the sky. We are contracting a company that has operated to the highest standards in other search and rescue areas.
Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Questions (8, 10)
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:8 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence the headline goal for Ireland in terms of EU defence capability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24275/04]
View answer
Eamon Ryan
Question:10 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if Ireland will contribute forces to the newly agreed 1,500 strong rapidly deployable battlegroups, to be operational by 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24282/04]
View answerOral answers (17 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 10 together.
A significant achievement of the Irish Presidency in the development of the European Security and Defence Policy was the agreement of a new headline goal with a horizon of 2010, as approved by the European Council in June 2004. Reflecting the European security strategy, which was presented to the European Council in December 2003 by the Secretary General-High Representative Solana, member states have decided to commit themselves to respond to a crisis with rapid and decisive action, applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations. This includes humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. Member states have also recognised that interoperability, deployability and sustainability of forces must be at the core of their efforts and will be the driving factors of this 2010 goal.
The 2010 headline goal also incorporated the development of the EU's rapid response capability. A key element of the headline goal is the ability of the EU to deploy force packages at high readiness, commonly known as battlegroups, in response to a crisis as a stand-alone force or as part of a larger operation enabling follow-on phases. An example of the contribution an effective battlegroup could make in restoring peace to a region suffering from conflict is the Finnish-Irish peacekeeping battalion deployed with the United Nations force in Kosovo, KFOR, which has been the subject of recent favourable comment arising from its reaction to an outbreak of hostilities in its area of operations last March.
Member states have been asked to provide initial indications of commitments to such force packages, with a view to an initial operational capability in 2005 at a capability commitment conference to be held in November under the Dutch Presidency. The question of Ireland's participation in such force packages is under examination in my Department.
The 2010 headline goal will have no implications for national sovereignty, which is a fundamental underlying principle to participation in the European Security and Defence Policy. Ireland will continue to approach proposed missions on a case-by-case basis and will only participate in operations authorised by the United Nations and with the approval of the Government and this House.
I congratulate the Minister on his elevation. He says he has not yet considered the headline goal for 2010, but will take things on a case-by-case basis.
I am considering it, but have not yet made a decision.
The Minister must recognise that Ireland will have to make a contribution. Even if we do not participate, Article 28 of the Treaty of the European Union refers to what are known as "common costs". What does the Minister anticipate those common costs will be for Ireland?
Does the Minister agree that the battle groups as they are now constituted are the embryonic form of a European army? Will he comment on the matter? Is he concerned about the way in which battle groups will be used? He mentioned the Petersberg Tasks which include pre-emptive action, joint disarmament operations and, I quote, speak of support for third countries in combating terrorism. I would like the Minister to comment on the analysis of the International Security Information Service in Brussels that has said——
I make two points to the Deputy. He had one minute for his supplementary question, which has concluded, and it is not appropriate to quote during Question Time.
I wish to let the Minister know and state for the benefit of the House that the information service said this could include anything from providing personal security to UN inspectors to——
I am sorry Deputy, but you have used your minute.
——a full scale invasion such as the one that took place in Iraq. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
I thank Deputy Gormley for his kind words of congratulation that I deeply appreciate. My understanding is that there is no obligation on Ireland to participate in this though I will double check for the Deputy. On costs, we operate on the principle that they lie where they fall. If we contribute to a particular mission, we bear the cost. In future, there could be a question of common costs that would be shared among the different participants, but we have certainly not arrived at that stage yet.
I do not agree with Deputy Gormley that the battle groups constitute an embryonic European army. We are speaking here about a number of states making a contribution of personnel or equipment to these battle groups under the aegis and at the request of the United Nations. Such battle groups could be assembled and deployed quickly to prevent genocide such as we saw in Rwanda, pillage, rape and other forms of attack. That is the raison d’être of this proposal. While the United Nations regularly requests individual countries to provide forces for peacekeeping, nobody has suggested the organisation has an army. Therefore, I do not see why it is proper to say Europe has an embryonic or any other type of army.
In his answer the Minister referred to the answer he gave to my question earlier. I do not believe the Minister can deliver on this commitment.
Deputy, a question please.
If troops are already deployed on UN duty, how can they be deployed on European rapid reaction activity or vice versa? There is a contradiction in that, which has not been fully explained to the people. By signing up to this and furthering it by agreeing to battle groups, we are lessening our commitment to the UN.
I do not agree. The issue here is the supply of personnel for peacekeeping missions whether the request is made by the United Nations directly or indirectly through the European Union. I do not see what is the difference in substance.
Will the Minister comment on the declaration at the June European Council that spoke of pre-emptive action? Does he agree that battle groups should be involved in such action?
The Minister told the House that he does not believe there is justification for discussion of an embryonic European army. I put it to him that in the headline goal itself, the European Union is referred to as a global actor ready to take on the role of a global security force. That gives rise to popular suspicion that what is involved is a counterweight, as so many people put it, to the United States of America. That is what we are talking about.
I do not see European Governments involving themselves in the level of expenditure on weapons and military capability that would make them an effective counterweight to the United States of America in our lifetime.
On pre-emptive action, Deputy Gormley may or may not be aware that a capability conference will take place in Brussels in November which I hope to attend on behalf of the Government. The details of how battle groups will operate, of what they will consist and of how member states hope to contribute or not will be discussed there. We are at an early stage at the moment and people should not rush to conclusions about pre-emptive action.
That is what I said. I was simply quoting the Minister.
One can say what one wishes, but the ultimate shape of the rapid response force will be decided by the defence Ministers of the member states of the European Union. We have decided nothing yet.
Defence Forces Equipment.
Questions (9, 15, 35)
Joe Costello
Question:9 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence the details of the new tender competition to purchase four utility and two light helicopters to a value of at least €50 million; the level of interest from manufacturers; when he expects the competition to be complete; the total anticipated cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24186/04]
View answerJohn Gormley
Question:15 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence his Department’s plans to buy six new helicopters for the Air Corps; the cost of the helicopters; the way in which the helicopters will be deployed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24268/04]
View answer
Eamon Gilmore
Question:35 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Defence his views on the safety of the helicopter fleet currently being used to transport Defence Forces vehicles and troops in view of the decision to purchase six new helicopters; when he expects the six new helicopters to be in operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24187/04]
View answerOral answers (11 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 15 and 35 together.
The procurement process for the acquisition of new helicopters for the Air Corps is progressing well. This major investment programme will involve the acquisition of six helicopters. It is proposed to purchase two light utility helicopters, primarily for Air Corps crew training purposes, and four larger utility helicopters to support the Army and for other ancillary uses such as air ambulance duties. It is also expected to agree an option to purchase a further two helicopters of the larger type. The new aircraft will replace the current fleet of Dauphin, Alouette and Gazelle helicopters.
The tender competition was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 May 2004 with the closing date for the receipt of tenders being Tuesday, 3 August 2004. Valid tenders were received from Eurocopter, Sikorsky and AgustaWestland and a comprehensive tender evaluation process is ongoing. A project team comprising officials from my Department and Air Corps and Army personnel is undertaking the evaluation that will, of necessity, take some time to complete. It is expected, however, that the Department will be in a position to place a contract before the end of the year. Deputies will appreciate that as the evaluation process is ongoing, I am not in a position to give any details of the costs of the helicopters.
The Air Corps, primarily in the military pilot and aircrew training roles will operate the two light utility helicopters. Primary tasks for the helicopters will include pilot training, instructor training and instrument flight training. The four larger utility helicopters will be operated by the Air Corps in general purpose military operational and training roles and will not be dedicated for use by any particular element of the Defence Forces. Primary tasks for the utility helicopters will include training and operations with special forces, security and aid to the civil power, military exercises, infantry interoperability training and limited troop transport.
The helicopters will have the capability of lifting some Defence Forces equipment such as artillery pieces but will not have the capability to lift heavy equipment. They will also be used to perform air ambulance, inland search and rescue, aid to the civil community and VIP transport tasks. The contract for the supply of the helicopters will be awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender applying the following award criteria which are listed in order of priority: functional characteristics, operational suitability and technical merit; maintenance, technical support and after sales service; tender prices; life cycle costs over 20 years; training packages offered; warranties offered; and delivery period.
The procurement of modern light utility and utility helicopters will provide a significant boost to the Air Corps. In that regard, every effort will be made to ensure the process moves along as quickly as possible to ensure the new helicopters are available to the Air Corps at the earliest possible date.
Can the Minister guarantee the helicopters will be purchased and that events such as the debacle over the €100 million tender which occurred in 2002 will not recur? Is it not time this issue was dealt with once and for all? It would be timely if the Minister could guarantee the purchase of the helicopters and proceed with the programme.
Does the Minister accept the Department of Defence has created a mess in this area given it recommended Eurocopter in the first instance? I was struck by the use of the words "VIP transport tasks" in the Minister's reply. Will the military helicopters be used to transport Ministers around the country? Are Mercs to be replaced by helicopters?
I understand from the Minister's initial reply that Sikorsky has tendered for the supply of the six helicopters. If memory serves me correctly, a confrontation between Sikorsky and the Government two or three years ago resulted in the original order being cancelled. Has whatever disagreement that existed at that time been satisfactorily resolved? I understood threats were made at the time to go to the High Court in an effort to have matters sorted out. Will the helicopters have a military capacity? In other words, will they be armed?
Deputy Sherlock asked an important question. I guarantee the purchase will take place. The tender process is well under way. As far as I am aware, the 2002 proposal related to the purchase of medium lift helicopters. That proposal was dropped as a result of a demand for savings across various Departments. The Department of Defence made its decision in that regard in the interests of the economy.
On Deputy Gormley's question, I have no ambition to be transported by helicopter. I am scared stiff at the notion of having to travel by helicopter.
The Minister may have to get used to it.
There are many other VIPs besides Ministers in the country. As I understand it, helicopters will only be available to Ministers when absolutely necessary. They will not be used by Ministers as a general tool of transport.
What VIPs does the Minister have in mind?
The term VIP covers a broad range of people such as the Chief of Staff and Army top brass. I do not know exactly to whom the term VIP refers but I will make inquiries for the Deputy.
It does not apply in Limerick.
There are very few VIPs in Limerick. On Deputy McGinley's point, I am not aware of the confrontation between the Government and company concerned as it happened well before my time. I am, however, aware that Sikorsky is one of the companies that has tendered for the supply of the six helicopters. The tenders are being evaluated by designated persons and it is intended that a contract will be placed before Christmas. The time of delivery will depend on various matters such as the order books and so on of the successful company.
It is intended each helicopter will be fitted with two 7.6 millimetre machine guns which will be removable. Given part of the function of such military aircraft will be to provide aid to the civil power, it may be necessary for them to be armed in certain circumstances. However, Members can rest assured the guns will be detached when the aircraft are performing search and rescue operations or air ambulance duties.
Departmental Expenditure.
Questions (11)
Dinny McGinley
Question:11 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the amount of money allocated to Defence over the past ten years has dropped from 1.6% of GNP to 0.8% in 2004; and if he has satisfied himself with this level of funding. [24265/04]
View answerOral answers (6 contributions)
Based on GNP figures received from the Central Statistics Office gross expenditure on defence was 1.3% in 1994 and not 1.6% as indicated in the Deputy's question. The level of expenditure on defence in any particular country is influenced by a variety of factors, including the country's political and security environment, its history, demography and economy.
There has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces in recent years. This was made possible by the Government's decision that pay savings arising from the re-organisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper of 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment. More than €174 million was spent on the capital investment programme for the upgrade of barracks, accommodation and other facilities between 1997 and end of 2003. This year's Defence Estimate includes a further €19 million for such capital works.
Significant progress has also been made in recent years with the acquisition of modern equipment for the Army, Air Corps and the Naval Service, details of which I will provide in reply to a later question.
I note and accept the Minister's correction. I was quoting from an article in An Cosantóir which specifically stated the amount allocated to Defence had dropped from 1.6% of GNP to 0.8%.
The figure of 0.8% can be fairly misleading because it included an element of the proceeds of property sales, something we cannot depend on in future. I specifically heard the Minister say in Letterkenny last Thursday that he does not have on his agenda the proposed sale of any further barracks, so that source of revenue is drying up. Is the Minister aware that senior members of the Defence Forces have expressed concern at the reduction in revenue available to the Defence Forces? While such reductions may not have repercussions for the near future, the long-term viability and efficiency of the Defence Forces will be affected if we repeatedly continue to reduce funding.
I asked a similar question of the Minister's predecessor who suggested the allocation to the Defence Forces had been reduced to 0.6% last year. I will have to check up on that figure.
Does the Minister accept that Ireland has the lowest defence spending in Europe as a percentage of GNP? The Minister said the United States spends almost 3.25% of GDP in this area. Does the Minister accept the analysis of many economists that one of the reasons for Ireland's economic performance in latter years has been the fact that our spend on defence is much lower than in other countries?
I am amazed that Deputy Gormley is concerned about the reduction in expenditure on defence. There is no comparison between the United States and Ireland in that regard.
I am saying that we are better off.
I thought the Deputy was worried that the percentage is decreasing. Looking at overall expenditure on defence in the context of the budget, we were able to reduce expenditure as a percentage of GDP because we had money coming in from savings as a result of reductions in personnel and the sale of surplus property. Defence expenditure would not have made any major difference to our economic performance in the past ten years.
In 1994, the gross expenditure on defence was €546 million and in 2004 it will be €900 million. Inflation between 1994 and 2004 was 40%, whereas the gross expenditure on the defence and Army pensions Votes increased by about 65% in the same period, a substantial increase. I accept Deputy McGinley's point that the sale of property and other one-off funding sources is drying up but I have no plans to sell any more barracks. There may be some minor property sales but no more barracks will be sold. I must now go back to the Estimates system to get money to ensure the substantial improvements to equipment, infrastructure, efficiency and training are maintained. The House can rest assured that I will fight my corner at the Cabinet table to ensure sufficient resources are forthcoming for those purposes.
Air Corps Strength.
Questions (12)
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:12 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that the Defence Forces have adequate resources and capability in the event of a land, sea or air borne terrorist attack, with particular reference to the need to scramble aircraft in an emergency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24040/04]
View answerOral answers (15 contributions)
The most important defence against terrorist attacks is detection and prevention by the security forces. While the Garda Síochána has the primary responsibility for law and order, one of the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid to the civil power, meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána. The various components of the Defence Forces are active in this regard, providing such assistance as is appropriate in specific circumstances.
The level of any terrorist threat to Ireland is continually assessed. The advice available to me would suggest that while the terrorist threat to Europe is currently high, for Ireland it is low. However, it is prudent that we take precautions and keep matters under continuous review.
The Defence Forces make contingency plans for a range of scenarios where the State may be at risk. An urgent and detailed review to deal with a range of emergency situations was undertaken by the military authorities following the events of 11 September. It included, inter alia, an update of the threat assessment, intensive contacts with other State agencies, a reassessment of operations orders relating to vital installations, alert systems, the Army ranger wing, ordnance and engineer aspects in terms of explosive ordnance disposal and specialist search and a review of equipment including the need for air defence. All matters arising were addressed and all procedures updated as required.
The assets available to the Defence Forces are related to the level of threat and are considered appropriate in this regard. Air defence capability requires the integrated use of aircraft, radar and air and ground-based weapons systems. The Defence Forces have a limited ground-to-air capacity. That has always been the position. The new Pilatus trainer aircraft will enhance the airborne elements of our air defence capability. However, we will still continue to operate a limited air-to-air and air-to-ground defence capability.
It would be inappropriate of me to go into specific details about the readiness, deployment arrangements or the speed of deployment or re-deployment of defence assets. However, I can confirm that all Air Corps aircraft have adequate numbers of operationally trained air crew who can operate from Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, which is available on a 24 hour basis where required. The shortest scramble time applicable in the Air Corps in certain circumstances is two minutes.
The two minute part is very impressive but the preamble worries me. To what extent is the Minister satisfied that adequate resources and equipment are available to the Air Corps and the rest of the Defence Forces in the event of a surprise terrorist attack? On whom can the Minister and the Defence Forces rely for assistance in the event of such an attack, particularly for prior warning, thereby giving the Defence Forces time to get into the air or to make the necessary preparations?
The primary responsibility in the event of a terrorist attack lies with the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces would come in response to a request for assistance. We have a limited air defence capacity but the events of 11 September showed that countries that spend a fortune on air defence cannot guarantee protection. Small countries do not spend resources that could be used for other things on air defences for that simple reason, although Israel is an exception to that. The money we spend on air defence is related to our assessment of the terrorist threat, which is currently low.
Countries like ours that cannot afford a huge air defence system like the United States or Britain have a simple choice. We either have a token air defence system or we have a range of tasks that can be performed in certain situations in a professional way and we have gone for the latter option. We have our own early warning systems. In the event of a foreign, air-borne terrorist threat to this country, our near neighbours would be on high alert because they would also feel threatened.
Our near neighbours are already on red alert. No less an authority than Commissioner Sir John Stevens of the Metropolitan Police has stated that it is not a question of if but when there is a major attack on London or the UK. Does the Minister agree that Sellafield could be a prime target? What preparations have we engaged in to prevent anything coming from that direction? Iodine tablets have been distributed but what other preparations have been made? Does the Minister agree that these terrorists look for a soft target and that Shannon Airport may be attractive to them? When the UK is on red alert we cannot take anything for granted.
Does the Minister agree that a land attack is more likely than a sea or air attack? Does he believe there are terrorist operatives in this country and is he co-operating with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this? Are those people being observed? What is the state of readiness in intelligence terms?
Is it true that none of the aircraft that were delivered recently are equipped with any type of armaments, including the minimum available, which would be the equivalent of pea shooters in modern warfare, and that we depend for our defence on the goodwill we have built up over the years which has been damaged by our complicity in the war in Iraq?
Staff Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan has stated that the Army should prepare for a dirty bomb attack. According to him, the major concern would be an attack similar to that which took place in Madrid. Other European countries have strengthened their security and we must be seen to do the same. What action has been taken to do this?
To answer Deputy Sherlock first, I have already outlined the very considerable expenditure on training, equipment and infrastructure which the Government has engaged in over the past several years. A system is currently in place which all the military advice available to me suggests is as good as we can have in the circumstances. Procedures are in place in the event of a terrorist attack. I chair an emergency task force which will deal with the fall-out from a particular situation. For obvious reasons I will not divulge too many details about the action to be taken in that situation. The Deputy can rest assured that procedures are in place and it is my hope that we will never have to use them.
The Minister should not keep it a secret too long.
In answer to Deputy Gormley's question about specific terrorist operatives, these matters are always kept under review. There is constant contact between the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and a coherent approach is taken in respect of any known or suspected terrorist who may be operating on Irish soil.
Are they operating here?
We are over time on this question. We must proceed to the next question.
Are they operating in this country, to the Minister's knowledge?
Does the scramble time of two minutes include loading the guns?
The scramble time is two minutes and, as I stated, the new aircraft will be armed. On the question of whether terrorists are currently operating in this country, not to my knowledge, but if anything specific requires to be brought to my attention by my Department, I am confident it will do so.
Hearing Impairment Claims.
Questions (13)
Michael D. Higgins
Question:13 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims for damages for deafness determined in court or settled out of court at the latest date for which figures are available; the amount paid out to date in terms of damages or legal costs; the number of such claims outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24188/04]
View answerOral answers (5 contributions)
By 30 September 2004, a total of 16,726 claims had been received in my Department from current and former members of the Defence Forces in respect of loss of hearing allegedly caused during their military service. A total of 333 claims have been determined in court and 15,060 have been disposed of out of court, mainly through settlement, leaving a total of 1,333 claims outstanding at that date. The sum of €277.3 million has been paid in respect of hearing loss claims, including €93.3 million in plaintiffs' legal costs.
The Minister's predecessor reported that good progress was being made. What is the state of that progress and what lessons are being learned from the procedures to prevent a recurrence?
The circumstances which enabled people to sue successfully have been dealt with, for example, proper protective equipment has been issued. I am delighted to inform Deputy Sherlock that 11 claims per week was the norm in 2002. That figure decreased to four per week in 2003 and it is currently down to one claim per week. The early settlement scheme contributed to it being a lot less expensive than had been originally envisaged. That scheme terminated on 26 July 2002. My best estimate is that the situation will be resolved at a cost of just under €300 million, which certainly is money the Government could be using for other things but which, nevertheless, is far less than some of the original estimates, which ranged from €1 billion to €1.5 billion. I envisage that approximately €300 million will be the total cost of the Army deafness claims.
The Minister may have given the answer but I did not hear it. What procedure is now in place to prevent a recurrence of the problem?
Certain circumstances enabled the court to find that the Army had been negligent in not providing proper protective equipment such as hearing muffs for soldiers during military training exercises. I am advised by the military authorities that all those procedures have been put in place to the satisfaction of the legal people who gave the advice in the first instance that the Government had a case to answer.
Defence Forces Recruitment.
Questions (14, 30)
Dinny McGinley
Question:14 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if there are plans to increase the strength of the Army’s elite ranger unit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24266/04]
View answer
Dan Boyle
Question:30 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence his proposals to increase the Army’s ranger unit; if this will be accompanied by a review of its weaponry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24270/04]
View answerOral answers (9 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 30 together.
There is an existing policy of ongoing recruitment to the Army ranger wing. Selection courses are held periodically and successful candidates are then taken into the Army ranger wing. A planned selection course is in progress. It is not known at this time how many personnel are likely to be successful on this course. The military authorities advise that the number of personnel serving in the Army ranger wing is less than 75. For security reasons it is not the policy to disclose the type of equipment available to the ranger wing.
I was under the impression that the strength of the Army ranger wing was approximately 100 and I am surprised to hear it is as low as 75. I believe there was some intention to increase the number of personnel to 120. Does the Minister agree that if the country was under attack, the ranger wing would be the first line of defence against terrorists? Are there plans to increase the number of personnel from 75, which is very low? Are those personnel who are currently in training additional to the 75?
Those personnel being trained at present are to maintain the complement of 75 and are not extra personnel. I will discuss the matter of possible increases in the numbers serving in the ranger unit with the military authorities. To my knowledge there are no plans at present to increase the numbers above 75 personnel. I will discuss Deputy McGinley's concerns with the appropriate military authorities. If it is necessary to make changes in that regard, I will present proposals to the Government.
I understood the Defence Forces had been lobbying for an increase in the numbers to 120. Is the unit specifically trained to deal with a siege such as happened in Beslan? As well as a review of the number of personnel in the unit, will the Minister also review the equipment supplied? In reference to an earlier question, would the ranger unit be part of the EU headline goal contingents which the Irish Government is pledging to assist?
In answer to Deputy Gormley's questions, I do not know if the military authorities are lobbying for an increase in the number of personnel; they have not lobbied me as yet but I have only been in the Department for ten days and perhaps it will happen down the road.
The ranger unit is specifically trained to deal with a siege. Its level of training is very high and its personnel are very well equipped. I will discuss the question of equipment with the military authorities when I am discussing the size of the unit, as suggested by Deputy Gormley, because that is a logical decision.
Is it true that the ranger wing operates overseas and is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of its personnel present in the State to cope with any emergency that might arise?
I forgot to answer Deputy Gormley's other question about whether members of the ranger wing can be part of the EU headline force. My understanding is that it can include members of the ranger wing. Deployment abroad of members of the Army ranger wing and the consequent size of the force remaining in this country are under review at all times. The Government will ensure that there are sufficient personnel in the country to deal with any emergency or contingency that may arise.
Will the Minister state the countries where the rangers are currently deployed and the numbers in each country?
I am unable to provide that information in the House today but I will communicate the information to Deputy Gormley.
Question No. 15 answered with QuestionNo. 9.
Defence Forces Personnel.
Questions (16)
Mary Upton
Question:16 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Defence the number of personnel from the other ranks commissioned as officers in the Defence Forces in each of the past five years; if he has plans to increase the numbers commissioned from the ranks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24199/04]
View answerOral answers (5 contributions)
A total of 28 non-commissioned officers have been commissioned as officers in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service in the past five years. Potential officers courses, POC, are held for non-commissioned personnel from time to time within the Defence Forces. Personnel who successfully complete such courses are commissioned as officers in the Permanent Defence Force. Participants on such courses are selected on a competitive basis. In addition, from time to time, non-commissioned personnel who hold appropriate qualifications are commissioned to fill specialist appointments where vacancies arise. Eligible non-commissioned personnel may also apply for the annual cadetship competitions. The requirement for potential officer courses and commissioning from the ranks competitions is reviewed from time to time and is being specifically addressed in the context of the integrated personnel management system which is one of the major policy initiatives provided for in the White Paper on Defence and in the programme for Government. The integrated personnel management system will make specific and ongoing provision for the introduction of regular schemes to commission enlisted personnel as officers in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service.
Draft conditions governing the appointment of enlisted personnel of the Permanent Defence Force to be officers of the Naval Service are under discussion with the representative associations. As the discussions with the representative associations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of the proposed draft conditions. However, it is the intention that a potential officers' course will be run as soon as these discussions have been completed.
Will the Minister agree it was stated previously that a Defence Forces integrated personnel management system was being prepared by military management as a matter of priority? In the Cork area where efforts at promotion were made, I attempted to take up the case of a number of NCOs who see their career paths blocked despite the efforts of their direct superiors in the Naval Service. The career prospects for NCOs are bleak. As the Minister said in his reply, 28 non-commissioned officers have been commissioned as officers in the past five years. That is very limited promotion through the ranks. There should be a realistic prospect of promotion through the ranks, particularly given the shortages in the Naval Service.
I agree with the Deputy that promotion prospects are extremely limited. The figures clearly show that to be the case and they do not lie. The last such course which would enable enlisted personnel to become officers took place in 2000. It is the intention that as part and parcel of the integrated personnel management system those competitions will take place regularly. I do not wish to go into further detail given that discussions are ongoing with representative associations and I do not wish to pre-empt anything. It is my intention that the career paths and opportunities for enlisted personnel to get to officer level will be considerably enhanced. This is one result of the integrated personnel management system that we are trying to introduce.
Given that these discussions have been ongoing for a number of years what progress, if any, has been made? The replies I have received to parliamentary questions on the matter in recent years were to the effect that discussions were ongoing. Is there any sign of the discussions reaching a conclusion?
Specific deadlines are set out in the White Paper on Defence. My understanding is that considerable progress has been made in the discussions and, hopefully, the matter will be resolved shortly. I am sure Deputy Stanton will continue to ask about the discussions until such time as the matter is resolved.
Defence Forces Equipment.
Questions (17)
David Stanton
Question:17 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the amount expended on equipment for the Defence Forces in 2002 and 2003; his plans for further expenditure in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24295/04]
View answerOral answers (5 contributions)
The acquisition of new equipment for the Defence Forces will be a key focus for me as Minister for Defence. I am aware that significant investment has taken place in recent years and I want to continue the good work in that regard.
The unprecedented level of expenditure on equipment for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service was made possible by the Government's decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper of 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment.
Investment in new equipment for the Army, Air Corps and the Naval Service is provided for under various subheads of the defence Vote relating to defensive equipment, mechanical transport, aircraft, ships, naval stores etc. The total expenditure for 2002 for equipment under those subheads was €97 million. The corresponding figure for 2003 was €100 million.
We have made excellent progress in terms of new equipment and better infrastructure and I will continue that process. The taxpayer gets extremely good value for money both in terms of home operations and duties overseas. At every available opportunity, I will champion the cause of ongoing investment and development of our Defence Forces. It is my desire that we continue to make substantial investment in new equipment and infrastructure in 2005 and beyond. While expenditure programmes will now have to be more prioritised I will ensure that a substantial re-equipment programme will continue to enhance the efficiency, professionalism and safety of the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service.
This week sees the final delivery in the contract for the 25 additional armoured personnel carriers, which gives the Defence Forces 65 armoured personnel carriers in total. These armoured personnel carriers are on operational duties with our troops in Kosovo and Liberia. The initial contract for 40 armoured personnel carriers saw deliveries completed by March 2002 and was valued at €51 million, inclusive of VAT. The value of the additional contract is some €33 million inclusive of VAT with payments spread over the period 2002 to 2005.
Another significant contract relates to the acquisition of the Javelin missile system from Raytheon-Lockheed Martin in the US at a cost of some €13 million inclusive of VAT. The purpose of this acquisition is to give Defence Forces personnel an effective, anti-armour capability while on peace support operations. The system will replace the Milan system. Some items under the contract have been delivered to allow for the training of personnel. The main delivery is scheduled for early 2005.
Additional information
There have been ongoing programmes of acquisitions of both nuclear biological chemical equipment and night vision equipment in recent years and these programmes will continue to meet the ongoing requirements of the Defence Forces.
The acquisition of light tactical vehicles for the Defence Forces will also be considered in the light of the ongoing budgetary position. The main priority for the Air Corps has been the purchase of eight fixed wing training aircraft all of which have been delivered. The new aircraft is the Pilatus PC-9M, manufactured by Pilatus Aircraft Limited, Switzerland. The cost of the eight aircraft is approximately €60 million. While these aircraft are primarily for pilot training, they are capable of being armed and as such will have a limited defensive capability.
The procurement process for the acquisition of new helicopters for the Air Corps is progressing well. This major investment programme involves the acquisition of six helicopters — two light utility helicopters primarily for Air Corps crew training purposes and four larger utility helicopters, with the option of two further such helicopters for use in support of the Army and for other ancillary uses such as air ambulance. It is expected that a contract for the acquisition of the helicopters will be signed before the end of the year.
The Naval Service has also benefited from the investment programme in recent years with the acquisition of two new modern ships, LE Róisín and LE Niamh, at a cost of some €25 million each.
What make of armoured personnel carriers were purchased? Is it true that many of these armoured personnel carriers require a huge amount of maintenance and are out of action for long periods? With regard to the value the public is getting for this equipment, what type of value for money audit takes place? It is no good if the equipment is broken down most of the time. My information is that they are Mowag armoured personnel carriers and cost approximately €1 million each. Are there other carriers that are cheaper and equally good? What amount of money was raised from the sale of the properties and did all the proceeds go towards Defence Forces equipment and the upgrading of other properties?
It is not my information that there are substantial difficulties with maintaining these armoured personnel carriers. Certainly that has not been brought to my attention. I am aware that a detailed evaluation process, including value for money considerations, takes place when equipment of this magnitude is being purchased. That evaluation committee comprises personnel from the relevant section of the Army, whether the Air Corps, the Naval Service or the Permanent Defence Force. It also includes a number of personnel from the Department of Defence. I would be amazed if Deputy Stanton's assertion was correct. As the Deputy will be aware the initial contract was for 40 armoured personnel carriers following which we contracted to purchase an additional 25 armoured personnel carriers. If these problems arose in respect of the initial 40 armoured personnel carriers, surely no properly instructed person involved in the evaluation process would dare recommend the purchase of the additional 25 armoured personnel carriers. That matter would have been brought to the attention of the Minister. I do not recall the Deputy's other question.
What moneys accrued to the State from the sale of properties and did it all go back into the Defence Forces?
I do not have the exact figure, but it was of the order of approximately €200 million and it all went towards either the purchase of equipment, protective clothing, radio equipment or upgrading of infrastructures, specifically barracks. It all went back into the Department of Defence.
EU Presidency.
Questions (18, 21)
Emmet Stagg
Question:18 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence the costs to his Department arising from the Irish Presidency of the European Union between January and June 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24198/04]
View answer
Ciarán Cuffe
Question:21 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence the role the Defence Forces played during the EU Presidency; the cost of that role; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24273/04]
View answerOral answers (3 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 21 together.
During Ireland's Presidency of the EU, my Department was responsible for progressing the military aspects of the European security and defence policy as well as co-ordinating the ministerial air transport service and Defence Forces aid to the civil power.
Costs to my Department arising from the Irish Presidency of the European Union come under two headings, (a) those which arose as a result of the Department's role in taking forward work in relation to the European security and defence policy and (b) those which arose as a consequence of the provision of support by the Defence Forces to the Presidency in the form of security, transport, logistical support etc. and the ministerial air transport service. Costs under (a) amounted to some €229,000. Costs under (b) amounted to some €1,409,430. Therefore, the total cost was of the order of €1,638,430.
The roles of the Defence Forces as assigned by Government are set out in the White Paper on Defence, which was published in February 2000. To aid the civil power, meaning in practice to assist when requested the Garda Síochána, which has the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State, is among the assigned roles. The Defence Forces, pursuant to their role of rendering aid to the civil power, assisted the Garda as required in duties during the Irish Presidency of the European Union. The additional costs incurred by the Defence Forces in the provision of assistance to the Garda Síochána amounted to approximately €1,409,430. The Defence Forces, pursuant to their role of rendering aid to the civil power, assisted the Garda as required in duties, which included the security operation surrounding the ceremonies marking the accession of new member states to the EU on 1 May 2004.
I am advised that more than 2,500 personnel were deployed in various roles in connection with the security operation surrounding the ceremonies marking the accession of new member states to the EU on 1 May 2004. In addition, the Naval Service was on patrol in the Irish Sea and the Air Corps provided air traffic control capability and support to operations both at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel and in the Phoenix Park. The additional costs incurred by the Defence Forces in the provision of assistance to the Garda Síochána on 1 May amounted to approximately €872,650. A breakdown of these costs follows.
The Garda also requested the support of the Defence Forces for the visit from 25 to 26 June 2004 of the US President during the US-EU summit. I am advised that approximately 2,262 members of the Permanent Defence Force were deployed on security duties in connection with the visit. The additional costs incurred by the Defence Forces in the provision of assistance to the Garda Síochána on 25 and 26 June 2004 amounted to approximately €448,000. A breakdown of these costs also follows.
The additional costs incurred by the Defence Forces in the provision of Army drivers for the EU Presidency VIP fleet of cars amounted to approximately €88,780. A breakdown of these costs follows.
|
€ |
|
|
Security Duty Allowance and Overtime |
506,780 |
|
Rations |
62,120 |
|
Fuel |
44,350 |
|
*Tech. Stores Supplies and Equipment Hire |
259,400 |
|
Total |
872,650 |
*This item includes engineer and communications equipment supplies together with ancillary support equipment, including generators, toilets, water supply services and catering.
|
€ |
|
|
ARMY |
|
|
General costs including Security Duty Allowance, Subsistence, Food and Fuel |
347,000 |
|
1Equipment/Materials Purchased |
24,000 |
|
2Equipment Hire |
9,000 |
|
Sub-Total |
380,000 |
|
NAVAL SERVICE (mainly Security Duty Allowance) |
7,000 |
|
AIR CORPS |
|
|
General costs including Security Duty Allowance, Subsistence and Food |
61,000 |
|
Total |
€448,000 |
1 This item includes fire-fighting equipment, electrical materials and catering equipment
2 This item includes ancillary support equipment, including generators, toilets and refrigeration units.
|
€ |
|
|
January |
13,282 |
|
February |
5,787 |
|
March |
9,709 |
|
April |
25,793 |
|
May |
20,831 |
|
June |
13,378 |
|
Total |
88,780 |
What was the cost to the State of the visit of US President George W. Bush for the EU-US summit? Was the figure almost €500,000?
The EU-US summit on 25 and 26 June necessitated the US President visiting Ireland. The total cost to the Defence Forces in this regard was €448,000.