Priority Questions
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the way Ireland's defence expenditure as a share of GDP compares with those EU nations who are not members of NATO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13268/13]
View answerI am taking these questions on behalf of the Minister for Defence who is out of the country. Each country pursues a defence policy that reflects its particular requirements and there can be significant differences in the proportion of funding that differing states allocate to defence. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, is committed to ensuring that the Defence Forces can continue to meet this State's defence policy requirements. The latest comparable figures obtained from the European Defence Agency show that Ireland's 2010 defence expenditure, including Army pensions, at 0.59% of GDP was the lowest of the six non-NATO EU member states. With regard to the other non-NATO EU members, the figures are as follows: Malta, 0.71%; Austria, 0.86%; Sweden, 1.23%; Finland, 1.50%; and Cyprus, 2.06%.
The current economic conditions have necessitated reductions in public sector expenditure in Ireland, including defence expenditure. Having regard to these resource constraints, the Minister has initiated a broad range of measures aimed at maintaining the operational capacity of the Defence Forces. Arising from the comprehensive review of expenditure, the Minister secured the agreement of Government to stabilise the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, at 9,500 personnel. Within this strength ceiling, a major re-organisation of the Defence Forces was initiated. This has prioritised operational capability and re-deployed PDF personnel from administrative and support tasks to operational units. A major re-organisation of the Reserve Defence Force is also currently underway. In addition, equipment procurement continues to prioritise Defence Forces operational requirements. Together, these measures are ensuring that the Defence Forces remain fit for purpose. The Chief-of-Staff has confirmed that the Defence Forces can continue to meet all operational requirements at home and overseas.
I welcome the Minister of State. I think this is the second year in succession that he has been here for St. Patrick's week. I do not know whether he is averse to travel or keeps drawing the short straw.
His answer indicates clearly that Ireland's expenditure on defence has been very low as a proportion of GDP compared to other non-NATO members. I would like to explore by way of a supplementary question the impact of the Croke Park agreement on defence expenditure. One of the significant aspects of this is the reduction in pay and allowances for members of the Defence Forces. We explored this at the last Question Time with the Minister for Defence. I put it to him that it was important for the Minister to become an advocate for members of the Defence Forces who had already participated in reviews and reform long before many other areas of the public service did. We talked about allowances and the Minister accepted that they were an integral part of the pay of defence force members. Yet we saw a significant cut that impacts adversely on the lower ranks of the Defence Forces. I think the figures used are 14% for privates and 6% for generals.
It appears the Minister abandoned the commitment he made here, or I thought he made, to become an advocate for members of the Defence Forces and to defend their pay and conditions. Will the Minister of State comment on that and tell us how this will impact on expenditure as part of GDP?
I thank the Deputy for his welcome. With respect, the question he asked concerned the way Ireland's defence expenditure as a share of GDP compares with those of other EU nations which are not members of NATO. The briefing I have refers to the question put down for answer as a priority question and does not mention the other issues raised by the Deputy. Notwithstanding the comments the Deputy made about Ireland's spending being lower than that of others, if one compares the non-NATO countries about which he asked with the Defence Forces' complement, Ireland is doing quite well in that we have about 9,950 full-time Army personnel and spend about €901 million on our armed services. If one compares this with other countries, one can see that Malta has 2,000 personnel. While its defence expenditure takes up a higher proportion of GDP, it spends much less than us at €44 million. Austria, which has a complement of 28,000 full-time army personnel, spends €2.4 billion. Sweden has a very large army of 259,000 full-time personnel and spends €4.2 billion. Its defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP is 1.23%. Finland has 35,328 full-time personnel and spends €2.7 billion. Cyprus has 12,000 personnel and spends €361 million. Notwithstanding the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves and the cuts that have taken place as a result of the comprehensive review of expenditure across all Departments, I reiterate that the Chief-of-Staff has confirmed that the Defence Forces can continue to meet all their operational requirements at home and overseas.
I am anxious to discover how these income reductions will impact on the percentage of GDP that is expended. The Minister conceded here last month that quite a number of Defence Forces members are in receipt of income support through the family income supplement. I doubt this is true of defence force members in other EU member states. On top of that, if Defence Forces personnel are to experience as a result of Croke Park II further cuts of 14% for those at the lowest level of pay, surely that will have a devastating impact on them and their families.
I repeat that this was not in the question put down for priority answer. Having raised it, I will bring the points raised by the Deputy to the attention of the Minister and Department for direct reply.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his views on the reports from human rights organisations regarding executions and serious human rights abuses by the Malian military in the context of the impending deployment of members of the Irish Defence Forces to assist that same army. [13454/13]
View answerIreland and our EU partners are gravely concerned about reports of human rights violations by the Malian authorities. Such allegations must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible should be held accountable. Respect for human rights is at the core of all of Ireland's engagement in overseas missions. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2071 (2012) calls on the EU to provide assistance, expertise, training and capacity-building support to the armed and security forces of Mali in order to restore the authority of the State of Mali over its entire national territory.
As a result, the Government decided on 26 February to deploy eight members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the EU training mission in Mali, as part of a joint infantry training team with the United Kingdom armed forces, to provide military training and advice for the Malian armed forces. The mandate of EUTM Mali, in which Ireland will participate, includes a strong focus on training the Malian armed forces in the areas of human rights and international humanitarian law.
Addressing concerns about the human rights situation in Mali is one of the European Union’s highest priorities. At the Dublin meeting of Development Ministers on 12 February the European Union announced that it would be providing funding for the deployment of human rights monitors throughout Mali. The monitors will be from the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and civil society. The situation in Mali is being discussed at the current session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Ireland will be playing an active role in these deliberations in order to highlight our continuing human rights concerns and ensure these are addressed.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
We are consistent in our view that the crisis will not be resolved through military action alone. In this context, we are pressing hard for progress on the political track. The Government has welcomed the progress made in that area in recent weeks with the adoption by the Malian Government of a political transition road map and the establishment of a national dialogue and reconciliation commission. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, calls for the full implementation of the road map culminating in free and fair elections scheduled for July.
It is extraordinary that Ireland, a supposedly neutral state, would commit eight members of the Defence Forces to work in an EU-NATO operation. There have been disclosures of human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch recently reported various incidents involving the Malian army during this period, including the summary execution of 13 civilians and the disappearance of others, as well as the torture of civilians. The UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng, expressed serious concerns about human rights abuses involving the Malian army. Ireland has a proud history of participating in UN blue helmet peacekeeping operations. I acknowledge the Minister is not present because he has been in the Lebanon paying tribute to Defence Force members, of whom we are very proud. However, the operation in Mali is not a blue helmet operation. Our neutrality is very precious. It gives us the capacity to play a role in conflict resolution in parts of the world such as the Middle East, in particular. If the Defence Forces are increasingly working with NATO under whatever guise, this undermines our neutrality.
I repeat what I said in my response: "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2071 (2012) calls on the European Union to provide assistance, expertise, training and capacity building support for the armed and security forces of Mali in order to restore the authority of the state of Mali over its entire national territory." Ireland is participating on the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution. The reason for our presence in Mali is to support the United Nations. The Deputy is correct that violations of human rights have been clearly identified. The Irish troops are training Malian army personnel in dealing with issues related to human rights violations. The United Nations is extremely concerned about any violation of human rights and there is no doubt the Malian army has violated human rights. The protection of human rights is a priority for Ireland, the European Union and the United Nations. There are also serious abuses of human rights by others in Mali on the other side of the conflict. Our job is to ensure such abuses end.
I refer to the UN Security Council resolution on Libya which did not stipulate that France and Britain engage in regime change and removal, but which is what they did. It has resulted in a crisis in Syria because Russia and China will not support a Security Council resolution on Syria. I refer to long-standing UN resolutions on Israel and the West Bank settlements, yet we are not sending Defence Forces members to help the people of Palestine. These activities are optional and the Government has choices. We need a debate on this operation in Mali. As only eight members of the Defence Forces are going to Mali, the operation does not require the approval of the House which is necessary when more than 12 members of the Defence Forces are involved. I appeal to the Minister of State and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter to agree to a debate in the House on the impact on our neutrality of this involvement in Mali. I agree that there are human rights abuses on both sides of the conflicti. I also agree that the international community has a role to play in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and protecting people on both sides. However, we are taking sides and not being neutral in this issue. This is not in keeping with Ireland's international reputation. We need a debate to discuss the issue rather than have this measure rushed through in a couple of minutes today.
The time allotted for the Deputy's Priority Question is ordered by the rules of the House. I do not have a problem with allocating more time if the House so decides.
Any issue relating to Irish troops can be discussed, either by means of a Priority Question in the House, an Oireachtas committee or in the annual report of the Department of Defence. A resolution of the House is not required if the number of troops being sent on an operation is fewer than 12. However, this does not prevent the House from discussing the issue, as is the case today.
I reject the Deputy's argument that this country is not being true to its policy on neutrality. Irish troops are actively supporting the United Nations in this operation in order to ensure human rights violations will be dealt with very seriously. They are working to support the United Nations. I disagree with the Deputy on the situation in Libya. Whatever happened there, one gentleman - Colonel Gaddafi - is no longer in charge. I think he gave certain Semtex explosives to people on this island who put many thousands in early graves. I objected to them and still do. I am glad that he is gone, but I do not know the Deputy's views in that regard.
I am glad Colonel Gaddafi is gone, but that country has been destroyed because of the abuse by NATO powers of a UN Security Council resolution. Every objective observer in the world agrees with that assessment. Libya has been destroyed by that approach. There is no intervention in Syria because of the ridiculous behaviour of international powers.
We have to move on. As Deputy Finian McGrath is not in the House for Question No. 3, we will deal with Question No. 4.
4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the restructuring of the Defence Forces; the savings that have resulted from the disestablishment of the Western Brigade; the feedback, if any, that he has received from members of the Defence Forces with regard to this restructuring; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13493/13]
View answerArising from the comprehensive review of expenditure in 2011, the Government decided to stabilise the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel. Following that decision, it was decided that it was not viable to retain a three brigade structure within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel. Accordingly, a major reorganisation, encompassing a reduction in the number of Army brigades from three to two, was undertaken. The major reorganisation to give effect to this decision is ongoing and largely complete.
One consequence of the reorganisation was the disestablishment of the 4th Western Brigade and its associated units. At the same time, other units in the remaining brigades were amalgamated. It is difficult at this stage to estimate the savings made through the disestablishment of the Western Brigade as this is just one element of the reorganisation. Monetary savings have been delivered through the reduction in personnel strength. The reorganisation has improved the deployment options and sustainability of the Defence Forces, while maintaining an all-arms versatile force both at home and overseas.
It is regrettable that this issue is raised month after month. It reflects the extent to which the unilateral decision by the Minister in announcing the disestablishment of the 3rd Western Brigade came as a shock to members of the Defence Forces who are looking to the Green Paper initiative to form the basis for the reforms. I am a little disappointed that the notes supplied to the Minister of State do not give an indication of the savings made as a result of the initiative. PDFORRA has argued strongly that a strength of 9,500 personnel could have continued to be maintained effectively within a three brigade arrangement.
Will the Minister of State put it to the Minister for Defence that when the Green Paper process is under way, a return to a three brigade arrangement might be considered?
I must also put on record the concerns expressed to me by serving members of the Defence Forces who are being forcibly relocated from one part of the country to another. If the anecdotal information relayed to me is correct, then it appears that personnel are crisscrossing the country. This must give rise to increased costs and make the operational aspects of the work much more difficult. Is the Minister of State in a position to indicate whether costs have arisen in the context of allowances paid for relocation? Will he also indicate whether transport and travel costs have increased to a significant degree?
A three brigade structure was retained from the 1990s onward, when there were 11,500 full-time Defence Force personnel. This structure was also retained on foot of the White Paper on Defence published in 2000, which reduced the strength of the Permanent Defence Force to 10,500. It is no longer viable to retain the structure.
Some 1,772 Army personnel - 24% of its total strength - have been redeployed within the newly structured brigades and via the Defence Forces training centre. Any member of the Permanent Defence Force whose appointment was directly affected by the reorganisation was assessed for a new appointment during the reassignment phase. This was done to minimise the impact of the reorganisation on individuals. The reassignment process allowed for personnel due to be reassigned to indicate their choice of new appointment. In seeking to match personnel to be reassigned with appointments to be filled, the reassignment board based its decisions on a range of criteria. These included whether the person concerned held the substantive rank of the appointment, the person's length of service and his or her length of service in the rank appropriate to the appointment to be filled. Consideration was also given to the personal requirements of personnel. Every effort was made to redeploy personnel to locations close to their homes and to avoid disruption. It was not possible, however, to facilitate all personnel. Ultimately, the process resulted in some personnel displacement.
Does the Minister agree that if one considers the recent history of the Defence Forces, it is obvious that massive reform and reorganisation were willingly agreed with personnel in the late 1990s and early 2000s? Does he also agree that when other areas of the public service were expanding massively, in a manner that was counter-cyclical, the Defence Forces were becoming more slimmed-down and effective? In the context of the current crisis, rather than being recognised for what they have done and what they have contributed, the Defence Forces are now suffering disproportionately. This is because they are being asked to absorb the same or greater cuts than other areas of the public services which did not rationalise and modernise during the 1990s and 2000s.
The indicator for all of this is the situation in which we find ourselves nationally as a result of the mismanagement of the State's finances by the Government of which the Deputy's party was a part. The figures I supplied earlier relate to 2010, when Fianna Fáil was in power. At that time, the then Government reduced the proportion of GDP spent in this area. There are no figures available for the intervening years. The number of civil servants in the Department of Defence has decreased by 15%, which exceeds the 11% reduction in the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel during the same period. While we acknowledge that the situation is difficult, that barracks have closed and that redeployment has taken place, the Chief of Staff has made it clear that he has the resources necessary to allow him to do his job.
5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Defence if he will order the reopening of the military inquiry covering the crash of an Air Corps Pilatus PC-9 aircraft in County Galway on 12 October 2009 resulting in two fatalities and the concerns raised by the parents of one of the Air Corps personnel killed (details supplied) regarding the conduct of the investigation. [13525/13]
View answerI wish first to extend my sympathies to the families of the deceased. There have been three separate reports into this tragic accident. The air accident investigation unit of the Department of Transport conducted an inquiry and published its report on 24 January 2012. It found that the probable cause of the accident was spatial disorientation of the instructor-pilot in conditions of poor visibility, resulting in a controlled flight into terrain. The subsequent inquest into the deaths of the two crew members recorded an open verdict in respect of the instructor-pilot who was piloting the aircraft at the moment of impact and a verdict of accidental death for the cadet.
The court of inquiry’s findings are in complete agreement with those reached in the earlier investigations, namely, that the accident was caused by spatial disorientation of the instructor, who was piloting the aircraft in conditions of poor visibility. All of the reports agree that the cadet bore no responsibility of any kind for the accident. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, is willing to address any questions about the court of inquiry and has asked the Attorney General for advice in this regard. However, he is satisfied that the court of inquiry has done its work in a thorough way and that its members acted professionally, impartially and with integrity.
On 12 October 2009, as the result of a crash on an Air Corps training flight, Cadet David Jevens tragically died, as did Captain Derek Furniss. In the question I tabled I asked that the court of inquiry's investigation be reopened. The Minister of State indicated that the Attorney General has been asked to provide advice, and I welcome that in so far as it goes. However, much more needs to be done.
The father of the late Cadet Jevens's is observing in the Visitors' Gallery. The family of the late Cadet Jevens, in particular, are deeply unhappy with the conduct of the court of inquiry for a number of specific reasons. The first of these is that Defence Force regulation A5(2) directs that a certified copy of the proceedings in the Coroner's Court be forwarded to the court of inquiry. This was not done. Evidence was given at the Coroner's Court and the cross-examination of witnesses in that court yielded vital evidence about the tragedy. Important parts of that evidence were contracted during the proceedings of the court of inquiry, but no attempt was made to reconcile the differences that came to light or to cross-examine witnesses. The second reason is that no safety audit was carried out in the flight training school between 2004 and early 2009. There was criticism of this fact in the air accident investigation unit's report. However, the then flight safety officer was never called before the court of inquiry. The third reason is that the commanding officer of the flight training school was on other duties for more than half of the time leading up to and during 2009. He was never called upon to give evidence before the court of inquiry.
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
The final reason is the fact that witnesses were given copies of the questions to be asked a long time before the court of inquiry sat. They presented written statements, in respect of which they were not cross-examined, and which in some cases differed substantially from the evidence of the air accident investigation unit and of the coroner. No attempt was made to reconcile this. I put it to the Minister of State that there is a compelling argument to reopen the court of inquiry and I ask that this be done.
I again offer my deepest sympathies to the families of Cadet Jevens and Captain Furniss in respect of this awful tragedy. I reiterate that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, has arranged for all of the relevant issues that were raised to be forwarded to the Attorney General for advice. The Minister is available to meet the families of the deceased at any time.
In the context of the findings of the air accident investigation unit, all of the seven safety recommendations have been implemented and acted upon. However, due the nature of some of those recommendations, work remains ongoing in two specific areas: the recommendation concerning external input into the Air Corps safety management system, SMS, and that concerning the implementation of flight data monitoring. The position in respect of the former is that the Air Corps has accepted a suggestion with regard to the inclusion of external inputs in the SMS auditing process and is sourcing a suitable expert in this regard. The position on flight data monitoring is that a study has been completed and steps have been taken to commence the implementation of recommendations to equip all aircraft in the fleet with flight data monitors.
I take it the Attorney General would be prepared to accept a submission from the family of Cadet Jevens. I shall so advise them; that would be normal. I have to ask that, in the reopening of this court of inquiry, the family of Cadet Jevens be represented, and the family of Captain Furniss should they wish. It is vital that the families would have the opportunity of being represented to represent the name and vindicate the rights of their loved ones who tragically died.
I accept the points Deputy Higgins has made and I will ensure they are brought to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Shatter. All of the issues raised up to now, and I am not familiar with all of them, have been addressed in the context of being sent for legal advice but if there are any other submissions the Deputy or the families wish to make, I have no doubt that on receipt of them the Minister, Deputy Shatter, will pass them on.
