Vol. 609 No. 2
6 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence when the task force on emergency planning which he chairs last met; if the task force is involved in the response plans to a potential avian flu pandemic; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32040/05]
60 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Defence when the task force on emergency planning last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31907/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 60 together.
The Government task force on emergency planning last met on Tuesday, 20 September 2005. The next meeting of the task force is scheduled to take place on 9 November. The task force has met on 41 occasions to date.
Arrangements to deal with any possible flu pandemic fall into two main categories. My colleague the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has lead responsibility for the situation where the avian influenza virus mutates in such a way that it becomes easily transferable from human to human, and is addressing the various issues that may arise. A detailed plan for response to an influenza pandemic was prepared in 2004. This plan is currently being updated to reflect the most up to date advice of the influenza pandemic expert group and the World Health Organisation. Her Department has established an interdepartmental standing committee on public health emergency planning, which is due to meet later this month.
My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, has lead responsibility for dealing with the spread of the existing avian flu virus and she continues to reassess the level of risk and to update the contingency arrangements which are in place. Her Department will continue to keep the level of risk under assessment, taking account of the most up to date advice. The Government task force on emergency planning, which I chair, is regularly briefed and kept up to date on these matters.
The office of emergency planning within my Department supports the work of the task force and continues to work with Departments and other public authorities to ensure the best possible use of resources and compatibility between different emergency planning requirements. A key area of activity of the task force is oversight of emergency planning to refine and develop the arrangements that exist, to continuously improve them through regular review and revision, and to generally provide the basis for an increased confidence in the emergency planning process. An interdepartmental working group on emergency planning also exists.
The lead responsibility for specific emergency planning functions remains with the relevant Departments, as do the budgetary and resource management requirements. Emergency plans are co-ordinated by the various lead Departments at a national level and through the local authorities, including the fire service and the Health Service Executive. The Departments and key public authorities involved have particular responsibilities under a number of strategic areas of Government emergency planning and regularly report on developments and progress at meetings of the task force. The objective of the Government is to ensure all State bodies can react quickly and efficiently to any large-scale emergency. Each of the Departments represented at the task force has assured the office of emergency planning that it is addressing its emergency planning responsibilities and that there are plans and response arrangements in place to address large-scale emergencies in Ireland.
As chairman of the task force, my approach continues to be that such responses must be characterised by effective management of all aspects of emergency planning and by a high level of public confidence in all the response arrangements. Review and refinement arrangements will ensure co-ordination of all those responding so that, should we be unfortunate enough to experience a large-scale emergency, we will be in a position to mount a credible response. I will continue to report regularly, on a confidential basis, to Government on emergency planning and it is my intention to bring the next confidential annual report to Government on emergency planning later this month. I am pleased to report to the House that there continues to be excellent co-operation between my Department and all other Departments and public authorities in these vital areas.
Does the Minister share my concern that we do not appear to have a written plan? Even though we are informed that the plans are being revised, we have been briefed on this side of the House by the Department of Health and Children, the HSE and others to that effect. Are there sufficient anti-virals for members of the Defence Forces, who will be on the frontline? What powers will members of the defence forces have in the event of the worst case scenario, a flu pandemic when the disease becomes transmissible from human to human? Will they have real powers to stop crowds from gathering and making the pandemic worse and does he foresee any constitutional difficulties in that? I understand the Health Act 1947 gives the Defence Forces certain powers.
I assure the Deputy there is a specific public health emergency plan, which has been discussed at the emergency planning task force. It was produced in September 2004 and some changes were recommended last July following further advice and research conducted by the World Health Organisation. Several people were assigned to incorporating those changes in the plan and I expect them to be completed by the end of the month.
We have sufficient anti-virals for the Defence Forces. We will perform better on this issue than our nearest neighbours, the UK. The UK has targeted anti-virals for approximately 25% of the population, as we have. They will not have the stocks fully in place until the end of next year but we should have them by the spring and will have some by the end of the year, some of which will be reserved for front-line staff such as the Defence Forces.
I am assured the Defence Forces will have sufficient powers in the event of an emergency. The Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and emergency services will have comprehensive powers in that event. This was demonstrated during the recent foot and mouth crisis. The emergency planning task force is meeting next Wednesday and will discuss whether there is a need for legislative changes or to reinterpret any legislation in this area. After that meeting I will write to the Deputy on that matter.
7 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence if he has received any reports from the group examining the cost and any other implications of Ireland’s participation in the EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31947/05]
23 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence if the Government will be bringing forward proposals to allow for Defence Forces participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31903/05]
30 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Defence if the Defence Forces will be enabled to engage in joint training initiatives with other EU member state forces in preparation for EU battle group participation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31904/05]
56 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence when he expects to bring proposals to Cabinet regarding Ireland’s participation in EU rapid reaction forces; the legislative changes that he has recommended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32001/05]
65 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the state of discussions with his EU colleagues in regard to the formation of a European rapid response or battle group force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31957/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 23, 30, 56 and 65 together.
The rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, originated at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999. Ireland supports the development of the EU's rapid response capability in support of UN authorised missions and is positively disposed towards participation in the rapid response elements in this regard. However, it is important that the full implications of our participation are assessed and, to this end, I established an interdepartmental group which includes representatives of my Department, the Defence Forces, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office. This group met in December 2004 and established three subgroups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising. The subgroups met on a number of occasions over the summer to progress issues in relation to battle groups.
I recently received the advice from the Attorney General which sets out the legal background in relation to participation in battle groups. I have asked the interdepartmental group to finalise its considerations, which it could not do until it received the Attorney General's advice, to review all the policy and operational issues in the context of that advice and submit its report to me for my early consideration. I expect to receive the report in the next few weeks. Once I have had an opportunity to consider the report, I propose to bring the matter to Government for consideration on the way forward. In the absence of the Government having had the opportunity to consider the issue, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the relevant actions which may be taken to facilitate participation in battle groups.
Can the Minister share with the House the Attorney General's advice as to the legal implications? I believe it simply requires the amendment of the Defence Act 1954 and a constitutional amendment is not necessary.
Does he believe he will get the support of his Cabinet colleagues for funding to join these battle groups? He said in an earlier reply that it would not be necessary to increase funding. Can he give an indication of how he sees us joining? I urge the Minister and the Government to adopt a positive approach to these battle groups. The term "battle group" is unfortunate, and I often call them peace missions or peace assistance groups rather than battle groups. The Minister is a strong defender of the triple lock mechanism, although I believe that it does the nation no favours and that it is morally wrong that the country does not make its own decision on foreign policy and is held to ransom by other countries instead. Does the Minister agree that adoption of an approach seeking UN approval rather than a mandate would provide more flexibility and autonomy?
I will explain the current position, although I expected the process to be further advanced at this stage. The interdepartmental group did not wish to finalise its report, although it had much work done, until it received formal written legal advice from the Attorney General. It was received a fortnight ago, although I expected to receive it sooner. Unfortunately, a number of aspects of the advice had to be returned to the Office of the Attorney General for further consideration as some issues were unclear. We expect clarification next week and the interdepartmental group can then send its report to my Department. I will then go to either the Cabinet or the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs with certain proposals to ascertain views before going to Cabinet.
Deputy Timmins mentioned the legal advice which came from the Office of the Attorney General. Such legal advice is privileged, as the Deputy is aware. I do not normally mind discussing legal advice in such cases and giving some indication of the Attorney General's advice. However, as some points have yet to be clarified, I must be careful with the matter. It is clear from the advice that a constitutional change will not be required according to the Attorney General. A number of technical matters must be ironed out.
I cannot anticipate how my Cabinet colleagues would react to anything which I say and they constantly surprise me. Deputy Gormley may argue that this issue will in some way contravene our neutrality. I believe it does not and as far as I can ascertain, it is the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet that it does not. It is an extension of our peacekeeping role. Any battle group deployed by Ireland will be a joint battle group and be subject to triple lock requirements, including a UN mandate. With regard to Deputy Timmins's comments on distancing the country from the UN mandate requirement and just seeking UN approval, it is interesting to note that Norway did not require a UN mandate until a recent change of government. That new government has changed procedure and the country now requires a UN mandate to participate in battle groups.
Later this month I will probably go to the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs, if not the Cabinet, with the report of the interdepartmental group and the advice of the Attorney General on outstanding issues.
Is the Minister aware that Simon Devereaux, the deputy secretary of the Defence Forces' staff representative association, PDFORRA, expressed concern last month at the group's annual conference about the level of funding available to the Defence Forces for the battle groups? He argued that Ireland would carry out the process cheaply. Does the Minister agree with the assessment of Mr. Devereaux and does the Minister concur that the battle groups will require significant extra levels of funding if we are to have the equipment, high readiness and interoperability that is needed?
Could the Minister clarify his opinion on the triple lock mechanism? He has stated in the past that he is committed to this mechanism, as am I and the Green Party as a whole. Other parties in Opposition also concur. Will there be no change in the triple lock mechanism if we participate in battle groups? When can we expect the legislative change spoken about by the Minister?
That will depend on what the Government decides. I was at the PDFORRA conference referred to by Deputy Gormley and I listened to some of the speeches with great interest. I do not agree with every statement which every official from PDFORRA makes. I disagree with the statement referred to by Deputy Gormley.
The Government is engaged in the modernisation of equipment which forms part of a ten-year plan running to 2010. We have used savings from downsizing the Army to 10,500 and surplus property has been sold off. This money has gone towards improvement of infrastructure such as barracks and the purchase of modern equipment. I do not understand why people assume that if the country joins battle groups, it will have to invest large amounts of capital into equipment. The only operations in which battle groups will be engaged are Petersberg Tasks. We already engage in these tasks up to and including chapter 7 missions, which could involve separating two standing armies, as would have been the situation in the Balkans, for example.
Battle groups are doing nothing new in participating in the Petersberg Tasks, which range from humanitarian missions to chapter 7 missions. There is a requirements catalogue for battle groups. If, for example, there is a multinational battle group — the only type we would be involved in — one of those countries might be able to supply a particular type of required equipment. This may not even be the framework nation or the nation contributing most troops. However, if the piece of equipment is not available to any of the three countries forming a multinational battle group, it can be accessed from any of the other countries committed to battle groups. Both men and niche capabilities are committed. As I understand it, there is no obligation to spend extra money on equipment even if we join battle groups.
I made it clear in Brussels in May that if Ireland involved itself in battle groups, it would do so on the basis that the country brings the standard of equipment and force protection of our troops to the requisite standard to perform Petersberg Tasks up to and including chapter 7, of which the Liberia mission is an example.
I wish to clarify the triple lock mechanism. This mechanism means that Irish troops under arms will not be deployed abroad on a peacekeeping mission unless there is a mandate of the United Nations, a decision of the Government and the decision of the Dáil. I intend to maintain this position.
The Minister has indicated that there will not be increased standing in terms of battle groups. Is he aware of the commitment to develop the necessary military capabilities? He mentioned earlier the requirements catalogue. The definition of battle groups is a buoyant arms battalion-sized force. In all cases interoperability and military effectiveness will be the key criteria. Does the Minister understand the concept of interoperability? Does he understand that we will be obliged to upgrade our arms and matériel to ensure its interoperability with those of other participating countries? Otherwise, we would encounter the situation suggested by the Minister, whereby we would send troops on battle group missions without training and equipment, which would be loaned by some other country. That would be ridiculous.
The Minister has noted that we would be involved in Petersberg Tasks. Will the Minister define the aspect of the Petersberg Tasks which mentions peacemaking and what is involved? What equipment is required to carry out those duties in battle groups?
A battle group is defined as the minimum military effective, credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of stand-alone operations or for the initial phase of larger operations. As Deputy Timmins has rightly noted, the name is a misnomer and they should be called peace brigades. The intention of forming battle groups is that in some cases, because it would take several months to deploy a traditional type of peacekeeping force——
They will be involved in battles.
——thousands of people could be killed in the meantime. Members should consider what happened in the Balkans and in Rwanda. In a similar situation, one needs, as Deputy Gormley is aware, to be able to deploy a temporary force quickly to prevent something catastrophic from happening.
We supported it on this side of the House.
Yes. Almost invariably, it will be followed by the bigger traditional type of peacekeeping force. As I stated previously with respect to equipment, I have made it clear to my fellow Ministers for Defence of those countries which will participate in battle groups that if Ireland is to participate in battle groups, they will be obliged to take us as they find us. I have made the point that we have invested quite a substantial amount of money in modernising our equipment.
Are they happy with that position?
Yes they are, because apparently unlike some Members, they realise that the intention of battle groups is not to go to war. Battle groups will participate in Petersberg Tasks, which include, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh stated, missions up to and including chapter 7, or peacemaking, missions. That has been decided. Liberia is a chapter 7 mission. When we deployed troops to Liberia, several Members from all sides of the House rightly expressed concern and asked questions as to whether the troops had proper equipment and force protection. In practice it has been demonstrated that they have and that the Army is as well equipped and armed as any other army participating in such missions. Hence, I cannot envisage how we might be required to pay extra money or what could cost us extra money. We will be taken as we are found and we are among the best.
Will the Minister tell us if Irish military spending is the lowest in the European Union? That is related to this issue. Does this not severely compromise the Government's plans for Irish participation in EU battle groups? The Minister must also consider the effect on the individual members of the Defence Forces, given the sharp drop in military spending.
I meet individual members of the Defence Forces as I go around the country and morale is extremely high. This is partially due to the unprecedented amount of money invested in the Defence Forces in recent years.
And because Deputy O'Dea is the Minister for Defence.
Yes. Between 1985——
There has been a reduction from 1.3% to 0.7%.
That does not mean — if Deputy Sherlock can grasp this — that less money is being spent on the Defence Forces, it simply means that GDP has grown enormously. The Government has been spending a great deal of money on other Departments, such as the Departments of Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs, on which the Labour Party constantly calls on us to spend more. I did not know that it was Labour Party policy to——
There has been a reduction from 1.3% to 0.7%.
——increase expenditure on defence. In any case, the Government is increasing expenditure on defence. In 1985 and 1995, during much of which time the Deputy's party was in office, official figures show that expenditure on defence increased by 2% per annum. From 1995 to 2005, it increased by 7% per annum. Since the Government came into office, the increase in the consumer price index has been 43% and expenditure on defence has increased by 68%. Hence, even though GNP is growing enormously, we are investing quite heavily and way above the rate of inflation.
This was achieved through the sale of property.
Surplus property, which there was no point in retaining, was sold. Was it not better to use the funds properly? I am committed to continuing the reinvestment programme which will be in place until 2010. I wish to cite one international statistic. Defence expenditure by all governments in Europe has fallen quite substantially since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It has fallen substantially as a proportion of GNP or GDP in individual countries, and this country is no exception. The only way in which this country differs is that we are beating the rate of inflation and are increasing expenditure in real terms, and we will continue to so do.
8 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the extent and nature of the involvement of the Defence Forces in the proposed annual military parade in O’Connell Street, Dublin, to commemorate the 1916 Easter Rising; the estimated cost of Defence Forces involvement; the numbers required; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32002/05]
I would first like to outline my satisfaction and that of the Defence Forces for this commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising and the reintroduction of the traditional Easter military parade. The Cabinet has decided that the theme of the parade will be a celebration of Óglaigh na hÉireann, successors to the Volunteers serving a democratic State engaged, through the United Nations, in the search for global peace.
Following discussions at the Cabinet last July, I brought the proposal to the attention of the chief of staff and he has engaged in some preliminary planning in this regard. Around the same time, there were preliminary discussions at senior level between officials in my Department and the Department of the Taoiseach.
As the Deputy will recall, the Defence Forces staged a highly successful parade through Dublin city in 2001 to mark the return of the last Irish contingent to serve in Lebanon and the experiences from this parade will serve as a basis for the organisation of the Easter parade. The involvement of organisations representing former members of the Defence Forces is also under consideration.
As the Deputy will also appreciate, it is not possible at this early stage to go into detail on the proposed composition, nature, cost etc. of the parade since the Defence Forces are still at a very early stage in this regard. However, based on the experience of organising previous events such as the parade I mentioned, I am informed that an Easter parade is unlikely to entail significant additional expenditure.
Does the Minister think it appropriate that such a major announcement would be made at such a partisan party political event as the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis? Why was there no consultation with the Opposition about the best way to commemorate the 1916 Rising? Why was this decision taken unilaterally? Will the first meeting of the First Dáil in 1919 be commemorated?
I must inquire about the second part of the Deputy's question as I do not have information in that regard. As for the first part of his question, the Deputy asked whether it was right to announce this measure at a partisan political event such as the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. The Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, like the Labour Party Conference or the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis will always be partisan, and it was a good platform for the announcement.
This is a national event.
Yes, it is a national event. The point is that in order to organise such a commemoration, the Government of the day must take the initiative. It did so——
Without consultation.
——and assumed that it would be widely welcomed by the Opposition, as it has been.
It is bread and circuses. The Taoiseach is like a Roman emperor.
The Government assumed that this extremely welcome initiative would be embraced enthusiastically by the Opposition and apart from nitpicking objections to the announcement's timing and method, by and large it has been welcomed. It will be a great event and, as I told Deputy Timmins previously, it will involve members of the Irish United Nations Veterans Association and the Organisation of National Ex-Service Men and Women, in addition to members of the Permanent Defence Force. Perhaps we will see Deputy Timmins march and we would be delighted to have him.
Once it does not clash with the parade to be held in Limerick on the same day.
I welcome the fact the Government has decided to hold the commemoration of the 1916 Rising once again. Has any consideration been given to including more than just the Defence Forces? Is there a community or public aspect to it other than viewing? Has consideration been given to events other than the military parade that the community could take part in, including educational dramas, so that we can make it a proper celebration that all can take part in? Has consideration been given to re-establishing the commemoration committee? It is not in the Minister's exact remit but it was successful for the 1798 and Famine events. Perhaps this could be a role the Government could consider in respect of commemorating 1916 over the next few years.
I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for his unqualified support for this. He is not supporting it and then pretending to be upset about how and when it was announced, which I appreciate. We are in the very early stages of preparation. There is an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives of the Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach and that I am sure will include a representative from the military. The suggestions that have been made are useful and I will ensure they are given due consideration at the interdepartmental committee.
Will there be any consultation with the Opposition?
I would welcome constructive suggestions.
9 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Defence the pay to non-pay ratio in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32018/05]
The pay to non-pay ratio for Defence Forces expenditure in 2004 was 71:29. The PricewaterhouseCoopers review of the Defence Forces recommended that, in the case of a light infantry based military structure, the balance between pay and non-pay should be 70:30. In 1995, pay accounted for approximately 80% of military expenditure, leaving only 20% for all non-pay spending. Under the White Paper of 2000, the pay savings arising from a reduced Permanent Defence Force strength, together with the proceeds from property sales, were fully reinvested in equipment and facilities for the Defence Forces. As a result of these measures, the pay to non-pay ratio in recent years has been in line with the recommended level of 70:30.
Is the Minister's aim to keep the pay to non-pay ratio in the area of 70:30? Does he believe that to do this, it may be necessary to sell other Department of Defence assets or change the number of personnel in the Defence Forces? Does he believe he can keep the ratio by getting funding from the Minister for Finance?
It is my intention to keep it at that ratio because it was the ratio recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers and is generally accepted as being the proper ratio for a military organisation of the type we have in this country. Regarding selling property, we obviously do not have much property left to sell. If income from that source dries up, we must ensure that the Minister for Finance meets any shortfall. Deputy Timmins mentioned further reductions in the Defence Forces, which is not on. We have agreed that the absolute limit is 10,500 people, below which level it will not go.
How do the pay scales of members of the Defence Forces compare with the pay scales of other EU member states? Are we up to scratch or falling behind?
I do not have exact information but my understanding is that, following improvements in the early 1990s, we are in line with other countries and are in a good position on the scale. I will get the information for the Deputy.
10 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Defence the changes he has made to the terms of enlistment for other ranks who joined from 1994 onwards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32020/05]
21 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the requirement that soldiers in their 30s who wish to renew Army contracts must first prove their level of fitness before being offered a renewal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31997/05]
37 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence if he will account for his decision to relax regulations within the Defence Forces that stipulated that any member failing to win promotion in their first 12 years of service would not be offered a new contract; the reason for this change in regulations; if the new regulations apply to all or contract soldiers only; if those whom the new regulations affect must subsequently agree to serve on overseas missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31994/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 21 and 37 together.
The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was commented upon by the Gleeson commission in its report in 1990. The age profile was also the subject of severe criticism by PricewaterhouseCoopers which had been engaged by the efficiency audit group, EAG, to conduct an in-depth study of the Defence Forces. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the EAG was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel.
In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993, following consultation with the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, to enlist personnel on a five-year contract basis with a Reserve Defence Force commitment of seven years. In 1997, agreement was reached with PDFORRA on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years with the option to be extended to a maximum of 12 years in two phases. Extensions from five to nine years and from nine to 12 years were subject to the individual soldiers meeting certain criteria, including standards of medical and physical fitness, conduct and courses attended or period of overseas service.
In 2004, PDFORRA submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994. Following detailed and prolonged discussion on this claim, a set of criteria has been agreed. The criteria meet PDFORRA's desire to provide longer careers in the Permanent Defence Force while continuing to address the Government's previously stated objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern defence force. The criteria require that any person re-engaging must be able to continue to operate at his or her current level both at home and overseas on an ongoing basis. Re-engagements will be subject to the individual soldiers meeting specified criteria in respect of physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings. PDFORRA is in the process of balloting its members on the criteria that have been agreed.
I may have missed some of the Minister's response. If new recruits join and meet various criteria, can they stay for 20 years?
They can stay for 21 years.
My inclination is to agree with this as, while there are pros and cons, I know the EAG mentioned after its study of the Defence Forces that the age profile was very high. I agree with the Minister's approach in extending this to 21 years because much expertise has been built up. My only concern relates to the likely impact on recruitment and a turnover of personnel that heretofore took place but now might not. Has this issue been examined?
It will apply to people who came into the new system on and from 1 January 1994. Anyone who is approaching the end of his or her 12 year period will, if he or she satisfies the criteria, be able to continue in service for up to nine years. We have examined the issue of recruitment raised by the Deputy. We must keep a close eye on the age profile for obvious reasons. The current average age of privates serving in the Permanent Defence Force is 31.3 years. In light of this, we must keep the situation under review. The criteria are detailed and I can send them in circular form to Opposition spokespersons if they so wish. We are satisfied that we will be able to keep a defence force that is quite fresh faced from the point of view of the age profile without losing experience and give people proper careers.
Is the Minister aware that the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces has announced that, in future, there would be no place for soldiers who are unwilling to do overseas duties? If he is, can he clarify whether he shares this view?
It has been the law since relevant legislation was introduced in the early 1960s. It is a part of one's contract that if one joins the Defence Forces, one must make oneself available for overseas duties. This was updated in 1993 to include the famous chapter 7 missions as only chapter 6 missions were possible until that time. Recruits must make themselves available. We are glad to say that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, people go as volunteers. They must not be dragooned or press-ganged to go overseas.
If that is the case and it is the law, why did the Chief of Staff state it quite recently?
I have no idea. I am not familiar with that speech by the Chief of Staff. He did not communicate those sentiments to me. Certainly, it is the law that overseas duty is part of their duty.
The Minister mentioned the obligation on all personnel to serve overseas, whether one is pre or post 1993, depending on the type of mission. Does he agree that due to the commitment we have and the fact that approximately 25% of our force is caught up between overseas rotation and preparation, it places a large commitment on the Defence Forces, particularly on technical members? Has the Minister examined the concept of the Reserve Defence Force serving overseas in some technical appointments, such as occurs in many of our European neighbours?
There is no question that it is a very large commitment. Until I came into this job I did not realise how large it was. On the surface it appears small, as 10% of the standing Army is involved, but the Deputy mentioned rotation and two groups are in training to replace one group overseas.
The idea regarding the Reserve Defence Force is good and other countries engaged in peacekeeping allow their reserves to go on overseas duties. It is under active consideration as part of the reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force. A number of issues must be worked out, such as security of employment so that people will be able to go overseas and return to a secure job. We are engaged in negotiations with employers' representatives on that. We are also examining what type of reserve personnel will be allowed to go overseas, whether we will confine it to technical trained personnel such as engineers, doctors, cooks and drivers or open it up generally. Those matters are still under consideration. Discussions are ongoing between my Department and the representative association of the Reserve Defence Force. It is a good idea and I hope to be able to implement it.
How often are fitness tests carried out on members of the Defence Forces? Is the Minister happy with the levels of fitness among all members of the Defence Forces? The elite Rangers strike me as being quite a fit bunch but perhaps others do not reach the necessary standard.
I had better not get into a discussion with Deputy Gormley on what he bases that observation. Fitness tests are carried out annually and if people are not fit they are told what to do in order to get fit. They must reach the required standard within a certain period of time.
11 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence his views on the halving of the national defence budget during the past ten years; if his attention has been drawn to the fact this budget has fallen from 1.3% to 0.7% as related to gross national product in that period; his further views on whether this decrease is compromising Ireland’s defence capabilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31990/05]
27 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Defence the gross annual budget of his Department in 1995, 2000 and 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31887/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 27 together.
The gross allocation for the Defence and Army Pensions Votes was €566 million in 1995, €789 million in 2000 and €934 million in 2005. The level of expenditure on defence in any particular country is influenced by a variety of factors, including that country's political and security environment, its history, demography and economy. While defence spending in this country has fallen as a percentage of GNP in recent years, this is not due to any reduction in the level of defence expenditure, but rather because of the massive increase in GNP.
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 reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be fully reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment. More than €192 million was spent on the capital investment programme for the upgrade of barracks, accommodation and other facilities between 1997 and the end of 2004. This year's Defence Estimate includes a further €19 million for such capital works.
Substantial progress has also been made in recent years with the acquisition of modern equipment for the Army, Air Corps and the Naval Service. During the past six years, more than €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers and the Javelin missile system for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps. Last January, I signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing more than €60 million. Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers, APC, will be added to our fleet. It is expected that the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of the year. Further details of the re-equipment programme are contained in a reply to a later question on the Order Paper.
I wish to ask a brief supplementary question, and I request a brief reply from the Minister. Is it true that the budget has decreased from 1.3% to 0.7% of gross national product during that time?
Statistics can prove anything and the Minister dealt with this in his earlier comments. Is the reduction in Army personnel which occurred during the past few years a pattern and, as referred to in my question, can the increase in spending be identified during that period? I listened to this debate for the past while. On the one hand the Labour Party calls for increases in defence spending, while on the other hand the Green Party, its purported partner in Government, seeks a reduction in defence spending, and is frightened about the constitution for Europe and battle groups.
The time for this question is almost up. We want the Minister to reply if he will do so.
It proves a certain amount of incoherence.
The same as between the Government parties.
Is the Minister satisfied that the statement released to the media regarding the Southern Command and activities that occurred during a period of years is the end of the matter? Does he think it more appropriate to carry out an investigation?
A question was not asked.
The Reserve Defence headquarters will be in Dún Laoghaire.
The answer to Deputy Sherlock's question is that similar to every other EU country since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our expenditure on defence as a percentage of GDP has decreased. Nevertheless, in real terms, our expenditure on defence has increased.
To answer Deputy Andrews's question, during the past ten years we have increased expenditure in real terms by approximately 25% over the rate of inflation. I am not absolutely satisfied by the statement issued yesterday on behalf of the Southern Command. That report has not yet come to my desk. When it does I will decide what has to be done with it, and if I have any suspicion that a crime was committed I will take action and forward the report to the appropriate authorities.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
