Billy Timmins
Ceist:1 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the details of the recently signed agreement with respect to visas between Ireland and the USA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34092/08]
Priority Questions.
International Agreements.
At a meeting in Washington on 24 September, the United States Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, and I signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a new working holiday programme between our two countries. The agreement represents a significant and positive development in our migration arrangements with the United States and will help foster the growth of new and lasting contacts between young people from both countries. It represents an important investment in the long-term health of this vital bilateral relationship.
I am pleased to report that the agreement has been warmly welcomed by community, sporting and business organisations in Ireland and the US, including the GAA, the Ireland-US Council and representatives of the Coalition of Irish Immigration Centres and the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform.
The new agreement contains the following key elements: the United States Government will make available as many as 20,000 visas for Irish citizens each year, which will permit them to work and travel in the US for a period of 12 months; the Irish Government will reciprocate and allow up to 5,000 US citizens to work in Ireland for a period of 12 months; and both US and Irish citizens will be free to secure employment on arrival in each country. It will not be necessary to arrange employment prior to departure. In order to qualify for the programme, participants must hold an Irish or US passport, as the case may be, and should be in post-secondary education or have graduated within the preceding 12 months. The agreement will come into effect on 1 November 2008 and we hope to see the first visas issued shortly thereafter. Further details about the scheme and how to apply are available on the website of my Department at www.dfa.ie.
The new working holiday programme represents an important contribution towards securing greater migration opportunities between this country and the United States, an approach endorsed strongly by the Dáil in an all-party resolution passed on 6 November 2007. At the same time, the Government is also actively pursuing the two other elements of our three pronged approach to this area, namely, a solution for our undocumented citizens and new reciprocal arrangements to provide long-term visas for Irish people wishing to work in the United States and US citizens interested in working here. Finding a solution for our undocumented citizens remains a key priority. In my meetings in Washington last month with US political leaders, I stressed the importance which the Government continues to attach to this issue. I also held a meeting with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, ILIR, in New York, at which I announced the allocation of an additional $50,000 to that organisation, bringing total Government funding for the ILIR to $235,000 since 2006.
This side of the House welcomes arrangements with any country for the exchange of citizens. Can the Minister confirm whether applicants need a post-secondary qualification? I may have misinterpreted his comments, so I would appreciate clarification.
When does he anticipate the exchanges to commence and how can one apply for a visa? Will advertisements be placed in newspapers? Will the visas be valid on a 12 month basis from the date of application or will they all commence on a certain date? Will individuals be able to renew their visas or reapply after an interim period?
As I stated in my earlier reply, we expect the agreement to come into effect in November. People will be able to seek details of the programme from my Department. Initial applications may have to be sent through the US Embassy in Dublin.
The definition of "post-secondary student" encompasses all those currently enrolled in a recognised third level degree programme. Students at vocational colleges, including institutes of technology, will also be eligible to apply if they can demonstrate that their studies will ultimately lead to a degree from a full-time post-secondary academic institution. In other words, the student must be able to demonstrate that his or her diploma is intended to lead towards enrolment in a degree programme. That creates possibilities for HETAC and FETAC in terms of the national qualifications framework.
In an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Deputy Secretary of State, the latter has indicated that the US State Department will apply flexibility to the administration of the scheme. Those engaged in trade apprenticeships will have to demonstrate that their vocational studies could in time lead to the awarding of a degree in, for example, construction studies. Those who have graduated more than 12 months prior to their application will not be considered eligible.
It is important that the Minister ensures the details of this scheme are published as soon as possible. I am concerned the programme may be somewhat exclusive in that someone who wants to take a year out after completing his or her leaving certificate will not be able to apply for a visa.
That is the case.
That is regrettable because students often prefer to take a year out after secondary school to travel abroad.
If US exchange students cannot find employment, will they be entitled to benefits in this State? If they have prearranged employment but this ceases during the 12 month period, what will happen?
Has any progress been made in regard to the undocumented Irish? Do we know the number involved and is there hope for their families? Deputy McGinley and others have raised this issue on many occasions.
The Deputy is widening the scope of his question.
I am responding to the issues raised by the Minister. I am anxious to remain in order but I wish to facilitate the Minister.
I appreciate that.
It is his military background.
Is there hope for these people?
Ireland is the first country to achieve a working holiday agreement with the US. I do not want to understate the significance of that. Negotiations were held over several years and the scheme is not open ended in the sense that it is available only to those who are in post-secondary education or within 12 months of graduation from third level education.
A similar agreement has been in place with Australia since 1985. Approximately 17,000 Irish people went to Australia last year and 13,000 travelled the previous year. The J1 working holiday scheme, which is valid for the summer months, was taken up by approximately 6,000 Irish citizens last year, whereas only 290 US citizens came to Ireland on the programme.
In our view, this is just the first step of a wider approach. Our intention is to develop strong bilateral frameworks with the United States, a country with which we have strong historical ties. Having dealt with work permits in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I found it strange that we did not have reciprocal arrangements with the United States from a cultural, social or employment perspective. Given that generations of Irish people have emigrated to America since before the Famine, some sort of bilateral framework should be put in place.
We are pursuing the idea of a renewable work visa arrangement with the US. To that end I met with senior Senators and Congressmen on my visit to increase the prospects of their arriving at such a conclusion. However, that would not include the undocumented Irish, who represent the third prong of our approach. This will await the outcome of the presidential election in the US. We have continued to lobby in this regard. I met with the Congressional Friends of Ireland, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy, the Chairman of the relevant House sub-committee, Zoe Lofgren, and many others to try to get consensus on this issue.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason for the Government’s change of policy and facilitation of the US-India nuclear agreement at the Nuclear Suppliers Group; the implications for the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and the discussions which preceded the Government’s decision to abandon the view on this issue which it possessed. [34248/08]
When the US-India civil nuclear co-operation deal was originally agreed in principle between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh in 2005, and during the lengthy and complex process which followed, Ireland was to the fore in raising concerns and asking questions in regard to its impact on the global disarmament and non-proliferation regime. However, we noted that the deal would extend the scope of IAEA safeguards over Indian nuclear facilities, and also made clear that we understood the strong reasons which led the Indian Government to seek a secure and plentiful supply of energy to address poverty, promote development and combat climate change. It was the consistent policy of the Government, reiterated several times in this House by my predecessor, not to make any final decision until all elements were on the table. We also made clear that we would take into account the range of views among other Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, members, in particular those with a similar approach to disarmament and non-proliferation issues.
After a lengthy delay due to domestic Indian political factors, the issue finally came to a head in the late summer, with meetings of the IAEA board of governors on 1 August and of the NSG on 21 to 22 August and 4 to 6 September. At the NSG, Ireland, which played a leading role among a group of like-minded countries, was active from the outset in seeking clarifications and conveying concerns about the proposed exemption of India from the NSG's guidelines on civilian nuclear trade. We put forward an extensive series of proposals aimed at improving the text and meeting our concerns. During this period, we had extensive contacts inside and outside the NSG at both political and official level with the United States, India and numerous other states. It became increasingly clear that a large majority of NSG member states, including several countries whose concerns are usually similar to those of Ireland, were in favour of granting the exemption. I recall that the Nobel Prize-winning director general of the IAEA, Dr. ElBaradei, also strongly supported the deal.
On 5 September, in response to demands within the NSG from Ireland and a few other states, India issued a significant statement reiterating its key positions on disarmament and non-proliferation. These include a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and strong safeguards against nuclear proliferation in third countries. On this basis, and following a number of further changes to the text of the NSG decision, Ireland reluctantly joined the consensus in the NSG on 6 September. Ireland and several other states made it clear that we expect India to honour all of its commitments, and that any breach of them would require the NSG to review its decision. We will continue to work to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty in the lead-up to the next review conference in 2010.
If I might deconstruct that reply, I will put my questions simply. Will the Minister give details of who precisely contacted the Irish Government, as is reported in The Irish Times today, and at what level, with the aim of taking away one of the building blocks of Irish foreign policy? The Minister mentioned Dr. ElBaradei, but Dr. ElBaradei’s predecessor Dr. Blix, in visiting the Minister’s predecessor at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, clearly stated that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was very important. Those of us who are interested in the international significance of this responded to his suggestion that a secretariat be appointed for the treaty. On several occasions at Question Time I have asked the Minister’s predecessors about the implications for Ireland’s non-proliferation treaty of agreeing to the US-India nuclear agreement, and at every occasion the Minister’s predecessors have said they have the gravest concerns. What the Minister is really saying now is that because only two countries supported him in the late stages, possibly Austria and New Zealand, he decided it was best to roll over.
What is the difference between India and the five existing nuclear powers — those countries that regularly breach Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty? The discipline they have with regard to the IAEA is exactly what is on offer from India. A sixth nuclear power has been created and the non-proliferation treaty has been abandoned, or crucially weakened. As well as that, the Minister must remember the review conferences in 1995 and 2000, when we joined with other countries to create the New Agenda Coalition. The 2005 review conference was not a success, but we continued working on. Now the Minister has thrown in the towel. Could he give the reasons for this to the House? What pressure was applied by Condoleezza Rice? Did President Bush phone the Taoiseach? The Minister's predecessor will remember that the Indian Prime Minister sent a special delegate here to pressurise people into saying "Yes". Finally, perhaps the Minister will give details of the multi-billion-dollar arms contract between the US and India which followed within days of the agreement.
It is not fair to use pejorative language such as "you have done this or that", "you have thrown in the towel", or "rolled over".
No, I am giving the facts.
Those are not the facts.
They are the facts.
The Deputy talks about Hans Blix, for example.
As Dr. Blix said when interviewed in 2006, there are several aspects to the US-India deal. There is the non-proliferation aspect, the environmental aspect, and the energy security aspect, the latter two of which the Deputy has completely ignored in his commentary. These are legitimate issues that we can no longer ignore in the global climate in which we live. He said the rule was adopted in the NSG in order to induce states such as Israel, India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapons status——
And why did the Government not hold that line?
——or deter others from seeking nuclear weapons. In return, they would have access to the most advanced civilian technology. He went on to say it has been clear for many years that neither India nor Pakistan, nor Israel would walk away from their nuclear status and that under these circumstances the NSG rule has become a punishment instead of an inducement. The question, then, is whether anything can be gained by getting away from this rule in terms of keeping the lid on proliferation, and Dr. Blix's answer to this was "Yes". This is the person the Deputy quoted. He stated: "It is true that India, with a billion people, can reduce the pressure for oil and gas consumption by expanding its nuclear industry". That is good for India's energy security and good for the environment, as it will help stem global warming. These are positive aspects of the deal.
What did Ireland try to do, as one small country among many others? The Deputy mentioned the New Agenda Coalition. Where was the New Agenda Coalition?
This is not one small country. We are coequal with 44 others.
Where was the New Agenda Coalition, of which the Deputy spoke earlier? I will tell the Deputy. Of the seven members, only two — Ireland and New Zealand — worked hard to improve the deal. Two — Brazil and South Africa — were strong supporters on the basis of their overall relationships with India; Sweden and Mexico were broadly neutral and made clear they would not block a deal; and Egypt is not a member of the NSG. Prior to the deal, six Indian nuclear reactors were under the IAEA safeguards. Under the deal an additional eight will be covered——
What about all the others?
——bringing the total to 14.
Out of 22.
Yes, and all future civilian reactors will also be covered. We said reluctantly that these are demonstrable improvements in terms of bringing plants under civilian safeguards.
However, they breach the non-proliferation treaty. The Deputy knows that.
I will call the Deputy briefly again.
I accept the Deputy's disappointment that a consensus was arrived at, but we worked to achieve discernible improvements to the agreement. The final text will help ensure that the non-proliferation treaty remains the cornerstone of disarmament and non-proliferation and that India is held to its commitments, with observation and monitoring on an ongoing basis. The transfer of sensitive technologies will be ruled out entirely once negotiations are concluded on the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the NSG guidelines, including a provision that all states engaging in nuclear commerce with India must notify other NSG members of each and every transfer. These are improvements we brought to the text.
Everyone knows that under Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, as the Minister's predecessors agreed, there was supposed to be nuclear disarmament. Countries ignored that. The Minister has now added a sixth country to the five who are free to abuse the treaty. What credibility does he now have? He is allowing, for example, eight nuclear installations in India not to be under anybody's control. He tells the House that monitoring of 14 out of 22 installations is better than nothing. His predecessor, Frank Aiken, would not be satisfied with something that is better than nothing. What credibility does he have now when facing the Iranian question? He will take up a strong position on a country that has not demonstrably breached any of its obligations with regard to international treaties.
I am sorry the Minister does not like the phrase "rolling over".
Let me quote Daryl G. Kimball, for example, who is one of the major opponents of this treaty. He said: "The Irish Government did all it could. In my view no other country played a more energetic role in identifying the problems with this deal." That is not capitulation. It may be fanciful for Deputy Higgins to engage in that kind of hyperbole and rhetoric.
It is not hyperbole.
However, it does not really add anything to the debate.
The Minister abandoned the treaty.
Departmental Staff.
Billy Timmins
Ceist:3 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of public servants in his Department as of 1 January 2000; the number as of 1 October 2008; the reason for the increase or decrease; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34359/08]
The number of staff employed by my Department on 1 October 2008 is 1,545. This includes 320 permanent staff who are working in the Passport Office in Ireland and approximately 300 local staff currently employed at missions abroad. The equivalent figure as of 1 January 2000 was 1,385. The increase of 160 staff during the intervening period was focused on two main areas: the Passport Office and Ireland's development aid programme, Irish Aid.
In the case of the Passport Office, a total of 120 additional staff were recruited since 2006 in response to significant annual increases in the demand for passports over recent years and the introduction of the new e-passport, featuring a biometric chip. This increase in the permanent staff enabled the Passport Office to maintain a high level of customer service while also significantly reducing the number of temporary clerical staff engaged in the lead up to and during the busy summer period, as well as its reliance on overtime during this peak season.
The recruitment of additional staff for Irish Aid was directly related to the rapid expansion in the scale and scope of the development assistance programme which has seen the aid budget increase from €255 million in 2000 to €769 million in 2008.
It should also be noted that, since 2000, my Department has overseen the opening of 19 new missions overseas. These included embassies in the capitals of nine member states who have joined the European Union since 2004 and four missions linked to the expansion of the aid programme. The establishment of these new missions was achieved in large measure from within existing staffing resources.
Can the Minister give the number for the staff increase in Irish Aid for the period? He gave the monetary increase but not the staff increase.
The budget increased from €255 million in 2000 to €769 million in 2008.
I am asking about the number of personnel in Irish Aid.
I did not give that figure.
Even if the Minister cannot give the figure for the increased staff, irrespective of how the budget increases, it should not lead to a substantial increase in personnel. How many people are working for Irish Aid in Limerick? How does this compare to the figures before it was decentralised? I have also looked at the numbers of staff working in the Minister's office. I know it is populist to attack Ministers for the staff numbers in their own offices. The Minister has approximately 15. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche has 13.3. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, has——
The idea is to ask questions, not answer them.
In order to ask the question I need to give the Minister the figures in case he does not have them. What do the people in his office do? How many of them are involved in working on constituency matters as opposed to departmental matters? While I do not expect him to answer for the two Ministers of State, I am sure it is similar for them.
Since 2000, some 76 additional posts have been sanctioned for Irish Aid. A total of 16 posts previously attached to the National Committee for Development Education and APSO were integrated into the Department. Given the scale of the increase, 76 additional posts in Irish Aid——
It is understaffed.
I thank the Deputy.
The Minister is very worried. He should not let the economy dislodge him so badly.
It is good to have a countervailing view to the right wing orthodoxy that is emerging from the Fine Gael Party. It is always nice to have such a palliative intervention. There are some issues in terms of value for money, accountability and managing an expanded programme.
I do not know where Deputy Timmins got his figure for staff numbers, which obviously embraces the broader office.
The figure is 15.
There are not 15 people in my constituency office. There are three and while they largely deal with constituency issues, they also deal with non-constituency items.
They take calls from the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
We do have a relationship with the United States and it would be odd if they did not take calls from its Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
Deputy Timmins asked the question.
Is there liaison between the Minister and Deputy Higgins?
Last night, a private secretary in my private office worked until 11 p.m. Opposition Members never refer to that. It is all very well to publish figures about numbers of staff. Many people in the public service work late hours, above and beyond the call of duty, and do not get the acknowledgement for that kind of engagement.
I appreciate that the public service can be an easy target. I am simply affording the Minister an opportunity to explain to the public. I have a response to a parliamentary question, which refers to 16 people in the Minister's own office. I do not doubt the work they do. I take exception to the Minister's reference to the new right wing orthodoxy in Fine Gael. We continually get lambasted over the fact that we are beginning to ape Fianna Fáil. I do not know where we should go.
(Interruptions).
Obviously the US-India civil nuclear co-operation deal is contentious.
They needed to work very late.
We did actually.
While this is all very collegiate, these are Priority Questions and the only person who may ask questions is the person in whose name they are placed on the Order Paper.
The question related to staffing generally. The Department has shown a commendable efficiency in how it has expanded its work and in reducing overtime and temporary workers. The vast majority of increased staff actually effected a significant reduction in temporary contracted staff in the Passport Office. The number of passport applications has greatly increased owing to additional applications from Northern Ireland and for children etc. The queries we get from all over the country that my private office needs to attend to on an ongoing basis are very fundamental ones relating to people who are abroad facing various challenges and difficulties. We are often the first port of call to help our citizens overseas. After approximately six months in the job, my observation is that the majority of calls relate to those kinds of inquiries.
Overseas Development Aid.
Billy Timmins
Ceist:4 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to make further cuts in the overseas aid budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34225/08]
It is estimated that Ireland's spending on official development assistance, ODA, for 2008 will reach 0.54% of GNP. The Government is committed to reaching the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNP on ODA by 2012. We remain on course to meet that objective. I am confident that this year Ireland will also maintain its position as the sixth most generous per capita donor in the world, which was confirmed by the OECD for 2007.
During the 2008 Estimates process, the Government allocated €914 million to ODA. Some €814 million was allocated to Vote 29 — international co-operation — of the Department of Foreign Affairs and an estimated €100 million to other Departments and through Ireland's allocation to the EU development co-operation budget. This allocation, based on the then estimated GNP, was made to achieve a target of 0.54% of GNP in 2008.
As the House is aware, in light of the changed economic situation, the Government reviewed current expenditure allocations across all Departments in July. The overall ODA allocation for 2008 was revised to €899 million, which continued to ensure that the ODA target as a percentage of GNP would be met. Adjustments of €45 million were identified which brought the revised allocation managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, through Irish Aid, to €769 million.
The Government's priorities remain as set out in the White Paper on Irish Aid. Assistance to sub-Saharan Africa will continue to be the top priority, as will measures to counter climate change and rising food prices, investment in education, health, the fight against HIV-AIDS, good governance and efforts to promote gender equality. These are the issues that have the most impact on those least able to cope.
The Government is now at an advanced stage in preparing the budget for 2009. The Deputy will be aware that all public expenditure allocations for 2009 are subject to decisions taken in this process and that the Minister for Finance will present the budget to the House on 14 October.
I am delighted to hear the Minister of State say we shall be on target for the 0.7% of GNP in 2012, if I heard him correctly. Does he have any projected figures as to what the funding might be for 2009 and 2010? I have seen figures in the past for those years based on certain growth rates. I acknowledge that the economy has contracted and the figure will decrease. However, he might be able to give the House some indication.
Bearing in mind that the economy will contract, where will the cutbacks fall as regards the granting of aid? Will it affect the NGOs or the programme countries and how does he envisage doing that? Also, I am sure the Minister of State will be very anxious to deal with some of the recommendations in the Hunger Task Force report. Does he see movement towards aid for food production and the World Food Programme, in compliance with one of the report's recommendations?
The Deputy will find out almost exactly at the same time I do what the budget allocation will be for 2009. As he well knows, nobody can predict what that will be until it is published by the Minister for Finance on that particular day. It is, however, important to know that the overarching target of 0.7% is expressed as a percentage of GNP. That obviously translates, on a year by year basis, into real terms and real money, but because it is expressed as a percentage of GNP the figure alters, accordingly. The reality is that GNP, far from being a projected 3.5% for this year, will be somewhere in the region of -0.1% and the budget is altered, accordingly. We have allocated the adjustments in 2008 equally right across the programme with the exception of missionaries and NGOs to whom we had made specific commitments at the start of the year.
One of the recommendations of the audit report of the Committee of Public Accounts was that NGOs and missionaries needed to be given a formal role in the deployment of aid. That would be a very good development. Will the Minister of State say whether there have been proposals to do that? Also, will he look at the concept of setting up an umbrella group whereby there may be some mechanism or filter body for streamlining small projects, say, where individuals are running modest projects on their own — where someone can make a small application for funding without thousands of people arriving at the Minister of State's door? How are such projects being dealt with at present?
The Deputy mentioned the Hunger Task Force report. That is the subject of a separate question and we shall delve into that shortly. NGOs have an enormous role as regards delivery. They deliver more than €100 million of overseas development aid on behalf of the Irish taxpayer.
I understood their former role involved the programme countries.
They are involved in all of our programme countries in their own right and——
I am aware of that.
——they are very much engaged in delivering their own programmes. As I said, they deliver an enormous percentage of the overall Irish Aid budget on the ground. Indeed they are one of the key delivery mechanisms on behalf of the taxpayer.
As regards small projects, a system is in place for micro-funding, up to a limit of €20,000. The application process is relatively simple. They are considered every couple of months and decisions are made on them. I do not see any deficiency in the system, as I understand it. Certainly, for very small NGOs comprising one or two people, the system may be difficult and we can have a look at that.
Overseas Missions.
Lucinda Creighton
Ceist:5 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Defence Force participation in peacekeeping in Chad will continue in the event that EU forces are replaced by a UN mission in March 2009; his views on the UN replacing the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34247/08]
The European Union operation in Chad and the Central African Republic, EUFOR Tchad/RCA, was established for a period of one year from March 2008. It is playing a key role in ensuring the security of refugees and displaced persons living in camps along the eastern border of Chad, and in facilitating the provision of humanitarian relief, as well as in protecting the UN policing mission in the area. I pay tribute to the success of EUFOR and to the professionalism of the members of the Irish Defence Forces participating in the mission. In my recent meeting at the United Nations with Lynn Pascoe, the Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, he spoke very warmly of the positive contribution they are making.
Despite the success of EUFOR, it is clear that an international presence will continue to be required in the region for some time. In this context, I welcome the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1834 which expresses the intention of authorising a UN military mission to follow on from EUFOR after 15 March 2009, when its current mandate expires.
It is expected the UN will, in due course, issue a formal request to Ireland to provide a contingent for this operation, and I would view such a request favourably in principle. However, a decision to participate will need to await the outcome of ongoing discussions on the size, composition and mandate of the follow-on operation. Account will also be taken of the intentions of other current EUFOR participants and the support they would provide. It is worth noting in this regard that logistical support from non-EU partners, including Ukraine and Russia which are both providing helicopters, has been vital for EUFOR. This underlines the issues the EU has regarding the military capabilities available to it for important missions of this kind.
Irish participation in a UN follow-on operation will, of course, be subject to the triple lock of UN mandate and Government and Dáil approval. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, has indicated he would be positively disposed to participation by the Defence Forces in the follow-on mission subject to the above issues being addressed.
I thank the Minister. Will he clarify that the Security Council resolution has been formally adopted so that there is no likelihood of a security vacuum when the troops withdraw from Chad, which is enormously important? I understand that Ban Ki-moon has expressed the intention to increase the personnel deployed when the EUFOR mission is taken over, essentially, by the UN, from the current figure of approximately 3,300 to around 6,000 at that stage, at some point in 2009. When will the Minister consider — I hope, favourably — the application of the UN for Irish troops to remain as part of its mission? Does he envisage a scenario whereby there will be potential to increase the number of troops deployed from Ireland as part of that ongoing mission?
We abhor and are very determined to avoid a vacuum or any uncertainty arising. We shall be pressing very hard for clear decisions, not just a resolution but actually a clear pathway for the UN force coming in on the button, so to speak, so there is a seamless transition from EUFOR. However, there are issues to be considered and obviously the Minister for Defence will take the lead in terms of requirements of our Army. The Deputy has alluded to the size, composition, balance of forces, logistical support and so forth and these are questions we obviously want ironed out before finally agreeing to participate in the force. However, we have put a good deal of investment into our existing presence there and our desire is to continue it. Obviously, there are always issues in situations such as this that need to be teased out with the UN.
On the Deputy's second question, our presence is quite substantial in Chad, with more than 450 troops. It is the largest of any presence we have globally at present. That in itself is significant and if we can maintain this level of operation we shall be doing very well because this is a very challenging mission.
Further to that, the Minister has mentioned some of the logistical issues and the support that has been forthcoming from Russia, Ukraine and so on, which is badly needed. I echo and support his viewpoint as regards the need for greater capabilities within the European Union. On a related issue, our troops will undoubtedly be there until March and possibly beyond that date. I understand from media reports that one agency withdrew from that region in Chad just within the last few days. Is the Minister aware of that? Perhaps he will comment.
The security situation in eastern Chad is relatively peaceful. However, the rainy season will end in the coming weeks and that could bring about increased rebel activity, banditry and criminality, which has implications for safety and security and the overall secure environment EUFOR is seeking to develop. Operational Commander Nash is confident EUFOR is in a position of strength to continue to ensure a safe and secure environment in which humanitarian actors can operate effectively.
Two Médecins Sans Frontiéres health facilities in Adé and Goz Beïda in eastern Chad were robbed by armed personnel last weekend and, as a consequence, the NGO withdrew from the area. The attacks involved roaming bandits and criminals rather than organised rebel activity. EUFOR is clearly mandated to protect refugees and internally displaced persons to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and to protect UN personnel. Activity by rebel forces as well as criminality and banditry are matters for the Chadian authorities as well as MINURCAT.
We regret what happened but the Irish battalion did not receive a request from Médecins Sans Frontiéres for assistance over the past two months. Irish personnel will continue their operations but will co-operate with and support the NGOs throughout the Defence Forces deployment with EUFOR. Assistance has been provided to NGOs in the past, including the evacuation of NGO personnel to the Irish battalion's camp and so forth at Goz Beïda but many NGOs face ongoing challenges. Our people intervene where they can on request but Médecins Sans Frontiéres did not make such a request. The organisation, however, is vulnerable to attack from criminal elements.