Vol. 736 No. 4
47 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Defence his plans regarding closed barracks that are currently unsold to be put to State or community uses, or by Government offices and agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17250/11]
Ten military barracks have been closed since 1998. Of the barracks closed, only four remain in the possession of the Department. These are Magee Barracks, Kildare town, part of Connolly Barracks, Longford, Rockhill Military Post, Letterkenny, and Lifford Military Post. Agreement in principle has been reached on the disposal of Rockhill and Lifford military posts to the local authority. The Department wrote to all Departments in 2009 to ascertain if they or agencies under their aegis had an interest in acquiring any of the barracks that remained in its possession. As a result, the Department of Education and Skills arranged the purchase of the old Monaghan Barracks and part of Connolly Barracks, Longford, by the respective vocational education committees.
In light of the Minister's response, will he indicate what is intended with regard to Magee Barracks, the only one of the closed barracks for which a solution has not yet been found? Is it intended to transfer the ownership of the barracks to the local authority or a similar body with a view to having it put to a purposeful use, rather than having it closed at a cost to the Exchequer arising from the need to secure the site?
The site of the former Magee Barracks in Kildare town comprises, as the Deputy may know, some 64 acres. The then Government decided on 1 July 2003 that the former barracks in Kildare would be among the State lands released for inclusion in the Sustaining Progress affordable housing initiative. On foot of this announcement, Kildare County Council prepared a local area plan for the site which encompassed a range of uses, including community activities in accordance with the commitment of July 2002. The Department had been involved in the process of transferring ownership to Kildare County Council and the final contract of sale was sent to the solicitors for the council in 2009. I believe I made reference to this matter on a previous occasion in the House. However, the local authority subsequently contacted the Department to state it no longer wished to proceed with the development and did not have any interest in taking possession of the property.
The property now essentially remains with the Department of Defence. It will be disposed of by the Department, taking account of market conditions to maximise the return to the Defence Forces. No decision has yet been made as to when steps will be taken to dispose of the site. This is a matter to which careful consideration will be given.
48 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the numbers of Irish troops currently serving overseas; their locations; the numbers, in terms of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and general service personnel in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17267/11]
Ireland is currently contributing 563 Defence Forces personnel to 11 different missions throughout the world. Of this, 126 are commissioned officers, 220 are non-commissioned officers and 217 are drawn from other ranks. Full details of all personnel currently serving overseas are listed in the tabular statement which will be circulated to Deputies. The main overseas missions in which Defence Forces personnel are currently deployed are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, with 446 personnel, the EU-led operation ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 44 personnel, and the NATO-led international security presence, KFOR, in Kosovo with 12 personnel. Other personnel are serving as monitors and observers with the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. Staff are also deployed at the organisational headquarters of the EU, OSCE and NATO.
Also, Ireland is currently participating in the Nordic battle group, NBG, which has been on stand-by since 1 January 2011 and which will stand down on Thursday next, 30 June 2011. The other countries contributing to the Nordic battle group are Sweden, acting as framework nation, Finland, Norway and Estonia. Our contribution is a Recce/ISTAR company together with staff posts at both the operational and force headquarters amounting to approximately 150 personnel. Recce is an abbreviation of reconnaissance; ISTAR is an acronym for intelligence, surveillance, target, acquisition and reconnaissance.
As the House will be aware, personnel of the 104th infantry battalion completed their deployment to UNIFIL in the past number of days. The Irish battalion is based in sector west of UNIFIL's area of operations, centred on the major towns of Tibnin and Bint Jubyal and the Blue Line, which separates Lebanon and Israel. Personnel of the 104 battalion are being tasked primarily with patrolling, reconnaissance and occupying static posts, while operating in close co-ordination and co-operation with the Lebanese armed forces. The Defence Forces will continue to acquit themselves well and will make a vital and important contribution to the success of the mission, as they have done on so many occasions in the past.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The drawdown of the Defence Forces contingent serving with Operation ALTHEA was scheduled to occur in July 2010. This drawdown was based on an expectation that the transition of the EUFOR mission to a training and support mission would have started by that time and having regard to the budgetary situation. However, the mission is still undergoing transition to a smaller training and support mission and the process is not now expected to be completed until the end of 2011. The Defence Forces contribution will be reduced from the current level of 44 personnel to seven personnel at the end of the current rotation of the Irish contingent next month.
The drawdown of Irish personnel from KFOR in Kosovo from around 230 personnel to a residual component of 12 personnel took place between April and October 2010. Today, the Government approved continued Defence Forces participation by up to 12 personnel in KFOR and seven personnel in the UN authorised International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, ISAF, for a further period, beyond June and July 2011 respectively. Also at its meeting today, the Government approved continued participation in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces, for a further period of one year beyond August 2011, subject to an appropriate decision of the Council of the European Union authorising the extension of the mission.
|
Total |
Officers |
NCOs |
Ptes |
||
|
1. |
UN Missions |
||||
|
(i) |
UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) HQ |
9 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
|
UNIFIL 104 Infantry Battalion |
437 |
52 |
168 |
217 |
|
|
(ii) |
UNTSO (United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation) — Israel, Syria and Lebanon |
11 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
|
(iii) |
MINURSO (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
(iv) |
MONUSCO (United Nations Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
(v) |
UNOCI (United Nations Mission in Ivory Coast |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
465 |
76 |
172 |
217 |
|
|
UN Mandated Missions |
|||||
|
(vi) |
EUFOR (EU-Led Operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina) |
44 |
9 |
35 |
0 |
|
(vii) |
EUTM Somalia (EU-led Training Mission in Uganda) |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(viii) |
KFOR (International Security Presence in Kosovo) — HQ |
12 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
|
(ix) |
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan) |
7 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
|
Total with UN Missions |
530 |
96 |
217 |
217 |
|
|
2. |
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) |
||||
|
(i) |
OSCE Mission to Bosnia & Herzegovina |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(ii) |
OSCE Mission in Belgrade — Serbia |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(iii) |
Staff Office, High Level Planning Group, Vienna |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
3. |
EU Military Staff |
||||
|
Brussels |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
4. |
Nordic Battlegroup HQ Staff — Sweden |
13 |
11 |
2 |
0 |
|
5. |
Military Representatives/Advisers/Staff |
||||
|
(i) |
Military Adviser, Permanent Mission to UN, New York |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(ii) |
Military Adviser, Irish Delegation to OSCE, Vienna |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(iii) |
Staff Appointments, Irish Delegation to OSCE, Vienna |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
(iv) |
Military Representative to EU (Brussels) |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
(v) |
Liaison Office of Ireland, NATO/PfP (Brussels) |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(vi) |
Military Representative to NATO/PfP Co-ordination Cell/Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), Mons, Belgium |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total Serving Overseas |
563 |
126 |
220 |
217 |
We discussed the issue of personnel deployed overseas at the committee meeting last week. I join the Minister in wishing the personnel deploying to Lebanon health and success, and I wish their families well. They follow in a very fine tradition.
Overseas service is the lifeblood of the Defence Forces in terms of the experience it gives them. Is the Minister happy that the balance serving overseas at present between general service, non-commissioned officers, NCOs, and commissioned officers reflects the overall balance of the Defence Forces? Troops are broadly expected to serve one six month tour every three years. Is that ratio still in place?
It is at present. Like the Deputy, I wish our troops well in southern Lebanon. We discussed this issue at some length a few days ago in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. The troops are performing a very important task in a fraught part of the world. As I said at the committee, I am committed to continuing the involvement of our troops in overseas missions. I anticipate that the troops who are going to Lebanon will return in December, when another contingent will go there to be joined by the Finnish troops who are also part of this deployment.
How many Defence Forces personnel are deployed in Afghanistan? Are any of them participating in operations such as dealing with improvised explosive devices, IEDs, or working in combat zones?
Seven members of the Defence Forces are based in Afghanistan. They are largely engaged in administrative functions but they have also been engaged in training other personnel in the neutralisation of improvised explosive devices, an area in which our Defence Forces have particular expertise. Their involvement in that area has saved lives and has been greatly valued in terms of the skill they bring to that task.
With regard to the UN management of our forces, did the Minister see the remarks made by Colonel Gerald Aherne in "SIGNAL" magazine last week? Colonel Aherne was the chief of operations on the UN peace enforcement mission in Liberia. He spoke about UN office politics negatively affecting military missions and said that UN structures were beset by a muddled chain of command. He also said that during the most recent mission in central Africa vital "life support issues" for soldiers were unsatisfactory. Did the Minister see those remarks and what is his response to them?
There are a number of overseas missions. Would the Minister consider putting a motion before the Dáil annually to give authorisation to those which do not amount to 14, the figure that requires authorisation under the triple lock mechanism? Soldiers are stationed in Afghanistan, NATO headquarters and at the UN. Could an omnibus motion be put to the House annually to give authorisation to the number of soldiers serving overseas?
On the matter raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, there is adequate opportunity at meetings of the defence committee to discuss the very small contingents of the Defence Forces who go abroad on various missions. There is no need for the time of the House to be taken up in circumstances where perhaps one or two members of the Defence Forces are participating in a UN organised mission abroad. The numbers are too small and there is absolute transparency in arrangements of that nature. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is the appropriate structure within which to discuss them.
I read Colonel Ahern's article. That mission occurred prior to my appointment as Minister for Defence but there were matters referred to in respect of members of our Defence Forces which give rise to concern. I had an interest in the defence area and certain difficulties did arise in the course of that mission. I am aware from reading general materials, although not as Minister for Defence at the time, that there were suggestions of some difficulties. It is vital that there is a co-ordinated command structure for any UN mission and that there is full co-operation between the different forces located in an area. We have a particular interest in ensuring that and I will do what I can, as Minister for Defence, to ensure difficulties of the type described do not recur in any mission in which our forces are engaged.
49 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the number of fishing vessels boarded and detained by the Irish Naval Service each month in 2010 and to date in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17262/11]
56 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide a breakdown per country of origin of the number of fishing vessels boarded and detained by the Irish Naval Service each month in 2010 and to date in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17263/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 56 together.
The Naval Service assists the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, in promoting compliance with and deterring contraventions of the Common Fisheries Policy. The SFPA liaises regularly with the Naval Service and, inter alia, the Fisheries Monitoring Centre, FMC, and the Air Corps.
To achieve strict compliance with quota and other conservation legislation under the Common Fisheries Policy, Naval Service targeted boardings and inspections are agreed between the SFPA and the Naval Service. Boardings are targeted based on the risk analysis carried out by the FMC. The criteria examined for the risk analysis would include the fishing vessel's date of last offence, the date of last gear inspection, the number of days fishing in Irish waters, the species targeted and the method of fishing.
In 2010, the Naval Service carried out 1,684 boardings at sea of vessels of various nationalities, with eight fishing vessels detained. Statistics up to the end of May for this year show the Naval Service has carried out 560 boardings and has detained three vessels. Further details relating to the vessels boarded and their country of origin are contained in tabular statements which I propose to circulate with this reply.
|
Nationality |
Jan2010 |
Feb2010 |
Mar 2010 |
Apr 2010 |
May 2010 |
Jun 2010 |
Jul 2010 |
Aug 2010 |
Sep 2010 |
Oct 2010 |
Nov 2010 |
Dec 2010 |
Total |
|
Irish |
100 |
84 |
58 |
44 |
72 |
111 |
58 |
111 |
106 |
25 |
37 |
20 |
826 |
|
Spanish |
12 |
22 |
20 |
58 |
28 |
20 |
16 |
95 |
70 |
59 |
8 |
31 |
439 |
|
UK |
14 |
8 |
6 |
18 |
17 |
23 |
8 |
13 |
21 |
11 |
3 |
9 |
151 |
|
French |
13 |
19 |
15 |
25 |
17 |
25 |
9 |
41 |
21 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
204 |
|
Belgian |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
17 |
|
German |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
|
Netherlands |
3 |
2 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
18 |
|
Russian |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
Norwegian |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Faroes |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Denmark |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Total |
147 |
142 |
107 |
156 |
139 |
181 |
94 |
262 |
222 |
105 |
56 |
73 |
1,684 |
|
Nationality |
Jan 2010 |
Feb 2010 |
Mar 2010 |
Apr 2010 |
May 2010 |
Jun 2010 |
Jul 2010 |
Aug 2010 |
Sep 2010 |
Oct 2010 |
Nov 2010 |
Dec 2010 |
Total |
|
Irish |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Spanish |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
UK |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Total |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
Nationality |
Jan 2011 |
Feb 2011 |
Mar 2011 |
Apr 2011 |
May 2011 |
2011Total |
|
Irish |
64 |
35 |
72 |
26 |
13 |
210 |
|
Spanish |
12 |
24 |
73 |
27 |
19 |
155 |
|
UK |
14 |
15 |
21 |
7 |
12 |
69 |
|
French |
15 |
12 |
29 |
17 |
9 |
82 |
|
Belgian |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
|
German |
6 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
|
Netherlands |
6 |
3 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
20 |
|
Russian |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
Norwegian |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Faroes |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Denmark |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Total |
119 |
90 |
216 |
81 |
54 |
560 |
|
Nationality |
Jan 2011 |
Feb 2011 |
Mar 2011 |
Apr 2011 |
May 2011 |
Total |
|
Irish |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Spanish |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
UK |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Total |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
I thank the Minister for his response. I acknowledge with gratitude the work of the Naval Service in protecting our fish stocks in difficult conditions on the high seas.
Can the Minister comment on the electronic logbook, which I understand is a contentious issue at present? Has the Naval Service access to records recorded through the electronic logbook and held in the country of origin of the vessel being inspected or detained? Has the Minister information pertaining to difficulties arising from vessels having neither the electronic logbook nor paper logbooks? How can that difficulty be surmounted?
As the Deputy knows, EU Regulation 2807 of 1983 required all EU vessels to retain a paper logbook on board. This was required to be completed every 24 hours. A new control regulation, EU Regulation 1224 of 2009, which was introduced on 7 May 2011, legislates for the introduction of electronic reporting and recording systems. Article 15 of this regulation states that all masters of community fishing vessels of 12 m length overall or more shall record information by electronic means and shall send it by electronic means to the competent authority of the flag member state at least once a day. This requirement negates the obligation to complete a paper logbook.
The electronic recording system, ERS, project is running well behind schedule in almost all member states. An additional complication is that all member states are at varying levels of development of the system. For the system to work, all states need to go live at the same time and be at the same level of development. Ireland has completed fitting electronic logbooks on all vessels over 24 m, this being the first of three categories required. Other works have been completed on the recording systems in the Fisheries Monitoring Centre, FMC, and on inspection devices.
Is the Minister aware of instances where the electronic logbook was not available to the Naval Service or fishery protection officers in this country and neither was a paper log available? Has he brought this to the attention of his colleagues in the Cabinet or of the Commission, which I understand is responsible for ensuring this does not happen?
I presume the Deputy is talking about an incident that occurred on 10 June last, when the Naval Service vessel, LE Niamh, boarded and detained two Spanish registered fishing vessels for alleged breaches of fishing regulations approximately 30 miles south of Castletownbere.
Some Spanish vessels have been fitted with electronic logbooks. However, following this recent incident, the FMC has, on three occasions, requested the Spanish authorities to provide a list of the Spanish vessels that are operating the logbook system in advance of full implementation of the ERS. While this list has not yet been provided, the Spanish authorities have provided the FMC with a copy of the catches which were electronically sent to them by the two detained Spanish vessels. With regard to the incident of 10 June, it is now a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether charges should be pressed.
The Minister has touched slightly on the subject of my question. I notice the nationality of ships boarded is not included as a targeting measure. Are we precluded from doing this and is it something that should be looked at? Is there a predominance of nationalities among ships boarded and where offences are found, and are those figures available?
The list will be attached to my reply to Deputy Stanton's question. The list of fishing vessels boarded covers a range of countries. A substantial number of Irish vessels have been checked over the years. Of the non-Irish fishing vessels boarded by the Naval Service in 2010, some 439 were Spanish. While the Naval Service cannot target a country, it can have regard to the records of particular ships and boats and can make considered decisions, based on their location and conduct, as to whether a boarding is appropriate.
I compliment the Naval Service on the very professional work it carries out. The Minister referred to liaison between the FMC, the Naval Service and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA. Who takes the lead in those consultations and who makes the decisions? Who makes operational decisions on individual operations?
The Naval Service assists the SFPA in promoting compliance and the SFPA liaises regularly with the Naval Service and the FMC. There is continual interaction between the services, which can result in the Naval Service making a decision that it is appropriate to intervene with a particular vessel.
With regard to the incident referred to, does the Minister think it acceptable that there should be difficulty in exchanging information with the Spanish authorities? In trying to manage and police the fishing resources off our cost, is it acceptable that we should have difficulty in receiving information from the authorities of another member state?
I would hope that there would be co-operation between EU member states and that information sought would be provided without difficulty. The information on both these vessels was, ultimately, provided and no issue now arises. However, a substantial number of boardings of Spanish vessels has occurred. In 2010, there were 204 boardings of French vessels and 151 boardings of UK vessels.
The fact that a vessel is boarded does not necessarily mean that illegality is detected when it is boarded. This is all part of a process to protect our fisheries and to ensure that people are complying with the law. There have been a disproportionate number of boardings of Spanish ships. I would hope that difficulties that arise in this area would be resolved. If the new electronic recording is not available, I would hope that paper records would be available. It is not satisfactory that neither be immediately available to the Naval Service when sought.
In the incident outlined by the Minister, is it the case that neither set of records was available on the night in question, that the ships were allowed sail and that the Irish authorities were unable to inspect either a paper or electronic logbook? Is it intended that the electronic logbook will be available online for inspection by the Irish authorities? When will that happen? In the interim, can the Minister ensure that the paper logbook is provided if the other information is not?
Clearly, the paper logbook should be provided if the other information is not. It is not satisfactory that neither form of information is readily available. There is, clearly, a timeframe for implementing the EU arrangements for the electronic recording of information. In that regard, there are areas we ourselves must deal with. We have to be temperate in our language about these things.
It is important that the information that lawfully should be available is available when it is sought and that it should not be a matter of difficulty.
50 Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence his proposals on the back of the findings of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces Annual Report 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17253/11]
55 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if he has studied the report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces 2010; the action or actions, if any, to be taken arising therefrom; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17265/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 55 together.
In accordance with the terms of the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, the fifth annual report of the Ombudsman was laid before each House of the Oireachtas on 21 June 2011. The report shows a welcome drop in the number of complaints currently lodged with the Ombudsman, down from 229 in 2008 to 116 in 2010.
The Ombudsman's report notes that there were delays in 2010 in responding to the final reports of the Ombudsman with 19 cases awaiting attention at the end of the year. I am advised that the delay was largely due to the complexity of the complaints and competing priorities within the unit dealing with the reports. However, I am pleased to confirm that a final determination has been issued to the Ombudsman in respect of all these outstanding cases. I engaged when appointed Minister in ensuring that the cases that had accumulated and needed to be dealt with were addressed with some speed and I am confident that final reports submitted by the Ombudsman during 2011 will be considered within the earliest timeframe. In that regard, procedures to prioritise the processing of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces final reports have been put in place by both the Defence Forces and the Department.
Since the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman in 2005, a number of human resource procedures have been reviewed and revised following recommendations from the Ombudsman in her final reports, for example, the selection processes for career courses and overseas service. In addition, the recommendations of the Ombudsman have informed the development of a new promotions scheme, which is near finalisation, as part of the commitments under the Croke Park agreement. Almost 50% of all complaints arise from administrative issues in the promotion system and the new scheme is designed to resolve these issues. A standing committee on human resource issues also reviews the implementation of systemic recommendations from the Ombudsman on a monthly basis. While dealing with the individual grievances referred to in her reports, the reports are also used to inform the ongoing development of best practice in human resource management for the Defence Forces.
I welcome the proposal regarding the new promotions scheme. When does the Minister expect that to be implemented? Even though the scheme has not been finalised, I presume there is an indicative timeframe. As he mentioned, a substantial number of the complaints recorded relate to promotions.
The Ombudsman referred in her report to the slowness of ministerial responses to proposals in previous reports. While that is not the current Minister's responsibility, will the proposals in her latest final report be addressed with greater urgency over the next year or so?
I regard it as important that the conclusions of the Ombudsman are taken seriously, that they are reflected upon in the manner in which the legislation envisages and that, ultimately, a decision is made by the Minister as to whether to fully implement recommendations made or whether circumstances arise, which create a difficulty in that regard. I paid particular regard to the outstanding reports from the Ombudsman which I discovered existed when I took office. I am committed to ensuring where individual members of the Defence Forces have a grievance, which results in a request by them for the Ombudsman's intervention, that following the Ombudsman completing that process, the role that the Minister is required by statute to play is played with reasonable speed and that decisions are made.
With regard to the timeframe for the new promotions system, I expect that will be in place relatively shortly. I do not want to give an absolute date but it will be done within a short time.
51 Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Defence the fund from which the recent State visits were paid; if the Defence Forces were allocated additional funds; if so, the amount of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14108/11]
This relates again to security arrangements of the visits of Queen Elizabeth II and President Obama. They were primarily a matter for the Garda. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence is the provision of aid to the civil power, meaning in practice to assist, when requested, An Garda Síochána.
With regard to these successful visits, the roles played by the Defence Forces included search, surveillance, security operations, etc., and guarding vital installations. This question should have been taken with the earlier question because the same information is being provided.
The same series of parliamentary questions have been tabled to elicit information regarding the costs incurred by local authorities, the Garda and the Defence Forces for these visits. Both visits went off well and they were worthwhile. I, therefore, did not table the question from the point of view of opposing the visits. However, I do not see how they could be self-financing. It may well be that when budgets were put together, an instruction issued to capture what might have been the cost. Several Members have tabled the same questions and this is repetitive work for someone. It would be worthwhile, therefore, if a composite response issued to save us from asking these questions. That would be useful and account should be taken of these costs when future visits are timetabled in order that we can budget for them appropriately.
I thank the Deputy for her question, although it is starting to feel like ground-hog day. Her colleague, Deputy Clare Daly, asked the same question earlier. Such visits involve different Departments and agencies. In the context of security issues, the Garda was the lead agency engaged to provide the security necessary and it is estimated the additional cost to the force will not be less than €20 million.
In the context of the Defence Forces' engagement in providing both security and protection at the request of the Garda and engaging in ceremonial duties, the cost of Queen Elizabeth's visit is estimated to be €1.18 million while they incurred costs of approximately €600,000 for President Obama's visit. A backward look at the costs incurred is under way but that will take time and until that is complete, we will not have the final figures. Members are enthusiastically tabling parliamentary questions to elicit information as rapidly as possible but at this stage, most of the figures are relatively clear. I know there is some finality to be brought to the figures for the Garda Síochána. We will know the final figures by the end of this week, which is the end of June. The same applies to the Defence Forces.
The Defence Forces should take a bow because the figure of €1.2 million for the visit of the Queen of England was provided for before she even left. In comparison to other Departments and other agencies, they are a model of efficiency.
In fairness to both, the Garda involvement was a great deal more intensive and required a great deal more personnel, overtime and allowances for the many members of the force who were engaged to be collated. That is more complex when compared with the Defence Forces, where the financial backdrop is simpler and clearer. Both forces did us proud during the course of both visits. We should take great pride in their performance. We should take great pride in the fact that both visits went so well. Given the possibility of visits by other dignitaries in the future, or even by the Queen and President Obama again, it is important to state that if there were not a small group of malcontents intent on disrupting the visits and on spoiling the enjoyment of many people in Dublin who would like to have had greater engagement with our visitors, a great deal of this money would have been saved and could have been used for other purposes. In circumstances of financial stringency, I think that is worth repeating. If there is a similar visit on future occasions, I hope there will not be the level of threat from these groups, which existed during the course of these visits, that requires this level of intense security.
52 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Defence his plans to streamline the approach to emergency planning to improve this State’s preparedness and capacity to cope with emergencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17251/11]
53 Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Defence the staffing levels in the Office of Emergency Planning; the current location of this office; the numbers of staff permanently assigned and based in the National Emergency Co-ordination Centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17268/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 52 and 53 together.
Emergency planning in this country is structured around the "lead Department" principle, which means that whoever is responsible for an activity in normal conditions will maintain that responsibility during a major emergency. The advantage of this approach is that the professionals, who deal with a particular sector on a daily basis, can bring their skills and expertise to bear and they can quickly identify who is best placed to provide support in an emergency situation. It is the model that is followed in many countries.
At a national level, the Government task force on emergency planning provides strategic direction and co-ordination of emergency planning. The task force, which I chair, was established after the 11 September 2001 attacks and is comprised of Ministers and/or senior officials from all Departments and key public bodies.
The task force provides a forum for keeping emergency planning high on the agenda of all Departments and it examines cross-cutting issues that impact across the Government. It is a forum for sharing information and, from time to time, experts are invited to make presentations to the task force on any emerging emergency planning issues. Regarding the streamlining of emergency planning, there is a constant review of emergency structures, practices and procedures to ensure lessons learned from emergency responses are implemented and that there is an ongoing improvement in our response to emergencies.
The Office of Emergency Planning is a joint civil-military office with a staff complement of five. The office is located at my Department's headquarters in Newbridge. The National Emergency Co-ordination Centre is located in Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin. Staff are assigned and based in the National Emergency Coordination Centre during emergency activations and as required for other activities held there.
Is it intended to have a review of the new technologies to ensure there is interoperability between the various forces, whether it is the Garda Síochána, the Army and the ambulance services? We know the Garda Síochána and the ambulance services are using the Tetra system at the moment, but I do not think the Defence Forces do so. This does not just deal with communications, but also vehicles and so on. Is that taken into account for procurement purposes by all those agencies?
Communications play a vital part of the response to emergencies that arise, especially communications between the different agencies in the State. This issue is kept under review by the task force, and I will ensure it is continually reviewed. One can always improve communications, but further developments in these areas are constrained by our economic circumstances.
During the course of the two recent visits, both the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána showed how well they interact and communicate with each other on matters of high security. I have the greatest confidence in their ability to do so in the case of any emergency that may arise and which would require a joint response from both. The ambulance services and the Garda Síochána are operating on the Tetra system and there is a fully co-ordinated communications network operating between them.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
