Vol. 765 No. 5
1Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the status of the review into the Reserve Defence Force; the vision he has for the future of the RDF; if he sees it as an integrated part of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24647/12]
The White Paper on Defence set out the blueprint for a new Reserve Defence Force, while the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan, launched in July 2004, provided for the phased development of Reserve Defence Force capabilities in the period to the end of 2009. There were significant improvements to the quantity and quality of Reserve Defence Force training over the period of the implementation plan. However, this did not appear to improve retention rates as anticipated and strength continued to decline. In addition, the development of the integrated element of the Reserve Defence Force did not proceed as intended owing to low participation rates in pilot schemes in 2007 and 2008. Subsequently, budgetary constraints reduced the availability of paid training for members of the Reserve Defence Force and plans to send members overseas were postponed.
A value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force was launched in February 2010. This review is examining the lessons learned from the implementation plan with a view to bringing forward recommendations regarding the future development of the Reserve Defence Force. As the Deputy is aware, we dealt with this issue at some length yesterday at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.
In the period from December 2010 to the end of 2011 other priorities diverted analytical resources away from the value for money review. These priorities included the preparation of options for making savings arising from the national recovery plan and subsequently, in 2011, undertaking the comprehensive review of expenditure and the associated budgetary process. Work continued on the value for money review, but at a reduced rate.
In practical terms, the development of proposals for the Reserve Defence Force would have been premature in advance of the outcome of the comprehensive review of expenditure. The Government revised the strength ceiling of the Permanent Defence Force to 9,500 personnel and in response I initiated a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces. This superseded prior recommendations regarding organisation and management of the Reserve Defence Force.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department's CRE assessment recommended no further cuts to the Reserve pending the outcome of the VFM review. It is worth noting that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's central evaluation unit did not share this assessment. However, the budget for Reserve training was not reduced further in 2012 and limited recruitment within resource constraints is ongoing.
I have asked the steering committee to progress the review as quickly as possible and anticipate its completion by the end of September. I look forward to receiving the final report. At this point I do not wish to pre-empt potential findings or recommendations on the future role of the Reserve Defence Force that the steering committee may bring forward.
The postponement of questions meant we discussed this issue in detailed at the committee yesterday, but I will reiterate some of the points made. The Minister outlined yesterday the sequence of events that had led to the delay in the review of the Reserve Defence Force being completed. Perhaps the Minister will summarise what he said. The delay has added considerably to a serious morale problem within the Reserve Defence Force as it does not see any purpose or role for it. It is a valuable service. Deputy Stanton and Senator Denis Landy spoke yesterday about their experiences in it and the services it had offered during the years in backing up the civil power and doing emergency work, including flood prevention works, which are hugely significant and important. The review gives us a chance to reiterate and define that role for the Defence Forces in the 21st century. A definition of the role would stabilise retention rates and numbers could be improved. I suggested yesterday that in the context of examining the money being spent on the Reserve Defence Force, input costs associated with the Permanent Defence Force were often included and ascribed to the Reserve Defence Force as if they were were specifically its costs. This is a source of enormous frustration. The Minister gave some very high figures that I would like to hear again about the costs ascribed to the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force. When does he envisage the review process being completed? Will he bring it before the committee in draft form in order that we can have an input into it?
As the Deputy knows, the future position of the Reserve Defence Force and the manner in which it is organised are caught up in the reorganisation process being undertaken to reduce it from a three brigade to a two brigade structure. That reorganisation must be fed into the review being undertaken of the Reserve Defence Force. As I said yesterday, I hope the review will be completed by September. We should have greater clarity surrounding the structure of the Reserve Defence Force and the numbers involved in it.
I gave the Deputy some cost figures yesterday and they have not changed in 24 hours. Similar to other elements of the Defence Forces, the cost of the Reserve Defence Force is spread across a range of subheads of Vote 36. Subhead A5 is devoted entirely to Reserve Defence Force expenditure and includes payments for training, gratuities and allowances, including grants paid into unit funds. The 2012 provision is €4.386 million, the same as in 2011, and includes €2.5 million for paid training. Subheads A3, A4 and A17 include, inter alia, the pay and travel costs of the Permanent Defence Force personnel who provide training and administrative support for the Reserve Defence Force, generally known as the cadre. Subhead A19 includes rental costs of property used by the Reserve Defence Force. There is a range of others costs spread across other subheads, including petrol, transport and ration costs. They are not currently disagregated for the Reserve Defence Force, but the key costs relating to it, if we include the Permanent Defence Force cadre, pay and employer’s PRSI payments, amount to €16,262,000. Allowances paid to the Permanent Defence Force cadre amount to €2,592,000. The Deputy will note the figure of almost €19 million within the Permanent Defence Force attributable to the reserve. It is part of the cost of the reserve because if this work was not undertaken by the individuals who form part of the cadre, they would carry out other operational duties with regard to the Permanent Defence Force. This is a real and identifiable cost and it is part and parcel of the overall costs. The total cost of the cadre in all matters relating to the reserve comes to €23,135,000.
What potential future role is there for the reserve? Several people, including Deputy Stanton, have suggested that we consider the Civil Defence as well and its potential role. The suggestion is to combine its role with the reserve. A Civil Defence Bill is due but we are unlikely to see it this session. Does the Minister have any plans to merge the two operations together in the context of the Bill or the review?
At the moment we are examining the reserve in the context of its functioning, its positioning and its inter-relationship with the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, and the back-up it can provide to the PDF. Naturally, there is a cross-over in the sense that certain duties the reserve undertakes to assist the civil power could equally be undertaken by the Civil Defence, a separate organisation entirely. The Deputy has raised an interesting point with regard to whether we should consider the role of both organisations to determine whether some amalgamation might be undertaken. That is not being considered at the moment and I have no wish to cause any undue concern within either organisation or to give rise to any suggestion that decisions of any nature have been made in this regard because they have not. Certainly, I will bear in mind the suggestion raised by the Deputy.
2Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Defence if he has received correspondence from legal counsel of current or former members of the Defence Forces regarding the use of Lariam. [24524/12]
I am aware that the State Claims Agency has received such correspondence. However, considering that legal proceedings have been instituted the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on individual cases other than to say that legal proceedings have been served in respect of four of these claims.
I understand the position the Minister is in now that legal proceedings have commenced. I wish to put a general question relating to the use of Lariam. In answer to a previous question I submitted the Minister stated that all personnel were screened prior to overseas deployment. The Minister further stated there was a probationary period of between three and four weeks during which personnel received medication before being deployed overseas to establish how they reacted to the medication. Perhaps the Minister has the answer available now and, if not, perhaps he will pass it on to me. How many personnel have been in receipt of Lariam? How many of these were deemed unsuitable after having commenced the taking of Lariam? How many personnel were ruled out of overseas deployment as a result of being unsuitable because of Lariam?
I do not have the exact statistics or the numbers who have received Lariam because, as the Deputy is aware, it has been used for some years. I will make inquiries, however, to establish if I can get the information the Deputy has sought.
A process has been put in place by the Department now that legal proceedings have commenced. What is the next step for the Department? Will the accusations or allegations be contested? What process will be put in place by the Department to answer these?
Once proceedings are issued the matter is dealt with by the State Claims Agency. Obviously, the claims made by those who have taken proceedings will be carefully considered and examined. The background files and medical history will be considered. Any available information with regard to the use of Lariam or, in respect of the individuals concerned, any records that may exist of any contra-indications with regard to their taking of Lariam, will be examined. The Deputy will be familiar with the fact that a procedure was in place with regard to the giving of Lariam to individuals in the context of checking into their historical medical background and whether they suffered from depression or any other health issue which would have given rise to a contra-indication to the effect that it was not an appropriate drug for them to take.
I expect and understand that each case will be examined based on its merits. I expect the usual medical reports will be sought, such as those that occur in litigation of this nature. The matter will be dealt with in a manner that is in the interests of the State and also in the interests of ensuring that the truth of the claims made is known. It will be dealt with in an appropriate manner based on due consideration of the background circumstances.
Are the claims from individuals or families?
As I understand it, they are from individuals.
3Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the role he envisages for Irish troops sent abroad on peacekeeping missions in relation to the current situation in Syria; if the deployment of the 106th Infantry Battalion to UNIFIL in Lebanon this month will be part of a larger peacekeeping initiative in relation to Syria and if it will contribute to the prevention of further escalation of violence from Syria into the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24816/12]
4Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the role that the Defence Forces will play in the UN mission in Syria; the number of personnel involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24648/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. On 21 April 2012, unanimously adopting resolution 2043 (2012), the United Nations Security Council authorised the establishment, for an initial period of 90 days, of a supervision mission, known as the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria, UNSMIS. The purpose of the mission is to monitor a cessation of armed violence "in all its forms by all parties" in Syria. The new mission is also tasked with monitoring the full implementation of the six-point plan proposed by joint special envoy for the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Mr. Kofi Annan.
On 24 April 2012, the Government approved the deployment of up to six members of the Permanent Defence Force as unarmed military observers to UNSMIS, in response to a request from the United Nations. Six Defence Forces personnel were deployed to the mission area on 11 May 2012. The role of the Irish personnel is to observe and report on the security situation and any transgressions of the ceasefire agreement and the implementation of the six-point plan.
The UN mission will comprise an initial deployment of up to 300 military observers under the command of a chief military observer with an appropriate civilian component as required by the mission to fulfil its mandate. It is estimated that all 300 observers will be on the ground by the end of this month.
The mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, mission, acting in support of the Government of Lebanon, is, inter alia, to ensure that its area of operations in southern Lebanon is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind and to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the UN Security Council.
I am advised that there has been no reported security spillover from the Syrian situation into the UNIFIL area of operations. The Irish battalion serving with UNIFIL, currently the 106th, conducts operations solely within the UNIFIL area of operations in southern Lebanon. While I understand that there have been a number of recent security incidents along the northern Lebanese Syrian Border, this is a considerable distance from the UNIFIL area of operations and, as such, does not involve UNIFIL and is a matter essentially for the Lebanese authorities.
I compliment the reputation of our troops on foreign missions. It has been positive compared with troops from other countries. Troops from other countries have been involved in certain situations which have done them no credit. However, the Irish missions have been excellent.
Is the Minister planning on any of the troops in Lebanon moving out of that UNIFIL area because there was violence recently 45 miles north of Beirut between a small group which was supportive of President Assad and the Sunni majority? Is there any possibility of our troops being used in that way within Lebanon? Also, have there been requests or are discussions going on to redeploy our troops in other conflict areas?
There are no plans to move our troops from the Irish area of operations in southern Lebanon. There is a discrete area of operations in which the Irish UNIFIL force locate, and that will continue. Fortunately, the position is still relatively quiet within our area of operations. There is continued vigilance to ensure that our troops are secure and are in a position to undertake the important work they are undertaking.
The position in Syria is extremely volatile. It is a matter of continuing concern. There have been recent incidents in Syria involving some of the UN monitors who are there, not involving our troops but troops from other countries, which are a cause of very serious concern. None of the Irish monitors or observers was involved in incidents that occurred in recent days but there is continued vigilance of what is happening within Syria. There is a regular review by the UN of the mission in Syria and its capacity to fulfil its objectives, and we will continue to review the position as well.
The hope is that the plan to bring about a cessation of violence in Syria will prove successful. Unfortunately, so far there is continuing violence both from the forces of President Assad and also from those engaged in opposition to him. Those forces are somewhat fragmented and appear to have various and differing allegiances in the context of the conflict still sadly taking place there.
We wish our troops well, particularly those in Syria. As the Minister stated, the position is extremely volatile even though the international media appears to have moved away from it. Is the Minister in receipt of daily or weekly reports in terms of threat assessment? I presume that is an evolving situation given the events of recent days. Are there any plans to send any more Irish troops to Syria in an observation capacity? Will the mission in Syria end when Mr. Annan's work ends there or does the Minister see a long-term role for Irish troops in Syria?
The initial mission for the monitors is a 90 day mission. The Deputy might be interested in incidents involving the observers that have occurred in recent days and are a cause of concern.
UN reports indicate that the UN supervision mission in Syria had advised the UN that shortly after 2 p.m. local time on 15 May a convoy of four vehicles was struck by an explosion from an improvised explosive device at Khan Cheikhoun, near Hama. There have been substantial difficulties and substantial loss of life in Hama. Three UN vehicles were damaged but no UN personnel were hurt in the explosion. The mission sent a patrol team to the area to help extract those UN military observers. As I said, no Irish observers were involved. The mission reported yesterday, 16 May 2012, that it picked up the six UN military observers who had to stay overnight in Khan Cheikhoun after vehicles in their convoy were damaged following the explosion. They are now back at their team site in Hama.
Last Tuesday, 15 May, the UN reported from the United Nations supervision mission in Syria that heavy fighting took place on 14 May in Talbisa, in Rastan, and United Nations military observers witnessed that a highway in the area had been blocked by Government forces. A United Nations military observer patrol helped to de-escalate the situation and got the highway opened after interaction with Government forces.
The reality, unfortunately, is that there are continuing incidents and concerns with regard to the area. There are uncertainties about the likelihood of the six-point plan for Syria proposed by UN-Arab League joint special envoy, Kofi Annan, being implemented. The mission is under ongoing review by the United Nations. The UN Security Council Resolution 2043 requests the UN Secretary General to report to the Council on the implementation of its resolution every 15 days and also to submit as necessary to the Council proposals for possible adjustments to the mandate.
The current UN mandate expires on 20 July 2012. Whether the mandate will be renewed remains to be seen and much depends on what happens with regard to the ongoing conflict and the likelihood of the implementation of the six-point plan. As matters stand there are no plans to send any additional troops from our Defence Forces other than to maintain in situ the six monitors who are there. Obviously, we will keep a watchful eye on how matters develop with regard to the capacity of the monitors to fulfil a useful function and to meet a mandate in circumstances in which violence appears to be continuing.
I have a general question on the deployment of our troops abroad. I wonder about the usefulness of the seven personnel in Afghanistan, for example, whereas we have two on the OSCE mission in Bosnia, and there is a danger of escalating problems arising in Bosnia. I ask about the criteria used in those two situations.
I am sure the Minister is doing this but now that UN troops have become a target in Syria, which is a serious development, is he getting daily updates from UN authorities on the security position in the country?
I receive any updates required, bearing in mind circumstances as they evolve. I am maintaining a continuing interest and closely monitoring what is happening.
In reply to Deputy O'Sullivan, we have small numbers of members of the Deafens Forces located in different parts of the world engaged in UN authorised missions and they are performing important and useful functions. In parts of the world where we have very small numbers it is members of the Irish Defence forces who are in important command positions with regard to missions involving troops from other countries.
We have seven members of the Defence Forces in Afghanistan. Their work is substantially in the administrative areas but our forces there have done important work with regard to improvised explosive devices. We have substantial expertise in this country in that area. They have been engaged in training other troops as to how improvised explosive devises can be neutralised. It is work directly focused on saving lives. It is very important work, and I know the members of our Defence Forces in Afghanistan are held in high regard. The work they do is a genuine contribution to trying to end conflict and to protect innocent individuals from the dangers posed by those sort of advices.
5Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the costs associated with the deployment of Air Corps reconnaissance flights to record activity on the 55 special areas of conservation raised bog sites; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24692/12]
In accordance with the roles assigned to them in the White Paper on Defence, the Air Corps is committed to providing support to the civil authorities including Government agencies such as the National Park & Wildlife Service, NPWS, which is the agency responsible for monitoring activity on raised bog special areas of conservation.
As part of the efforts to ensure Ireland's compliance with the EU ban on turf cutting in special areas of conservation, the NPWS submitted a request to the Department of Defence seeking the transport of NPWS personnel in Air Corps aircraft to monitor these areas.
The Department of Defence follows the normal practice in the aviation business of costing aircraft by reference to the cost per flying hour. For these missions, the Cessna aircraft has been used and the average hourly direct cost of operating this aircraft which include fuel and maintenance costs is €185. The cost to date in 2012 of providing assistance to the NPWS is €13,875 based on approximately 75 hours of flying time.
I thank the Minister. I understand that apart from the Air Corps flying unit another unit has been hired from O'Connor's in Weston Airport and that a black helicopter has been used also.
I do not consider the Minister to be someone who would be eager to waste resources. Given that most people accept the turf will probably be cut in any case, it is probably a waste of money on the part of the State to try to police the issue. It seems we do not have enough money to keep all our Garda stations open. I recently spoke to gardaí in Wexford where several stations have been closed and the number of squad cars in the fleet has been cut. These measures are having a highly damaging effect on the morale of gardaí in the area. At a time of such scarce resources, it is disappointing the Government sees fit to harass innocent rural people who are availing of their inalienable right to cut turf.
It is a great pity that the Deputy does not have regard to the substantial fines that could be imposed on the State for failing to comply with European Union regulations with regard to the bogs the Deputy addresses. The Air Corps and Garda Síochána have an obligation to uphold the law of the State. If the law of the State was being complied with, there would be no reason for any expenditure of this nature to be incurred. This is a particularly difficult and protracted dispute that has arisen. I presume the Deputy has some familiarity with it and the possible liability to the State and taxpayers if the State does not do what is required to uphold a law that has been in place for some years and which the State has failed to implement. I regret the necessity to spend any resources in this area but if resources are being spent, it is because there are individuals who are intent on continuing to break the law, have not agreed to implement reasonable proposals to resolve the issue and appear to be intent not merely on maintaining the dispute but continuing to break the law.
People have been cutting turf for 400 years. At one stage it appeared a fair compromise could be reached between the turf cutters, on the one side, and the Government and Europe, on the other, but all reason appears to have disappeared again. It would be nice if the Government would stand up for citizens. If it is being bullied by Europe on this issue, perhaps it will garner the courage to stand up for turf cutters given that turf has been cut for 400 years.
I am conscious that the Deputy has very little respect for the law and has seen fit to break it.
That is an unfair comment.
It is a great pity that, as a Member of this House, he will not have regard to the fact that there are laws with which people must comply. If they are not complied with, those who choose to break them are doing so in circumstances in which they are apparently intent on having fines of tens of thousands of euro imposed on the rest of the community and expect the rest of the community to take them on their shoulders. My colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, has done everything humanly possible to have this problem addressed in a manner which is respectful of those who for many years had access to bogs which may no longer be used for turf cutting. A scheme was proposed and put in place, mediation was organised and it was hoped and understood that this process would produce an outcome. Unfortunately, it appears there is no possible outcome. I do not know whether that is simply because of a general incapacity or refusal to understand the serious position the State is in or whether there may be some Member of this House who wants to play politics with the issue for his own benefit.
While I am as keen to keep within the law as the Minister is, I am probably less keen than he is to treat people unfairly.
The time for the question has concluded. We will move on to other questions.
They had laws in Nazi Germany too, but thank God some people broke them.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
I will not withdraw anything.
If he is so foolish as to suggest that the difficulties in relation to the bogs replicate matters that happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s-----
We are heading in that direction.
-----I would suggest he seek to educate himself on what occurred. If he thinks there is any comparison between the dispute he is continuing to maintain in relation to bogs and the death of 6 million people in the Holocaust, perhaps the Deputy will go and examine his conscience.
May I respond?
No, I am not getting involved.
The Minister was given an opportunity to speak while I am not being allowed to respond.
I did not hear the initial comment.
The Deputy's comment was a disgrace and he should withdraw it.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for not giving me an opportunity to respond.
I did not hear the initial comment. I invite Deputy Flanagan to raise any issue he may have with the Ceann Comhairle.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the comment he made.
I did not hear it. I call on the Minister to reply to Questions Nos. 6 and 13.
Do what you are told, Minister.
Deputy, you are an ignorant buffoon.
Do what you are told.
It is a pity Deputy Flanagan does not have the decency to apologise before he leaves the House.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, does the Minister have a right to keep having a go at me without me being given a right to respond? You have not admonished the Minister in any way for the statements he has made. When I try to leave the House he throws comments at me. I ask you to tell him not to throw a comment at me when I leave the House this time, as it is unfair. I was using an analogy to show there are times when one has no choice but to break the law.
It is an analogy the Deputy should withdraw.
I will not withdraw anything; I stand by what I said. There are times when responsible citizens break the law in the name of justice.
I invite the Minister to reply to Questions Nos. 6 and 13.
Do you want to throw something else, coward?
