Vol. 840 No. 2
6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence to outline the extent to which ongoing training remains available throughout the Defence Forces, with particular reference to the need to ensure that such upgrading and training standards remain in line with best international practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20041/14]
This refers to the ongoing need for upgrading of equipment and training of the Defence Forces, having particular regard to the fact that they must interact with other defence forces on overseas deployment. To do so, they should have the highest standard of equipment and training available.
Training and education of personnel at all levels are vital activities in any defence force as they enable personnel to achieve their required standard of operational effectiveness.
The Defence Forces conduct training and education under three broad categories, namely, skills training, career training and education and collective training. Skills training is the medium through which the Defence Forces ensures that its personnel have the requisite individual, specialist and crew skills to permit the development of organisational capabilities. Career training provides the organisation with the necessary pool of leaders and commanders at all levels from section commander to brigade commander. Collective training allows military personnel to use their individual, crew, specialist and career training together. This moulds sub-units, units and formations into integrated and coherent combat forces. It provides the Defence Forces with the capabilities required to fulfil their roles and missions at home and overseas.
External education at university and institute level at home and abroad fulfils Defence Forces requirements by providing education and expertise that cannot be delivered within the organisation. It ensures that Defence Forces personnel attain the required level of academic and professional qualification. The Defence Forces have a budget of approximately €2 million for training in 2014 and it is anticipated that all members of the Defence Forces will attend at least one training course this year.
Training standards in the Defence Forces are constantly benchmarked against best international practice. Participation in ongoing overseas operations also necessitates multilateral training and assessment. This facilitates the ongoing review of Defence Forces re-skilling and training methods and standards within an international military context.
I am advised that Defence Forces personnel continue to have modern and effective equipment and technology for their training and important day-to-day roles.
Is the standard and quality of equipment used for training throughout the Defence Forces equal to that available globally, with particular reference to the type of equipment likely to be used when interacting with other defence forces on overseas deployments?
I am advised by the military authorities that they are satisfied that existing Army training techniques and equipment are up-to-date in all respects. Personnel are trained and provided with all the necessary skills to the standards required to ensure that they can carry out all day-to-day roles assigned to them. This is clearly evidenced by the roles engaged in by the Defence Forces not only domestically but internationally. For example, I have visited the Middle East, where we have members of the Defence Forces in southern Lebanon. We have a joint Irish-Finnish contingent. Our Defence Forces, when they were a sole contingent out there, were interacting with other contingents as opposed to being a joint contingent. It is clear that the resources, weapons, protective resources and equipment available to them are as good as, and in some cases better than, the equipment being utilised by other defence forces. For example, the deployment of our Defence Forces was requested in the Golan Heights following the announcement by the Austrian contingent that it would withdraw. I insisted that specific and particular resources be available to provide force protection to members of the Defence Forces. That was agreed and those resources were substantially superior to the resources available to the other contingents engaged on the Golan Heights at the time.
I thank the Minister for his further reply. Is the Minister satisfied that the surveillance equipment and electronic technology available to the Defence Forces for training purposes remain at the highest standard?
Are the supply and transport training and equipment of the Naval Service and the Air Corps adequate to meet the challenges likely to be faced on deployment?
If I could say to the Deputy, both the Air Corps and the Naval Service keep abreast of all developments in the context of training and how to deal with a broad range of issues. Training, for example, in the Air Corps is conducted in accordance with industry best practice and to the highest standard, referencing the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, and Federal Aviation Administration, FAA's requirements and using the most modern methods and equipment available.
In the context of the Naval Service - for fear of being accused of repetition - we now have the new naval vessels coming on stream. We have the Samuel Beckett, which will be shortly commissioned and available and which has the most modern available technology as could be provided to facilitate the Naval Service meeting its operational capabilities and obligations.
7. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the plans in place for the Defence Forces to undertake more active conflict resolution as distinct from peacekeeping; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20043/14]
Since before I was born, the Defence Forces have been distinguishing themselves internationally in their peace support operations. This question seeks to promote the idea that the capacity exists, in consultation with the Department of Finance, for our Defence Forces to play an even greater role in terms of conflict resolution. What are the plans of the Minister and his Department in this regard?
The Defence Forces have undertaken and continue to undertake a wide variety of peacekeeping missions. As part of these missions, at which the Defence Forces excel, conflict resolution, as the Deputy is aware, is one aspect. Conflict resolution is also one element of the reform of the security sector in the countries within which the missions are taking place. For example, the training of Malian troops, which Ireland is undertaking in conjunction with the United Kingdom as part of an EU mission, seeks to train in the area of human rights as part of the mission's mandate. This was also an element of the mission previously undertaken by Ireland as part of the EU training mission in Somalia.
As the Deputy will appreciate, conflict resolution requires a distinct set of skills, such as mediation and negotiation. These skills are crucial in the field, both during peacekeeping and also following the termination of conflict. However, the primary role of the Defence Forces in overseas missions is to maintain peace and, as such, their role in direct conflict resolution is minimal.
That said, the Defence Forces have partnered - I am sorry; I think my throat is giving up - with the Kennedy institute at NUI Maynooth and the European Security and Defence College to undertake a pilot course in mediation and dialogue skills for common security and defence policy crisis management activities. This course will be held in Maynooth from 19 to 23 May this year. The course will allow participants to explore these skills and to develop a personal capacity to be more effective in conflict resolution. The aim of the course is to give students an understanding of mediation and negotiation. It will allow them to apply these techniques in common security and defence policy crisis management operations and missions. I assume that that is the type of activity that the Deputy has in mind.
Generally, I welcome the Minister's response, but he seems to be placing a focus on limiting the role that the Defence Forces might play in conflict resolution. It is an area in which we can expand our activities. What we did in Mali and Somalia was of particular significance. For this reason, many others and I were disappointed when the Minister decided to withdraw our participants in Mali. Their work on human rights awareness was of great importance.
The Curragh Camp training centre is liaising and actively engaging with the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for Conflict Intervention in Maynooth. This is worthwhile and has the potential for further development. I would like our nation to build on its major international contribution to peacekeeping and on the work of Irish Aid and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade so that we might have an integrated approach to problems. Many of the situations in which peacekeeping and peace support are required derive from conflicts.
I do not disagree with the Deputy; there is no question of limiting roles. We have not withdrawn forces from Mali. In fact, Deputy-----
I did not say "Mali". I said "Somalia".
I think the Deputy said "Mali". He might have meant "Somalia". There was a reason for that, which I can come to. In the context of Mali, there is a possibility of some additional members of the Defence Forces becoming engaged. There is no question of limiting our role. I merely said that, so far, we were playing a limited role in that context because there has been substantial emphasis on peacekeeping. I think conflict resolution is of substantial important. That is why we have members of the Defence Forces participating in the course that I mentioned. I see it as a role in which we can have a greater engagement. I think, in fact, the Deputy and myself are at one on those issues.
The withdrawal from Somalia was not for that reason. It was because the nature of the mission very substantially changed. There were particular reasons about which the Deputy asked a question. I am sure it can be replied to in detail in that regard.
The Deputy and I are at one. This is an important area. I think, in the context of the various conflict zones that exist across the world, when we deploy troops to particular areas, the capacity of our troops to engage in the manner that the Deputy describes can, on occasion, be of great value. I would see this in the coming years as an expanding role, not a role to be limited, but there have to be particular circumstances to which it is appropriate. We cannot engage in a role of that nature obviously in areas to which it is not appropriate.
I welcome the Minister's latter comments. There is considerable scope for development, particularly in the relationship that has been developed between the UN school in the Curragh Camp training centre and the Kennedy centre for conflict resolution. Working with those two agencies, we have the opportunity to develop something on this island that can allow Ireland and its people to build on the successes of the past in terms of peace support. We could also support Irish Aid to do much more than simply empower people to deal with crises. Rather, they could be helped to avoid conflict and to deal with it where it exists. This is something of which the Irish people would be supportive. I am glad that the Minister is also supportive, but it will need capital investment. It is an important matter.
Of course, helping individuals in states where there are difficulties or states to avoid conflict does not always require the engagement of military personnel. Often, military personnel are engaged after the conflict has commenced. There is a great deal of work that is done by civilians, by international organisations, by Ministers in governments across the world and by members of governments across the world to try to reduce tension levels and to provide prescriptions for conflict resolution, as we well know on this island in the context of the assistance that we have got from elsewhere, particularly the United States, in bringing about a conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution has a role to play in troubled parts of the world. It is not always appropriate to the Defence Forces to engage in that role. On occasions when the Defence Forces go to a troubled part of the world, unfortunately the conflict has broken out, but there are circumstances in which that skill can be of benefit and of use. I do not think the Deputy and I are in any great disagreement about the matter.
8. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the Defence Forces to participate in any EU battle group in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20053/14]
The question is self-explanatory. I am seeking an update on any plan the Minister has for the Defence Forces to participate in further EU battle groups.
Following Government approval, Ireland will participate in the Nordic battle group in 2015 and the German led battle group in 2016. The Nordic battle group will comprise Sweden, acting as Framework Nation, Finland, Norway, Estonia and possibly Lithuania and Latvia. The German led battle group will comprise Germany, acting as Framework Nation, Luxembourg, Austria, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. The planned Defence Forces contribution to each battle group will be a reconnaissance company and related combat support elements. It is also planned that Ireland will also take command of a multinational reconnaissance group headquarters, providing Ireland with a more significant role within these battle groups. The total number of Defence Forces personnel involved in both the Nordic and German led EU battle groups will be approximately 175. However, this level of resource commitment will only arise should the battle group be called on to undertake an operation and should Ireland agree to participate. The number of personnel involved leading up to and during the standby period may be in the region of 14 for the Nordic battle group and ten for the German led battle group. These personnel, mainly staff officers and NCOs, will be engaged in training and planning activities serving in various appointments and posts.
Any deployments of the above battle groups would be subject to the triple lock.
Participation in EU battle groups underlines our commitment to the development of CSDP and enables us to continue to contribute effectively to UN-authorised EU military and civilian crisis management operations in support of international peace and security.
It is not the Minister's perspective on these matters, and I presume if he had his way he would like to end Ireland's neutrality, but there are concerns about the creeping militarisation of the European Union over many years. Only six EU states are not full members of NATO. A recent report stated that "the NATO Response Force and EU battle groups are complementary, mutually reinforcing initiatives" and called for efforts to maximise synergies between them. The Minister is aware that Denmark and Malta do not take part in these battle groups. Does he have any plans to adhere to the wishes of the Irish people and not have Ireland involved in these battle groups? That would send a clear signal, and this is aligned to Deputy Daly's question on the issue of Shannon, that we are genuinely a neutral country. That would reinforce the point Deputy Ó Fearghaíl made about conflict resolution. If we were not aligned to NATO forces internationally it would give us credibility in terms of being in a position to deal with conflict resolution.
As the Deputy knows, we are part of the European Union, something to which his party is opposed. We engage in the Common Security and Defence Policy, with which his party disagrees. We will continue to participate as we do, which is to the benefit of our Defence Forces. We will continue to make a contribution. It is always interesting that the Deputy knows what the majority of the Irish people think on these issues. I can tell the Deputy that in the context of the role battle groups have played, what they have done and our engagement in them has ensured that our Defence Forces reach a particularly high level of training that is important to them and assists them when they are engaged in UN sanctioned missions, and there is no intention of changing the approach.
Our Defence Forces can gain the same expertise taking part in what they have done historically, namely, solely UN peacekeeping missions, without being aligned to NATO forces in these EU battle groups. I quoted from the report the hope and ambition of some people who oversee these matters at European level. This is part of what the Minister does. He accused Deputy Daly of supporting Osama bin Laden. I cannot even find a word to describe that type of assertion. In terms of Sinn Féin and the European Union, we are running four candidates in the four constituencies. I am hopeful we will elect all four, no doubt assisted by the Minister's performance in his ministerial portfolio.
I am open to correction but I think the Deputy's party has advocated a "No" vote in every referendum held relating to the European Union. His party conveniently put forward candidates for the European Parliament while opposing the very existence of the European Union repetitively whenever given the opportunity to do so. Sinn Féin is quite happy to look in two different directions simultaneously.
Regarding battle groups, as would be evident from the Deputy, some of the European Union states that participate in battle groups are neutral. Other neutral states find no difficulty in participating and contributing to Common Security and Defence Policy, and to engaging. The Government does not have any intention of changing policy in that regard.
9. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Defence if he will be revising the 21-year rule to enable members of the Defence Forces who are willing and able to continue in service to do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20047/14]
15. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which he has received submissions from representatives of the Defence Forces in respect of retirement and recruitment with particular reference to the degree to which previously determined age based retirement is likely to affect the composition of the force in the future; if any modification can be entertained with a view to meeting the concerns expressed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20040/14]
17. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Defence his plans to review the policy whereby privates and corporals may not serve beyond 21 years from 2015; the impact this will have on the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20057/14]
The Minister is aware that the 21-year## rule is in force as a result of which a number of members of the Defence Forces are having to retire against their wishes. In the current climate where there are very few job opportunities, I ask that serving members of the Defence Forces who meet the health criteria would be enabled to remain in the Defence Forces for a period longer than 21 years. I would welcome the Minister's opinion on that matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 15 and 17 together.
The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, was an issue of serious concern during the 1990s. It was the subject of severe criticism by a series of external reports, mainly Price Waterhouse Consultants and the Efficiency Audit Group, EAG. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the EAG was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of PDF personnel. The EAG’s report was accepted by Government in 1995.
In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993 to enlist personnel on a five year contract basis, following consultation with the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA. In 1997 agreement was reached with PDFORRA on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years with the option to be extended to a maximum of 12 years, subject to meeting standards of medical and physical fitness and conduct. Longer periods of service were envisaged for non-commissioned officers.
In 2004 PDFORRA submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the PDF after 1 January 1994. A set of criteria was agreed with PDFORRA to provide longer careers for those who enlisted post 1 January 1994 while continuing to address the Government’s objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern Defence Forces.
The criteria require that any person re-engaging after 12 years of service must be able to continue to operate at their current level both at home and overseas on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specified criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings.
With the approach of 2015 the first effects of the agreement, whereby privates and corporals may not serve beyond 21 years, will be felt by Permanent Defence Force members in those ranks. A claim has been received, as the Deputy may know, from PDFORRA for a further review in relation to this matter. In accordance with normal procedures the association’s claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. I understand that discussions are taking place with the representative association under a special sub-committee of Conciliation Council. As discussions are confidential to the parties involved in accordance with the terms of the scheme, I do not in any way want to prejudice them or impact on their outcome.
However, I do understand the concerns it raises for enlisted personnel due to be discharged in terms of their personal circumstances and the impact on their families. I am sure that all matters raised by PDFORRA on behalf of their members are being comprehensively examined at Conciliation Council. I am also cognisant of the need for continuing recruitment to the Defence Forces of young and fit men and women so that the Defence Forces can discharge all the roles assigned to them by Government, both at home and overseas. It was for this very reason that this policy was introduced in the first place.
As the negotiation process with the representative association is very much ongoing, I would not like to pre-empt or second guess the outcome of current discussions at Conciliation Council, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this issue publicly at this time.
It is welcome that the Minister appears to have changed tack in this matter. By virtue of the fact that a discussion process has commenced, he is willing to consider the request made by PDFORRA. Nobody is suggesting for one minute that a "Dad's Army" type of force would be acceptable. What we are asking is that during a time of limited job opportunities the men and women who have served the Defence Forces and their communities with distinction and wish to continue in service after 21 years and meet the medical and fitness criteria in that regard be afforded an opportunity to do so. While it is welcome that a negotiating process has commenced, the Minister, as the person with responsibility, has the power to accede to PDFORRA's request. It would be beneficial to members of the Defence Forces if it were to be met.
I have not changed tack at all. I may be wrong, but this issue has been raised with me previously by the Deputy and other Deputies. There is a process and a procedure in place to deal with issues of this nature. PDFORRA is a party to the agreement I referenced. As I said, issues have been raised by it, issues it is entitled to raise. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice the outcome of the process under way, but I am conscious of the concerns and issues raised which must be addressed in the best interests of the Defence Forces generally and the context of ensuring the overall capacity of the Defence Forces to meet its objectives and provide the services required at home and abroad. This is an ongoing issue. As I said, I do not wish to say anything that would prejudice what is an important process taking place.
I thank the Minister for his replies thus far. Are the discussions taking place likely to take account of the rather unique set of circumstances presenting? While previous agreements served their purpose well, it may well be the case that a review could be beneficial to the operation of the Defence Forces and in meeting the Minister's requirements in terms of adherence to previous agreements and the possibility of new ones being entered into.
The review will take account of all matters, including the operational capability of the Defence Forces. I do not wish to say any more than this in the context of the conciliation process under way.
I thank the Minister for his brief reply. I appreciate the sensitivities. Notwithstanding this, when does the Minister expect the negotiations under way to conclude?
I do not wish to put a definitive timeframe on them or say they will be concluded by the end of the month because there is always the possibility the process could take somewhat longer to complete. They will, however, be concluded in the coming weeks. Much depends on both parties involved, but I do not want anyone to have to adhere to a definitive timeframe. There is space for this issue to be worked through. I expect matters to be dealt with in the coming weeks. I cannot, however, predict with certainty whether this will happen in the month of May or June.
The Minister is correct that my colleague, Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl, has raised this issue on a number of occasions, on each of which the Minister stated he did not want to change the policy. Is the process under way meaningful? Is the Minister willing to listen to PDFORRA's side of the argument or is this process merely a charade and the Minister has his mind made up that the policy will not change? The men and women concerned have served their communities and the Defence Forces with distinction. We are effectively telling them that when they reach the age of 38, 39 or 40 years, they are no longer capable of work. Some of them meet the highest health and fitness standards and are well capable of carrying out their work. Members of the defence forces in other countries serve well into their 50s. Having invested heavily in training these personnel, forcing them to retire at 38 and 39 years of age is an inefficient use of resources. I hope the Minister will confirm the process is meaningful and not a charade.
The process is meaningful. It is important not to say people will be rendered unemployable because many members of the Defence Forces leave on retirement with particular niche skills that make them readily employable. Even in a difficult jobs market, they are able to obtain employment, although I accept that does not apply to everybody and no one should pretend that it does. The process is meaningful, as it must be. However, the Deputy cannot have it every way. He cannot say, on the one hand, say we do not want a "Dad's Army" and, on the other, that we should allow all members to remain until they reach the age of 55 or 60 years. We must have a defence force that has the capabilities it requires. Given the objective of having a force with a strength of 9,500, when members of the Defence Forces retire, this allows for the recruitment of new members. As I have said previously in the House, approximately 400 new recruits will join the Defence Forces this year. This number is based on retirements. There are job opportunities for young people in joining the Defence Forces when members retire. This is a meaningful process, not an engagement for a declaration or in a charade, and I hope it will produce an outcome within the coming weeks. However, I cannot pre-empt its outcome.
I heard the Minister's reply and understand his position on the matter. I agree with the remarks made by other Deputies about forcing people to retire in their 40s. Defence Forces personnel are required to pass fitness tests which, if not met, results in their discharge, which is fair enough. However, some of the men and women concerned are very young, fit and healthy and bring a wealth of experience to the table. In other areas such as construction in which the work is every bit as challenging physically, tradesmen work into their late 50s, while labourers work up to the age of 54 or 55 years. In employing Defence Forces personnel up to the age of 50 years we would not retaining them beyond use. The French Foreign Legion recruits up to the age of 40 years, which means that it recruits personnel up to the same age at which Defence Forces personnel are forced to retire.
The Deputy never ceases to be a source of wonderment. I did not realise he was a fan of the French Foreign Legion. As I said to Deputy Robert Troy, this is a meaningful process. We will wait to see what comes out of it.
