Colm Keaveney
Ceist:6. Deputy Colm Keaveney asked the Minister for Defence if he will review the 21-year rule for Defence Forces personnel enlisted after 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34557/14]
Other Questions
Defence Forces Personnel
The object of the question is to establish whether the Minister intends to review the 21-year rule for Defence Forces personnel. The Minister will be aware that many women and men are prematurely being discharged from the Army after 21 years' service. Generally, the position is that personnel in their 30s, who have large mortgages, child care costs and established family costs, are being prematurely discharged from the service. Would the Minister share with us his views on how he will address this situation?
The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was an issue of serious concern during the 1990s and was the subject of severe criticism in a series of external reports, mainly those by Price Waterhouse Consulting and the Efficiency Audit Group. 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 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 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 applied to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994 and provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years, with the option of extension 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 Defence Forces 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 force.
The criteria require that any person re-engaging after 12 years' service must be able to continue to operate at his or her current level, both at home and overseas, on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specific criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction and service overseas.
PDFORRA has tried to have the 21-year rule, which came from the 12-year rule, which came from the previous five-year rule, extended again because people who joined the Defence Forces in 1994 are close to the end of their contracts. There is a very active and constructive discussion in the conciliation infrastructure in the Department of Defence. I understand that agreement is reasonably close and there are one or two outstanding issues. We are trying to be as flexible and reasonable as we can while at the same time ensuring we have an appropriate benchmark with regard to age profile in the Defence Forces.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to demonstrate flexibility and I am sure he will agree that continuing in stable employment in one's 30s is generally a good thing. Being discharged from the Army in one's late 30s and not having any employment prospects is not good for one's family or community. Significant flexibility was offered to the chaps in the mess, such as the commandants, who received an extra two years. Psychiatric nurses and gardaí were also given significant flexibility to continue in service beyond retirement age.
It may be of assistance to compare our Defence Forces with those of some of our NATO friends. The retirement age in Malta and Finland is 55, in Belgium it is 56, in Cyprus it is 52 and in Australia it is 60. I am delighted the Minister has acknowledged that we have the best fitness programme available and that if people are fit to work they should not be discharged prematurely.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. It is important to put this into context, given the active role the Defence Forces have been playing abroad in recent weeks. We are speaking about front-line soldiers such as privates and corporals who are jumping in and out of Mowags and who need to be fit, adaptable, strong and at the peak of their physical and mental fitness for their own safety and the safety of the troops around them. I will not compromise this principle. Let us be clear on this.
If one progresses from private to corporal to sergeant, this is a non-issue. The 21-year rule applies to people who have remained as front-line soldiers in an effort to try to reduce the age profile and ensure we have a constant inflow of new personnel in their 20s coming into the ranks of front-line soldiers. We will try to show flexibility when and where appropriate, but being a soldier is different from being a member of many other institutions in Ireland because of the risks to which they are exposed and the demands in terms of mental fitness, flexibility and physical strength which we require of them to perform their duties.
I do not suggest that we should introduce a bogus fitness programme so people can remain within the service. If somebody is fit he or she should be allowed progress beyond the current arrangement of 21 years and retain employment. There is no suggestion that we are asking for something inappropriate to be introduced. All we are asking is for common sense to be considered. There is no doubt that the Minister could intervene immediately because there is a difficulty with respect to how he is managing the existing resources. There is no promotion from corporal to sergeant, but the Minister is promoting and accelerating a natural wastage of critical skills in areas which will never be built up by new intake. Significant resources are being lost with respect to the expertise which has been built over many years in the speciality. Will the Minister report to the Dáil on when he expects the review to be concluded and when he can re-engage with PDFORRA to make some kind of announcement on the flexibilities that we both consider fair and just?
The flexibilities being discussed are with regard to maintaining levels of expertise built up over time, while at the same time trying to ensure front-line soldiers are of an appropriate age. There is a balance to be found. We are not really speaking about people in their 30s. If there is a 21-year rule and one joined the Army at 19 or 20 or in one's early 20s, we are talking about people who are now in their 40s.
Or 16, as is sometimes the case. The Minister met such people last week in Athlone. They are in their 30s.
I propose to let the infrastructure in the Defence Forces which exists to resolve issues such as this, and which has successfully resolved this issue in the past when there was a request by PDFORRA to do so, to finalise its work. It would be inappropriate for a Minister to wade in politically and tell people what the outcome should be. I would like to think our conciliation and arbitration systems in the Defence Forces can work here for PDFORRA and the Defence Forces generally. I understand PDFORRA's national conference will take place in several weeks' time and I will speak to them there. It is not appropriate for me to engage until we get an outcome from the conciliation process, which should happen in the coming weeks.
Defence Forces Deployment
Clare Daly
Ceist:7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the number of occasions on which Irish Defence Forces personnel were present at Shannon Airport in June, July and August 2014; the nature of their duties; and the number of searches of foreign military aircraft conducted. [34551/14]
This question relates to the activities of members of the Defence Forces at Shannon Airport in the presence of US military aircraft. As a neutral country, we have international obligations to search these aircraft, although it would appear the Defence Forces members seem to be present more or less to protect them. Will the Minister instruct the Defence Forces to search the aircraft or will it be left to civilians to try to do the job for them?
It seems, unfortunately, that sometimes we do need to protect these aircraft because there are individuals intent on trying to damage them.
An Garda Síochána has the primary responsibility for law and order, including internal security in the State. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid to the civil power, which in practice means assisting An Garda Síochána when requested to do so.
There is ongoing and close liaison between An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces regarding security matters. The Defence Forces have deployed personnel to Shannon Airport, in response to requests for support from An Garda Síochána, since 5 February 2003. This has been ongoing for quite some time.
There were 33 security deployments of the Defence Forces at Shannon Airport in June of this year, 24 in July and 32 in August. This is entirely in line with deployments in previous years. The length of each such deployment and the number of relevant aircraft that land and take off during each deployment can vary. For example, if a single aircraft is on the ground for an extended period, perhaps overnight or over a number of days, this would involve more than one deployment of troops, as each shift is generally of 12 hours' duration.
The Defence Forces have no responsibility for searching aircraft that land at Shannon. This is our involvement.
The Minister has confirmed that the activities over the summer were consistent and that on average once a day the Irish Defence Forces are present to protect US military aircraft.
When the Irish Army goes there, at whose behest is it? Is it at the behest of the Garda Síochána? Who decides and who pays for it? We have a responsibility under international law to search the vehicles. This responsibility was confirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee at a recent meeting in Geneva, at which it said that relying on diplomatic assurances was not sufficient in respect of checking whether aircraft were, for example, carrying people for rendition. We have had similar judgments in the High Court - for example, in the Horgan v. Ireland case, in which it was clearly spelled out that a neutral state may not permit the movement of large numbers of troops or munitions of one belligerent state through its territory en route to a theatre of war. Under the Hague Convention, there is a legal responsibility for a neutral power which receives on its territory troops belonging to belligerent armies to intern them as far as possible. We have a responsibility to search the aircraft. Will the Minister instruct the Defence Forces to do so or talk to the Minister for Justice and Equality to get the Garda Síochána to do so or must civilians do the job to make sure we are compliant with our international obligations as a neutral country?
It is my understanding that the Defence Forces are there at the request of the Garda Síochána. When the Garda Síochána asks for support, backup and assistance on security matters, the Defence Forces takes it seriously and provides it. The cost is assumed by the Department of Defence. On the broader issue, being a neutral state allows us to make decisions for ourselves as a country. We have strong reassurances from the US on issues such as rendition and we have a relationship with the US that allows us to facilitate flights in and out of Shannon on the back of those assurances. Questions about decisions with regard to the Garda Síochána must be asked of the Minister for Justice and Equality.
That is the problem of kicking it from one Minister to the other. The Minister has confirmed that we are facilitating the movement of US troops, in his words, and these troops have engaged in a 13-year invasion of Afghanistan, not to mind activities in Iraq and elsewhere. We have been complicit in the slaughter of innocents because of that. I quoted to the Minister the obligations in terms of what Irish courts have said and the international Hague Convention rules for neutral countries, which we are not adhering to. It is insufficient for the Minister to kick it to another Minister, and I would like the Minister to provide me with the cost to the Defence Forces of the venture. It is simply not good enough.
On costs, I can be helpful straight away. In 2012, the cost was €275,000 and in 2013 it was €221,000. There is a cost to it and it is presumably because the Garda Síochána is concerned that we need to provide protection, which is an issue in itself, to planes landing and taking off at Shannon Airport. They ask for our assistance and they get our assistance, but the operation is the responsibility of the Garda Síochána, and the Deputy should address policy questions in this regard to the Minister for Justice and Equality.
Programme for Government Priorities
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:8. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his priorities for the remainder of the Government's current term of office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34574/14]
In July, when the Government published its revised set of priorities or its revised programme for Government, there was no mention of defence. The question gives the opportunity to the Minister to set out his personal priorities for the remaining term of the Government.
I thank the Deputy for providing me with the opportunity to do this. My immediate priority will be to ensure that the Defence Forces retain the capability to fulfil all roles assigned to them by the Government, both at home and overseas. In this context, and within the available resource envelope, decisions to replace equipment and ongoing recruitment to the Permanent Defence Force will prioritise the maintenance of required operational outputs. The preparation of the new White Paper on defence is also a key priority, with the objective of setting the policy framework for defence for the next ten years. I believe this is a critical aspect of Government policy and I am determined to ensure that the new White Paper fully addresses the defence response to future security challenges in a comprehensive way.
The White Paper process provides an opportunity to critically examine future demands and consider how we might best meet associated operational requirements. I am conscious that many of the day-to-day services delivered by the Defence Forces are cross-cutting in nature and I am determined to ensure that defence resources and expertise are leveraged to maximum effect for the benefit of the State.
I intend to conclude the White Paper on defence and I would genuinely like Opposition input. I cannot assure the Opposition that I will agree with everything, but I would like input. There is much we can do to modernise the role of the Defence Forces in terms of its interaction with Irish companies and using the Defence Forces infrastructure as a test bed for new technology and new innovation. That is already happening in places such as Haulbowline and the Curragh. We need to question existing State infrastructure that operates in partnership with the Defence Forces, and maybe we could look at more efficient structures, such as interaction between the Naval Service and the Irish Coast Guard. There is a significant debate to be had. We need to review in an ambitious way Ireland's role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. I look forward to the debate and I assure Members that I will be an active Minister for Defence in the relatively short time I will have between now and the next election.
I wonder whether there is a message in that about the relatively short time to the next election.
There is a short time for the Deputy's supplementary question and he would want to get on with it.
I thank the Minister for his response. He mentioned the White Paper, which is of vital importance. When does the Minister expect to publish it? Many of us have made submissions. The Minister talked about recruitment and equipment, and this gives rise to financing. When the Minister received his briefing documents in July, they indicated that in terms of GDP, Ireland provides to its Defence Forces about half the level of funding provided by other neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland. Is that something the Minister will address?
We speak frequently about the Irish public's awareness of the value of the overseas service of our Defence Forces and how proud we are of everything they do abroad. Does the Minister see himself highlighting the valuable contribution of the Defence Forces at home?
For many years I have been highlighting what the Naval Service does in respect of fishing. Somebody questioned the link between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Defence in respect of the same Minister having responsibility for the both Departments. For many years and across a number of Governments, the marine and defence areas were linked because of the role of the Naval Service in fisheries protection.
I want to raise the profile of our Defence Forces from the point of view of the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service. Very few people serve the State in the way the Defence Forces do. It is a form of patriotism that we do not see in too many Irish people. Our Defence Forces perform an extraordinarily professional role at home and abroad and it is something that is taken for granted by people, but it should not be.
The White Paper on defence is an opportunity to highlight the service and talk about it in the future. I hope to have a draft on my desk by the end of the year so that we can have an active discussion in the new year about developing, amending and improving the draft.
I refer to how we address the issues in this House. I recall being Chairman of the Oireachtas committee on health in the previous Dáil when we found it extremely useful that the Minister and the officials from the Department of Health and the HSE came in every quarter to give the committee a presentation. I do not suggest this in respect of the Department of Defence but I ask if the Minister and his officials would consider coming before the justice and defence committee twice a year to update us on matters relating to the Department of Defence, the service abroad and at home and what the Minister is doing to develop the role of the Defence Forces.
I agree absolutely. I have been very anxious to attend the committee and I have been speaking to Deputy Stanton in this regard. I am aware that Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has asked for me to brief the committee on UNDOF which I intend to do but it is a question of finding an appropriate time to suit my timetable and that of the committee. I refer to my interaction with the agriculture committee over the past number of years which shows that I am very open to discussion and I try to take on board views and ideas which I regard them as credible and sensible. I hope to be before the defence committee at least twice a year, if not more frequently.
UN Missions
Catherine Murphy
Ceist:9. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Defence in view of the changing nature of the military situation in the Golan Heights and the recent intensification of violence in the region, his plans to seek a review of the UNDOF mandate under which Irish soldiers are serving in the area; if he or senior Irish military personnel have had discussions with the head of mission and force commander in relation to the changing nature of the conflict in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34571/14]
My question is similar to the first two priority questions in that it relates to the changing situation in the Golan Heights. There have been developments in the situation since I tabled this question. I wish to know what the Minister's approach will be when he attends the summit on 26 September. I ask him to inform the House about the engagements, whether there was an exchange of fire and whether, as was reported, Irish troops were instructed to surrender.
I state categorically that Irish troops were never instructed to surrender. It is important to understand the role of Irish troops in the UNDOF mission; they are called a mobile force reserve. Most of the UN peacekeeping force are relatively lightly armed with rifles. However, the Irish contingent is different in that our troops operate in armoured vehicles known as Mowag vehicles with a mounted machine-gun. Troops are heavily armed and they are sent in to resolve difficult or awkward situations if and when these arise. This is the reason they have been so actively involved in the past weeks. For example, the Irish troops were the last troops to leave Camp Faouar, which was UNDOF's headquarters up to a few days ago. They have now redeployed into Camp Ziouani on the Israeli side of what is called the Alpha line.
I reiterate that the Irish troops were never asked to surrender. Other UN troops were in very difficult situations where the commanding officer needed to make sensible decisions to protect his troops and I believe he made the right decisions at the right time.
We have asked for reassurance from the United Nations which has extensive experience both in the Middle East and in Golan - UNDOF has been there since 1974. We need to respond on the ground to a significant change in conditions so that we can have a peace observation mission consistent with the mandate but which manages risk in an appropriate way. As I said earlier, I will not send Irish troops into a civil war situation; that is not their job nor is it the mandate and they should not be exposed to such a situation. They are highly trained and can deal with very difficult and awkward situations but the structures of this mission need to be adapted and are being adapted to address the change on the ground and we must wait to see whether this change may be temporary or permanent.
With regard to the summit on 26 September I ask if there is a time line for sending the replacement force.
I have been invited to speak at the international peace-keeping summit which will be held in New York on 26 September, next week. It will have a focus on existing peace-keeping missions but it will also focus on attempts to build capacity for peace-keeping and conflict resolution on the Continent of Africa. This will also provide a very interesting opportunity for Ireland. However, the big decisions may well be taken today. The UN Security Council met yesterday and it will meet again today. Its members are trying to agree the wording of a statement on UNDOF which I think would give us reassurance with regard to structural change and potential equipment change available to that mission in the future, in order to remove the risk to which our troops may be exposed. I hope the UN Security Council will be able to agree an acceptable wording which it could publish today.
On the question about the timing for sending the replacement force, we delayed the rotation by two weeks because our troops on the ground who have been there for the past six months are implementing the new structures to ensure that when replacement troops arrive they will have the benefit of a new operational structure.
Sorry, Minister, we are over time.
I expect that a rotation of troops will happen in the middle of next month, in October.
Given that the mission has been in place for over 40 years without having facilitated resolution of the Syrian-Israeli conflict which was what it was designed for in the first place, it appears there is very little we can offer there. Would the Minister agree that our troops would be better used somewhere like Ukraine where a peacekeeping mission could certainly be of significant benefit or in the Congo where more than 5 million people have been destroyed?
There are many conflict zones in the world requiring peacekeeping missions. However, Ireland and the Irish Defence Forces have a lot of experience in the Middle East. We have had a significant presence in southern Lebanon for many years. In my view our expertise is suited to this mission. We have also been asked in no uncertain terms by multiple countries to stay there because of the role of Irish troops in this mission and the professionalism they bring to it. I would need to think very carefully before making a decision to pull Ireland out but at the same time we need to be firm with regard to the changes needed to manage risk appropriately so that I can confidently send troops in the knowledge that the structure is appropriately framed to deal with changing circumstances on the ground.
I ask Deputy Ó Fearghaíl to forego his introduction to his question as only two minutes remain for this question.
EU Meetings
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:10. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he has attended any meetings with EU counterparts since taking office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34576/14]
I ask the Minister to inform the House about the level of engagement he has had with his EU defence ministerial colleagues and in particular what has been the outcome of any discussions with regard to the formation of impending battle groups, the Nordic battle group in 2015 and the German-led battle group in 2016.
I have had two proper engagements with EU ministerial colleagues, the first meeting on the margins of a NATO summit which was an event for partners of NATO in certain peacekeeping missions. I had a very good bilateral meeting with my Dutch counterpart. Two Dutch officers are in the UNDOF mission. I made it very clear to my counterpart what Ireland requires in order to stay. She was in complete agreement with Ireland's position. I have had a good engagement with colleagues at the informal defence meeting held in Milan last week. It was a very useful lengthy working session which gave me the opportunity to get to know my colleagues and the issues they are progressing. I can assure the Deputy that we have not made any radical new commitments but I have outlined an Irish perspective on some of the new challenges we face. For example, the mission in Afghanistan is coming to an end to be replaced by a peace observation and support mission in which there may be some limited Irish involvement. Ireland supports the battle group concept.
The name "battle group" is unfortunate, but that is what it is. Under the battle group model, military forces from different European countries train with each other in order that if there is a need to undertake peacekeeping or observation missions, troops from the various member states will have an understanding of how their colleagues from elsewhere operate and work. This model also ensures the proper interoperability of both the equipment used and the personnel serving together.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.