Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Jan 2015

Vol. 863 No. 1

Priority Questions

Defence Forces Personnel

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Ceist:

1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if the Defence Forces have succeeded in recruiting the required number of doctors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1391/15]

I welcome staff and colleagues back to the House and wish them a happy new year. My question reflects the difficulties experienced by the Defence Forces in recent years in recruiting the full complement of doctors to provide services to members of the forces. I am seeking to ascertain what progress has been made in this regard.

I join Deputy Ó Fearghaíl in wishing colleagues and staff a happy new year and welcoming them back for what we expect to be a busy term in the Dáil.

I am advised by the military authorities that as of 9 January 2015, there are 20 doctors employed as medical officers in the Permanent Defence Force. The current establishment figure for medical officers qualified as doctors in the Permanent Defence Force is 28. There is an ongoing recruitment effort to appoint doctors to fill vacancies for medical officers in the Defence Forces. To this end, a competition for the appointment of doctors remains open, with applications being accepted on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately, there has been and remains a limited response to this competition. As suitably qualified applicants are identified, they are interviewed with regard to their suitability for service in the Defence Forces. In 2014, three doctors were appointed as medical officers, and a further two applicants are currently progressing through the selection process.

Due to the difficulty experienced in recruiting doctors to the Defence Forces, it has been necessary to identify alternative options for the provision of medical services, including consideration of the outsourcing of Defence Forces domestic medical services. In this connection, a joint civilian-military standing committee was set up with a view to advancing the development of a sustainable integrated medical service and addressing the appropriate means of delivery of key medical capabilities for the Defence Forces. An integrated model for provision of the required medical services, involving both the medical corps and outsourced service provision, is currently being progressed.

I take this opportunity to assure the House that Defence Forces personnel requiring medical treatment are getting the care they need. I am committed to providing a sustainable medical service to meet the needs of the Defence Forces both at home and abroad.

I welcome the Minister's statement to the effect that Defence Forces personnel are receiving the medical care they need. That is an issue of paramount importance to all of us. My interest in the area of medical services dates back to the decision of the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Shatter, to close the Curragh families clinic. When I previously raised this matter with him, Deputy Shatter advised the House that the establishment figure for medics within the Defence Forces was 32. The Minister has just stated that this figure now stands at 28. Much more significantly, figures provided by the then Minister, Deputy Shatter, indicated that 45 private GP practices provided services to the Defence Forces in 2012 and that these accommodated 36,000 visits during that year. The cost to the Exchequer in this regard was €1.4 million. In 2011, 51 GP practices accommodated 39,000 visits at a cost of €1.5 million to the Exchequer. The figures for these visits seem inordinately high and it is extraordinary that this number of GP practices are providing services in addition to those provided by Defence Forces medics. The current position with regard to the general population is that 141 medical professionals provide services to every 100,000 members of the population. This would equate to 14.1 doctors for every 10,000 personnel within the Defence Forces.

The Deputy quoted a number of figures. Defence Forces personnel are not like everyone else in society. They are constantly checked in terms of their mental and physical fitness, they are driven hard in the context of the training they must undergo and they are benchmarked with regard to the standards etc., which they need to set. As the Deputy knows, medical assessment of Defence Forces personnel forms part of the training regime. Defence Forces personnel, who are fit, strong, healthy young men and women, are still obliged to see GPs in order to ensure that they meet the standards expected of them. There is a difference between medical care for these personnel and the need to outsource the carrying out of assessments relating to fitness levels and so on.

In the context of the alternative arrangements that are in place to provide medical cover to military personnel, a total of 36 medical practices, including those involving nine retired military medical officers, provide general practitioner medical services, as required, for military personnel on a contract for services basis at various military installations. We are examining practical ways to ensure that Defence Forces personnel will have access to the medical facilities required in order that they can be looked after adequately in the context of their health demands. Obviously, however, an establishment figure of 28 trained doctors within the Defence Forces is something we would like to achieve. We will continue to consider ways to ensure that we host more successful recruitment campaigns.

I take the Minister's point. However, it seems extraordinary that in 2011 and 2012 - this also appears to have been the case in 2013 and 2014 - it was necessary to make contractual or other arrangements with anything between 45 and 51 general practices in order to meet the needs of what should be - and is - the healthiest cohort of people in the country. Some 39,000 and 36,000 visits were accommodated by such practices in the years 2011 and 2012, respectively. The numbers of such visits appear to be inordinately high.

The management of the medical services by the Department of Defence is, at best, questionable, and serious attention needs to be paid to how they are managed and ordered, and to the cost arising in respect of them, namely, €3 million over the two years. This cost excludes consultancy services because I notice that in each of the two years, there were six consultants in addition to the general practitioners on a retainer of some sort in the Department. In addition, out-of-hours services were provided.

The Deputy is trying to make a big issue out of something that I admit is an issue in terms of our capacity to recruit the required number of doctors suited to be in the Defence Forces. Recruiting them is a problem. We have 20 but need 28. We need to find ways of attracting medical practitioners into the Defence Forces more successfully. However, I take issue with the Deputy's suggestion that because there are as many visits to general practitioners by members of the Defence Forces as he has quoted, there is some kind of health problem. The role of doctors and medical advisers to the Defence Forces is very different from that of medical personnel among the normal population. To be fair, the Deputy accepts that. The figure for medical practitioners is actually 36.

On recruitment, it is true to say that in 2011 there were no additional doctors in the Defence Forces. In 2012, there was one extra, in 2013 there was another one, and last year there were three. There are two currently under consideration for the start of the year. We are making some progress here but this is certainly an area that I am very aware needs constant attention. It is receiving attention. There is a committee examining this matter to ensure we proceed in a cost-effective way and, most important, in a way that is appropriate for a modern defence force.

Overseas Missions

Seán Crowe

Ceist:

2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he will confirm plans to send Irish Defence Forces personnel to the Indian Ocean to tackle piracy; the number of personnel who will be involved; and the possible timeframe for deployment. [1394/15]

I welcome the Minister back after the Christmas break. There were media reports in December that the Minister was examining proposals to send Irish troops to the Indian Ocean to battle piracy as part of plans to expand peacekeeping missions abroad. My questions centre on that.

In response to the rising levels of piracy and armed robbery off the Horn of Africa and in the western Indian Ocean, the European Union launched its first maritime operation, EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, on 8 December 2008. The primary aims of the operation are to contribute to the protection of vessels of the World Food Programme delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia, in accordance with the mandate laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 1814 (2008); and to the protection of vulnerable vessels cruising off the Somali coast, and the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, in accordance with the mandate laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 1816 (2008).

Two Naval Service officers were deployed to the operational headquarters of Operation ATALANTA at Northwood in the United Kingdom between June and November 2009. The Department of Defence has begun examining potential options in regard to a contribution by Ireland to the mission, in consultation with the military authorities. This examination is at a very early stage and no decision has been made.

To be blunt about it, I have asked my Department to consider this seriously. Many other European countries have made a contribution towards it. Ireland is a county that relies on trade. This is about protecting and maintaining trade routes in this part of the world. Ireland has the capacity to make a positive and real contribution to this effort. Of course, however, it needs to be fully costed to determine whether we can afford it; that is the issue at present. As soon as we make a decision on that, we will revert to the House because we would need its full approval before any definitive decision could be made.

Have there been any specific requests? Who did the requests come from? The Minister referred to costs. Has he a ballpark figure for the cost? How many troops are being talked about?

In the past, the Irish Rangers operated in the area. One of them was injured at one stage. This is media speculation and I do not know if that is the situation.

Somalia is a failed state, and there is a difficulty in that regard. There are warlords. It is one of the poorest countries in the world. There are all those socio-economic difficulties as well. Are we looking at this as a package or merely as a deterrent, or what is going on?

I and one of our colleagues here visited Tanzania just before Christmas with the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA. We were looking at deep sea fishing and the fact that there is no deterrent. There are no fishing vessels there and there had been support from the EU. That whole coastline, as part of the Indian Ocean, is being stripped of tuna. Is the package seen as part of that overall position or is it specifically a military response to a difficult situation there?

Operation ATALANTA is specifically about counteracting and preventing piracy and providing a significant deterrent for what had become a serious problem whereby ships, some of which were carrying World Food Programme aid, were under threat of being attacked and having their cargo robbed. It has been a successful mission. The number of acts of piracy in that part of the world has been significantly reduced as a result.

We could contribute probably in one of three ways. We could send a well-trained unit of approximately 20 personnel to be on World Food Programme cargo vessels, in effect as an armed guard at sea, we could send Air Corps personnel and an aircraft to improve the capacity in terms of surveillance in the area, or we could look at sending a fully crewed ship, for a period of three or four months, to participate in the work the fleet is doing there. We are weighing up all the options. I will certainly come back to the House if it will progress to a decision. There are different cost implications for different proposals and we are limited in terms of what we can afford to do at present.

Given the "Captain Phillips" film, it is in the media at present. People are aware of the difficulties and what happened there. Mainly, I want to find out whether this is a live issue or merely something that was floated before Christmas, and whether the Minister is looking seriously at this issue. The big concern will be the extent of the involvement in this mission.

I suppose there are issues. For example, if an Irish soldier arrests someone, where will that person be tried? Will the person be brought back to Ireland? In "Captain Phillips", the Americans brought them back to the United States. Will such a person be brought to The Hague? Will the person be tried in Somalia, which is run by warlords? Those are the factors related to the specifics of the mission. I accept that it is still only at the discussion phase, but anything new that involves Irish troops in a difficult situation needs to be discussed and thought out fully.

To reassure people, this is a mission that is working really well. The kind of questions Deputy Crowe is asking have been asked by many other countries before they would have participated in Operation ATALANTA. There is an efficient system working successfully to patrol off that part of Africa. The decision we must make is whether it is appropriate for Ireland to contribute to those positive efforts and fit in with that EU-led mission, whether we can afford to do it and whether we should do it.

The direct answer to Deputy Crowe's question is that we are looking seriously at this. I will have a full cost estimate within the next couple of weeks and then we will make a decision on the back of that. I stress there are many things I would like to do abroad in terms of a positive contribution the Defence Forces could make in different parts of the world around conflict resolution and peacekeeping work.

We must prioritise because we have limited resources. What I am assessing at the moment is whether we can afford to do this and whether we should do it in terms of contributing to a very successful mission that is already under way. One way or the other, by the time we have the next Question Time on defence, I will probably be able to say whether this is a real likelihood.

Overseas Missions

Clare Daly

Ceist:

3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence whether he will acknowledge the serious mistake and breach of our neutrality by successive Governments in sending Irish troops to Afghanistan, making us complicit in war crimes and torture; the reason that mistake is now being compounded by the continued presence of Irish troops since the ending of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, mission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1318/15]

As Ireland is a neutral country, I do not believe our Defence Forces personnel should ever have had any involvement with the occupation forces in Afghanistan. None the less, given the ending of the ISAF mission before Christmas, it is regrettable that the Minister did not use that opportunity to withdraw the seven Defence Forces personnel but instead chose to have them remain as part of the Resolute Support Mission, RSM. Could the Minister comment in that regard? Will he provide an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter, and what is his analysis of the success or otherwise of the involvement of Defence Forces personnel in the area?

I thank Deputy Daly for her question. The deployment of Defence Forces personnel to the UN-mandated, NATO-led ISAF mission in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2014 had no implications for Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality.  The service of Defence Forces personnel with ISAF represented a further example of Ireland’s commitment to participation in UN-mandated peace operations, a long-standing and key foreign policy principle for Ireland. The work carried out by Irish personnel deployed with ISAF represented a relatively small but important contribution to the mission.

On 9 December 2014, the Government approved the participation of seven members of the Defence Forces with the follow-on Resolute Support Mission, RSM, in Afghanistan, which commenced on 1 January 2015. RSM is a non-combat training mission designed to support and develop the capacity of the Afghan national defence forces in order that they can ensure the security of the Afghan population and its national government institutions following the withdrawal of the ISAF mission.

The deployment of members of the Defence Forces in a training role is consistent with the provisions of section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. The United Nations Security Council has welcomed the establishment of the Resolute Support Mission and has also welcomed Ireland's willingness to be part of it. We are one of many countries that are part of this mission. Ireland, along with its partners, is doing everything it can to ensure that a new government in Afghanistan can try to create stability and normality in a country that has been torn apart by war for many years. I am happy that we are trying to play a constructive training role in that effort.

I am afraid that is not good enough. First, the United Nations' supposed cover for the operation masks the fact that the exercise was a NATO-led one. The UN Security Council resolution justified the decision, but the United Nations broke its own rules by approving the occupation by the US-led coalition and its activities.

The Minister said he wants Irish troops to be part of the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Let us look at what has happened in that country. The intervention was supposedly to overthrow al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but they are now stronger than ever. In fact, many of their members have now defected to ISIS. Subsequent to that, we were told the purpose of the intervention was to eradicate poppy growing and even, ridiculously, to deliver women's rights. We have since had a bumper crop of poppies, and women's rights are further back than they were in the 1980s. More than $100 billion has been spent in the area, which is one of the poorest, most backward, most corruption-ridden and most dangerous places to live. Therefore, the mission of which we were a part has not been much of a success.

Does the Minister not agree that it has been well documented and established that hundreds of prisoners were imprisoned under extreme conditions by US-led forces in Afghanistan at the same time as Irish troops were present in Kabul? Many of the prisoners were tortured and some of them died as a result. Does that not make us complicit in that activity? Is it not the case that by leaving our troops there when many other foreign troops have been withdrawn, the Minister is making them much more vulnerable to attack and insecure in their current positions?

If one were to follow through on the logic of the Deputy's argument, the international community would simply pull out of Afghanistan. In my view, if that were to happen, the country would implode and would be taken over once again by tribal leaders, some of them fundamentalist in their thinking, and that is not what the international community would like to see happen. Therefore, we are doing what we can, in a new environment, to try to support the maintenance of stability and the building of some kind of normalisation in a country that has not seen that for very many years.

I draw the Deputy's attention to our partners, including many other neutral countries such as Austria and Sweden. Our European partners include Finland, Germany, Italy and Montenegro, and our other partner countries include New Zealand, Australia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Republic of Macedonia. This is a collective effort, with approximately 12,000 personnel staying on as part of the follow-on mission, ISAF, which previously had many more personnel. With regard to Ireland's role, what we bring to those efforts in terms of training and knowledge will be a positive contribution to what is, essentially, a peace and stability mission.

I would say it is a war mission. As the Minister said, it is true that the country has not seen normalisation for decades, but the roots of that situation lie in interference, including the overthrow of the government in the 1980s and the incitement and encouragement of jihadist forces by the United States even at that time. The Minister argues that Afghanistan might implode if the troops were to pull out, but I remind him that Afghanistan has imploded. The tribal leaders whom the Minister said would emerge to the top have done so and are doing very nicely out of the present conflict. It is the ordinary people who are suffering, without any protection whatsoever from the Western forces. In fact, the very presence of Western forces has given encouragement to those tribal gangs in the first place. I think it would be better if we pulled out. The fact that other countries are present does not give any cover or legitimacy to our concerns there. We are supposed to be a neutral country in our own right, dictated by peacekeeping missions. Everybody knows that the only reason there was interference in Afghanistan in the first place was not democracy or furthering the interests of people but, rather, the very rich and lucrative gas and petroleum supplies that lie in the Caspian Sea. It is a resource issue.

I think, with respect, that is a revision of history on the part of the Deputy. The reason there was a military campaign in Afghanistan was that terrorists were being trained there.

Was it very successful?

That triggered a whole series of events that have taken place since. Rather than just pointing out mistakes, we all have an obligation to make an effort to contribute in a constructive and positive way to helping countries that are in real difficulty to achieve stable government and, as a result, some level of normalisation for their populations. This is the reason I have sanctioned Ireland's participation in this follow-on mission. I believe we can play a part because of our experience in post-conflict peacekeeping missions. We have seven personnel in place - this contribution is not large in numbers, but in my view it is worth maintaining. So long as I can see a positive role for the international community in a state which is trying to re-establish itself, then we will maintain a presence there.

Defence Forces Personnel

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Ceist:

4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on any discussions or plans to revise the 21-year rule with regard to service in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1392/15]

My question seeks to establish what sort of progress is being made in revising the 21-year rule as it applies to members of the Permanent Defence Force. I am aware that an adjudication is due on this matter on 30 January 2015. At the outset of the last Question Time at which this was discussed, we complimented the Minister on what he has done for the beef sector, but made the point that doing something about how the 21-year rule impacts on members of the Defence Forces is every bit as important to this sector of Irish society as the beef issue was to agriculture.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue again. I would have liked if this issue had been resolved by now. It has not but it will be shortly. I have outlined previously to the House that a claim has been received from PDFORRA on this matter and it is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. Discussions have been taking place with the representative association on its claim under a special sub-committee of the conciliation council. As discussions under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matter at this time, other than to emphasise that in dealing with this issue the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be the primary concern as well, of course, as treating people fairly.

As military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals, it is necessary that Defence Forces members be physically and mentally prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations and to undertake their duties on deployment overseas. It is vital the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised. As such, to maintain the age profile of the Permanent Defence Force to carry out the operational tasks required by Government, it is necessary to have a constant input of recruits into the Permanent Defence Force. The maximum age for personnel who have enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force since 1 January 1994 provides the mechanism through which a satisfactory age profile can be achieved.

While significant progress was made on this issue in recent discussions between PDFORRA and civil and military management, it was not possible to reach full agreement. As a result, the issue is being referred to third-party adjudication for a ruling. It is planned that the adjudication hearing will take place on 30 January, following the exchange of submissions between the parties.

In the meantime, work is continuing on exit support measures to support those due to be discharged. A number of military courses and other skills courses are already accredited with various third level institutions and professional bodies. In addition, a comprehensive training course to aid transition to civilian life for these personnel, which involves a skills appraisal and review of a person’s service history and training already provided, is being piloted. I hope that by the time we have our next Question Time, this issue will have been resolved.

Can I take it the Minister will accept, therefore, the recommendation of the arbitrators in this matter? I emphasise again that much has changed since the 21-year contract was envisaged in 1994. Commandants can serve an additional two years, until they are aged 58; lieutenants can serve until they are aged 54; gardaí and prison officers can serve until they are aged 60 and firefighters, who have particularly challenging work, can serve until they are aged 58. We all subscribe to the view that our people must be physically and psychologically fit to undertake the particular challenges of the job. Going back to an earlier question, people are demonstrably fit, and the evidence for this is when one examines the public service as a whole one sees that members of the Permanent Defence Force have the least amount of sick leave awarded to them.

I would expect that. In my time as Minister for Defence I have been hugely impressed by our Defence Force personnel, at home and abroad, in southern Lebanon, Golan, Collins Barracks in Cork and other barracks throughout the country.

The fitness levels and benchmarks we have set and achieved for the Defence Forces mean that we have fitter, better-trained, stronger Defence Forces personnel than we have ever had, which is as it should be.

I have deliberately stayed out of this debate because we do not need to make political decisions here. We need to make decisions that are fair to the individuals involved and that are right for the Defence Forces. I want a process to be finalised and a recommendation to come to me that I will look at. I do not want to be tied down here to implementing that to the letter, but I would be very surprised if the recommendations from that system when it is finalised were not fully implemented. I will wait and see those results.

Am I to take it, therefore, that there is some degree of flexibility on the Minister's part; that he appreciates there is a problem; and that he is willing in his approach to this to find a solution to that problem that will inevitably have to provide for some additional service for people who have reached their late 30s or very early 40s and continue to be absolutely fit and capable of undertaking the particular challenges of the job?

It is important to understand that since 1994 when this was introduced initially there have been two renegotiations of that policy to reduce the overall age profile of members of the Defence Forces. It was extended from five years to 12 years and to 21 years. Now the 21 years is up. The Defence Forces have shown a willingness to be flexible in the past and I think some flexibility will also be shown this time.

However, the overriding objective must be to do what is best for the Defence Forces as a collective to ensure we have an influx of new Defence Forces personnel all the time. We also need to value the experience and training that many of those who have been in the Defence Forces for 20 years have and could still contribute in the future. It is about trying to balance all the considerations, and being fair and respectful to people who have served their country. That is why the process is under way and it is why we have taken our time to get it right. It would not be appropriate for a Minister to wade in before the process has concluded and try to determine what the outcome should be. I will wait for the outcome of the process and then we will finalise decisions.

Barr
Roinn