Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:5. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the development of the Reserve Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1216/15]
Other Questions
Defence Forces Reserve
The question focuses on the future development of the Reserve Defence Force. I tabled the question given that the Minister had made a very positive statement about the Reserve Defence Force at an Estimates meeting of the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality before Christmas. It is also based on the fact that a little earlier the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality had heard a very detailed presentation from the representatives of the Reserve Defence Force from across the country who were exceedingly pessimistic about the commitment of the Department of Defence to the development of their organisation.
I state categorically that I am very committed to the further development of the Reserve Defence Force.
A value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force, published in November 2012, identified a range of issues that were adversely affecting the capacity of the Army Reserve and Naval Service Reserve. These included high turnover of personnel, a poor uptake of training and inefficient organisational structures.
The review recommended a range of measures to ensure the continued viability of the Reserve Defence Force. These measures included the implementation of revised organisational structures based on a strength level of approximately 4,000 personnel, implementation of revised recruitment policy and practice, a critical review of the approach to the delivery of training, a revision of the regulatory criteria for classifying reservists as effective and the preparation of options for the future development of the first-line reserve.
Implementation of the value for money review recommendations is ongoing. The revised single-force structure, introduced in March 2013, offers significant potential to enhance Defence Forces capabilities through improved interoperability between permanent and reserve elements.
At present, reserve units remain under-strength, which is a problem, and a key priority is to recruit further members of the reserve in order to reach strength level targets. Revised recruitment procedures were introduced with the goal of improving retention rates. However, the numbers recruited to date have proved disappointing. Progress in this regard and the implementation of other recommendations of the value-for-money review are being closely monitored.
Does the Minister accept that while the integration of the Permanent and Reserve Defence Forces is a very positive thing, operationally it has presented difficulties in the short term and that, in effect, the Reserve Defence Force has been imposed on some permanent units? That provides for difficulties arising, not least in areas in which there is assessment through the operation of performance indicators.
There may well be a problem in terms of the protection that exists for employees generally across the State who may wish to participate in the Reserve Defence Force. Is it the view of the Minister that some legislation or regulation is required to enable employees to have time off from their employment so that they can participate in the reserve in a way that is necessary now but may not have been in the past, when much of the activity of the reserves was carried out at weekends or in the evening?
The results of the recruitment process last year were not good. We had 2,146 applicants. Of those, 1,857 were eligible, a large number of whom withdrew from the process. After a fitness test and interview procedure, only 152 new people were inducted into the reserve. Issues and problems need to be overcome in terms of the numbers of suitable people applying.
We need to consider other options. A parliamentary question has been tabled on employment protection and law, the answer to which is very negative from my perspective. I do not think that, for the moment, we can consider introducing regulations or legislation which would require employers to facilitate people taking time off. We have a pretty fragile economy at the moment and many businesses would find that difficult. However, we need to consider all of these things and have an open mind. At the moment the answer to that particular question is "No," but if we cannot find other ways to increase the number of volunteers who want to be part of the reserve we will need to examine all measures to ensure we have sufficient numbers.
In that regard, the Minister has put his finger on the problem. In the new system, passing the key performance indicators is critical to a person's continued involvement and successful participation in the Reserve Defence Force. These types of assessment invariably take place during the hours of 9 a.m to 5 p.m.
Not always.
My understanding is that this is what is happening. Therein lie many of the difficulties for the reservists. It is proving necessary for them to take time off work. Unless some sort of arrangement can be worked out with employers, it is difficult to see how we can develop the Reserve Defence Force along the model initiated by the Minister's predecessor.
Everything the Minister has said about the reservists has been very positive. Will he meet with the representative body as a matter of some urgency? If we are to develop the Reserve Defence Force - everybody here wants to see that happen and it is very much in the national interest that it would happen - it is necessary for the Minister to engage with the representative body.
At this stage its members are quite despondent, and this would revive enthusiasm for the mission with which it is involved.
Of course I will meet people from those bodies. I will meet representatives of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, tomorrow at the Defence Forces headquarters in Kildare. I am happy to meet them and maybe visit some of the training facilities being used and so on.
The point of having a single approach, if we call it that, to training is to ensure that if we have to call on the reserves in the event of a natural disaster, for example, they can operate in a seamless way with the Permanent Defence Force. They should be training together and the training facilities should be shared so we can have the capacity to respond when necessary. We need to find systems that allow people who are essentially volunteers and working in a normal life setting - they include business people and those working in retail outlets - to be able to marry with their lifestyle a commitment to the Reserve Defence Force. If that means we need to schedule interviews, fitness tests, etc., in a way that suits such people, we will need to look at that. My understanding is that we are considering the matter.
Defence Forces Properties
Clare Daly
Ceist:6. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if a stock-take of unused Defence Forces property has been conducted; the amount of property that has been disposed of by transfer to other State bodies or by way of private sale; the plans that exist for the remainder; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1205/15]
The Minister's Department clearly has a considerable surplus of property in its portfolio, although some of it has been disposed of by transfer to other State bodies at a relatively nominal amount. Some of the property has been sold privately. There are other elements which lie in an under-utilised state, which is a shame, and I wonder where the Department is with such surplus Defence Forces property.
A review and update of my Department’s property portfolio is carried out on a regular basis. Where properties have been identified as being surplus to military requirements, procedures are put in place for their disposal. In accordance with Government policy, the normal procedure is that all properties for disposal are in the first instance offered for sale to other State bodies and Government agencies. Where no interest is registered from the State sector, the properties are generally then put on the open market to be sold by public tender or public auction.
My Department has been engaged on an ongoing programme of barrack consolidation since 1998 that has resulted in the closure of 14 military barracks. Sales have been fully completed on nine of these properties. Of those sales, seven properties, including part of Longford Barracks, have been sold within the public sector and two have been sold to private individuals. The sale of a further three barracks, at Castlebar, Lifford and Clonmel, as well as a part of Longford Barracks, to the public sector has been agreed and that is expected to be completed within weeks. Of the two remaining properties, McKee Barracks is expected to be put up for public auction in the second quarter of 2015 and Mullingar Barracks is currently being used by An Garda Síochána, the Customs Service and a number of local organisations, including Westmeath GAA. Discussions are also ongoing with a number of interested parties regarding the future use of Mullingar Barracks.
In addition, a number of other properties, including married quarters and Reserve Defence Force premises, have also been sold. In the case of married quarters which are outside military installations, the majority were sold to the occupiers and members of the Defence Forces. Over 20 Reserve Defence Force premises have been sold since 1998. Three were sold to local authorities and one to a State agency, with the remaining sold to private individuals. There are a number of other smaller properties remaining, which are being prepared for future disposal. I hope that gives a general picture.
It is fairly general, and I suppose the devil is in the detail in many instances.
There is not always a devil.
Is there not? I do not know, but I will take the Minister's word on that. I am thinking in particular of the Curragh Camp in the context of the housing crisis in the State, as well as the medical crisis. There are accommodation units and a hospital available there which are idle.
With a small amount of investment, they could be returned to being habitable dwellings for Defence Forces personnel who, as we know, are among the lowest paid public sector workers. We know that a number of families are living in some of those homes now under fear of eviction but we also know that many soldiers, without adequate accommodation, sleep in their cars. Deputy Wallace and I visited the Curragh Camp on a number of occasions. Deputy Wallace, with his builder's hat, was able to look at the state of some of those buildings. They are in considerable shape and they do not require an enormous amount of investment to make them usable. Unless the State looks at this and at making them available, we are involved in a sort of State-sponsored vandalism by allowing them to remain derelict because there are important uses to which they could be put rather than letting them diminish and die.
I can assure the Deputy that we are not going to let anything diminish and die. If she looks at what the Defence Forces have been doing proactively in regard to homelessness in Dublin, for example, she will see that we have made a former military hospital available for shelter for rough sleepers. That has been a very successful initiative and we have had between 20 and 30 people staying in that accommodation most evenings over recent weeks. The Defence Forces have shown a willingness to be proactive and open-minded in terms of how we can use vacant buildings and infrastructure, which would previously have been of use to the Defence Forces but which now may not be, for other purposes in terms of assisting Government and other NGOs with solving difficult problems. We will continue to do that. Where there is infrastructure linked to barracks that are no longer of strategic use, of course, we have an obligation, first and foremost, to check whether there are other State agencies and State bodies which could use them effectively and, if so, whether we should transfer them. If there is no strategic use, then we should look to sell them to the private sector in order that we can raise resources that can be reinvested in terms of improving Defence Forces infrastructure or other public spending.
I am well aware of the good work of the Defence Forces in terms of property in Dublin. I specifically raised the issue, however, of property in Kildare. Why is the hospital in the Curragh Camp, which is in quite good shape but requires a bit of work, not been put to use, for example, as homeless accommodation? Why could the prison in that area, which was the subject of quite considerable investment, not be opened up for homeless accommodation, for example?
The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Shatter, dismissed the idea of making available those habitable units in that area for families who are in dire need of accommodation, rejecting the offer of Deputy Wallace to have a look at them and evaluate the surveys he had done. Will the Minister look at that? If he really believes what he is saying, then he will be proactive in terms of the idea of an interdepartmental team being assembled, comprising the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Health and so on, to look at the property he has in his portfolio to see how other agencies of the State could benefit from that. As it stands, it is probably a year since we were actively engaged in this discussion with the former Minister. In that year, all that has happened is that the families who are under fear of eviction are still under fear of eviction and none the wiser in that area and other properties are still idle and are in far worse shape now than they were a year ago when we raised this issue and made the offer. If the Minister is serious, I would put it to him that he might initiate one of the-----
On a general point, we are reviewing the assets of the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence all the time to try to get value for money for them, if they are not of strategic use to the Defence Forces, and to look to other State bodies to try to make full use of them. There are multiple examples of that in terms of barracks throughout the country. I have visited many of them and I have spoken to county managers when there is an interest from local authorities, for example, in Clonmel. We are doing what the Deputy said but she is talking about a specific case in Kildare and, to be honest, I would need to get a more detailed briefing on what is available and is not of strategic use to the Defence Forces.
We need to be careful as well in that the Defence Forces are primarily about providing defence to the State and they have a core role there.
We are not experts in providing shelter accommodation for people who are homeless. We should work with agents of the State who are. We did that quite successfully in Dublin in response to a difficult situation in the build-up to Christmas. We will examine this with an open mind but the Defence Forces must first and foremost focus on their own role in defending the State. Where there are difficulties concerning occupation of Defence Forces property by former Defence Force personnel, we must treat people fairly and at the same time ensure that the State gets value for money.
Defence Forces
Clare Daly
Ceist:7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence in view of the fact that only two officers were ever retired under section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954, as prescribed by Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1)(f) in the interests of the service, the only clause denying a court martial or right to make a defence, which was removed in 1985, if he will initiate a full independent inquiry into those cases, in the interests of natural justice. [1204/15]
This question refers to a clause in the Defence Act and subsequent regulations which were overturned and amended 30 years ago whereby the President could forcefully retire a person without that person having any right to a hearing or court martial or even knowing the circumstances against him or her. In light of the fact that the Minister has furnished me with the information that in the entire history of the Defence Forces only two individuals were ever dismissed under this clause and that it was amended 30 years ago, would the Minister revisit those cases on an independent basis to achieve justice for the people at the heart of them?
I would first like to correct the records of the House. As the Deputy will be aware the military authorities previously advised me that 12 officers were retired from the Defence Forces between 1954 and 1985 under the provisions of section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954 as prescribed by Defence Force Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1). This was communicated to the Deputy in response to Question No. 112 on 11 December 2014. This response reflected that two of these officers were recorded on file as having been retired “in the interests of the service”. I am now informed that further investigation has shown that while these officers were in fact retired under the provisions of Defence Forces Regulation A15, they were not retired “in the interests of the service”. The officers in question were retired under a different provision of the regulation for failing, during courses of training, to maintain satisfactory progress. I have been advised by the military authorities that these two cases date back to the 1950s and involve two officers who failed essential flying tests and were unsuitable for transfer to other branches of the army on age grounds. This being the case, I can see no necessity in initiating an independent inquiry into those cases.
I can therefore advise the Deputy, based on the information now provided by the military authorities that only one person has been identified as being retired “in the interests of the service” as per Defence Forces Regulation A15 paragraph 18(1). This case was the subject of a resolution adopted by Seanad Éireann on 10 March 2010. The Seanad resolution included a provision that the Government would ask the Judge Advocate General to select a nominee to carry out a review of the documentation on file to determine “whether on the basis of the documentation and information available to the Defence Forces at the time, the decision to compulsorily retire” the officer “was a reasonable one.” The individual in question was also offered the opportunity to make written submissions to the reviewer based on the relevant documentation. The Government remains willing to carry out this review within the terms of reference of the Seanad resolution and subject to the person’s agreement and co-operation.
I would like to clarify for the Deputy that none of the clauses of paragraph 18(1) of Defence Forces Regulation A15 were removed in 1985. An amendment was added to the regulation in 1985 to require that the reasons for a proposed retirement in the interests of the service be communicated to an officer and that he or she be given a reasonable opportunity of making representations.
Finally, can I say-----
Sorry; we are way over time on this.
Can I just say-----
We are over time. I call Deputy Daly.
I do not mind. I am dying to hear-----
I am trying to be helpful.
That is all very well, but Deputies Wallace and Paul Murphy have questions as well. I am against the clock here. It is not my fault.
That is fine.
Okay. It is difficult when extra time is taken. There was a huge amount of detail in the Minister's reply. The bottom line in terms of this regulation is that nobody can be dismissed from the Army now on the basis on which this individual was dismissed. We now know that he was the only individual to be dismissed in this way. He has spent a lifetime dealing with the shame of being dismissed without knowing the reasons for his dismissal, without being given the right to have his good name vindicated, without any evidence being given against him and without having the right to attend a court martial. I am a little thrown by the correcting of an error in the Dáil record. I find it surprising that this has happened yet again. Would it have been corrected if I had not tabled this subsequent question? I am reminded that when this individual went before the courts, a document that was of key strategic importance to his case was found to have been missing for 32 years and was not presented to the Supreme Court. This document would have shown that before this man was forcibly made to retire, he made legal representation through his solicitors to the Defence Forces but did not receive any reply. This 70-year-old man has spent his life seeking justice for a decision that was made. We now know he is the only person in the history of the State to be dismissed in this way. He has carried this for 45 years.
I am not clear on the resolution to which the Minister has referred. There was a great deal of detail in his answer. Is he now saying he will give some opening to a new independent evaluation of this matter, given that the High Court has said on the record that the man in question, who is aging in years, did not receive fair procedures?
I would like to begin by correcting something the Deputy has just said. It is possible that somebody could be forcibly retired from the Defence Forces under this article now.
They would have a right to reply.
It would be likely to happen in very exceptional circumstances only.
They have a right to the evidence.
Yes.
They have a right to appeal.
They do.
That is the point.
When I spoke to the Deputy about this matter outside the Chamber, I told her that I was anxious to be helpful. However, I am somewhat constrained in terms of what I can say and commit to on the record here and in terms of what I can legally do. I am anxious that we treat this case with fairness. I am keen to ensure any possible review of this case is consistent with what the Seanad called for a number of years ago. Obviously and more importantly, the review should be welcomed and accepted as fair by the individual concerned. I intend to write to him to outline what is possible at this stage. I hope we will be able to make progress in this regard.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I emphasise that if we are finally going to do this again, it should be done properly after all this time. I hope it will be done in the spirit of getting a fair result. I am grateful for the Minister's indication of his willingness to do that. I hope there can be a resolution.
It is important not to predetermine an outcome.
There are two sides to this story. That is why I think any process that is proceeded with now should be fair and should involve a full assessment of the case, in as much as that is possible, given that this happened quite a long time ago. As I have said, I intend to write to the individual concerned to outline what I consider to be a fair way forward that is consistent with everything I have outlined. I hope we will be able to progress on that basis.
Overseas Missions
Mick Wallace
Ceist:8. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the decision to approve the participation of seven members of the Defence Forces in the resolute support mission in Afghanistan in view of it clearly not being a peacekeeping or humanitarian mission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1219/15]
The illegal invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 led to the longest war in US history. The recent pact with the Afghan Government ensures that the US will be there until 2024 at least. The new security pact puts US troops beyond the reach of Afghan law while they are training the Afghan security forces. I do not see for the life of me how the Minister, who is an intelligent man, can argue that the presence of foreign troops from Ireland, America or any other country can be helpful in this situation, particularly in light of the decimation they have carried out in Afghanistan over the last 13 years.
The point of moving on from the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, mission is to move away from having large numbers of heavily armed foreign troops in Afghanistan and towards the resolute support mission, which is a training mission to help build Afghanistan's capacity to run its own affairs. We are trying to move away from a wartime situation and to create peace and stability in order that there can be a governance structure as well as the military and policing capacity necessary to protect it and populations. We are a part of this. We have seven Defence Forces personnel there. This is a non-combat mission and it is concerned with training and building capacity in order that Afghanistan can look forward to some kind of normalisation in terms of running its own affairs. This is the only motivation for the countries that are remaining as part of the 12,000-strong mission. I named a number of the countries that are in Afghanistan in partnership with Ireland, including many other neutral countries. They are there for all the right reasons, as is Ireland.
I do not accept for one second that the involvement of the US and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has contributed one iota to improving the lifestyles and conditions of the ordinary people in those countries. It has done the opposite. The more money the US and its allies spent and threw at the situation, the more problems they caused. The Minister has claimed that they are only training local security forces now. For a long time, they were "only training" security forces in Iraq. Many of those people are now working for ISIS. ISIS has captured a great deal of US equipment that cannot be used by anyone who has not been trained by the US military.
What sort of turmoil are we sowing in Afghanistan? Only last year, Rolling Stone magazine published a video showing Afghan security forces torturing prisoners. I wonder where they learned that? Afghanistan will be a better place when we move out of it. Actually, it is not just us, as our seven personnel are obviously just a token gesture. It is a small number compared with others. It is a token offering to show the Americans we support them. Some people have even suggested that the beef deal was almost in return for that.
That is a ridiculous thing to say, with all due respect.
I am just saying what has been suggested.
The Minister has the floor.
We need to put things in perspective. The US launched a military campaign in Afghanistan because of 9-11, when there was considerable proof of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Mistakes were made subsequently and there are major challenges in Afghanistan to creating a functional, normalised state, but the idea that pulling all of the contributing non-Afghan troops out would somehow be to the betterment of the broader population when all evidence suggests that the country would simply be taken over by the Taliban again is not sound thinking. We are playing a small part in contributing to an effort to create the capacity in Afghanistan to run its own affairs from governance and security points of view. This contribution is welcomed by the Afghanistan Government in its efforts towards same. As long as we can make a positive contribution, we will continue doing so.
The Minister and I will have to differ on why the Americans bombed Afghanistan. Only one person from Afghanistan was proven to be involved in the 9-11 attack. Sixteen were from Saudi Arabia. Did it dawn on the US to bomb Saudi Arabia? Damn right it did not, as the Americans have interests there.
The Minister referred to fears about the Taliban concerning the elections. The last elections were rigged. Warlords and all kinds of torturers are involved in the current regime.
That is not something to be lauded and it is the ordinary Afghani people who are losing out. When the United States bombed the country, former President Bush demanded that Osama bin Laden be turned over. When Bush was asked whether he had any proof bin Laden was involved in the attacks on the US, he did not have any such proof. Nevertheless, the former President said Afghanistan would be bombed until its leaders handed over bin Laden and that is what happened. A month later Bush told the Afghanis he would bomb them until such time as they overthrew their own Government. It was the most mindless and stupid war that ever took place and it makes no sense that we should have seven troops stationed there. We should be washing our hands of what was done to the Afghani people and getting out of there. The militarisation of the whole region has done huge damage worldwide.
I do not accept the accuracy of what the Deputy is saying. I travelled to Pakistan some years ago and interviewed people in refugee camps who had come from Afghanistan following the bombings that took place there in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States. I remember very clearly the things I saw there and the people to whom I spoke. This is not a simple black and white issue. We are trying, in a very difficult and complex environment, to contribute to a functioning governance structure in a country that has had no such structure for many decades.
One of the ways in which we can do that is by training security forces there to deal with things they are likely to have to deal with in the coming months and years. We are good at post-conflict management and resolution and we are good at training. It is something we are already doing in Mali and other parts of the world. We are making a small contribution towards a significant international effort to help the Government in Afghanistan, a Government I acknowledge is not perfect, to run its own affairs into the future. It is a worthy objective.
Defence Forces Records
Denis Naughten
Ceist:9. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Defence when he will commence recruitment into the Army bomb disposal units; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1203/15]
The incident yesterday at the Intel plant in Kildare brings to the fore the importance of having a well-equipped and resourced Army bomb disposal division. As it stands, we have units based in Athlone, the Curragh, Rathmines and Cork. In the past three years, these units were called out 595 times, in 75 cases to schools where unstable chemicals had to be dealt with by the Defence Forces. What steps are being taken to increase the number of active personnel within the bomb disposal units?
I thank the Deputy for his timely question. The total number of Army bomb disposal call-outs was 141 last year, down from 250 the year before. However, that is not to suggest the problem is going away. The figures go up and down year on year, from 180 back in 2008 to 141 last year. The figure could be higher this year; we will have to wait and see.
Explosive ordnance disposal is the military term used to refer to what is commonly called bomb disposal. It is a task assigned to the Defence Forces by Government and is provided in aid to the civil power, namely, the Garda Síochána. Within the Defence Forces the explosive ordnance disposal function is assigned to the ordnance corps.
The issue of the terms and conditions for entry into the ordnance corps has been raised by the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, at conciliation council. 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. As discussions under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time. However, it is my intention that recruitment will commence as soon as the terms and conditions have been agreed.
RACO has expressed concern that because of the recruitment procedures, which take some time, there are not as many personnel as there should be in the ordnance division. We are taking steps to address that important issue. It is worthwhile to note that we have international credibility in this area in terms of training. Deputy Wallace may be interested to know that one of the things our troops are doing in Afghanistan is providing training in bomb disposal and explosives management. We need to maintain that particular skill set and the numbers of staff who are proficient in it. As I have outlined, there is an ongoing discussion with RACO which we hope will soon be finalised.
The last intake to the Defence Forces was in September 2011, which is more than three years ago. While we have been training many personnel from around the world, we have not been training our own personnel to man our Army bomb disposal units. By the middle of this year, as a consequence of retirements and staff leaving as a result of the number of duties they are required to fulfil per month away from home, we will have fewer than half the active numbers of personnel we need to operate our bomb disposal units effectively. How great a priority is this problem for the Minister? When will we have our numbers back up to the level we need to maintain the four units across the country and deal with our international obligations?
It is not appropriate for me to talk about numbers while the conciliation process is ongoing. It is a priority for me to secure agreement through that process with RACO so we can move ahead and ensure, first, that we maintain the training levels and skill sets that are needed in this very important area and, second, that we have the numbers we need to ensure we are fully covered. I intend to progress the matter as a priority but, as with the 21-year rule issue, I must wait for a process to conclude before I can start making definitive commitments and comments on it. Otherwise I would be wading into the middle of a conciliation process, which would not be very clever in the current environment.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.