Vol. 868 No. 2
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the further developments with regard to the 21-year rule for service, for certain ranks, in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7074/15]
This question brings us back to an issue that affects certain ranks within the Defence Forces which has been raised here frequently in recent times. It is an issue of paramount importance to rank and file members of the Defence Forces. It relates to the 21-year contract. Having regard to what the Minister said on the issue previously, has progress been achieved in extending the contract through the arbitration and conciliation process?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. On the last occasion we dealt with the issue at Question Time I said I hoped to be able to provide a good deal of clarity the next time we met to discuss it. I will bring the Deputy up to date on where the process is at.
While significant progress has been made in recent discussions between the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, and civil and military management on the issue, it has not been possible to reach full agreement. That is the stage we were at in the process the last day. As a result, the issue was referred for third party adjudication and a ruling. That adjudication hearing took place on 30 January and the report of the adjudicator was issued to all parties to the scheme on 12 February. In accordance with the scheme rules, there is a procedure to be followed in the publication of the report in that it cannot be published before presentation to Dáil Éireann. As it requires detailed consideration of the findings by me, as Minister, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this stage. That is the strong advice I have received on the matter.
I was anxious to talk about what was included in that recommendation in my response to questions this morning, but I have been told that I cannot do this because it is a ruling that requires some study. PDFORRA is also examining it in some detail. As soon as I get agreement from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Government, I will publish the report and make it available to everybody, as well as the decisions that we will have to make on the back of it.
It appears that progress has been achieved, which is welcome.
Yes, it has.
If I am reading what the Minister said correctly, he has received a report on the outcome of the conciliation and arbitration process in which agreement has been reached between the parties and that it now rests with him and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to agree that the State will incur whatever costs are to be incurred. I exhort the Minister to expedite a decision in this matter. Many of the young people affected by this issue have effectively had their lives on hold for quite a period of time and are not able to plan for the future. They find themselves in these circumstances at a time when the financial pressures on them are probably greater than they will be at any stage in the future. They are carrying heavy mortgages and, in many instances, have children in education; therefore, they are feeling the pressure. The Minister appreciates the importance of bringing the matter to a conclusion. If he could he give us an indication of the timeframe about which we are talking, it would be helpful.
I thank the Deputy for showing some understanding of the process needed in this respect. As he did not have to take that line, it is appreciated. Unfortunately, the arbitration process did not come up with a compromise or final agreement between PDFORRA and my Department, which is why we went to a third party for adjudication, to examine all of the issues involved and make a ruling and recommendation. We are examining the consequences as regards costs and the decisions to be made on the back of the report. We will certainly finalise the process within the next two to three weeks. I am anxious to bring closure to the issue which has been ongoing for a prolonged period. This has caused stress and uncertainty for members of the Defence Forces. It is also an issue the Department is anxious to bring to a conclusion.
It is important to understand the idea behind the rule. There was a reason time limits were put on contracts in the Defence Forces; it was to ensure the maintaining of an age profile that was appropriate for everyone in the Defence Forces. That approach has been successful and various compromises have been made along the way. The process seeks to be fair, as well as remaining consistent with the policy on maintaining the age profile. I hope we will be able to have clarity for everybody within the next few weeks.
The Minister has mentioned that PDFORRA is considering the adjudicator's recommendations in this matter. Has he received any indication from PDFORRA as to what is its approach to the recommendations made? Can I take it that there has been general acceptance by all parties of the recommendations? I acknowledge that in the circumstances two or three weeks is not a long time to wait, if it takes that period of time for the Government to come to what we hope will be the right conclusion. People have had to put their lives on hold and if this matter is not resolved, we will see very fit and able-bodied people, both physically and psychologically, discharged from the Defence Forces, which none of us wants to see happen.
The adjudicator's ruling will form the basis of agreement, but I do not want to go into the detail of that matter. PDFORRA will make its own judgment on it and I will not speak for it.
We have been through an exhaustive process of many months. The system has been working, we have gone through the various arbitration and, subsequently, adjudication processes and we have the report that will be the basis of an agreement. Everyone will not get what he or she wants. While the ruling is consistent with the overall objective of using time limits in contracts, it also tries to take account of some of the concerns expressed by members of PDFORRA. As soon as I can finalise the process with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and within my Department, we will be happy to bring the issue to a conclusion.
2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the case of a person (details supplied), a Lebanese national who is the alleged perpetrator of the murder of persons (details supplied) and the attempted murder of a person (details supplied), Irish peacekeepers deployed with the UN in Lebanon; if the Lebanese authorities have been in contact with his Department over this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7105/15]
I ask Members to stay within the time limits.
I have tabled this question to get an update from the Minister on the case of Mr. Mahmoud Bazzi, a Lebanese national who is the main suspect in the murder of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne and the attempted murder of Private John O'Mahony, Irish peacekeepers deployed with the UN. Mr. Bazzi has been deported from the US to Lebanon. Has the Lebanese Government contacted the Minister about the case, has his Department provided it with any information or evidence and is it likely that Mr. Bazzi will go free under an amnesty covering crimes committed during the Lebanese war?
I thank Deputy Crowe for raising this issue, which is one that we have taken seriously. It relates to the case of the deaths of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne, who were murdered, and the serious injuring of Private John O'Mahony while serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, on 18 April 1980. In July 2014, the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Mahmoud Bazzi, who had been residing in the US, was arrested for administrative immigration violations. Following an immigration court hearing in August, the judge ruled that Mr. Bazzi be deported to Lebanon, as he had admitted to entering the US in 1994 without proper documentation. He was finally deported to his native Lebanon on 30 January 2015. On arrival in Beirut, Mr. Bazzi was arrested and detained by the Lebanese authorities, where he remains in custody.
The Irish Government has requested the support of the Lebanese Government in seeking justice for the murdered Irish UNIFIL peacekeepers, should such action be at all feasible. During my visit to Lebanon last December, I met the Lebanese authorities at the most senior levels of government and highlighted the Irish Government's continued prioritisation of and commitment to progressing this case in the interests of justice. It is now a matter for the Lebanese authorities to investigate the case and to determine any future action in accordance with their national legislation and judicial procedures. The Irish ambassador in the region is continuing to monitor developments in the case and is in contact with my Department on a regular basis.
A total of 199 Defence Forces personnel are currently serving with the UNIFIL mission, but I have taken a personal interest in the case and have met the families and Mr. O'Mahony. We are keeping them up to date with everything we know. I am somewhat limited in what I can say because I am anxious that nothing I say should prejudice any judicial case that the Lebanese authorities may be taking. While I do not want to go into the legal challenges involved, it is a question of the murder of two men and the attempted murder of a third. We have asked the Lebanese authorities to treat this issue as a priority. I am satisfied that they are doing everything they can to seek justice. We will monitor the situation with interest.
I thank the Minister for the update. I accept that he is limited in what he can say and do concerning a domestic Lebanese case but it is important that we highlight the issue, as it also draws attention to the significant risks involved in peacekeeping operations.
The families started a campaign for which there is considerable sympathy across the Oireachtas. I welcome the fact that this week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, laid a wreath at the memorial to Irish peacekeepers who died in Lebanon.
In light of the fact that the families have been campaigning for the past 30 years, it is important that we do everything in our power regarding this case. The Minister is limited in what he can say but is there a timeframe for a possible case being taken? I am conscious of the fact that Lebanon is the only country in which this individual can be charged.
I also pay tribute to the families concerned. Anyone who has met the Smallhorne and Barrett families and Mr. O'Mahony knows that they are incredibly decent people who are trying to move on with their lives and seek justice. They have been campaigning on that basis for many years. For this reason we all owe it to them, the Defence Forces and the former colleagues of the two murdered soldiers to do everything we can to seek justice. That is what we are doing, but let me be clear, in that we have tried to provide as much information on the case as we can and we have requested that the case be taken seriously, which it is. We also closely monitored the case in the US that resulted in the deportation of Mr. Bazzi. Unfortunately, the Irish Government cannot take a case in Ireland. This is an issue for the Lebanese judicial system and Lebanese law. As such, we are interested observers who are being kept up to date on a regular basis, but we must let the law take its course.
This case highlights the facts that people are doing peacekeeping work for the UN and the laws in that regard might need to be changed at some stage.
The individual in question remains in custody. Does the Minister have information on how long the process will last? The families' campaign was a factor, but there was also media involvement in the US. We should put on record our welcome for that involvement. Will the Minister and his Department keep the House updated on the case as much as possible?
Judging by my discussions in Beirut, the authorities are doing what they can to establish the facts in this case. My understanding is that, with a view to assisting authorities in the review of the case that was then under way, Mr. Bazzi was detained when he arrived back in Beirut and that this is still the situation.
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence the Defence Forces resources allocated to aiding the civil power duties at Shannon Airport to date in 2015; if he is satisfied that this is an effective use of Defence Forces personnel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7071/15]
According to the programme for Government, the Government "will enforce the prohibition on the use of Irish airspace, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law". The Government is using the Defence Forces at Shannon Airport to protect aeroplanes that it refuses to inspect. In light of the programme for Government, does the Government have a mandate to allow the aeroplanes through without inspecting them? Last week, a Minister told the House that he did not have a mandate to pass the fatal foetal abnormalities Bill. I do not believe that the Government has a mandate to allow those aeroplanes through, given the commitment in the programme for Government.
We have debated this issue before. An Garda Síochána has primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid for the civil power, ATCP, which, in practice, means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested. The Garda has requested ATCP support from the Defence Forces at Shannon Airport since 2003. To date in 2015 there have been 47 deployments at a cost of €24,116, which includes security duty allowance, rations and fuel. Such requests are operational matters for An Garda Síochána. Accordingly, security assessments and decisions to seek support from the Defence Forces are matters for An Garda Síochána.
I am satisfied with the existing arrangements and have no plans to recommend a more active role for the Defence Forces.
I am at a loss to understand why aircraft are not being searched. The Middle East is in complete turmoil. There is no doubt that there are aircraft leaving America, landing at Shannon Airport and proceeding to war fronts. This is in breach of international law. Leaving aside the lack of searches, are checks made to see where these aircraft propose to land? The number of excuses for the lack of searches continues to grow. The latest excuse is that the current arrangement has been in place for more than 50 years. That is not true. Up until 1999 all such aircraft did not carry weapons or munitions but troops returning to their depots in Germany or home on holidays. Now, they are going to war fronts and carrying munitions. The excuse of diplomatic immunity has also been used. Diplomats, not soldiers and munitions, have diplomatic immunity. This is a smoke screen for the Government in not doing what it should be doing and taking any responsibility in this regard.
I will update the Deputy on the facts as I understand them. I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, that arrangements under which permission is granted for foreign military aircraft to land at Irish airports are governed by strict conditions. They include stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed and carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence gathering. The aircraft in question must also not form part of military exercises or operations. Requests to permit the landing of military aircraft are considered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the basis of these conditions. It is the normal diplomatic practice of the Department to accept the assurances of the foreign government concerned that legislative and policy requirements have been met. The Deputy's suggestion that aircraft are carrying arms through Shannon Airport is not consistent with the policy I have outlined.
If a check point is set up by the Garda and a car is stopped because it is suspected that the occupants might be carrying drugs, gardaí do not ask for an assurance that they do not have drugs in the boot of the car and, having received that assurance, allow them to proceed without checking the boot, which is what is happening in the case of military aircraft landing at Shannon Airport. There is no logic to not searching them. We know that diplomatic assurances from the United States are not worth the paper on which they are written.
How do we know that?
They have been found out. The leaks by Mr. Snowden and Chelsea Manning revealed that the United States had been telling lies for a long period about its foreign policy. Shannon Airport was being used to torture prisoners and we are not even prepared to investigate the matter. When an aeroplane from Ireland carrying the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern travelled to the United States, it was checked, yet we continue not to check US aircraft. Will the Minister give one good reason we should not search these aircraft? I will be appearing before the court in Ennis next Tuesday. A number of people who have seen guns on aircraft have been subpoenaed to appear in court. There are munitions on such aircraft and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
There is what is called trust.
They have blown it.
I will give the Deputy an example of trust in the other direction. As of last week, we are exporting Irish beef to the United States. We approve beef factories that meet the standards required to sell meat to the United States. This is the result of an arrangement between two friendly sovereign countries. We have an agreement, too, on the matter raised by the Deputy and we expect the United States to abide by it. This is not the same as the Garda stopping a car during a drugs operation, assuming one is dealing with a criminal.
The criminals-----
In this regard, we are speaking about a government, one with which the Irish Government has a good relationship.
It is lawless.
We are facilitating the landing of aircraft under the conditions I have outlined which are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The relationship is one that should be maintained.
4. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the closure in 2009 of Connolly Barracks in County Longford and O'Neill Barracks in County Cavan and Columb Barracks in Mullingar, County Westmeath in 2012, if he will provide details of the units and sub-units at the three barracks that were relocated to Custume Barracks in Athlone, County Roscommon; if he will provide a list, by name of the military units, Permanent Defence Force and Reserve Defence Force, that were headquartered in Custume Barracks after these three relocations up to the disestablishment to the 4th Western Brigade on 30 November 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7075/15]
With regard to the closure in 2009 of Connolly Barracks in County Longford and O'Neill Barracks in County Cavan and Columb Barracks in Mullingar, County Westmeath in 2012, will the Minister provide details of the units and sub-units at the three barracks that were relocated to Custume Barracks, Athlone, including a list, by name of the military units, Permanent Defence Force and Reserve Defence Force, headquartered in Custume Barracks following these three relocations, up to the disestablishment of the 4th Western Brigade on 30 November 2012, and the permitted strength under S.I. CS4 on establishment.
I am not quite sure what information the Deputy is seeking. However, I provide the details I have before me. The 4 Cavalry Squadron, PDF, and 54 Cavalry Squadron, RDF, relocated from Connolly Barracks in County Longford to Custume Barracks in Athlone on 30 January 2009. On 29 March 2012 A Company 6 Infantry Battalion, PDF, relocated from O’Neill Barracks in Cavan to Custume Barracks in Athlone. On 28 March 2012 the 4 Field Artillery Regiment, PDF, at Columb Barracks in Mullingar relocated to Custume Barracks in Athlone. The 54 Field Artillery Regiment, RDF, and the 54 Supply and Transport Company, RDF, at Columb Barracks were both disestablished and replaced with C Company, 6 Infantry Battalion based in Custume Barracks in Athlone.
The following units were based in Custume Barracks in Athlone on 30 November 2012:
Permanent Defence Force Units
|
1 |
4th Western Brigade Headquarters |
|
2 |
6 Infantry Battalion |
|
3 |
4 Field Artillery Regiment |
|
4 |
4 Cavalry Squadron |
|
5 |
4 Field Engineer Company |
|
6 |
4 Field Communication and Information Services Company |
|
7 |
4 Field Military Police Company |
|
8 |
4 Logistics Support Battalion |
|
9 |
4 Brigade Training Centre |
|
10 |
Defence Forces School of Music (Band of 4 th Western Brigade) |
|
Reserve Defence Force Units |
|
|
11 |
56 Infantry Battalion |
|
12 |
54 Cavalry Squadron |
|
13 |
54 Field Engineer Company |
|
14 |
54 Communications and Information Services Company |
|
15 |
54 Military Police Company |
If the Deputy is querying, as I think he is, the number of units previously based in Custume Barracks in Athlone, the numbers are slightly higher than heretofore. I can provide more detail in that regard later, if the Deputy wishes.
We witnessed the lack of priority this Government affords the Defence Forces when it took office. For the first time in the history of the State no dedicated full-time Cabinet Minister was appointed. Under a statutory instrument signed by the Minister, the CS4 establishment for Custume Barracks, the permitted number of personnel is 1,440. Can the Minister confirm that figure is correct? Can he confirm that under the same statutory instrument 12 units were established under Custume Barracks, Athlone, following the closure of the barracks in Mullingar, Cavan and Longford? Can he confirm, following the disestablishment of the 4th western brigade, how many personnel are permitted under the new statutory instruments? My information is that there are approximately 580 fewer personnel permitted now than were permitted under the statutory instrument on 30 November 2012.
The Deputy is incorrect. There was and still is a Minister with responsibility for defence. It was previously Deputy Alan Shatter and now it is me. I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
Second, effectively the Deputy was asking about the effect of the Defence Forces reorganisation on the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel based in Custume Barracks. The Defence Force reorganisation did not significantly alter the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel serving in Custume Barracks, Athlone. The effect of the reorganisation is that the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel based in Custume Barracks has been established at approximately 1,000 personnel within the overall strength ceiling of 9,500 Permanent Defence Force personnel.
At the time of the reorganisation there was some speculation that the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel serving in Custume Barracks would be reduced by numbers that varied between 400 and 600 personnel. This was based on an incorrect assumption that there were approximately 1,400 personnel permanently based in Custume Barracks at the time. The figure of 1,400 personnel appears to be based on the number of personnel that would have been permanently posted to Custume Barracks if the PDF's strength was at 11,500. This PDF strength level has not been seen since the 1990s. As such, references to personnel figures in the region of 1,400 bear no relationship to the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel who were based in Custume Barracks in recent years.
When the current Government took office in 2011, some 900 Permanent Defence Force personnel were based in Custume Barracks. The figure is significantly higher than that now.
I was referring to a Minister with sole responsibility, and the Minister knows it.
Since this Government came to power there has been a reduction in the number of people in the Defence Forces. We have also seen the disestablishment of the 4th western brigade. Under a statutory instrument the number of personnel permitted within Custume Barracks, Athlone, has been reduced. There were 12 units attached to Custume Barracks, Athlone, before 30 November 2012 and there are now eight units attached. The permitted Defence Force personnel was 1,440 before 30 November 2012 and the permitted personnel number today is 860. There might be other personnel attached on a temporary basis but clearly, under a statutory instrument, and the Minister does not need me to tell him the significance of a statutory instrument, the number of people permitted to Custume Barracks is 860. The units that remain are the 6th infantry battalion, the 2nd field artillery regiment, the 2nd field engineering company and the band. Will the Minister confirm whether that is true or false?
The Deputy should check the numbers for the performance of his party when it was in Government in respect of this barracks.
We did not downgrade it.
When we took office in 2011 some 900 Permanent Defence Force personnel were based in Custume Barracks. The Deputy can discuss whatever figures he wishes, but that was the fact.
I am talking about what the statutory instrument permitted.
I am talking about the number of people that were in Custume Barracks. On the announcement of the reorganisation in 2012, the projected Permanent Defence Force strength for Custume Barracks was 971 personnel. There was no reduction to this number following the reorganisation and there continues to be 1,000 Permanent Defence Force personnel in the barracks. Obviously, the figure can vary from time to time because military service involves moving people around. However, the number of people working in the Permanent Defence Forces in Custume Barracks is higher than when the Deputy's party left office. They are the facts, and the Deputy should probably reflect on them.
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence his long-term plans for the participation of the Irish Defence Forces in the United Nations disengagement observer force operation in the Golan Heights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7072/15]
A recent UN report stated that the Israeli military has been in direct contact with Syrian rebels over a period of months, has facilitated the treatment of wounded fighters and, at times, exchanged parcels. How can the Minister justify the presence of Irish soldiers in this region? It is hard to see what they are doing there. If the Israelis are now working with rebels with al-Qaeda links, will the Minister explain what purpose the Irish soldiers are serving there now?
The Deputy needs to think about the accuracy of that statement, frankly.
It is in the UN report.
There is a matter referred to as humanitarian assistance. The suggestion that the Israelis are working with Syrian rebels is something of an exaggeration.
At the request of the United Nations, following Government and Dáil Éireann approval, a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force has been deployed to the United Nations disengagement observer force, UNDOF, on the Golan Heights in Syria since 2013. The current Irish contingent, the 46th infantry group, is based in UNDOF headquarters in Camp Ziouani. It operates in the role of a quick reaction force, which is on stand-by to assist with ongoing operations within the UNDOF area of responsibility. Eight other Defence Forces personnel are also deployed in UNDOF headquarters, including the deputy force commander, Brigadier General Anthony Hanlon.
Following the significant events in August 2014 in the area of separation, and there was much debate here about those, there was a fundamental realignment of the UNDOF mission with a view to minimising unacceptable risks to peacekeepers, while continuing to implement the mission’s mandate in the best way possible. Most UNDOF personnel are now deployed on the Israeli side of the area of separation. The UN provides regular updates on the mission to the Security Council in this regard. The presence of the UNDOF mission remains an important element in ensuring stability on the Golan Heights and in the Middle East region.
Participation in overseas missions is reviewed by the Government on an annual basis. On 17 June 2014, the Government approved continued participation in the UNDOF mission for a period of 12 months up to June 2015. I intend to bring proposals to Government in due course for the continued participation by the Defence Forces in the mission beyond June 2015, subject to the renewal of the UN authority for the mission.
We have pointed out previously that this situation has been ongoing for 40 years. The initial idea was that it would bring peace and ensure there was no conflict between Israel and Syria through the Golan Heights area. After 40 years that is no longer the purpose. Recently Israel bombed Hezbollah in Syria, on the other side of the border, over the heads of the UNDOF mission. The Irish forces are regarded as probably the best available for that type of work, but their capacity to be effective and positive in a peacekeeping role could be better used elsewhere than in this location at present.
As we have mentioned before, the UN peacekeeping forces in areas like the Congo and Darfur have serious problems because their people are not as well qualified, trained and disciplined as the Irish troops, who could be of huge advantage in such areas. It is a pointless exercise at the moment in the Golan Heights area.
I agree with the Deputy that Irish troops could be used very effectively in many missions all over the world. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of conflict zones requiring UN peacekeeping efforts right now. We made a judgment call, which I believe was the right judgment call, to stay as part of the UNDOF mission, although the mission came under strain and had to be reconfigured because of what happened last August. This is one of the longest serving peacekeeping missions, if not the longest, that the UN has been involved in. It has been very successful. Israel and Syria have not gone to war. This mission was put in place after the conflict between those two countries. As a result of the ongoing Syrian civil war and the incredibly complex conflict in Syria in recent years, safety levels in large parts of the Golan Heights have been compromised for peace observers. This mission is about peace observation rather than peace enforcement. Following the reconfiguring of the mission, the vast majority of troops, with the exception of some Nepalese troops, have moved to the Israeli side of the line of separation. That is where it is at. The aspiration and intention of the mission is to go back to the Syrian side when it is possible to do so.
The troops were moved because al-Qaeda had moved into a certain area. I do not see where the positive is in the whole Middle East region. The Minister has said that Syria and Israel are not fighting across the border at present, but they would fight if they wanted to. We would not be able to stop them if they did. The UN could play a massive role in the Middle East, but we are a long way from that. The whole area is in turmoil. It is militarised. It is an exercise in promoting the arms industry. Lockheed's share value has increased by 10% in the past six months. The escalation of activity in the area has been a massive boost to the arms industry and a huge blow for the people of the region. It is just too difficult for the UN now. Given the dynamics of it, I honestly think we should be putting our forces somewhere else. They are not serving any reasonable purpose there. I do not know how the Minister can argue that they are.
The Deputy seems to suggest our peacekeeping missions should go into areas that are not militarised or complex because that would be an easy job. We are in the Golan Heights as part of the UNDOF mission because it is highly complex, volatile and militarised, and because the two countries have been at war.
We are not achieving anything.
We are. The UNDOF mission has been very successful in terms of bringing some level of stability. It has prevented-----
It is past its sell-by date.
That is the Deputy's view.
It is not just my view.
It is not the view of the UN Security Council or of UN headquarters. People who are engaged in peacekeeping missions all over the world all the time strongly hold the view that UNDOF still has value in terms of bringing some stability and capacity for observance. It acts as a significant deterrent on both sides not to breach the agreement that is linked to the setting up of the UNDOF mission. We have an incredibly complex network of conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. The tensions in Israel are linked to its relationship with the Palestinians. All of this requires international observance and attempts by the UN to bring stability when and where possible. Part of that effort is the UNDOF mission. I think Ireland's participation in it is still worthwhile. I value it. Having visited troops in the region, I assure Deputy Wallace that they believe they have a worthwhile role there.
