Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 2017

Vol. 944 No. 3

Other Questions

Defence Forces Representative Organisations

Clare Daly

Ceist:

6. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reviews of a matter (details supplied) that have been conducted by his Department; the outcomes of those reviews to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15261/17]

This is the third question being put to the Minister on the issue of the inadequate representation of members of the Defence Forces. The Minister of State's response to my two colleagues was to tell us of the lack of access for the Defence Forces to the industrial relations machinery. We do not want know what the present arrangement is. We want to know what the Minister of State has done to change it. His answers so far have been to shrug his shoulders and say it is grand because the conciliation and arbitration scheme exists, the Department of Justice and Equality is considering it and he will wait to see what it says. That is not good enough and the Minister of State might want to add a bit to his answer.

As I indicated in my earlier reply I remain satisfied with the present arrangements under the combined mechanism of the conciliation and arbitration scheme and the parallel process in place for the Defence Forces. I have no immediate plans to make any changes. That said, I have acknowledged to the representative associations on foot of representations made to me that I will keep the matter under ongoing review in the light of the recent Government decision to provide the Garda Representative Association, GRA, with access to the State industrial relations institutions.

I am advised that a working group has been established by the Department of Justice and Equality to examine this matter with a view to developing the necessary draft legislative proposals. As I stated to Deputy Lisa Chambers, there will be a representative of the Department of Defence on that working group. My officials will continue to liaise with their colleagues in the Department of Justice and Equality as this matter progresses and will report back to me when the group has completed its deliberations. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not want to appear to be pre-empting any future Government decisions on these matters. I am satisfied that the current structures in place are adequate and fit for their intended purpose.

We can take it from the Minister of State's reply that an ongoing review means that he is going to do nothing, that he will just wait and see what other people do and that he might tag along afterwards if it suits his agenda. The prohibition on trade union membership for members of the Defence Forces is effective under the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990. That Act states that the Minister can lift the prohibition. It is inadequate for members of the Defence Forces that the Minister of State is acting as a bystander. He has said repeatedly that he is happy with the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Nobody else is happy with it. Members of the Defence Forces are disadvantaged compared to any other workers in the State, including members of An Garda Síochána.

The Minister has reluctantly agreed to changes in terms of lifting the exclusion of the Organisation of Working Time Act. It took five years for the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, to drag the Department to the table to engage on that issue. It took the threat of legal action for it to happen. The Minister has lauded the actions of Defence Forces personnel in the Mediterranean. They, in effect, were being paid less than the minimum wage because of the Organisation of Working Time Act not being in place for them. They had to threaten legal action. Everything has to be dragged out of the Department or done at the Minister of State's whim. The members of the Defence Forces want it as a right; it a right that everybody else has.

I have listened to the representative organisations, both PDFORRA and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO. The working group that has been set up will include a member of the Department of Defence. The Department will get feedback from the working group as to how I can proceed and review the current structures. I have seen the conciliation and arbitration process working on a daily basis. I am satisfied that it is working in the way that was originally intended. While there are similar policies in place in the Department of Justice and Equality and Department of Defence in respect of An Garda Síochána and members of the Defence Forces, that does not indicate that one case follows the other. When the working group starts its deliberations, I will await the outcome of the working group's deliberations and decide where to go from there.

The granting of rights in this case is going to have to be dragged out of the Department. It is the same as the Garda Commissioner refusing to go until she has to do so. The Department of Defence is eventually going to have to give in but, as it drags its heels, a lot of damage is being done. The current arrangement is not a substitute for real negotiating power. This is important to members of the Defence Forces because the lack of representation has resulted in their terms and conditions of employment being excessively eroded, even against the backdrop of erosion in other public services. The proof of the pudding is that 50 or 60 personnel, of all ranks, are leaving each month. The State is investing money in recruiting people but the wages are so low that they cannot be retained. In a recent survey on morale in the Defence Forces, less than half of respondents expressed satisfaction with military life. That is a drop over the past number of years. Pay and conditions have fallen really far behind. Defence Forces personnel are at risk from moneylenders and so on. This is urgent. Sitting back and waiting for others to deal with it is not enough.

The Deputy is comparing the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána. A case was brought on behalf of An Garda Síochána to the European Committee on Social Rights about restrictions on access to pay negotiations. The committee, as part of its findings, decided that the right to strike prohibition was in breach of the charter. That situation is not directly comparable to our military industrial relations mechanisms for fundamental reasons. The restriction of strike action in the military service not only safeguards any emergency requirements of the State should they arise but also protect the military chain of command and control, without which the military could not function.

I am happy that the working group has been set up. A member of the Department of Defence will take part in that group. The situation will be reviewed when the working group concludes its work.

Overseas Missions

Clare Daly

Ceist:

7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the detail of the imminent deployment of a further contingent of Irish troops to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission in the Golan Heights in view of the recent statement by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he has asked the US President to recognise Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights and the concern that the UNDOF mission is effectively facilitating the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15264/17]

Mick Wallace

Ceist:

16. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on whether the current UNDOF mission, in the context of the deployment of Irish troops to the Golan Heights, has now moved away from the original task of the 1974 mandate. [15482/17]

I have raised this issue previously with the Minister of State. It concerns the imminent deployment of a further contingent of Irish troops to the Golan Heights. As the Minister of State is aware, Israel, in violation of international law, has established an Israeli administration using Israeli as the official administrative language. It has enforced the implementation of Israeli curricula in schools and has enacted a slew of other measures aimed at permanently annexing that region. It is reprehensible that Irish Defence Forces would be used as a pawn in that attempt.

I propose to take Question Nos. 7 and 16 together. Does Deputy Wallace wish to introduce his question as well?

The Minister has the question. He could do with the extra half a minute.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 16 together.

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, was established on 31 May 1974 by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 350, 1974, following the agreed disengagement of the Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights in May 1974. UNDOF was established to: maintain the ceasefire between Israel and Syria; supervise the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces; and supervise the areas of separation and limitation, as provided in the May 1974 agreement on disengagement. Since 1974, the mandate of UNDOF has been renewed every six months, most recently in December 2016.

A contingent of the Permanent Defence Force has been deployed to UNDOF on the Golan Heights since 2013. The contingent operates as a quick-reaction force. Irish personnel are rotated on a six-monthly basis. The next contingent, the 55th Infantry Group, will deploy to UNDOF in early April 2017. I attended their review in the Curragh last Friday.

I had the great privilege of visiting Irish personnel based in the Middle East earlier this month. The main purpose of my visit was to meet members of the Permanent Defence Force serving with UNDOF, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO, missions and to attend St. Patrick's Day events in the region as part of Ireland's overall economic, political and security engagement in the region. During my visit to UNDOF, I met head of mission and force commander, Major General Shanker Menon of India. He briefed me on the situation and the challenges facing the mission area.

Arising from events in the area of separation, in September 2014 UNDOF relocated temporarily from a number of positions. Pending the full return of UNDOF to the area of separation, UNDOF has continued to maintain credible presence in the Golan in line with its mandate. On 14 November 2016, UNDOF completed the initial phase of the incremental return of the mission to Camp Faouar on the Syrian side of the area of separation, where Fijian and Nepalese troops are now based. In this context, UNDOF continues to engage with the parties on practical arrangements to allow the force to continue to maintain the ceasefire, monitor, verify and report on violations of the disengagement of forces agreement and exercise its critical liaison functions with the parties in order to implement its mandate.

In a recent report on UNDOF, the UN Secretary-General has stated that the continued presence of the force in the area remains essential. Both Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic have stated their continued commitment to the disengagement of forces agreement and the presence of UNDOF. The presence of the UNDOF mission remains an important element in ensuring the continuing ceasefire between Israel and Syria.

With every passing day, Israel is tightening its illegal stranglehold on this piece of Syrian land. Our concern is that Irish troops are being used as pawns in yet another Israeli land-grabbing exercise. The Minister is aware that a huge oilfield was discovered in the Golan Heights in recent years. In 2013, the Israeli Government gave a concession to exploit this oilfield to Genie Oil and Gas.

It had no right to do that in other people's lands. Not only did it give it to that company, which is run by a retired Israeli general who said famously that Palestinians were creatures who came out of the depths of darkness and that all of them should be killed, at that time Israel also began building fortifications which sealed off the illegally occupied Golan Heights from Syria, increasing the border by 45 km. We know also of Israel giving material aid to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front in the Golan Heights. That is incredibly serious for our troops and in terms of furthering illegal activity in the region, and we should not have any part of it.

This is a situation where we are giving legitimacy to an illegal occupation. The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, said recently that the Golan Heights will remain in the hands of Israel forever. The problems are increasing in the region. There is increased conflict and increasing illegal activities by the Israelis in the Golan Heights. Recently, in the town of Majdal Shams, the Israelis started demolishing houses in the Golan Heights for the first time since Israel occupied the Syrian territory following its capture in 1967. Aside from drilling for oil by Afek Oil and Gas, a subsidiary of Genie Energy mentioned by Deputy Clare Daly, Israeli winemakers and water companies are exploiting Syrian natural resources.

In October, Israel approved the construction of 1,600 new housing units in Katzrin, the largest settlement in the Golan, which was built over Syrian villages destroyed during the illegal occupation in 1967. This is looking more like Palestine every day. The notion that our troops are being used as cover for Israel's illegal activities is not good enough.

I do not accept that our troops are being used as pawns or cover for what is going on in the Golan Heights. I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of what is happening but this is a United Nations-mandated mission set up since 1974. I have been assured by the Chief of Staff of the Irish Defence Forces that all security measures are in place for our troops. Our troops are in the region on a mandated peacekeeping mission. I visited them recently. They are doing a very fine job on the mission that has been assigned to them by Government. We can get into the rights and wrongs of the issue but I want to reiterate that the participation of members of the Irish Defence Forces is for peacekeeping duties. That is the role assigned to them by the UN and by Government.

It is precisely the rights and wrongs of what is happening that we should be getting into before we take any stance on international relations. The Minister of State is aware that the UN General Assembly has called on Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements, imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens of the occupied Syrian Golan and from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan. Yet we have evidence that this is precisely what is being done in that region as Irish Defence Forces personnel stand by, in essence helping Israeli oil companies to illegally expropriate the natural resources of another country. That is not just wrong; it is dangerous and action needs to be taken to stop it.

This month alone, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia published a report which concluded that Israel is guilty of the international crime of apartheid against the Palestinians. Many of the report's findings could apply equally to Israel's policy in the Golan and be consistent with apartheid. At present, 23,000 Israeli settlers control 95% of the land of the Golan, whereas 25,000 Syrians are confined to five separate severely overcrowded villages.

We agree that we have powerful Defence Forces that have played some great roles over the years but the UN peacekeeper, Ed Horgan, has pointed out that it would be much more sensible and worthwhile for our excellent forces to engage in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan, rather than being involved in this area where we are only giving legitimacy to Israel's illegal activity.

The Golan Heights were occupied by Israel in 1967 and purportedly annexed in 1981. Ireland does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the area nor does any other Government apart from Israel, although Israel would seek to encourage such recognition. The question of sovereignty over the area is not relevant to the mission of UNDOF, which as I stated is a UN-mandated mission to supervise the ceasefire between Israel and the Syrian armies along the line of disengagement.

I would not accept that UNDOF is effectively facilitating the occupation of the Golan Heights. I have stated previously that UNDOF was established by the Security Council in 1974, seven years after the occupation of the areas by Israel following two wars over the terrain. It is a specific mission to supervise a ceasefire between the two sides. Both the Syrian and Israeli Governments have supported it and, where relevant, voted for the continuation of this mission. This issue has received more attention in recent months with the election of the new President of the United States.

Defence Forces Recruitment

Fiona O'Loughlin

Ceist:

8. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the actions that have been taken to address the lack of female applicants to the Defence Forces; the retention policies planned to ensure future female leaders in the forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15422/17]

Clare Daly

Ceist:

24. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the recruitment and retention crisis in the Defence Forces, including the fact that low morale and pay in the Defence Forces is causing a large number of members to leave every month; the steps he will take to address these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15262/17]

Brendan Ryan

Ceist:

25. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the level of success the recent recruitment drives have had in attracting female members to the Defence Forces; his views on whether the target of 10% of the Defence Forces being comprised of female members as set out in the 2015 White Paper on Defence will be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15523/17]

Before I put my question, I would like to extend my sympathy on the tragic passing of Dara Fitzpatrick, Mark Duffy, Ciarán Smith and Paul Ormsby. I commend the rescue services in Waterford, which helped searched for and find the body of Dave Ryan, who was tragically killed in an air accident and who was my sister-in-law's father.

My question concerns the actions taken to address the lack of female applicants to the Defence Forces and the retention policies planned to ensure future female leaders in the forces.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 24 and 25 together.

The Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women throughout the Defence Forces and to the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activities.

A number of specific initiatives have been implemented to increase female participation in the Defence Forces including visits by the Defence Forces to many female schools to promote a career in the Defence Forces to women. The Defence Forces also have targeted female sports clubs to heighten awareness of the opportunities for women in the Defence Forces, female websites have been targeted as part of the recruitment campaigns, special consideration is paid to women as a target group for recruitment, there is a representative composition between men and women on recruitment and selection boards and a gender adviser operates to promote gender equality policies and training within the Defence Forces.

The 2016 general service campaign specifically targeted female applications through a number of new initiatives including the use of a campaign video which was shown across all social media platforms and in cinemas. Additionally, all female candidates were invited to their local barracks for a female fitness and information evening.

Some 680 or 15% of the applications received during the 2016 general service recruitment campaign were from female applicants. A total of 47 female recruits were inducted into the Defence Forces in 2016, representing 6.81% of the overall intake. These initiatives will continue for the ongoing 2017 recruitment campaigns.

Unlike many other national armed forces, the Defence Forces have no restrictions with regard to the assignment of men or women to the full range of operational and administrative duties. Women, therefore, play a full and meaningful role in all aspects of Defence Forces operations at home and overseas.

Notwithstanding these recent proactive initiatives, I believe there is a need to continue to develop and promote strategies over the life span of the White Paper that support increased female participation in the Defence Forces. The Government is committed to maintaining the stabilised strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel as stated in the 2015 White Paper on Defence.

The overall personnel requirement of the Defence Forces is monitored on an ongoing basis in accordance with the operational requirements of each of the three services. As there is significant turnover of personnel in the Permanent Defence Force, targeted recruitment takes place so as to maintain personnel numbers at or near the agreed strength levels.

All efforts are currently being directed at recruitment in order to return the Defence Forces to the stabilised number of 9,500. I am advised by the military authorities that in 2016, 690 new entrants were inducted. Their planned target is to induct approximately 850 to 900 new entrants to the Defence Forces across all services and competition streams in 2017. Vacancies are also being filled by means of ongoing promotions.

The purpose of the recent Defence Forces climate survey published in 2016 was to inform consideration of the ongoing human resource and strategic needs of the Defence Forces. The survey findings point to challenges for the Defence Forces, particularly in the areas of leadership, communication, organisational culture, the working environment and active management of personnel expectations. However, many positives also emanated from the survey especially regarding the commitment of personnel to the values and mission of the organisation, high levels of work satisfaction, pride in the organisation and positive views on culture and work support. The responses to the issues raised in the climate survey resulted in the formulation of an action plan which is being led by the Chief of Staff and involves engagement by all levels of management within the Defence Forces.

The initiatives in the action plan included the conducting of additional focus group surveys in order to provide further information on conditions within the Defence Forces, the implementation of White Paper projects relating to human resource issues, the continuation and improvement of exit surveys, the improvement of the Defence Forces internal communications plan and the adoption of an integrated competency framework. The conduct of focus groups will provide for the collection and analysis of qualitative data to complement and further inform the quantitative nature of the climate survey findings.

A total of 73 focus groups have recently been conducted throughout the Defence Forces. The focus groups were grouped by rank based on the findings of the climate survey research and were held at every permanently occupied post and barracks in the Defence Forces and in UNDOF on the Golan Heights. A very significant volume of raw data has been gathered for analysis. Researchers from the University of Limerick have indicated that the focus group analysis will be provided in quarters 2 and 3 of 2017.

Despite the challenges facing the organisation, I believe that we now have the structures in place to continue to provide equal opportunities for Defence Forces personnel regardless of gender, to address morale issues and to deliver a more effective, energetic and sustainable organisation where both men and women will play a full and meaningful role in all aspects of the Defence Forces into the future. Additionally, in terms of remuneration, the new public service pay commission has been tasked with providing objective analysis and advice on the most appropriate pay levels for the public service, including the Defence Forces.

It would seem the many systems the Minister of State and his predecessor have claimed to have put in place are not working because the female make-up of the Defence Forces remains at 6%. The 2015 White Paper on Defence highlights the importance of the resolution from the UN Security Council regarding setting out the vital role women can play in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peace building, post-conflict reconstruction, reform and governance. It is crucial that Ireland plays its part in that regard.

Based on my contacts with female former members, I can say that there is a belief that, as with much else in the Defence Forces, which my colleague has already outlined, strong retention policies are the key because the retention of these personnel, including females, will result in role models and mentors who will attract more females to the forces. I again refer to the White Paper. It was suggested that a survey would be carried out to identify any impediments to the advancement of women in the Defence Forces, including the impact of the requirements of career courses and overseas service on female retention and advancement. Could the Minister of State give us an update on this? Has this survey been carried out and if not, when will it happen?

There is no point in lauding the record recruitment figures when the problem is that we are not retaining people. As I said in respect of an earlier question, between 50 and 60 personnel are leaving every month. In the past three years, one out of ten officers at lieutenant, captain or commandant grade left the Defence Forces. This is incredible. One of the key reasons for this is the appalling rates of pay for our Defence Forces personnel. New entrants start on just over €21,000. A total of 75% of Defence Forces personnel believe their pay is unfair. There are examples of people living on eggs and beans, members who cannot get mortgages because their contracts are so poor, members having to live with their parents because they cannot afford rent and men and women separated from their partners for weeks and months with not even the prospect of overtime to make the hardship and loneliness worthwhile. People on international excursions are getting payment rates of €250 extra despite all the extra hardship they face, not to mention issues like Lariam. We need seriously to address the conditions of members of Defence Forces. If not, the Government can have any plan for retention it likes, but it will not be achieved.

The new public service pay commission has been tasked with objective analysis and advice on the most appropriate pay levels for the public service. This will include members of the Defence Forces and I welcome that. I also welcome the fact the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement last week. This will mean benefits for members of the Defence Forces. That they are recognised for their work and commitment to the Defence Forces is something in which I have taken an interest. I will not stand up here and laud it all. I will tell the truth as I see it. When I visit a barracks, I speak to the members to find out their feelings about what is happening.

Deputy O'Loughlin spoke about surveys. A survey was carried out. I am not sure whether it is the specific survey referenced by Deputy O'Loughlin but I will come back to her about it. In respect of a survey that was carried out and UN Security Council Resolution 1235, I attended a conference late last year about women's participation in peacekeeping. Women bring a different perspective to peacekeeping in respect of matters like decision-making capacities. A family-friendly element was introduced to overseas missions to allow members, specifically female members, but also male members on peacekeeping duties, to undertake three months instead of six months. I would be the first person to recognise that there are issues regarding female participation. It is and will continue to be a struggle because people see it as a male-dominated organisation.

The 2012 reorganisation and the abolition of the Western Brigade have further isolated a huge segment of potential female members who could manage a career without long-term commuting being forced on them. The Defence Forces have only one female colonel, Maureen O'Brien, and two female lieutenant colonels, Mary Carroll and Mairéad Murphy. I congratulate these officers on their promotions but will they be in isolation over the next few years? When is the next female promotion in terms of female officers likely to happen?

The Minister of State mentioned the reduction in overseas service from six to three months. It is said that operational requirements, overseas postings, training courses, career courses and the availability of development opportunities will be reviewed to ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of gender or responsibility to one's family while retaining the integrity of the course and training requirement. Could the Minister of State outline what has been done by the Defence Forces in respect of this?

The signing up to the Lansdowne Road agreement is welcome, as is the fact that some increases will be paid and arrears for those who earn under €30,000 but it is not enough. It does not level the playing field or restore it back. It does not deal with the excruciating and excessively poor working conditions experienced by many members of the Defence Forces. The Minister of State is beginning to tackle the implications of the failure to have the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 cover the conditions of the Defence Forces personnel. That, however, had to be dragged out of the Government. Everything is being done after the fashion and after the damage has been done. Part of the Minister of State's job should be to lead more from the front, to anticipate and respond to these problems before they become deep rooted. One of the concerns highlighted is the critical organisational deficit that has resulted in the problems in the Air Corps, the shortage of pilots and the number of vacancies there, as well as the impact this is having on the operation. This is not good enough in respect of how we treat the people who serve the State or indeed the overall service.

I do not believe there is any discrimination against women in the Defence Forces and if there is proof of it then I would like to hear about that. I would consider that to be serious. The Defences Forces are equal opportunities employers for both males and females. It is great to see that Lieutenant Colonel Mary Carroll is the first female officer to command a mission. She has a group of personnel in the UNDOF mission and is the first female officer commanding to take responsibility for an overseas group. Female participation, however, is an issue and I would like to see more women applying to be members of the Defence Forces. A huge number apply but they fall off during the process. I have asked the Chief of Staff to look into the reasons there is such a fall-off of female applicants during the process of recruitment in respect of medical and fitness issues etc.

Questions Nos. 9 and 10 replied to with Written Answers.

Defence Forces Strength

Seán Crowe

Ceist:

11. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if operational Army units are operating with up to 50% of the officer numbers required; the percentage of officers assigned to operational Army units, in tabular form; and the minimum number of officers that should be attached to these units. [15270/17]

In the case of operational army units, will the Minister of State clarify whether the units are operating with only 50% of the officer numbers that are required to ensure their proper operation?

The 2015 White Paper on Defence commits to maintaining the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel, comprising 7,520 Army, 886 Air Corps and 1,094 Naval Service personnel. The whole-time equivalent strength of the Permanent Defence Force on 28 February 2017 stands at 9,070 with 7,293, 701 and 1,076 personnel in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service, respectively.

The Defence Forces have a policy of ongoing recruitment with the objective of returning to and maintaining its stated establishment figure of 9,500 personnel. In total, 590 general service recruits - 501 Army and 89 Naval Service - were inducted in 2016, along with 100 cadets between all services. Both the cadet and general service recruitment campaigns are currently active. The cadet campaign covers requirement for line and specialist officers including engineers for the Army and Naval Service and pilots for the Air Corps. The Defence Forces are planning for the induction of 850 to 900 new entrants in 2017.

With regard to the officer staffing levels of individual units, I am informed by the military authorities that this is a very difficult figure to quantify, as the strength in barracks can vary from day to day given the operational requirements of units within the barracks and other training and support commitments. Such commitments can result in Permanent Defence Force personnel normally garrisoned in a barracks not being present. The record will show a table which gives an overall synopsis of the strength against establishment figures for officers as of the end of January 2017. As is evidenced by these figures, officer ranks are operating at more than 90% of the established strength.

With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, it is intended to retain the capacity of the Defence Forces to operate effectively across all roles and to undertake both the home and overseas tasks laid down by Government.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Lt Gen

Maj Gen

Brig Gen

Col

Lt Col

Comdt

Capt

Lt

TOTAL

ARMY Establishment Figure

1

2

6

34

110

257

306

167

883

ARMY STRENGTH*

1

2

6

31

103

255

261

165

824

Officer Strength as % of Establishment Figure

100%

100%

100%

91.2%

93.64%

99.22%

85.29%

98.80%

93.32%

* All strengths are given as whole-time equivalents.

The information I have is that in some instances the number of officers is so low that those in ranks below them must move to other barracks to perform routine duties. I understand the points being made by the Minister of State in a number of replies today around the recruitment ban to the effect that numbers were not there or that soldiers and other members of the Defence Forces of different ranks have left the forces to go into the private sector, and that these factors have hampered the ability of the Defence Forces to operate at the desired maximum. What steps are being taken to ensure the required numbers of officers are present and trained, when the length of time for training is taken into account? There are internal restrictions in various parts of the Defence Forces that also impact on this situation. Some duties, for example, cannot be carried out until one has reached a certain officer grade. Are those restrictions also being looked at to ensure that officers who are qualified - but without the internal requirement - can step up to the mark at this stage?

It is a matter for the Chief of Staff and the general staff to operate within the numbers of officers they have. As I have said, the strength level for officers at present is quite strong and stands at 100% - 100%, 100%, 91.2%, 93%, 99.2%, 85% and 98% for the ranks of lieutenant general, major general, brigadier general, colonel, lieutenant colonel, commandant, captain and lieutenant, respectively, while the full strength level is at 93.23%. There are a number of issues in that regard as there are different tasks and officers could be on a junior command and staff course or could be abroad, etc. One must send officers abroad for their own formation and experience. As the Deputy is aware, and as I have stated in the Chamber many times, we had the highest number of cadets entering into cadet class in September 2016. That will be the same for 2017 as I intend that there will be a similar-sized cadet class.

The Minister of State has read out what the targets are or what is achieved and he said that officers can be abroad or sick and we understand this. It is, however, bad planning if there are ongoing vacancies and absences because of training and other duties. It means that those positions are not filled. In other companies in other walks of life there is the possibility for people to act up into positions so that when somebody is not available the person can step into their shoes on a temporary basis. I understand that this cannot be done with the same authority in the Defence Forces. Perhaps the Minister of State can look at the issue of allowing personnel from a lower rank to step up if a person from a higher ranking post is absent, for whatever reasons.

On the subject of whether units are operating at half their capacity in respect of the officer corps, the Minister of State has said that it is a difficult number to quantify. It is not difficult. We are talking about small enough numbers. The Chief of Staff and the Department of Defence should be able to quantify if units have sufficient officer numbers or if they do not. It is well documented and Deputies have asked questions on the topic previously about the number of officers in each unit. We have had these figures back from the Department. It is well documented that we are operating way below the required capacity.

The reason the Minister of State is losing people is that the corps is severely depleted. Morale is quite low. Retention is not a priority for his Department it seems. The disbandment of the Western Brigade was a massive mistake which should be rectified. Pay and conditions, not just of the officer cohort but also of the enlisted men and women, are appalling. Officers are telling me that they want the men and women they command to have better pay and conditions. They cannot get time off. There are no officers to step in and take over if somebody wants to book leave. Basic pay and conditions are at issue. They are hanging on waiting for the next cadet class to come through because they are so stretched. When the Minister of State says it is a matter for the Chief of Staff to operate within the number of officers he has, that is not the case. We expect a certain level of service. If we do not have the resources and manpower needed, that level of service cannot be supplied.

I will start with those at the level of colonel. The establishment figure should be 34 and is 31. At lieutenant colonel level, there should be 110 and there are 103. At commandant level, the establishment figure should be 257 and is 255. At captain level there is an issue, to which I will return. At lieutenant level the establishment figure should be 167 and is 165. I do not believe they are under strength.

They are massively under strength.

I absolutely refute that suggestion. There is an issue with people operating in an acting-up capacity as captains. It is my information that, in all ranks, somebody can be brought up to act in someone's position if he or she is not available, is abroad or whatever. I understand that the captain level is the only one at which someone cannot take the position in this manner. I could be wrong on this so I will get back to the Deputy on it. I have asked the Chief of Staff, through the Secretary General of the Department, to look into this matter.

They are absolutely not under strength. The figures I have here came to me as recently as yesterday evening. To state that they are under strength is a total misnomer.

We will move on to Question No. 12 in the name of Deputy Lisa Chambers. There will be one supplementary question only because of the time factor.

Brexit Issues

Lisa Chambers

Ceist:

12. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of his Department’s preparations for Brexit. [15413/17]

Brendan Ryan

Ceist:

23. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the negotiations or planning that is taking place between his Department and other Departments in preparation for Brexit; his views on whether the Defence Forces would be involved in controlling a hard border; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15524/17]

In light of the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May initiated Brexit today, my question concerns the status of the Department's preparations for Brexit. The time is over for the Minister of State to say he is waiting to see whether Brexit is initiated. It has started. What is the Minister of State going to do about it?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 23 together.

The outcome of the vote of 23 June 2016 in the UK will have implications across all aspects of the business of the European Union. While the vote does not give rise to fundamental strategic issues for Defence Forces operations or for Ireland’s continuing engagement within the EU in the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, it is expected that Brexit will have an impact on future developments in the defence sphere. The structures put in place in the Department of Defence to address the potential challenges arising from Brexit include the assignment of responsibility to a senior official in respect of Brexit-related matters. The senior official is leading the Department’s input to deliberations within the framework established across Government and is supported in their role by a number of branches in the Department. The senior official represents the Department on the interdepartmental group on EU-UK affairs, which is chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach and which is engaged with the identification of key strategic, operational and policy issues arising from Brexit. In addition, the management board is acting as a clearing house for Brexit and maintains oversight on an ongoing basis. The UK triggered Article 50 this morning, as the Deputies know, and a meeting of Heads of State and Government is scheduled to take place on 29 April to discuss the UK withdrawal. It is expected that formal negotiations will commence in May or June once the remaining 27 member states reach consensus on the EU's negotiating position. The negotiations themselves can then be expected to take at least two years to complete and all potential consequences in the defence sphere, arising during the negotiations, will remain the subject of ongoing consideration by my Department throughout this process. As the Deputies will also be aware, the Government has adopted a contingency framework to deal with all issues arising in respect of the UK vote to leave the EU. Accordingly, any issues arising, including those within the defence area, whether bilateral or in respect of developments in the CSDP, or regarding our wider international multilateral defence engagements, will be also addressed within that framework.

While the nature of the Border will be decided during the course of the negotiations, it is the Government’s stated goal to try to ensure that the current on-island Border arrangements are maintained to the greatest extent possible.

I wish to reassure the House that my Department will be prepared to address any potential issues arising in the defence area on foot of Brexit and the negotiations process to shortly get under way.

The appointment of a senior Department official is not sufficient to plan adequately for Brexit and all of the aspects that will affect the Defence Forces. What planning has the Minister of State conducted in advance of Brexit? Specifically, what areas has he looked at in terms of a hard border, our fishing stocks, the Irish Sea and the extra capabilities we are likely to need in our Defence Forces? Can the Minister of State highlight what contingency planning he has conducted, with whom and with what agencies? Have the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces engaged with Northern Ireland forces, customs and An Garda Síochána? Have operational plans been drafted to provide guidance and preparation timelines for operational units? What is the extent of the Department's preparations? How many staff have been assigned to deal with this matter besides the senior official the Minister of State has appointed? Does the Minister of State believe that the Defence Forces are adequately structured, staffed and located to address the 499 km hard-Border security scenario with which we may be presented?

We should not be reactionary. Judging by the Minister of State's comment that all aspects affecting our Defence Forces will remain the subject of ongoing consideration throughout the two-year negotiation process, it appears that he is going to be reactionary at every turn. We should be preparing in advance and anticipating what might come down the line.

I reassure the Deputy that my Department will not be reactionary in any way. The Secretary General and I appointed an assistant secretary to lead the preparations for Brexit within my Department. A range of other staff in different sections of the Department are involved in this. It is not just one person. I have regular management advisory council, MAC, meetings with the assistant secretary and receive an update specifically on areas of Brexit. I am not going to get into what will happen post negotiations. Negotiations will begin. The Taoiseach, his Department and officials are leading the negotiations. We are feeding into that and will continue to do so. Now that Article 50 has been triggered, every Department will have more of a role to play in the negotiations.

The Minister of State has not really answered any of my questions. He tells me that it is not just one person but has not detailed how many persons are involved, their roles, where they are working or what they are doing. He did not answer my question as to what agencies the Department or Defence Forces have consulted. Have they engaged, for example, with the Northern Ireland forces, customs or An Garda Síochána?

Some 45% of Dublin unit regimental duties are now being conducted by troops from the 28 and 27 battalions. Troops from across the country are travelling up from places such as Finner on a regular basis to conduct duties in Army barracks here in Dublin. Are the Defence Forces adequately staffed to provide for all operational contingencies in the context of Brexit? The Minister of State has not answered that question, although I have asked it many times. Does the Minister of State believe the Defence Forces share his view that we are adequately equipped? In terms of Air Corps assets, what plans are there for reinforcement of operational units in the Border areas? Is the Minister of State planning any refuelling or landing facilities along the Border for operational duties in the context of a hard border?

Once the negotiations start-----

I have not seen the correspondence or the argument that Theresa May has set out in her Brexit negotiations.

The Minister of State does not need that information to plan ahead.

It would be totally unwise if I were to instruct members of the Permanent Defence Force to get ready to guard the Border. That would be totally unacceptable.

I am not suggesting that.

The Taoiseach has stressed on numerous occasions that he does not want to go back to the days when members of the Defence forces or the Garda Síochána were on the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am not going to get into that space either.

What the Minister of State wants and what could happen are two different things.

The Deputy spoke about marine patrols. These are a matter for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The Naval Service has a service level agreement with the latter in the context of the boarding of ships and matters of that nature. That activity will continue.

The Department is very well prepared for Brexit negotiations, through a senior official and with a range of other people in different areas involved.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn