Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Sep 2015

Estimates for Public Services 2015: Vote 35 - Army Pensions and Vote 36 - Defence

Chairman

I welcome the Minister and his officials to our meeting today to discuss the Estimates mid-year review for his Department. This meeting will have a different structure than usual in an effort to place greater emphasis on performance and the delivery of services. The proposal is that we have two parts to the meeting. In the first part, we will consider the opportunities for improvement in output measures, including in the Estimates. In the second part, we will consider the position on the Vote and the emerging position on the Vote to alert us to forthcoming issues.

In the first part, we will consider the output measures included in the Department's Estimate, and I understand the Minister has a presentation to make on that. I invite the Minister to make that presentation now and then we can have a number of questions. I understand that it will not take too long.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I thought it would be helpful for me to make a statement to set into context how we put our performance indicators in place in the Department of Defence. I am open to discussion, and if the committee members have suggestions, we will certainly look at trying to accommodate them.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the mid-term position on Vote 36, Defence, and Vote 35, Army Pensions. I understand that the Committee would like to discuss performance measures as well as key issues of defence expenditure. I fully support performance budgeting and the development of clear and transparent output reporting. I believe that this will assist the Committee to better-----

Chairman

Can we just check phones, please? Something is interfering with the sound system.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It might be my iPad. Apologies.

Chairman

Thank you.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I fully support performance budgeting and the development of clear and transparent output reporting. I believe this will assist the Committee in better considering the high-level outputs and provide a solid basis for examining what has been achieved. I will set out the Department's key considerations in framing output targets, but first I would like to provide some context for the current position.

The alignment of expenditure programmes with output targets and their publication within the Revised Estimates volume was an important development, and I am pleased to note that the committee may have some useful suggestions as to how these output targets may be improved. My Department has been engaging with the committee secretariat to set out the context for the current indicators and discuss possible future developments. The expertise on defence matters rests within the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, including the identification of appropriate output targets. I understand that the pros and cons of possible approaches were discussed at length. However, I will not enlarge upon these discussions beyond what may not have been fully reflected in the brief that the committee received from the secretariat.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has responsibility for publishing the Revised Estimates volume, and my Department has had extensive engagement with that Department in framing the current measures. This built upon the work that was previously undertaken in preparing annual output statements. The space made available for output targets and associated reporting within the Revised Estimates volume has informed the approach used by the Department and has required a reduction in the amount of information that was previously provided. However, this information is still reported within the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, and my Department has provided much of this information for inclusion in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's publication Ireland Stat, although this has not been activated by the Department as yet. In this context, there is a significant amount of performance information produced and publicly available. The output targets currently in use reflect those factors as well as the nature of defence provision and critical success factors that must be considered.

Security is the bedrock on which a State's economic, political and social well-being is built. Security challenges require a whole-of-Government response, and there are a range of Departments and agencies with security responsibilities that contribute to the State's overarching security framework. The defence contribution encompasses defence of the State from external armed aggression, which is a contingency; the defence contribution to domestic security; and the defence contribution to international peace and security. In addition, defence capabilities are used to provide a broad range of non-security supports which maximise the value for money of defence expenditure and reduce duplication of service delivery across the State. The recently published White Paper provides a useful framework for considering those outputs which are critical to the successful delivery of the defence mission, which is "To provide for the military defence of the State, contribute to national and international peace and security and fulfil all other roles assigned by Government." The White Paper sets out a comprehensive assessment of the security environment and any threats that arise. The ongoing monitoring of the security environment is a key requirement that has a major influence on the defence policy response, operational requirements and associated capability planning.

As outlined in the White Paper, Ireland continues to strongly support the multilateral system of collective security represented by the UN and the primary role of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. The EU is also a major player on the international stage, with an increasing capacity to influence the international security environment using all of the instruments at its disposal, including economic, diplomatic, political and military instruments, known as the "comprehensive approach". Within the framework of multilateralism and collective security, and in support of international peace and security, the White Paper states that Ireland will continue to contribute to a range of comprehensive and collaborative security arrangements within the EU, the UN and the OSCE, and bilaterally with other states. This ongoing policy development represents a key defence output that contributes to Ireland's security. Domestically, the continued refinement of the State's emergency planning framework and further development of defence capabilities in support of other Departments and agencies are also key policy areas for the Department.

As set out in the White Paper, the role of the Defence Forces reflects the Government's policy requirements and the operations that the Defence Forces may be required to undertake. The roles have been updated to take account of new developments or those which have acquired an increased importance. Many of these operations are demand-led and reflect the contingent nature of many defence operations - those that are dependent on need, or those that are subject to Government requirements, such as overseas missions. As such, the target is to meet demand when required. This is the nature of defence business and defence outputs.

The general approach within defence is to develop memorandums of understandings with those Departments and agencies that may require defence assistance. In many cases, this provides a means to clarify call-out procedures and the availability of defence assistance. However, due to the demand-led nature of most of these services, they do not contain specific targets for numbers of operations. The exception to this is the annual control plan agreed with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, which sets out Naval Service fisheries patrol day targets and Air Corps fisheries patrol flight targets. The committee will see from the figures that we have some challenges in terms of outputs as regards Naval Service fisheries patrol days this year, for understandable reasons. I will go into those later.

The White Paper also considers future capability requirements. It defines military capability as the ability to attain operational success in a given scenario, achieving desired effects under specified standards and conditions through ways and means. It consists of a conceptual component, a moral component and a physical component.

There are a range of actions across the Department and the Defence Forces which are required to develop and maintain military capabilities. These actions include, but are not limited to, investment in new equipment, education and training, maintenance and development of infrastructure, ongoing review of military doctrine, the development of appropriate human resources, HR, policies and the development of regulatory frameworks. These actions are internal processes that contribute to capability outputs but are not capability outputs in themselves. There is no universally accepted metric for military capability, which is a key output for Defence Vote 36. This is a challenge for all countries including those with well developed performance reporting mechanisms. The Department has closely examined the approach in other countries, such as New Zealand, which I know this committee has examined, where capability reporting is underpinned by a broad performance reporting framework including annual reports, with a view to identifying appropriate metrics.

Defence Vote 36 outputs are delivered through a single programme with three strategic dimensions which are interdependent. First, defence policy, which is policy outputs; second, ensuring the capacity to deliver, which is capability outputs; and third, Defence Forces operations, which is operational outputs. This provides a balanced perspective on defence outputs, all of which are critical to success. My Department has engaged with the committee secretariat in reviewing this categorisation and I am satisfied that this represents a solid approach to categorising defence outputs and is not inconsistent with the approach taken internationally.

The refinement of output targets remains a work in progress, and I particularly welcome the signals from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that more space will be forthcoming in the 2016 Revised Estimates to report on outputs. This will broaden the options for the Department in developing appropriate targets, and I intend to take this opportunity to expand reporting on military capabilities.

The current measurements of performance on Vote 35 Army Pensions are calculated to show the number of military pensioners in payment plus associated retirement, disability and dependants’ awards granted during the year and other related metrics. This reflects the overall annual caseload activity or throughput of the programme. Such performance measures are relevant and appropriate, bearing in mind the demand-driven and non-discretionary nature of the Vote and the fact that there are no goods or services provided to third parties.

Activity and output under the programme show an underlying upward trend reflecting the increased caseload arising from the continued rise in the number of military pensioners year on year, and a corresponding increase in related activity generally. In that regard, the Department’s military pensions output targets for 2013 and 2014, and for 2015 to date, were achieved and I am advised that the Department has no significant concerns around performance or service delivery of Defence Forces pension benefits to beneficiaries. Following its engagement with the secretariat, the Department is very much of the view that the two output measures currently in use have merit and should continue in use, subject to review in light of the imminent transfer of the military pensions payroll processing function to the Civil Service Payroll Shared Services Centre, which is under the aegis of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

I am not suggesting that we are perfect. I believe we can and should work with the committee to try to modernise and change, where appropriate. If the members have suggestions, we are all ears. If we can produce better metrics that are effective at practically assessing improvements year on year, I am open to implementing them but I am not open to doing things for the sake of looking good.

We have a White Paper now. From a policy point of view the performance indicators for me will be related to how we deliver on the White Paper and the choices it contains. The nature of defence, which is very different from many other Departments, is demand led. We need to be ready to respond to an ask of Government or the State, whether that be at home or abroad, often in very difficult circumstances. What we do control are issues such as fleet replacement programmes in the Naval Service. We have a very good outcome from the capital plan announced yesterday where, over the next six years, we will see an increase in capital expenditure for defence of €65 million, which is the first increase the Department of Defence has seen for very many years. We are in a place now that can see the delivery of the ambition in the White Paper on Defence, and I intend on being proactive in terms of making that happen as soon as possible. The more we can engage with this committee in terms of measuring performance as we go along around efficiency, management and performance, the better but we must make sure that any system or metrics we are putting in place are real in terms of their measurement and that they are relevant to an Irish situation as opposed to simply replicating a New Zealand model, which is a country that has very different challenges from Ireland.

We had this discussion this morning in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and they were also using a New Zealand model in terms of potential metrics for the future, despite the fact that New Zealand agriculture and Irish agriculture have fundamentally different challenges in terms of implementing rural development programmes and the Common Agricultural Policy. New Zealand does not have any of that. We should try to design together better metrics for Irish based challenges, and we are open to any suggestions members might have in that area.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for the presentation. The basis for the New Zealand issue is setting reasonable targets that can be measured. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl wants to come in on that issue.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I thank the Chairman and the Minister for his outline. I am conscious that we are beginning a new process and, to a certain extent, all of us are finding our way in terms of that process. I do not know if any of the members would profess to be experts in the area of performance targets or indicators but the Minister's point, which is difficult to argue with, that there is no universally accepted metric for military capability is understandable. At the same time, given that military capability is at the centre of what the Minister's Department does, we would like to hear his view on the New Zealand guidance. Is it the correct way of setting out performance targets? That has been the basis for discussion already between the Minister's Department and committee secretariat staff. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that. First, is there an acceptance by the Minister and his Department that the New Zealand guidelines are the correct way to go? Second, would his Department have issues about the way the guidance has been applied to the performance measures? It is easy to measure performance in terms of capital spent but in the area of military capability, and perhaps in some other areas of activity, it is far more difficult. For example, the Minister alluded to the White Paper, and we commend him on all the work he has done in bringing that forward, but is the production of the White Paper an appropriate output measure to be considered or does it simply set a target and indicate a policy direction for the Department?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am not quite sure what members have got from us in terms of outputs and so on. One of the frustrations we had is that the Revised Estimate that shows figures for the Department and then outputs is all on one page. If we consider what New Zealand does, it has an outputs document, which is almost like an annual White Paper in itself, in terms of outputs across defence, with a series of metrics and performance indicators. We have no problem with that because we do it anyway for our annual reports and if we could build it into a reporting mechanism that involved the committee and allowed us produce much more volume in terms of what we are trying to achieve, I would have no issue with that. For example, I see the White Paper as a policy framework that needs to be implemented over the next ten years.

We will have an annual report on the White Paper each year, and I would love to be able to be here to speak to the committee about what we are achieving, changing and improving through the implementation of the White Paper. It would be a very good performance metric and benchmark for us. We are looking to increase significantly the size of the Army Ranger Wing. We need to be questioned each year on how it is being done. We have problems with recruitment in the Reserve. This year, 179 people have joined the Reserve. We have recruitment challenges, and we should be measured and tested against what we think we can do in a 12-month period and what we actually do. A metric is already there for the Naval Service's role in fisheries protection with regard to hours at sea. It is a good metric, but this year there is a good reason as to why, knowing we have a problem, we have decided to reprioritise. This is what the Department of Defence must do. If people are dying in the Mediterranean and we have ships that can save them, I am sorry, but that is a bigger priority for me than fisheries protection, and I make no apologies for it. We have had other challenges, such as the late delivery of the LE James Joyce and an historical asbestos issue which needed to be resolved. We have had a number of problems that have had an impact, but this is a good example of a benchmark against which we can be judged. If we do not meet the benchmark I will need to produce good reasons. If we could create other metrics and measurements for other outputs for the Department of Defence we should try to do so, but they need to be relevant to what we are actually doing.

Chairman

Does anyone else wish to speak on this? How is military capability measured? If a series of targets is provided, the committee can then ascertain whether the targets have been met.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The only way to measure military capability is by knowing what is being asked of the military. If we decide to maintain a presence in the Mediterranean for a while, there is a capability requirement to do so. Our Air Corps does not have significant defence capacity, but it is not in our mission statement to have it. Other countries will measure it very differently. The vast majority of people in our Permanent Defence Force are in the Army, and the focus is very much on overseas missions and assisting other arms of the State in the roles they have here. Capability is very much designed around UNIFIL, UNDOF and training missions in Mali. Capabilities must be framed in the context of the risk assessment and the response to it. If we decided not to have any more overseas missions, our capability measurements would be totally different. We would not need Mowags and the type of armour we use would be different. That is what we mean when we say there is no set metric for capabilities, because every country has a different focus for defence. Ireland is very different from our closest neighbour and from other countries. Ireland is a country that is similar in size to New Zealand and Israel, but the capabilities in terms of measurement are obviously entirely different, depending on the challenges faced.

Chairman

It is the methodology used rather than the actual events themselves. No matter what is done, a target is put forward and how the outcome is achieved is considered. It is a given that each country is different because of its geography and other situations, but it is with regard to the targets set and whether they have been achieved.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have set these targets by and large in the White Paper. We have outlined the capital expenditure priorities for the next ten years. These are a fleet replacement programme, replacement and upgrading of armoured vehicles and weapons systems, and new planes and surveillance and communication systems for the Air Corps. We have outlined where we think our capacity needs to improve and where we need to invest. If suggestions come from international best practice on how to improve the delivery of this year on year, or even month on month, I am more than open to them.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

For the time being, the Minister accepts the New Zealand guidance and has no problem with the manner in which the secretariat has indicated to the Department-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

In principle we have no problem with it, but we need to tailor it for Ireland.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

There needs to be a degree of flexibility, and how it works needs to be subject to ongoing review.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It needs to be tailored to become relevant for an Irish model.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Yes.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That is all I am saying. Most people accept that in terms of public service delivery and measurement and metrics New Zealand is seen as a best practice model which many countries look to follow. I do not suggest that we are going down the wrong route; I am just saying that if we apply a New Zealand approach and put the time and work into putting together reports to assess metrics, we need to ensure that we are doing something real.

Chairman

To conclude on this, unless anyone else wishes to come in, my understanding is that we need very clear and specific targets which can be measured so members can actually see them and they can be reported on. It is as simple as that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We will work with the secretariat to try to do this.

Chairman

We will move on to the second part. I understand the Minister has a presentation on the second part of the Estimates.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am conscious of the fact that I do not want to read to the committee things it already knows, but it is no harm to put some of this on the record with regard to expenditure. The combined Estimates for defence and Army pensions for 2015 provided for gross expenditure of approximately €898 million. Of that sum, €677 million was allocated to Vote 36, which is the Defence Vote. More than 70% of the Defence Vote goes towards providing for the pay and allowances of up to 10,500 public service employees. The remaining non-pay allocation provides mainly for the replacement and maintenance of essential equipment and operational costs.

The Army pensions Vote makes provision for retired pay, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of former members of the Defence Forces. The 2015 Estimate provides a gross sum of €221 million for the Army pensions Vote as a whole. More than €211 million of this allocation covers expenditure on all superannuation benefits for former members of the Permanent Defence Force and their dependants. It is primarily demand-driven and non-discretionary.

Today’s meeting is primarily about expenditure relating to 2015, and I take this opportunity to reflect on the importance, both financially and operationally, of having an effective strategic planning framework in place. In a changing security climate, it was imperative that a strategic assessment of the security environment was undertaken. This assessment ensures Ireland’s defence policy framework is in a position to respond to emerging security challenges and contribute to international peace and security. After an extensive collaborative process involving multiple stakeholders, I was very pleased to launch the White Paper on Defence in August. This document reflects the current realities faced within the wider defence and security policy environment, acknowledges the increasingly complex nature of security threats in the world today and emphasises the need for a comprehensive response.

The White Paper sets out the roles the Government has assigned to the Defence Forces and considers associated capability requirements. It sets out proposals on the replacement of major equipment platforms for the next decade and other priorities for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service.

It provides clear direction and a pragmatic approach to defence and ensures that we can continue to rely on the service provided by the Defence Forces to the security of the State. I would also like to highlight some of the other defence-related milestones and achievements throughout the year.

As of 15 September 2015, Ireland was contributing 482 Defence Forces personnel to 12 overseas missions throughout the world. This level of overseas deployment reflects Ireland’s ongoing contribution to international peace and security. The main overseas missions in which Defence Forces personnel are currently deployed are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, with 198 personnel, and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, with 141 Defence Forces personnel. The Minister of State is on his way out to visit them at the moment.

In response to the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean and following Government approval, Ireland’s overseas deployments now also include the Naval Service deployment to the Mediterranean. The LE Eithne arrived in the south central Mediterranean on 23 May 2015, to assist the Italian authorities in humanitarian search and rescue operations. The specific role of the Irish naval vessel is to provide a search and rescue capability and to undertake humanitarian rescue operations at sea in the Mediterranean.

The LE Eithne, during her deployment to the mission from 18 May to 17 July, rescued a total of 3,377 migrants from the waters between Libya and Sicily. The LE Niamh was subsequently deployed and to date has been involved in the rescue of 4,020 migrants. In total, 7,397 migrants have been rescued by the Irish Naval Service to date. I think that number has risen since this was written. Undoubtedly, this is a tragic and highly complex issue but the actions of both the LE Eithne and LE Niamh have highlighted the capability and commitment of Ireland’s Naval Service to respond effectively to crisis situations. Their outstanding efforts have saved lives, and, to that end, I am pleased to say that the LE Samuel Beckett, which departed the naval base, Haulbowline last week, will continue to assist the Italian authorities in this ongoing humanitarian operation. In the event of any further deployment beyond November 2015, I will revert to Government with proposals.

The White Paper reaffirmed my commitment to maintaining the permanent Defence Force personnel at a level of 9,500. In that regard, a very active recruitment campaign is under way. Already, in 2015, 194 personnel have completed, or continue, in training, and that number is expected to increase significantly by year end. In addition, there have been 517 promotions across all ranks of the permanent Defence Force to date in 2015.

The Defence Forces continue to provide a military operational response to both the civil power and civil authorities, as required. This is a vital public service role which highlights the attributes of the Defence Forces across a broad spectrum of areas including prisoner escorts, explosive ordnance disposal duties, air ambulance services, emergency aeromedical support roles, search and rescue missions and maritime patrols.

As we advance towards 2016, I expect the Defence Forces to play a very central role in the commemoration events that will take place. Already in 2015, under the decade of centenaries commemoration programme 2012-22, the Defence Forces have participated in several events including the State commemoration of the funeral of O’Donovan Rossa in August. Additionally, the Defence Forces recently commenced the delivery of the national flag to all primary schools in the country. This event started on 14 September 2015 and is scheduled to be completed before Proclamation day, 15 March 2016.

The recently published White Paper on defence also considered the further development of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF. It outlines a range of measures which will be progressed during the next few years. These measures build on the value for money review on the RDF and aim to improve on the overall effectiveness of the RDF. They should also contribute significantly to recruitment. If the RDF is doing more, more people will want to be part of it. The truth is that it is more difficult to get into the RDF now. There are fitness and other tests. When people do get in, they are well trained and they are a resource we need to use more and will use more.

The naval vessel replacement programme has continued, and the LE Samuel Beckett was added to the fleet in 2015, joining the LE James Joyce which was delivered in April 2014. A third ship purchased under this programme, the LE William Butler Yeats, is scheduled for delivery in July 2016. The progressive and prudent approach taken to these purchases is testament to the value for money ethos prevailing within the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, with these vessels all procured without recourse to additional funding. This has been achieved by careful management of financial resources and re-allocation of funding to meet additional requests for equipment and supports.

The Department works closely with the Defence Forces to ensure that they retain the capabilities to fulfil all roles assigned by Government, both at home and overseas. In this context, the 2015 allocation allowed for the acquisition and upgrading of a range of priority defensive equipment.

The capital envelope for defence also makes provision for infrastructure development works. The 2015 Estimate made provision for expenditure of €18.5 million on new building works and ongoing maintenance of existing buildings and also included funding for the military archives building at Cathal Brugha Barracks.

Over the 2016-21 timeframe of the capital investment programme, significant capital funding will be expended on replacement programmes for defensive equipment across the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps, including payments arising under the naval vessel replacement programme. It will also provide for the ongoing refurbishment of a diverse Defence property portfolio and the provision of replacement or additional facilities, where required. This capital funding envelope also provides for the development of a new institute for peace support and leadership training building on the UN training school in the Curragh. The institute is intended to provide a new international resource in the area of conflict resolution, conflict prevention and peace-building. If the committee wants to set up a separate meeting on that particular issue, I would be very happy to do it. We have a very ambitious approach to developing something very special in Ireland over the next few years and I would happily spend an hour or two talking to the committee about it if it wants that.

Before concluding, I want to refer again to Vote 35 - Army Pensions. This Vote, which is demand-led, has funded the payment of military pension benefits of all categories to some 12,000 pensioners, including retirement pensions and gratuities, disability pensions, spouses’ and children’s pensions. Owing to the continued underlying increase in the numbers of retirement pensioners being paid from the Vote and the ongoing impact on pension payments of the exceptionally high numbers of retirements on pension in previous years, a net shortfall of some €9 million is projected for 2015, as it was last year. Therefore, I would like to advise the committee that a Supplementary Estimate will be required later in the year. Similar to other years, this shortfall on the Army Pensions Vote will be met from savings within the Defence Vote. We are not asking for extra money, we will make the necessary savings and arrangements in our own Vote 36 to be able to deal with this, as we did last year, and we debated it then.

In summary, across the combined Votes, expenditure is broadly on target. Provision has been made to ensure the required funding is available within the Defence Vote to meet the Army pensions shortfall without recourse to any further Exchequer funding requirement. If anyone has any comments or questions I will happily try to address them.

Chairman

Before we go on to that we already wrote to the Minister commending the Naval Service personnel and the work they are doing in the Mediterranean. The committee was unanimous in its support of that. On behalf of colleagues, I also wish the retired Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Conor O'Boyle, well in his retirement and welcome the new Chief of Staff to his position today and wish him well in the challenging work he has to do into the future. We look forward to working through the Department with the Defence Forces as a committee.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I suggest if the Chairman were to write as Chair of the defence committee to the retired Lieutenant General Conor O'Boyle, he would really appreciate that.

Chairman

We are going to do that anyway.

Deputy Simon Coveney

He has done an outstanding job and it would mean a great deal to him to get a letter from the committee.

Chairman

We are going to do that anyway as part of our plan. I think Deputy Farrell indicated first, followed by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will start with the issue on which he finished, namely, the pensions Vote.

Without going into specifics, a matter was brought to my attention last week on which I will seek information from the Minister at a later stage. I understand there was a fire on a naval vessel in the 1960s which affected two individuals and I have received correspondence from an individual on that subject. I am sure the Minister is aware of this issue and I would appreciate if it would be possible for him to outline his position on it either to me or through the Chair. I have no desire to go into the specifics here in committee but perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to provide me with his position.

In respect of the Minister's comments and those of the Chair, as an Irish person one must be immensely proud to observe the absolutely critical mission the Naval Service is completing in the Mediterranean at present. I believe the number to date is 7,400 people and I am sure that as the ink dried on that printout, the numbers had increased. I echo the sentiments of the Chair in commending all the personnel involved in what is a critical lifesaving mission in the Mediterranean. Any person who is on board Irish territory in the Mediterranean while carrying out his or her duties can return home rightly proud of his or her involvement in the saving of so many thousands of lives under what I am sure have been horrific circumstances from time to time in recent months.

On the issue of the fleet, I was not aware that the name, the LE William Butler Yeats, had been selected. As I had not been following that, it is nice to know. I am aware the Naval Service has eight vessels at present, the newest of which is the LE Samuel Beckett and the oldest being the LE Aoife, unless I am mistaken. I am guessing this from its designation, P22.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is actually the LE Aisling.

Deputy Alan Farrell

Is it the LE Aisling? Very well. I presume the retirement or the standing down of some of these vessels is envisaged over a period and perhaps the Minister can outline to members the proposals in this regard and the timeframe being considered because I appreciate some of these vessels are getting on a bit. In addition, as part of the enormous amount of money that has been both expended and saved in the procurement of new vessels, I am sure there is an ongoing fleet replacement programme. Perhaps the Minister can outline the Department's proposals for future replacements of older vessels currently in the fleet such as the LE Eithne and the LE Aisling. I do not know how old the LE Orla and the LE Ciara are but the Minister might inform me in his response.

I echo the sentiments of the Chair regarding the retirement of the Chief of Staff - I was going to say Secretary General - and commend the work he completed in recent years. Over the 25 or 30 years since I was a young boy, I have always been greatly interested in the conduct of the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Army, particularly in respect of peacekeeping and similar matters. They rightly are a source of immense pride among Irish citizens. The Minister has rolled out a recruitment programme, which is welcome, and obviously, as has been mentioned, fleet renewal across all three services will be improved.

I revert to a matter on which I have touched three or four times as we have discussed the Estimates over the years, namely, the ministerial air transport service, MATS. Is there an update, for instance, on the aircraft that currently is in the United States? Has it been sold? I believe it has been but perhaps the Minister can update the joint committee in this regard and on the sort of money the Department might have received for that aircraft.

Chairman

There are a number of questions if the Minister wishes to respond.

Deputy Simon Coveney

They all are good questions. First, in respect of the fleet replacement programme, the White Paper states we want to have a minimum of eight ships in the fleet. We got a little bit caught out this year, if I am honest, as earlier in the year we had decommissioned the LE Aoife without having the LE James Joyce available and as a consequence were without one ship for a couple of months. We then also made a commitment to send a ship to the Mediterranean. The LE Eithne, which basically has been the flagship for the Irish Naval Service for some time, was the first to go and we had an asbestos issue with one of the older ships. However, all those problems have been resolved and the fleet is back up and running fully.

The Deputy is correct in that the LE Aoife was the oldest ship in the fleet. It is to become part of the Maltese Navy, probably for the next five years, while the Maltese seek to design and build a new vessel. However, that ship will be put to good use in a part of the world that badly needs capacity at sea, that is, in the Mediterranean. That vessel has been in Cork Harbour in a dockyard while getting a thorough survey and assessment as well as a bit of work done before going to the Mediterranean. However, I understand it will be leaving within the next three weeks. This is a big deal for the Maltese authorities who will be sending some of their senior military personnel to Cork for the ship's departure. The oldest ship in the fleet at present is the LE Aisling, which was built in 1980. Thereafter, the LE Eithne, the LE Ciara and the LE Orla are all from 1984. When the LE William Butler Yeats arrives next summer, the LE Aisling will be decommissioned. The next ship we will look potentially to replace may well be the LE Eithne. The capacity of that ship is different from all the other ships in that it is the only ship with a helicopter landing pad, although it is not used any more. Consequently, the Department is examining the possibility of what is described as a blue-green ship, which is a larger vessel that would have more capacity than simply being an offshore patrol vessel such as the LE Samuel Beckett, the LE James Joyce or the LE William Butler Yeats. Even though they are really good at what they do and are almost ideal ships for what is needed in Irish waters, I believe we need to have one ship in the fleet that is slightly larger, has more capacity, has a helipad and can play a role both at home and abroad that perhaps is more comprehensive than is possible with some of the other vessels. There now is enough in the capital programme, the Government having agreed it and published it yesterday, to be able to consider making replacements. Decisions must be made in respect of budgeting as to whether the LE Eithne is to be the first one or whether the LE Orla or the LE Ciara or both should come first. It takes about three years to decide that a ship is to be replaced. One then goes to tender for its design and build and then one actually builds it and our engineers are part of that. Am I under some time pressure?

Chairman

I am advised that we must be finished by 3.15 p.m.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will be a bit quicker. On the MATS question, as the Deputy has asked this previously, there has been a decision by the Government that the service will operate with the single aeroplane available to it. It has some range issues and so on but the decision has been that it is what the service will operate with for the foreseeable future. Were a new Government to make a different decision, that would be a political decision rather than an operational one. I think there are other priorities, quite frankly, in terms of defence expenditure at present. However, that would be a decision, as I stated, for any new Government in a few months time.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I will be brief, recognising the time constraints. I join Deputy Farrell in complimenting everybody in the Naval Service on the work that is being done in the Mediterranean. It is quite extraordinary and the Irish people at large are appreciative and proud of what their Naval Service is doing there. Is the Minister confident the Government will agree to extend that activity beyond November?

In addition to the valuable work being done there, can we do more in our international role in addressing the asylum and refugee issue? We can let it be known that along with what we are doing here indigenously to accommodate refugees, we are also very active daily in a way many other countries are not in this rescue mission. Some of us are conscious of that but I do not know whether the message has gone abroad that we are daily doing something about that problem. Does the Minister envisage any position in which our naval personnel can do something of a systematic nature to address human trafficking and abuse?

I am glad the Minister mentioned the reserves and he has made some very positive statements since taking office about the reserves and their role. None the less, when I speak to reservists, they tell me their practical experience on an ongoing basis is one of impediments being put in their way, with recruitment falling short because of practical obstacles. It was suggested to me recently that a group of people who passed the various tests which are correctly posed to those seeking to enter the reserves did not get in because the required Garda clearance for the group - there are 100 people - was not sent to the Garda authorities in time. Neither the potential reservists nor the Garda have control over this and this would not suggest a very positive or proactive approach to recruitment on the part of the authorities with direct responsibility. I ask that we bring in representatives of the reservists to hear directly from them, given that we had a very useful meeting with them some time ago.

I look forward to a further opportunity to debate with the Minister on the capital investment programme. I commend the purchasing of naval vessels and the value for money in that respect. What the Minister outlined today in that case is perfectly acceptable. The Minister spoke about the peace support and leadership training for the Curragh, and I made a submission on that in the Green Paper. Our party is very strongly committed to that. I am conscious that 100,000 personnel are deployed by the United Nations at any given time, which is a lot of personnel in need of training. Our expertise in peace support, leadership and military diplomacy gives us a capacity to meet a particular demand. I would love to hear from the Minister at a later date about how ambitious he is for that initiative and how he sees it developing.

I note the Minister has achieved further savings. The Department of Defence has been outstanding in this regard and I salute all the officials there in how they have achieved savings. Nevertheless, those savings are being achieved against a background where we are told continually that the people serving in our Defence Forces are heavily dependent on family income supplement and they contend with very poor pay and conditions. Given the savings, does the Minister accept something substantial must be done in terms of pay and conditions for serving members?

Chairman

There were many issues in that contribution and we are conscious of time, so I ask the Minister to be as brief as possible.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I do not have a reputation for being brief in this committee.

Chairman

I could not comment on that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will try to be a little more brief than usual. There are many good questions there, to be fair. On the Mediterranean mission, the LE Samuel Beckett is due to be back on 5 December. It is another rotation of approximately eight weeks. The plan now is that at that point we will not replace the vessel because the anticipation is there may not be much traffic at that time of the year because the weather may make passage difficult. I certainly anticipate that, because of the success of the mission, we will send a ship back there early in the spring, perhaps in February or March. Having said that, we will assess the issue and if the Italians say they need us to stay, we will have to respond to that.

This was very new for us during the summer and the Naval Service had three weeks' notice to send a ship to the Mediterranean. This is putting much pressure on the service and it has performed really well, but it is affecting the other roles it must play. If we are going to have an approach that keeps a ship abroad permanently on different missions - it is currently in the Mediterranean - we must reflect on whether eight ships is enough for the Irish Naval Service. We have a responsibility in fisheries patrol and the role must be played as part of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is not just a voluntary action. If there is going to be a priority in the Government to maintain a ship in the Mediterranean, it will have resource consequences, just as keeping our Army in UNIFIL and the UN Disengagement Observer Force has resource consequences.

I must flag that idea but I believe in what we are doing in the Mediterranean, which is great work. I want to ensure we can continue to play a positive role in a very tragic humanitarian issue. We can reassess that close to the time. The current plan is to bring home the ship, assess the mission, learn lessons and look to provide the Italians with the assistance of a ship in the spring. That will be kept under review.

It would be a good idea to bring in the reservists. I can quote the White Paper and list everything we are committing to do for the reserves. It is a pretty strong statement. I accept we are not getting a flood of people looking to join and there are issues to be considered. We essentially have a reserve at half strength and that needs to change, so we will do it.

On the peace and leadership institute, I have spent much time talking and thinking about the issue and we made a strong commitment in the White Paper. This concept will grow but we need to do it properly. We will not do a rush job before the election, for example. We will put an experienced group of people in place to plan and grow this idea. We have money to spend on building what will essentially be a new university campus attached to the UN peacekeeping school. It will become quite a big institute in future. I will happily speak to the detail of this at a later stage.

Pay and conditions in the Defence Forces are linked to pay and conditions right across the public sector. We have a new pay agreement and it will kick in from 1 January, costing the Government an extra €300 million next year. That will be factored into the budget in a few weeks. The Defence Forces will benefit from that, like everybody else. We cannot do separate deals for the Defence Forces while leaving out other areas within the public sector. We would not get the money from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

Like everybody else, I commend the Army and the Naval Service on the work they do, and I also commend the Minister and his Department. The Minister has indicated, with respect to the capital investment programme, that he will provide for ongoing refurbishment for a diverse defence property portfolio. I am always harassing the Minister about this but my concern relates to the use of barracks in my constituency. I would like to see barracks, in my constituency and elsewhere, used for Civil Defence or Reserve Defence Force training. I am very concerned about using the barracks as a reception centre for refugees. They are not appropriate for that in any shape or form. Having visited those barracks, to my mind it would not be appropriate to put families into them.

I hope the Minister would not consider doing that. I ask the Minister to consider, for example, using the barracks in Mullingar for a Civil Defence headquarters or something like that. We should utilise the barracks and not allow them to become run-down.

The Minister referred to the overseas missions. I wonder whether there is provision for those who come back from those missions with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD? The Minister spoke of pensions and looking after families, but there are soldiers coming back who are suffering from PTSD. They feel they are not getting the care that they and their families were promised before they went on the missions. I am concerned about particular members of the Defence Forces.

Chairman

I wish to advise members that there is a Vote in the Dáil Chamber. I ask the Minister to be brief.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy raises the issue of Custume Barracks in Athlone with me on an almost weekly basis, and she is right to do so, as it is her town. We do have a lot of activity there in terms of a permanent Defence Forces presence. That will be maintained and probably enhanced in the future. Mullingar presents a more challenging situation because there is no longer an operational barracks there. I spoke to Deputy Penrose earlier on this issue. We will do what we can and we have been doing what we can to ensure the barracks is used by State agencies as much as possible. The Deputy can be assured that if something is to be done about accommodation for refugees, it will be in appropriate locations. Army barracks are not the only locations being looked at.

Chairman

This issue was discussed at a meeting this morning and does not need to be covered again.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will now turn to the important issue of PTSD. I understand the Deputy has contacted my office about one case, which we are concerned about, and we are acting upon this. There are strong social, personal and medical supports within the Defence Forces, but if there is a problem that is not being addressed appropriately within the Defence Forces, we will address it. It is not acceptable that people return from missions and are exposed or vulnerable because of their experiences abroad. The Deputy has my personal assurance on this issue. I will not hand it off and pretend everything is perfect. If there are problems we will address them. I understand there are good support structures in place, but if there are exceptions we will try to deal with them.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance today. I draw the Minister’s attention to the output measures. Reference was made to the target of maximising the effectiveness of Defence Forces operations with available resources. That target was met and achieved but we do not know how. It would be helpful if, in future, the committee had more detail as to how exactly the operational effectiveness of the Defence Forces was maximised with regard to resources and what measures were used to set that target and to achieve it.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.15 p.m. sine die.