Priority Questions
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he shares the concern expressed in some quarters that the changes in the Defence Forces could threaten the security of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48825/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn the context of the very serious economic crisis the country is experiencing, all elements of defence expenditure have been critically reviewed to deliver savings. In this context, initiatives such as the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force are an essential step in ensuring operational capabilities are maintained and all assigned roles continue to be fulfilled.
I am aware there has been some dissatisfaction expressed regarding the perceived impact of certain required changes on particular localities or individuals. However, it would be ironic if initiatives such as the re-organisation of the Permanent Defence Force or barrack closures were presented as being a threat to the security of the State when, in fact, these actions are required to ensure the Defence Forces can operate efficiently and effectively. A threat would only arise if an outmoded organisational structure or inefficient networks of barrack infrastructure had been allowed to remain.
The recent reorganisation proposals were framed in the context of a defence and security environment assessment, which was published earlier this year in the Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement 2011-2014. I have been advised by the Chief of Staff that the implementation of the re-organisation will ensure the Permanent Defence Force can continue to meet all operational requirements at home and overseas.
As Minister for Defence I am committed to maintaining the capacity of the Defence Forces to carry out the full range of tasks assigned to them, whether by Government or by request from An Garda Síochána, including explosive ordnance disposal, provision of cash and prisoner escorts, provision of security at Portlaoise Prison and Government Buildings, the support provided by the Air Corps to the Garda air support unit, and Naval Service engagement in the joint task force on drug interdiction.
I thank the Minister for his response and I want to refrain from going back to debates on the issue of the organisation. The Minister has set out his stall quite clearly yet members of the Defence Forces remain concerned about the implications of the implementation of the reorganisation, not least in advance of the process of the White Paper being undertaken. I was particularly concerned by the recent statement made by the outgoing president of PDFORRA, Mr. William Webb, who is not given to making outrageous statements. He told the annual conference that if the weakening of the force is noticed by dissident groups, it will pose a real and serious threat to our nation. He said that if weakening of the Defence Forces is noted by dissident groups, the same groups caught monitoring Harcourt Street Garda station recently, it would be a real problem for our nation. He appealed to the Minister and the Government to stop the madness.
His comments are particularly pertinent in light of the appalling atrocity in the north of Ireland, with the murder of the prison officer, Mr. David Black. I commend the Minister on his presence at the funeral and I commend my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, on making the trip to the funeral to show the solidarity of people of this country with Mr. Black, the prison service and, most importantly, with his family. It highlights the need to be absolutely certain that the force is organised so as to be able continue to do what it has done to maintain the security of the State.
All Members agree the murder of Mr. David Black was an appalling and disgraceful atrocity. It was the sacrifice of the life of a good man for the achievement of no identifiable objective. It was done by people who have no moral compass and no insight into, or concern for, the lives of those they target or the impact on families of the horrendous loss suffered. It was a terrible event and we had hoped that we had put such events on the island behind us. I thank the Deputy for his comments because it was important that I joined the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland, Mr. David Ford, to give a clear message of unanimity in our views and, by our stance, making it clear that the Governments, North and South, are united against the subversive elements that seek to bring us back to the bad old days of the past.
I entirely reject the suggestion made by the outgoing president of PDFORRA. I regret that he did not give greater thought to what he was saying. Unfortunately, at these events, some members of representative organisations that by and large engage constructively and behave responsibly sometimes feel the need to seek an unnecessary headline on something that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. When this Government came into office, based on the financial backdrop and the policies adopted by the previous Government, the Defence Forces were heading below 8,000 members. We stabilised the position and I succeeded in obtaining a decision from Government that the strength of the Defence Forces would be maintained at 9,500. Reorganisation was important because it was based on a strength of 11,500, which not had not been maintained at any stage during the lifetime of the previous Government. Reorganisation ensured that, in the context of the current strength of the Defence Forces, we can use them to maximum efficiency. Reorganisation can take place in a manner that ensures organisational effectiveness. Let no recalcitrant group of terrorists outside this House think that, in any way, the Defence Forces are less vigilant today than they were in the past. They have enhanced capacities because of the manner in which they are equipped and the intelligent way they go about their business. The decisions made and being implemented will substantially strengthen their capabilities and operational capacity.
I will give a quick example in the context of subversive groups and criminal gangs. Pursuant to their role in rendering aid to the civil power, the Defence Forces continue to address the problems of improvised and other ordnance disposal on a 24-hour, seven days a week basis. Wearing my hats as the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Defence, there is superb co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces when these devices are discovered. With great bravery and skill, the members of the Defence Forces neutralise them.
I agree with the Minister on two points, about co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces and the outstanding commitment of the members of the Defence Forces to the security and well-being of the State. However, morale is at an all-time low. Can the Minister indicate the level of outflow from the Permanent Defence Force as a result of the reorganisation? My experience is of many young talented members deciding to opt out of the Defence Forces because of their forced transfer to various parts of the country.
I entirely reject the suggestion that morale is at an all-time low. We have extraordinarily efficient and well-trained Defence Forces. A substantial number of them are undertaking UN duty in southern Lebanon and a member of the Defence Forces is in charge of a UN mission based in Uganda to provide assistance in Somalia. Members of the Defence Forces with particular skill and expertise are in Afghanistan on international UN related duties, and other members of the Defence Forces are based throughout the world. Highly trained members of the Defence Forces have the capacity to come to the aid of the civil power when required and co-ordinate in assisting the Garda Síochána in its important duties relating to the security of the State.
The context of reorganisation and the arrangements being made in that respect are the subject of another question which I will answer shortly, and perhaps I will deal with the issue raised by the Deputy in the context of answering that question.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his views on the future role of the Reserve Defence Forces [48756/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraSince its launch in July 2004 the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan has provided the framework for the development of the Reserve. This plan sought to progressively develop Reserve capabilities and had an implementation timeframe that extended to the end of 2009. A value for money, VFM, review of the Reserve Defence Force commenced in February 2010. It was intended that the recommendations of this review would inform plans regarding the future development of the Reserve.
In the intervening period there has been significant change and uncertainty in the economic environment. Resource constraints have further impacted all aspects of defence expenditure, including the Reserve. Arising from the comprehensive review of expenditure, CRE, the Government agreed to stabilise the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, at 9,500 personnel and a major reorganisation of the PDF is in progress in order to ensure that it retains the operational capacity required to fulfil all the roles assigned to it.
The steering committee undertaking the VFM review of the Reserve had to ensure that recommendations regarding the future development of the Reserve had due regard to resource constraints. The VFM review has taken longer than anticipated due to other priorities, such as the CRE. However, in reality, any recommendations that may have been made in advance of the CRE and reorganisation of the PDF would have been quickly superseded.
The steering committee established to oversee the VFM review submitted the completed report to myself and the Secretary General during October 2012. Responses to the recommendations contained in this report are currently being developed and will be completed in advance of its publication. This is a normal part of the VFM process and consistent with the guidelines for such reviews. When this process is completed my Department will arrange a full briefing for the representative associations. I am aware that there is considerable interest in this particular VFM review and I have directed that this process be expedited. I anticipate its completion in the very near future.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The recommendations contained in the report encompass all aspects of the Reserve, including future roles for the Reserve. However, the Deputy will appreciate that it would be premature for me to engage in discussions at this point, pending completion of the VFM process. There will be an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the report, its recommendations, and future plans, after the report is published. I look forward to having a full discussion at that point.
The Minister will be aware of the growing concern that the Reserve Defence Force is to be depleted by thousands.
As a Deputy for Donegal North East, I have met individuals in my constituency who are concerned about the supports for the Reserve Defence Force. They told me about a recruitment day held in one of the community schools when 100 young people expressed a wish to be involved. They could not provide for all the young people who attended. Members of the Reserve travel long distances, give significant amounts of their time and fund-raise for various good causes. All of this connects the Defence Forces with local communities. The Reserve Defence Force is the umbilical link between our Defence Forces and local communities. It is a tremendous organisation. Every euro invested in it gives a significant return.
Whatever the Minister is considering, I ask him to think about the impact it will have on the ground. During a profound recession when large numbers of young people are out of work, it is more critical than ever that we have a Reserve Defence Force whose ethos is supported in every way.
The recommendations in the report encompass all aspects of the Reserve, including future roles for the Reserve. There is no suggestion that the Reserve will be abolished. I can give assurances in that regard.
The Deputy must appreciate that it would be premature of me to engage in discussions at this point, pending completion of the VFM process which deals with recommendations and the appropriate response to them. There will be an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the report, its recommendations and future plans when it is published. We will have a full discussion on that. It is important that we identify the future role of the Reserve and where expenditure should be applied with regard to it.
The nominal membership of the Reserve is substantially greater than the number who engage in Reserve training and are functioning members of the Reserve. In the light of the reorganisation of the Defence Forces from three brigades to two and given the resource issues, there is a need to ensure that the resources made available to the Reserve are used efficiently and in the best interest of the country, as opposed to being spent with no assessment of the benefit accruing from it. We must identify the roles the Reserve can play and how its training facilitates it in playing those roles.
I expect, very shortly, to be in a position to publish the report. I hope we will discuss it at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality where we can have a more free-flowing conversation than during Question Time.
The VFM review was initiated by the previous Government. The Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, made very imaginative submissions to the review as to how the Reserve Defence Force could be deployed. We must find ways to deploy the patriotic spirit of the members of the Reserve that do not involve cutting their numbers. The Reserve is a huge resource to the Irish people. We should not allow the spending cuts process to take the heart out of that movement.
The Minister says the process is not completed. Before he signs off on it, I ask him to take one more look at the suggestions contained in the RDFRA document which was submitted in August 2010 and is still relevant.
There is a real difference between the establishment figures of the Reserve and the actual figures. The Army Reserve establishment is 9,292 and the effective strength is 4,293, although not all of those are engaging in the training days made available to them. The Naval Service Reserve projected establishment is 400 and the real figure is 180. Therefore, the effective strength of the Reserve Defence Force is 4,473. We must look at this. A significant number of individuals start initial training in the Reserve and fall away within a short period of time. Resources are put into that also.
We must look at the role the Reserve should play. Given the professionalism of the Permanent Defence Force, we are fortunate that the Reserve has not had to be called out for any major functions for quite some years. This is because the PDF is equipped to deal with the various issues that arise. We must also ensure that the Reserve is not deployed in an activity for which it has not been trained.
These issues are addressed in the VFM. I hope to be in a position to publish it in a few weeks at most, certainly during the course of this month. We will then have a constructive discussion at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.
3. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Defence the progress that has been made in arranging an alternative use for the former Kickham Barracks site in Clonmel, County Tipperary; if he has examined the option of relocating the Clonmel Garda Station to the barracks location; when this matter will be finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48757/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraSince the announcement of the Government decision on barrack closures in November 2011, the Department of Defence has written to each Government Department and various agencies and local authorities seeking expressions of interest in acquiring any of the properties to benefit the local community.
In this regard, there have been discussions between officials from the Department and a number of other State agencies, including the Department of Justice and Equality - I am also the Minister for Justice and Equality - in relation to the sale of a portion of the barracks in Clonmel for a new Garda station, an issue in which the Deputy is particularly interested. These discussions are ongoing. I assure the Deputy that every effort will be made to dispose of the barracks so as to maximise the benefits to the local community.
I am glad to hear the response from the Minister. He mentioned that the barracks has been closed for 12 months. It is on a fine urban site of almost 14 acres.
The Minister also mentioned that he is also Minister for Justice and Equality. Surely we can short-circuit the discussions that are ongoing. The Department of Defence is engaged in discussions with a number of groups. I support that. There is plenty of room to accommodate all of them. It is most vital, however, that we get suitable accommodation for the Garda station in Clonmel. The current station is in a primitive Dickensian building that is not fit for use by the Garda or the public.
I appeal to the Minister, who is also the Minister for Justice and Equality, to cut out the red tape, the jargon and the dealings with the Office of Public Works.
The site is owned by the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Defence. Surely we can submit plans and give the go ahead for the Garda barracks to be sited there. It is a great site and a Garda station is needed in Clonmel more than anywhere else in the country. It is the second biggest inland town in the State and the current barracks is Dickensian. It does not even belong to the Department; it is leased from the county council.
The Deputy knows the Government he supported in this House for many years left the gardaí in the circumstances and conditions he is referring to. At a time when the Government he supported was flaithiúlach with money, it did not provide the funding needed to provide the Garda station.
I do not want to hear that. The barracks was not closed then.
I am sorry if the truth gets in the way of the fiction the Deputy likes to constantly perpetrate in this Chamber. The reality is that he supported a Government for years that failed to provide the new Garda station that was needed so let us not make a big thing about it here today as if it is newly discovered.
There was no vacant site there at that time. This is a vacant site now. The Minister is being political about this.
We are looking at the possibility of providing a Garda facility within the confines of the barracks. It is an issue that does not just involve my Department. It also involves the Office of Public Works, which is responsible for constructing Garda stations and acquiring sites for them.
As the Deputy knows well, this property is owned by the Department of Defence and, as was the case with the previous Governments he supported, it is recognised that barracks which closed were valuable assets. Funding realised from their sale is kept within the Defence Forces for resourcing purposes at a time when we are all concerned to ensure the Defence Forces have adequate resources so they can maintain their high skill levels and efficiencies. I have an obligation as Minister for Defence to ensure when new arrangements are put in place, some value for the barracks derives to the Department of Defence for the benefit of the Defence Forces. Wearing both my hats, I assure the Deputy we are constructively engaged in addressing this issue.
I am disgusted with the answer. The Minister wants to politicise the issue. The barracks has been empty for 12 months. I do not want to get into the nitty-gritty of going back and forth but the site is available now. Will the Minister have a meeting with himself on this? He does not meet with many other people and he treats people in deputations with distinct distaste. He does not want to meet people, as we found out when we met him in Clonmel before. Perhaps he could meet himself and put one hat on one day and another hat on another day.
This is patent nonsense. He owns the site; the last Government did not own the site. I have no problems with being a part of the last Government - I accept it - but there is a vacant site now and it is owned by the Minister for Defence, who is also the Minister for Justice and Equality. It is clear there is a conflict here. He cannot handle either side and does not know what way to move. He should bring in the OPW, which is also involved. We need a Garda station and the site is there. The money must go back to the Department of Defence but we need a Garda station. The Minister should be proactive for once in a public position, instead of being so proactive in many other ways. I also ask him not to be so political.
The Deputy should give serious consideration to applying to participate in the Kilkenny comedy weekend which is run on an annualised basis.
The Minister would not get much comedy.
I am sure he would be a star turn.
The Minister would not be the star turn. It would be "Sesame Street" with him.
As the Deputy seemed to miss, the Office of Public Works has responsibility for Garda stations. If the funding must be provided, it will come from the OPW and resources must be identified. I know the Deputy finds it difficult to make the connection between the provision of a Garda station and identifying the funding necessary to provide it, but that is the reality and it is an issue to which we must now give serious consideration.
4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Office of Defence Ombudsman has been downgraded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48826/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe primary role of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, which is provided for in the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, is to provide an independent appeals process for members of the Defence Forces. Such appeals arise where a complaint has been processed through the internal Defence Forces “redress of wrongs” process but the member remains dissatisfied with the outcome or the manner in which the complaint was handled. The 2004 Act also provides that, subject to certain conditions, the ombudsman may accept complaints directly from former members of the Defence Forces. The office of the ombudsman is now well established and a number of administrative and systemic issues identified by the outgoing ombudsman have been addressed. This has contributed to improvements in procedures and policies within the Defence Forces.
Recent trends show a significant increase in the number of redress of wrongs complaints being resolved within the military system, thus reducing the number of cases being referred to the ombudsman for investigation, a fact I very much welcome. In addition, it is anticipated that the new and comprehensive promotion system for NCOs agreed and introduced earlier this year will eliminate the many complaint referrals to the ombudsman relating to promotion. Such referrals currently account for about a third of the caseload in the ombudsman’s office. Against this background, the post of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is being filled on a part-time, three day week basis, subject to ongoing review of caseload and referrals.
I can now inform the House that yesterday the Government decided, on foot of a recommendation from me, that it would advise the President to appoint Mr. Patrick Anthony McCourt as Ombudsman for the Defence Forces for a period of three years. The warrant appointing Mr. McCourt to the post is currently with the President for signature. Mr. McCourt was recommended for the post by the Public Appointments Service following an open competition.
There are no plans currently for changes in the role of the ombudsman or to amend the legislation in relation to the powers or functions of the ombudsman.
I thank the Minister for his response. It would be appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Ms Paulyn Marrinan Quinn since her appointment and the importance of the Act that she gave effect to in the course of her service. Certainly recourse to some form of ombudsman service was absolutely essential in the Defence Forces, as it would be in any organisation that has a strong authoritative and hierarchical system. I am glad to hear the Minister's response that the culture within the Defence Forces has changed over the years but I am puzzled when I look at the figures from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. Between 2008 and 2010 there was an average of about 112 cases considered by the ombudsman but that dropped quite dramatically from 116 in 2010 to 32 in 2011. Could the Minister explain that dramatic drop?
I am also conscious the outgoing ombudsman wrote to the Minister indicating the time was right to consider how the whole system was working and if the oversight system was fulfilling its original purpose. Have the necessary changes taken place in the Defence Forces to reflect the concepts enshrined in the Act? I understand Ms Marrinan Quinn raised the question of the powers enshrined in the Act being further extended as they have been in other jurisdictions. She reported that the Minister responded positively to that approach. One wonders how that positive response to a request for additional powers and a review of the system gave rise to a situation in which the working hours of the ombudsman will fall from 40 to 25 hours per week and we are to have a part-time ombudsman. Some members of the Defence Forces would say we also have a part-time Minister for Defence.
The Defence Forces have a full-time Minister for Defence. As has been my practice for about 30 years, I do two days work in one day by starting at 5 a.m. and finishing some time between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. When I was in opposition, that allowed me to continue to work as a solicitor and it now facilitates my being able to deal with defence issues in a very effective and hands on way. I am perhaps involved a great deal more in the Department of Defence in dealing with issues and implementing reform than my immediate predecessor. The Deputy might inquire into that.
The ombudsman is becoming part-time for the very reason the Deputy gave.
Unfortunately the members of PDFORRA do not share the Minister's analysis of the situation because at their conference they talked about the role of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces being downgraded to a part-time role and being a mere "nixer". They talk about the Department not taking the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces seriously and consequently not being serious about the welfare of members of the Defence Forces. I expect the Minister to dispute that, but he should also accept that there is genuine concern at such a dramatic reduction in an office that has been very effective in its remit since it was established in 2004. It is very difficult to understand the dramatic decline between 2010 when there were 110 cases and the mere 32 cases referred to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in 2011. It is very hard to understand that rapid turnabout and decline in numbers.
I suppose it would not have happened if reforms had not been introduced. The Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent. It is for members of the military in circumstances where they believe they have been wronged to complain to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, and they are free and able to do that. I thought the Deputy would have welcomed that there are fewer issues arising in which members of the Defence Forces feel they have been wronged and feel compelled to complain to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. I thought the Deputy would welcome that there are greater efficiencies and that reforms have been introduced meaning the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is called upon less frequently. There has been no suggestion at any stage from PDFORRA that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces was not properly dealing with complaints.
I regret that a representative organisation such as PDFORRA, when it holds its annual conference, feels compelled to make wild complaints about all sorts of issues. It seems to be something that happens at conferences, but does not then arise in the very constructive work in which the representative bodies engage during the rest of the year. If there were only 32 complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, does the Deputy want someone to invent complaints? Does he want somebody within the Defence Forces to start deliberately behaving with inefficiency so that we generate more complaints? Is there a suggestion that we should really have more members of the Defence Forces who believe that issues of a disciplinary nature or of a promotional nature-----
The Minister is being facetious.
-----in which they are engaged should be dealt with less efficiently to give more work to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces?
I thank the Minister.
I do not believe that is the case. Incidentally the Deputy might be interested to know that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces makes recommendations to the Minister and the Minister must decide whether to accept or reject them. Owing to the impact on members of the Defence Forces it was always my view that when a recommendation is received from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces it should be given relatively speedy consideration by the Minister of the day, and decisions made and communicated. When I became Minister there was a substantial backlog of reports from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces to my predecessor that had not been addressed. We had to take special action to have them addressed and to bring us up to a situation where within a relatively short time of getting a recommendation from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces it was responded to. I am afraid the Deputy's party did not cover itself in glory in office just over 19 months ago in dealing with either recommendations from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces or even in taking that office seriously.
I thank the Minister. We need to make some progress as we are over time.
Deputy Donnelly has advised that he will not be able to attend for Question No. 5 and we will proceed to other questions.
Should I give the reply for the record of the House?
No. The normal practice is not to read out a reply when a Deputy is not in the House for a priority question.
Is it in order that we give Deputy Donnelly a written reply on that matter? I am agreeable to doing that if it facilitates him.
Unless the Deputy wishes to wait-----
Unless there is some procedural difficulty, I am happy that he gets a written reply.
The Deputy may wish to withdraw it and submit it at a later date.
