Priority Questions
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the total amount of pay and allowance and other remuneration for the Defence Forces in 2012; the total savings he hopes to make in this in 2013-2015; the method by which he will procure such savings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6409/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraRemuneration for the Permanent Defence Force in 2012 amounted to €459.76 million. This consisted of €424.76 million on pay and €35 million on allowances. An additional €3.5 million in remuneration for the Reserve Defence Force was also expended in 2012.
As the Deputy is aware, talks on an extension to the Public Service Agreement 2010–2014 began last month with a view to achieving savings in the order of €1 billion from the public service pay and pensions bill in the period to the end of 2015 to underpin the necessary fiscal consolidation. During these talks the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, set out a requirement of savings from each sector in the period to the end of 2015 with savings of €35 million being sought from the defence sector. This equates to 3.5% which is the defence sector’s proportion of the total public service pay bill for 2013.
The Government is committed to seeking agreement with staff representatives on the measures to be introduced to achieve the necessary savings in the public service pay and pensions bill. Discussions have commenced, facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission and led by officials of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, between public service management and staff representatives on a new agreement on measures to be introduced to achieve the necessary savings in the public service pay and pensions bill. In parallel with central discussions to identify those savings which would apply across all sectors, defence sector management and the Defence Forces representative associations continue to discuss how additional measures could help to deliver savings and productivity gains to contribute to the defence sector’s proportion of savings to the €1 billion target.
As these discussions are still ongoing, I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that the specifics are confidential to the parties involved and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the matter.
I thank the Minister for his response. We are conscious of the priority the Government has in this area of the review of the Croke Park agreement and we are conscious of the need to continue to achieve savings across the public service. In tabling this question I am asking the Minister to be an advocate for the members of the Defence Forces. I am asking him to recognise that the Defence Forces have been to a very large extent a pioneer in the area of public service reform. The Minister has achieved significant reform in a very short timeframe. I am conscious of the fact that between 1997 and 2007 expenditure on the Defence Forces decreased by approximately 50% as a share of the national income.
I am also conscious, as I am sure is the Minister, that the allowances paid to members of the Defence Forces are, by and large, part of core pay and therefore must be protected. In the work he is doing in this area, is the Minister conscious that a significant number of members of the Defence Forces are in receipt of family income supplement and that fact indicates that the pay of these serving men and women, of whom this State is rightly proud, is at a level that cannot bear further reduction? My critical question is, notwithstanding the needs to achieve savings, whether the Minister is willing to be a personal advocate for the members of the Defence Forces on this particular issue.
I give the Deputy every assurance that I have great respect for the fantastic achievements in recent years made within the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces in the areas of modernisation, effecting change and effecting substantial cost savings, which are evident right across the board. The Department of Defence is a model for public service reform that could well be replicated in other Departments. A great deal has been achieved. In the short time I have been Minister, which is less than two years, we have had the reorganisation of the Defence Forces, moving from a three to a two battalion structure. We have had the closure of Army barracks with which we have dealt now, happily, and that will not be revisited. Four Army barracks have been closed. There is also the reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force. Substantial efficiencies have been effected by all of the events that have happened in implementation. We have also had the very beneficial decision made many years ago that now applies whereby when the Defence Forces sell property owned by them the proceeds can be reinvested to provide proper resources.
I am very conscious of the reality that some members of the Defence Forces are resorting to supplementary welfare allowance to supplement their finances. It is important we acknowledge that basic line pay and military service allowance constitute core play in the Defence Forces.
The question of what other allowances might be considered to be part of core pay is a matter for discussion between the Department and representative associations for the Defence Forces. It is important to understand that the term "allowances" in the defence sector covers a variety of payment types that are different from each other. Some are intended to reimburse expenses and do not actually form part of remuneration at all. Some payments are made in recognition of particular technical or professional qualifications while other allowances recognise particularly onerous duties, whether at home or overseas, which fall outside the norms taken into account in setting basic pay, while also reflecting the fact that the Defence Forces do not receive overtime.
I assure the Deputy that I am very conscious of this issue and that, in the context of the public finances and the savings to be achieved, it is important that we engage and look constructively at savings that may be effected. I very much welcome the constructive engagement of the representative bodies. One key decision that was made was that the strength of the Defence Forces would be maintained at 9,500. The Government made the decision, at my request, in the lead-in to the 2012 budget. That decision was designed to ensure that we maintained the strength of the Defence Forces but maintaining the strength leads to certain consequences, namely that we must have the funding available to meet the basic and core pay requirements. Nevertheless, it is important that we constantly examine where savings can be effected. There is a remit from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to engage and constructive engagement is taking place. I do not want to say any more about that but I hope that we will, in the context of that engagement, be able to identify savings that can be implemented and applied without in any way undermining the effectiveness or the strength of the Defence Forces.
I welcome the Minister's response because it is somewhat positive. Can we take it that the Minister would accept that a rather crude, pro rata percentage cut across the board of 3.5%, which has been spoken of and alluded to in his own response, is not the way to approach the particular circumstances of the 9,500 members of the Defence Forces?
The matter is being approached in a particular manner, in the context of Departments being requested to achieve certain savings. The outcome of the discussions with regard to the individual Departments and the direct negotiations that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is engaged in must be awaited.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence the total amount allocated to the Reserve Defence Forces' budget each year since 2005; if his attention has been drawn to the recent suggestions that the Reserve Defence Forces are being wound down; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6412/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn regard to the total amount allocated to the Reserve Defence Force each year from 2005 to 2012, I propose to circulate a tabular statement setting out the information requested.
With regard to the future of the Reserve Defence Force, the Deputy will be aware that a major re-organisation is currently under way. This re-organisation is a key element of the response to the findings and recommendations of a value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force, which was published last November. The re-organisation is based on joint proposals from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General, which I accepted. The value for money report found that the current Reserve organisation was not fit for purpose and required radical reform. Significant issues such as low uptake of training and a high turnover of personnel combined with a low strength level served to adversely impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Reserve. The review highlighted a range of issues that needed to be addressed in order to improve the effectiveness of the Reserve Defence Force.
A new “single force” concept will see Permanent Defence Force units having Reserve components, rather than a parallel Reserve as at present. Reserve units within barracks will be supported by their parent PDF unit and the 16 units outside of PDF installations will be supported by dedicated full time PDF personnel. This concept offers significant potential advantages in terms of training and development of the Reserve. The initiative of locating Reserve officers within the Defence Forces management structure will likewise underpin the future Reserve.
The re-organisation of the Reserve Defence Force is in response to a compelling case for reform and will dovetail with the significant changes that are occurring in the PDF organisational structures. They will ensure a better Reserve and enhance overarching Defence capabilities. The high level group with responsibility for implementing the re-organisation of the Permanent Defence Force is now implementing the re-organisation of the Reserve. The contribution and commitment of all members of the Reserve is appreciated and I sincerely hope that all members of the Reserve will continue to serve within the new organisation.
|
SUBHEAD A5 |
Provision (€’000) |
Outturn (€’000) |
|
2005 |
12,553 |
10,542 |
|
2006 |
13,001 |
9,728 |
|
2007 |
12,541 |
8,839 |
|
2008 |
10,459 |
9,138 |
|
2009 |
8,900 |
6,651 |
|
2010 |
4,700 |
4,014 |
|
2011 |
4,386 |
3,935 |
|
2012 |
4,386 |
3,679 |
I managed to get my hands on some of the figures that I requested. I had not realised that my party had submitted a Parliamentary Question on the issue not so long ago. The response received indicates that funding for the Reserve Defence Force reached a peak in 2006, when the allocation was just over €13 million. The latest figures for 2011 indicate that the funding had dropped to €4.386 million, which is almost a third of the level in 2006. Those figures do not lie. It is clear that there has been, sadly, an incremental erosion of the role of the Reserve and the funding for them. The phrase "value for money" is a most unfortunate one because often what it means, when one strips away the varnish, is straightforward, simple cutbacks.
I have spoken to members of the Reserve Defence Force, as I am sure the Minister has, not just in Donegal but elsewhere and have asked them about their impression over the last number of years. They are very saddened by what is happening because the Reserve Defence Force are a link of patriotism between our Defence Force, of which we are immensely proud, particularly for their peace-keeping role around the world, and our local communities. This is particularly the case for young people. I represent Donegal North East and was told that at a Reserve Defence Force open day in a local secondary school, over 100 young people expressed an interest in joining. However, due to the restructuring, that is not going to be practically possible for many of them because the training facilities are now centralised and are a considerable distance away from places like north Inishowen. In many rural parts of Ireland it will no longer be practical for young people to participate in the Reserve Defence Force and to give, in their own way, patriotic service not just to the Defence Forces, but to their local communities.
I am afraid that the figures do not lie. We need to be honest about what has been happening in recent times.
The reduction in the allocation to the Reserve Defence Force over the period in question was addressed in the value for money report. The key variable in determining the level of training costs over the period 2006 to 2009, for example, was the uptake of both paid and unpaid training by members of the Reserve. As the uptake of training was on a voluntary basis, associated costs were demand led. The costs incurred for paid training were less than those anticipated due to the lower uptake of paid training and less than anticipated strength levels. The reality is that there was a designated strength level for the Reserve which was never achieved and far too few members of the Reserve were engaging in the recommended minimum seven day's training. This issue was addressed very substantially in the value for money report, which is why the reforms are being introduced. The cut in the number of Permanent Defence Force support staff accounts for the bulk of the savings that are being effected, following on from the value for money report. The money available for training activity by the Reserve is being maintained in order to ensure sufficient paid training for a strength level of 4,000 personnel. I am hoping, ultimately, that as a result of the reforms we will have 4,000 personnel who all participate in the minimum seven-day training programmes and that instead of us having a nominal strength, we have a real strength.
In the most recent year, 2011, only 2,500 members of the Reserve were engaged in seven full training days, although gratuities were being paid to approximately 5,000 members.
The real problem is that we have individuals involved in the Reserve who take up the training days and provide for the operational possibilities the Reserve is designed to provide for.
Thank you, Minister. We move on to Question No. 3.
Chairman, I think I should be allowed to ask a supplementary question.
We have run out of time, Deputy. It is very strict. Four minutes are allowed for each reply.
I have to contest that ruling, Chairman. Time must be allowed for a supplementary question to a priority question. I have never seen a Deputy being denied the right to ask a supplementary to a priority question.
There are four minutes for the reply.
In that case, something is wrong here. A Deputy is always allowed a short period for a supplementary question. My supplementary will be very short.
It is usual to allow a supplementary question, Chairman.
There is a total of six minutes for each question and reply.
Yesterday, a question I had tabled was not reached because Priority Questions took such a long time.
I will leave it at that and come back to the Minister with my question later.
I have to do my duty. I do not enjoy it.
The Minister is attempting to give a comprehensive answer. That answer should not deprive Deputies of the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
The last supplementary question went into three minutes and I warned the Deputy when there were two minutes remaining for the reply. Please be reasonable.
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence following the EUFOR Chad/CAR deployment in which Irish army troops were the second largest contingent after France, if he will rule out the involvement of Irish troops in any proposed EU intervention in Mali. [6413/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraOn 17 January 2013, the Council of the European Union established the European Union training mission, EUTM Mali, which will provide military training and advice to the Malian armed forces to improve their military capacity and their effectiveness in guaranteeing the country's territorial integrity. Training will also be provided in international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians and human rights. It is envisaged that the training component of the mission will be made up of approximately 250 personnel and this will be further supplemented by additional troops who will be deployed to provide force protection.
Unlike the EU-led mission to the Republic of Chad and the Central African Republic, EUFOR Tchad/RCA, EUTM Mali, which is being launched in support of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2071 and 2085 of 2012, will not have any combat functions and is totally separate and distinct from any combat support being provided to the Malian armed forces by France and other countries. It will be conducted at the invitation of the Malian Government and in close co-ordination with the UN, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, and other key partners.
The Council has asked the mission commander, General François Lecointre, to carry out preparations for the early launch of the mission. To this end, force generation for the mission is currently ongoing at EU level. All member states have been invited by the mission commander to provide contributions to the mission.
Ireland is currently considering the provision of a small number of Defence Forces personnel to the mission. Any participation by Ireland in this mission would most likely be limited to a small contribution of trainers and would be subject to Government approval.
Deputy Daly, I will let you know when there are two minutes remaining for the entire question and supplementary.
I hope you are not using up some of those minutes.
No; we are ahead of the posse. Keep going.
It would be a serious mistake to send troops in any form to Mali. The mission to Chad, where Irish troops were the second biggest contingent, was really to further French interests. At that time, we were told its purpose was to protect internally displaced people and refugees from Darfur. In reality, the EU troops were used to free up the forces of the dictator and allow him to crush the rebels while the rest of the EU was doing some other work.
The Tuareg people have been in a long struggle for autonomy in northern Mali. The idea that the troops are going in to quell terrorism is a myth. Research indicates no record of al-Qaeda activity in the area until it was orchestrated by the Algerian intelligence services, backed up by the United States and with the full knowledge of the EU, which encouraged fundamentalist atrocities so that the situation could be used to enable an intervention and open up and exploit the area's mineral wealth and oil. Is that not the real agenda? Would we not be making a serious mistake to further France's interests in that regard? We are talking about gold, uranium, diamonds and oil, and not humanitarian issues.
The Deputy has an extraordinary view of the world. Anyone who watched what happened in Mali, particularly northern Mali, where barbaric atrocities were carried out on the local people, people were herded into stadiums with their arms chopped off and women were made to cover their heads, threatened and not allowed to engage in normal life, would recognise that there was a major problem in Mali. It is extraordinary that the Deputy should suggest that al-Qaeda was operating in Mali because it was encouraged by the United States to do so and that the European Union encouraged atrocities. The Deputy has a strange, conspiratorial view of what is happening in the world.
The reality is that there were substantial difficulties in Mali. The Malian armed forces lacked the capacity to deal with those difficulties and the Malian Government sought assistance. The United Nations, with which the Deputy appears to disagree, passed motions to provide for trainers to train the Malian forces, not only in dealing effectively with military matters but, by way of the comprehensive approach that is adopted, to ensure that training is provided in international humanitarian law and with regard to ensuring the protection of civilians and human rights. Ireland has an important role in this. We can contribute in a small way with a small number of troops, just as we have done with EUTM Somalia, where we helped to bring about a degree of protection to people in Somalia and Mogadishu by ensuring that Government has trained and appropriate forces available to it. The Government is giving active consideration to deploying a small number of troops on this training mission.
I am glad my view of the world is not the same as the Minister's. My opinion is shared by people such as Jeremy Keenan, who is an acknowledged expert on the Saharan peoples and has written many articles on Algerian state terrorism and atrocities in northern Mali. He has shown how Washington helped to foster the Islamist uprising in Mali, and so on. We know atrocities have been carried out against civilians but the idea that the French are in Mali to protect civilians and that their real goal is not to exploit mineral resources is laughable, and we should not have anything to do with it.
I presume the Deputy regarded the chopping off of people's arms as an appropriate thing to continue happening, which is what would have happened without the French intervention.
The Minister should tell that to the Saudi Arabian regime to which Europe sells weapons.
4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the latest situation with regard to the Green Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6410/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am of the view that the preparation for a new White Paper on Defence will benefit greatly from an informed and wide-ranging debate on Ireland’s defence policy. To that end I decided to initiate the preparation of a Green Paper on Defence. When published, the Green Paper will initiate and inform a broad consultative process as part of the development of a new White Paper. A draft Green Paper was submitted to me recently for my consideration. The approach taken is to assess the defence and security environment and on this basis to pose questions to inform the debate on defence policy. I will shortly bring a memorandum for Government to Cabinet seeking formal approval to publish the document and to initiate the consultation process to inform the White Paper on Defence. The views of members of the public and other interested parties on defence policy and defence provision will be welcomed during the consultative phase. The new White Paper on Defence is scheduled for completion in early 2014.
I had better be quick, in view of how clinical you are, Chairman, on the matter of time.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has embarked on a consultation process. Can he give us a sense of the timelines involved? How quickly will he start the consultation and how long will it last?
With regard to something that has interested me since the Government was formed, will the Green Paper address the reality that a Minister for Justice and Equality also holds the Defence portfolio?
Could that be explored as an issue in the Green Paper and the subsequent White Paper? Is there any other democracy where the person who is in control of the police force is also in control of the military? Are there any powers the Minister for Defence might normally hold of which the Minister has been divested by virtue of the fact he is also Minister for Justice and Equality?
As far as I recollect there are no powers the Minister of Defence has normally of which I have been relieved. On the assumption that I remain sane, I assure the Deputy that I have no intention of posing any threat to the State by virtue of my being in this unusual position of being Minister for Defence and Minister for Justice and Equality. The two Departments are entirely separate but in the modern context there are interesting overlaps. International terrorism and the threats that may be posed to this State, or the threat those engaged in terrorism might pose to other states by locating here, create an overlap of concerns for both Departments. Cybersecurity also leads to overlaps and it is beneficial at European Union level to participate in summits for both Defence Ministers and Justice Ministers. At EU level there should be greater connectivity in dealing with some of these issues where there is clearly an overlap.
The White Paper will deal comprehensively with defence issues. The Deputy suggests my having both portfolios poses a risk to the defence of the State. It is a matter for the Taoiseach of the day to determine how to appropriately appoint Ministers and what positions they should hold. All Members of the House will find the Green Paper on defence interesting. I must bring it before Cabinet before it is published. It sets out defence issues as they are today and raises questions in the context of the today's world and will result in a very interesting conversation.
I would hope by the end of this month, or if not, certainly early next month, depending on Cabinet pressures, that the paper will be published and we will enter the discussion process. I look forward to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality taking up the matter to engage in public discussion on the Green Paper.
On the Minister's dual role, are any of his European partners in the same position as the Minister with both portfolios or can he point out any developed democracy where a similar situation prevails? I accept the Minister does not represent a threat to the security of the State. The gardaí might not be thrilled about the threat the Minister represents to them and I hope the Defence Forces do not have cause arising from the pay claims to have any concerns. The precedent appears to have been set in this country.
My recollection is that a ministerial colleague from one of the smaller EU states holds both portfolios. I will inform the Deputy in writing. I am thinking of two states and I do not want to be mistaken.
I note with interest that the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Niall Collins, keeps complaining that we recruited 600 new members of the Defence Forces during 2012. It seems to be a regular cause of complaint on his part, with him suggesting we should recruit for the Garda Síochána and not the Defence Forces. It is worth noting that Deputy Ó Fearghaíl never complains about recruitment into the Defence Forces. It might be a good idea for the Deputies to discuss that issue with each other so they can co-ordinate an approach that does not suggest we should stop recruitment into the Defence Forces or that it is a legitimate criticism of my occupying this office that we brought Defence Forces numbers back up to 9,500 rather than letting them fall well into the 8,000s as a consequence of Fianna Fáil failing to recruit in the years prior to my appointment.
5. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence the number of drugs seizures that the Naval Service has been involved in during each of the past ten years; the value of each of the seizures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6451/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Naval Service plays a vital role in the State's fight against drug smuggling as a member of the joint task force on drug interdiction, together with the Revenue Commissioners and An Garda Síochána. While the Customs Service of the Revenue Commissioners has primary responsibility for the prevention of drug smuggling, and responsibility for the prevention of crime rests primarily with An Garda Síochána, the White Paper on Defence in 2000 provided a security role for the Naval Service and Air Corps to assist these authorities in this important work. This is another area in which the two Departments overlap. The joint task force on drug interdiction was established in 1993 as a Government measure to improve law enforcement on drugs and it consists of members of An Garda Síochána, the Customs Service and the Naval Service.
Naval Service maritime patrols and surveillance operations are carried out on a 24-7 basis with a commitment to having a minimum of three ships on patrol at all times. In the last ten years, the Naval Service was involved in two significant drug interdiction operations, one in 2007 in Dunlough Bay and one off the west Cork coast in 2008. These inter-agency operations resulted in the seizure of 3.2 tonnes of cocaine which had an approximate street value of €1.2 billion.
In addition, the Naval Service, as a member of the joint task force, is committed to an international initiative, the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics. The centre, which was established in 2007, has led to a greater focus on intelligence exchange amongst countries to tackle large drug shipments by sea. It was set up by seven European countries and is designed as an international coordination force with access to national tasking agencies.
Also, the acquisition of the two new offshore patrol vessels for the Naval Service, to be delivered in 2014 and 2015 respectively, together with a continuous process of refurbishment on the other vessels, will ensure that the service can continue to carry out its drug interdiction and other roles in the challenging sea conditions off our coast.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality had the opportunity to visit Flag Officer Mark Mellett and his team in Cork late last year. I was mightily impressed with Flag Officer Mellett's vision for the Naval Service. The innovation displayed and the partnerships the service has formed with academic and other institutions are remarkable. The service has set itself the objective of being the world leader, a high ambition but when we see the operation in Cork, and the way the service has worked to develop operations in conjunction with engineering companies, where it can look at machine gunnery without having to go to sea by working with computerised models, is incredible.
When we see the operations the Naval Service carries out and the way it goes about its work, it is a service to be proud of and we must give it the resources it deserves. We are all aware of the operations and great successes it has enjoyed in recent years but we are seeing heroin and other drugs on the streets now and the concern is that much of this comes by sea. We must support one of the most innovative sectors of the public service and we must give it what it needs to do the job.
I agree with everything Deputy Mac Lochlainn says. The Naval Service is an outstanding arm of the Defence Forces and Flag Officer Mark Mellett is doing a fantastic job.
There is their linkage with the private sector in seeking to participate in developments that would be of use to the Naval Service and which may result in products being created which could provide job creation opportunities. I am proud of the sophistication of what is happening in the college there.
The Deputy can be assured that I am extremely supportive of everything that is happening there, as is the Government. I very much welcomed the visit that members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality paid to Haulbowline. It gave an interesting insight into the innovation that is taking place. I would certainly encourage Members who are interested in these areas to pay a similar visit.
