Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Minister for Defence the progress in the preparation of a new White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38082/10]

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 27: To ask the Minister for Defence if it is his intention to have the White Paper on Defence published before the end of the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38080/10]

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 33: To ask the Minister for Defence the progress made on developing a new White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37988/10]

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 49: To ask the Minister for Defence when it is intended to publish a new White Paper on the Defence Forces, in view of the fact that the previous White Paper ran from 2000 to 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38111/10]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 27, 33 and 49 together.

The renewed programme for Government sets out the commitment for the preparation of a new White Paper on defence, for the period 2011 to 2020. I have circulated a draft memorandum to my Cabinet colleagues outlining the proposed approach to developing the new White Paper. I intend to bring a memorandum to Government in the near future seeking approval to formally launch the process. The new White Paper will build upon the first White Paper on defence, which was published in February 2000. This has provided the policy framework and a development strategy for the modernisation, reform and transformation of the defence organisation during the past decade.

The new White Paper will set out defence policy for the period to 2020 having regard to the defence and security environment and the roles assigned to the Defence Forces. It will chart a course for the continued development of the defence organisation and will facilitate planning for and delivery of the required defence outputs. The process of developing the White Paper will include a broad consultative process encompassing other Government Departments and agencies, the general public, academic experts and other stakeholders. Submissions will also be sought from the Defence Forces representative associations. I expect to have a draft White Paper prepared for submission to Government in the second half of 2011. The current White Paper on defence will continue to provide the policy framework pending the adoption of the new White Paper.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it correct that the White Paper will not be available until the second half of 2011, which is another 12 months away, even though it was supposed to have been prepared by now? Have submissions been received from representative organisations or interested bodies? Has the Department advertised or asked for submissions from interested bodies or organisations? Have advertisements been placed in the national media in this regard? Will there be public consultation on the White Paper? Is the Minister satisfied the key recommendations of the previous White Paper have been achieved?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposals in the first White Paper in 2000 have had a huge influence on the development of the Defence Forces into a highly professional, highly organised, well resourced organisation and this would not have happened in the same away or as effectively in the absence of the White Paper.

With regard to the new White Paper, I have invited a number of interested parties, among them the Defence Forces representative organisations, to have an involvement in the process. I have advised Departments that I intend undertaking that process. People who wish to make a submission or to have their voices heard need a reasonable period within which to do that. A number of months in the early part of next year is the appropriate timeframe for that and it is worth doing. Some organisations and individuals, including some in the academic world, with an interest in this area are anxious to have a constructive input to the process. I am hopeful the Houses of the Oireachtas through the relevant committee will also be centrally involved in that. I am not aware of any advertisements being placed at this stage but I will check that for the Deputy.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has virtually no work been done yet on the preparation of the White Paper? Is the Minister saying nothing has happened, no advertisements have been placed and no submissions have been invited or received? What will be his main goals for the Defence Forces as a result of the White Paper? It looks like we will not see it for at least another year. Can he assure the House it is his intention that the Defence Forces complement will remain at 10,000 and it will not fall below that? Will he publish guidelines regarding what he wants to see in the White Paper? Has he any work done on it to date?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Considerable work has been undertaken in the Department and I have been involved in trying to advance some of that. The military authorities have been considering the implications for themselves and trying to predict what challenges their organisations might have to deal with over the next decade. One element of that is an environmental analysis and much of that work will be done internally in the military and in the context of the defence and security environment both nationally and internationally. Considerable knowledge and background information is available. People may make submissions that have a fundamental impact on the direction and shape of the White Paper.

It would be extremely damaging for the process if a Minister or somebody else in a position of authority relating to the White Paper set out narrow parameters within which he or she would constrain any submission that might be made. We need on this occasion to do something similar to what was done in 2000, while learning from the experience of the past ten years; to set out wide parameters and to encourage people to make their submissions in that context but not indicate to people that there are exclusions before the process of consideration commences.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the ongoing value for money review in respect of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, have an impact on the White Paper? When does the Minister expect that to be produced? There are also inordinate delays in getting that to his desk.

He did not answer my question about his intentions regarding the size of the Defence Forces. Will the complement remain at at least 10,000 in any event? Will he also endeavour to ensure the White Paper is published while the Dáil is in session in order that we can debate it? Many of these papers and reports are published at the end of the summer session as the Dáil rises and three or four months go by before anything happens. Can he ensure this is published while the Dáil is in session in order that we can debate it while it is fresh and not have everyone else in the country debating it bar us?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The size of the Defence Forces was agreed in the context of budget 2010 and that stands independently of the White Paper process. I expect, however, the process to set out the requirements of the armed forces for the next ten years. I always felt the figure of 10,000 was dangerous in the sense that it was open to attack on that basis that it could be said it was plucked out of mid-air. I would have been happier with 10,100 or 9,750 because 10,000 seems to be a contrived figure. In the context of the White Paper, I expect all the stakeholders will have an input and one of the underlying considerations will be what role the State expects of the military. When the role is established, the size of the Defence Forces will flow from that. If, for example, the White Paper were to envisage the role we discussed at a committee meeting yesterday regarding an overlap with the education system, that would have implications for the number of people involved and for the role of the military. I am entirely open to considerations of that nature. Ultimately, a decision will have to be made on the role and that will reflect on the strength subsequently.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the memorandum the Minister is presenting to Government contain an estimated cost for producing the White Paper? Will he give an indicative date by which it should be completed?

Deputy Stanton asked about the value for money review of the RDF. Where does that stand? Will it be concluded in time to be considered in the context of the White Paper? A member of the general staff should head up the RDF because there is a view within the organisation that until that happens, it will never be taken as seriously as it should. I have raised this with the Minister previously The Minister indicated he favours the participation of RDF members in overseas missions. I take it that will be considered and included in the White Paper.

There has been speculation recently that the Irish Army's participation in battle groups could be directed towards natural disasters and similar events. The Minister has an interest in this. Is this likely to be considered in the White Paper?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise to Deputy Stanton; I missed the question about the value for money review for the RDF and another question he asked about the reserve earlier. It is clear that a White Paper on the Defence Forces has to consider centrally within it the role of the reserve. At the risk of being seen to overly impact on the process, it is instructive and interesting to consider the experience of countries where a model has evolved with a large reserve element and a small permanent element. We ought to be prepared to learn from other people's experience in that regard. One thing which disappoints me about the development of the reserve, or what some Deputies refer to as its non-development, is that it seems in the 2005 review several actions were pointed out as necessary to progress matters. I have examined carefully the material available in this regard and it seems all these actions were implemented. Most people maintain the desired outcome was not reached and this must be taken into account in examining the reserve element of the White Paper.

Equally, the value for money element will form an important part of the process of the deliberation of the White Paper. I cannot predict what the value for money review will propose, but there may well be recommendations to make with regard to the training of reserve people, joint exercises or, as Deputy O'Shea said, the deployment of reserve people overseas. To be fair, the intention was to include some reserve people and that would have happened had other circumstances, unrelated to the process, not taken place. That is a reasonable point and Deputy O'Shea often makes the valid point that some reserve people have capabilities, training and capacity which could be very useful in some circumstances. That is a fair point and I believe it will be borne in mind.

Regarding the memorandum for Government, I have already circulated a draft memorandum to other Departments. One thing which bedevils us is an attempt to operate completely independently of others. I have circulated the draft memorandum which will give other Departments an opportunity to make observations. I do not expect to be delayed for too long before going with the formal memorandum and announcing the process. A large part of the intervening period ought to be given to allowing people an opportunity to have an input.

The question of cost from Deputy O'Shea has exercised me somewhat. I have put it to my officials that in so far as it is possible we should try to do it from within our resources and, in the main, I believe we have the capacity to do so. It appears difficult to do so but if possible I wish to do it.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to move on.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Civil Defence be included in the White Paper?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not my intention to include the Civil Defence because of the organisational structure under which it operates.

I missed one question put by Deputy O'Shea, an important question concerning battle groups. One of my colleagues, the Swedish Minister, indicated his interest in the deployment of battle groups in humanitarian disaster areas. On occasion, the capacity of battle groups could be entirely appropriate. Sometimes, the capacity which battle groups bring may not be helpful in a particular situation. For example, it could be argued that in the case of Haiti, helicopter and aerial support would have been the key requirement and current battle group configurations would have been unlikely or unable to provide such support. On the other hand, from our point of view and that of our military people and their professionalism and expertise, it is important that their capability is developed to the standard of the battle group in the first instance. It is even more important in the context of deployment overseas that the highest level of interoperability between various nations is achieved such that we can make our contribution in any international area where we are operating in a relatively seamless way.