Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Vol. 970 No. 7

Priority Questions

Defence Forces Personnel

Jack Chambers

Question:

35. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will report on the agreement reached with Defence Forces representative organisations regarding the application of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28050/18]

Brendan Ryan

Question:

39. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the way in which he plans to amend the law to include the Defence Forces in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 following a recent High Court decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27753/18]

Will the Minister of State report on the agreement reached with the Defence Forces representative organisations on the application of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and make a statement on the matter? As he knows, there has been a protracted dispute and the State has sought to defend its position, in breach of the current legal framework. We need a full statement on why there was such a delay in upholding the law and vindicating the rights of people who work in the Defence Forces. Will he explain the current position?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 and 39 together.

Do I get to introduce my question?

When two questions are grouped, the Deputy asking the first one gets 30 seconds to introduce the questions. The Deputy will have his time after the Minister of State completes his reply.

I previously informed the House that the Government decision dated 18 November 2016 approved the drafting of the heads of Bill to amend the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. This will remove the blanket exclusion of An Garda Síochána and members of the Defence Forces from its scope. This will be subject to the application of the appropriate exclusions and derogations permitted by Directive 2003/88/EC. Work is under way in both the Department of Defence and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection on this decision. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces have undertaken significant work in examining the nature of the duties of the Defence Forces and how the working time directive can be applied to the members of the Defence Forces. I will amend Defence Forces regulations as required to facilitate this process.

I recently signed an amendment to Defence Force Regulation A.11 dealing with leave. This amendment increases to four working weeks from 19 days the amount of carry-over leave allowed to members of the Permanent Defence Force in circumstances where the member could not take annual leave due to being on certified sick leave, adoptive leave or maternity leave. My Department will engage through the conciliation and arbitration process with the Defence Forces representative associations to discuss the application of the provisions of the working time directive to the Defence Forces. However, this can be constrained if litigation is being pursued. Litigation taken by a member of the Permanent Defence Force in respect of the applicability of certain elements of the working time directive to the Defence Forces was settled recently in the High Court, having regard to the specific circumstances of that case. Further litigation relating to the working time directive as it relates to the Defence Forces is pending. For these reasons it would not be appropriate to comment further.

It is unfortunate the Defence Forces representative organisations and workers in the Defence Forces were stonewalled for so long. I seek an update on the heads of the proposed Bill and ask when it will progress through the House. The Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, recently indicated that piecemeal amendments to Defence Forces regulations based on the outcome of High Court proceedings do not give confidence to its members. This is reflected in the position of the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, as well. Why did it take so long for the Government to change its approach to this? Will the Minister of State confirm that it is now accepted by the Government that it will not rely on an exclusion clause contained in the legislation but it will bring members of the Defence Forces fully within the scope of the Act, subject to the application of derogations permitted by the working time directive?

There does not seem to be any clarity, apart from the changes made to regulations. When will legislation be brought through the House and when will the Government give certainty to members of the Defence Forces and their organisations that they will be part of an inclusive process around the implementation of the working time directive?

A decision by the European Court of Justice on 12 January 2006 in The Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain clarified how the working time directive applies to non-civilian workers within the public service such as armed forces, military police and customs forces. A 2010 report followed from the European Commission dealing with the implementation of the working time directive, and it highlighted the same matters. The Department of Defence and military management continue to work together with a view to implementing the directive. Engagement has commenced with the representative associations and this will continue as appropriate.

As I stated in my reply, legislation is being worked on by my Department and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. This position was taken by the Government some time ago. I have spoken with the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, about this and I hope the Deputy accepts that as with all legislation, we must ensure we have it right in the drafting phase.

The pace of legislation is very slow in this area. We have ongoing breaches of the working time directive and it was reported that 146,000 days of annual leave have been lost in the past five years among members of the Defence Forces. That is an enormous breach of this country's statutory process and the fact we are not seeking to rectify it very quickly does not give confidence to representative organisations. As they argue, amending regulations will not give confidence to them or their members on the upholding of the law. RACO has indicated its members lost 9.6 days of annual leave each and PDFORRA estimates that more than 6,000 members lost in the region of 37,000 days of annual leave in 2016 alone because the force was overstretched and members were constantly plugging gaps. We know, with the removal of the Western Brigade, how travel time has exacerbated problems in working life with those members.

The State is standing over a breach of the law in the form of the working time directive without giving any certainty, even today, about when this will be rectified. This is apart from restating the position of the Government in 2016 concerning the amendment of the Act. We cannot have this continuing at a pre-drafting stage, as it has been there for two years.

The Deputy has mentioned annual leave. I anticipate anything arising out of that will be a matter for discussion with the representative associations in the context of the conciliation and arbitration process. I reiterate that both military management and the Department of Defence are working to come to some conclusions on the issues raised by the Deputy. Engagement has started with the representative associations. We want the engagement to continue. If there is further litigation relating to the working time directive as it relates to the Defence Forces, it will delay the negotiations. If there is an issue, we should deal with it. I want to do that and I have instructed my officials on it. They have already met representatives of the associations and will continue to do so.

As others have said, PDFORRA estimates that more than 6,000 members of the Defence Forces have lost in the region of 37,000 days of annual leave in 2016 because they were overstretched and continuously filling gaps in rosters. RACO believes each of its members lost, on average, 9.6 days of annual leave in the same year. This adds up to a disgraceful position for the workers in our Defence Forces.

Annual leave is vital and it is not a gift. It is a necessity for the health and well-being of all workers. The Organisation of Working Time Act is a major bulwark against the exploitation of workers and sets out protection for annual leave, holiday pay, sick pay, night work, shift workers and overall working hours. The fact that Defence Forces members have been excluded from this is an injustice that must be rectified as soon as possible.

Further cases are backing up in the courts and in light of this judgment, it is expected that many more cases will follow. It is vital, therefore, that the Government acts with haste now.

As I stated in reply to Deputy Chambers, I want to sort this out as soon as possible. I hope the Deputy will accept that the nature of the duties of military life in general bring demands that are typical of other security and emergency services like An Garda Síochána. I said as much in my original reply.

The directive allows for derogations and compensatory rest. As I indicated to Deputy Chambers, the Defence Forces and military management have undertaken significant work in examining the nature of the duties of the Defence Forces and how the working time directive can be applied to its members. On foot of that, I have directed my officials to sit down with both representative associations to ensure they are fully on board with the discussions. It is in the interests of all parties, including the representative associations, the Department and military management, to bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible. We have an issue and I want it dealt with and brought to a conclusion.

The judgment at least speaks to the overall context of the Defence Forces and the rights of their personnel as workers. The judgment of the European Committee of Social Rights earlier this year upheld the entitlement of the Defence Forces to better collective bargaining and negotiation rights. We have been out of line with our European partner nations on workers' rights in the Defence Forces and the Garda, which experiences similar exclusions. This has gone on too long now. It is long overdue for a suite of legislative changes to be brought to the House to bring us into the 21st century in this regard. There is no excuse anymore for Ireland to lag behind in this area and no excuse for our Defence Forces to remain outside the industrial relations architecture and legislation of the State. The Minister of State needs to be proactive rather than wait for the courts to drive him to do the right thing by the Defence Forces.

I am worried by one comment he made. He said that officials were engaged with the representative bodies on this matter but the matter may be constrained if litigation is pursued. Will the Minister of State flesh out what he means by that? I am particularly concerned by that. We need to take the initiative, deal with the matter on a sound basis and put the legislation in place. Let us not be talking about this in six months or a year and saying we are constrained by litigation that is under way.

The decision to change the issues around the legislation was not on foot of the recent legal case. Action was well under way with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. This stems from a Government decision in 2016, if my memory serves me correctly. The Government has accepted that the blanket exclusion is not in keeping with the 2003 EU directive. Bringing forward this legislation is a priority.

I want to ensure that when I bring forward the legislation it will be watertight, it will deal with the issue and we will not have to revisit it. I want to ensure it is sorted out once and for all.

The legislation is being pursued. Work is being carried on and it involves the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and my Department.

I asked the Minister of State to comment on what he meant by saying the issue may be constrained if litigation was pursued.

The Deputy will understand that I am prevented from discussing issues if litigation is ongoing. My hands are tied and he has to accept that. His party was in government for years and he will understand that as well as every other Member.

Air Corps Operations

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

36. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to outline the capacity of the Air Corps to provide air ambulance services. [27761/18]

Will the Minister of State comment on the capacity of the Air Corps to provide air ambulance services given the recent contract to grant the service to a commercial company for night-time ambulance services? The contract comes at a cost of €7 million to the Exchequer for a two-year period.

The Air Corps provides a broad range of services in accordance with its primary security role. It also undertakes a diverse range of non-security-related tasks on an as-available basis, including the provision of air ambulance services to the HSE. The HSE aeromedical desk in the national emergency operations centre is responsible for the co-ordination of all health-related air transport arrangements. In addition to the Air Corps, the Coast Guard and private air ambulance operators also provide air transport services for the HSE.

Capacity constraints within the Air Corps have impacted on the services it provides, including services provided to the HSE. Notwithstanding this, the Air Corps continues to provide significant air ambulance support to the HSE. The Air Corps inter-hospital service operates out of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. The service provides transport for patients and medical teams between hospitals within Ireland and abroad. In 2017, the Air Corps completed 46 inter-hospital missions, including two priority transfers to the UK of children requiring organ transplants. The Air Corps also operates the emergency aero-medical support service. It is a daily, daytime service based in Custume Barracks in Athlone. Since the commencement of this service in June 2012, the Air Corps has completed more than 2,000 missions, with 357 missions during 2017.

The emergency aero-medical support and inter-hospital services are good examples of the Air Corps and HSE combining their resources to deliver life-saving services for the people.

The original question had an extra part that was ruled out of order. I wanted to ask whether the Department had tendered for the contract at all. It is obvious from the answer that there is no capacity within the Air Corps to go beyond what it is supplying at the moment. That is a poor reflection on Defence Forces management because the Air Corps has been unable to retain pilots, air traffic controllers or those who could operate some of the equipment and planes. I saw the equipment and planes when a delegation from the committee with responsibility for defence visited Baldonnel. The equipment basically sits in the hangars at night because insufficient cover is available.

When will the capacity of the Air Corps be increased to allow it to deliver not only on its existing commitments but on additional support for the civil power so that we do not have to go to the private sector to deliver air transport for sick children whether within the island or overseas for emergency and other operations

The HSE undertook a formal tendering process for the provision of air ambulance services to transfer priority 1 paediatric transplant patients to the UK between 7 p.m. and 7.30 a.m. I am advised that three private companies bid for the contract. Following completion of the competitive process, the contract was awarded to Air Alliance Express and will be in place for a two-year period. I understand it is envisaged that the most of the patients who are expected to use the service will be children who need to go to the UK to undergo major organ transplants. The Air Alliance Express service has been in operation since 23 April 2018. Given the capacity constraints on the Air Corps, it would not be possible for it to deliver the requirements sought by the HSE. I confirm that my Department did not tender for the service.

I have outlined to the Deputy and other Members the constraints and issues within the Air Corps, including the retention of pilots. I have addressed on numerous occasions in the House the pathway we are taking to address the issues within the Air Corps. This will involve the Public Service Pay Commission.

We have made a submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Public Service Pay Commission regarding pilot retention.

I wish the company that won the tender, Air Alliance Medflight, well. We do not want to see any gap in service, but at some stage the Defence Forces must have a capability to deliver and be an aid for the civil power. This is a €7 million contract over two years. In a response to a parliamentary question in 2014, I was told that the costs of providing this service by the Air Corps would have been approximately €1.3 million. There is no logic to continuing to look to the private sector. We should look to invest in the Air Corps and increase its ability to deliver this service. When I visited Baldonnel, I spoke to members of the Air Corps who were eager to deliver and to help and be an aid to the civil power in the context of air ambulance transports. They would like to be able to extend the service they currently give during daytime. However, there seems to be no urgency to increase the capacity to deal with the issues where it seems impossible for the Air Corps to retain staff or attract the experts who will help deliver such as service into the future.

We are currently investing in new planes and replacing the CASA aircraft. We also have a service level agreement with the HSE. As with other areas of the public service, there have been challenges in recruitment and retention of personnel, particularly in areas of expertise such as air traffic controllers and pilots. Retirements of highly experienced Air Corps personnel are exceeding the number of replacement personnel being recruited and trained. The loss of experienced personnel is driven by a range of factors including the availability of attractive job opportunities in the private sector. Pilots are much sought after in the private sector and are being offered attractive remuneration. Significant work is under way within the defence bodies and in the Department aimed at improving the capacity of the Air Corps. A return to previous capacity levels will be gradual. I would love it if we were able to meet all of the requests made under the service level agreement. I met the Minister for Health and the HSE management on this. We have given them plenty of warning about the challenges we face.

Overseas Missions

Jack Chambers

Question:

37. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if changes are planned to the Defence Forces' overseas missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28051/18]

The Minister of State recently pulled some troops back and there has been movement in some of the recent missions in Syria and elsewhere. Will he outline the current position of our peacekeeping missions abroad?

As of 30 May 2018, Ireland is contributing 643 personnel to nine different missions across the globe. The main overseas missions on which Defence Forces personnel are deployed are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, with 376 personnel and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in Syria with 137 personnel.

On UNDOF, approximately 130 Defence Forces personnel are currently based in Camp Ziouani on the Israeli side of the area of separation. An additional eight personnel are based in UNDOF headquarters in Camp Faouar on the Syrian side of the area of separation. The planned phase 3 of the UN's intended redeployment of the mission to its full mission area, including to the Syrian side of the area of separation, is anticipated by September 2018. This involves a full return of military personnel, including the Irish contingent, to Camp Faouar.

The UNIFIL mission in Lebanon continues to represent Ireland's largest overseas deployment and on 22 May 2018 the Government approved the continued participation of the Defence Forces in UNIFIL for a further 12 months. Irish troops are serving as part of a joint Irish-Finnish battalion in UNIFIL. Since May 2015, the Finnish contingent has included an Estonian platoon comprising 36 personnel.

Both Finland and Estonia will withdraw from the Irish-Finnish Battalion in UNIFIL on 31 December 2018. I am currently considering the option to temporarily replace the Finnish contingent by increasing Ireland's contribution to UNIFIL for a 12-month period - up to November 2019 - while we source an alternative partner.

The Naval Service vessel LÉ Samuel Beckett is currently deployed as part of Operation Sophia, the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, operation in the Mediterranean. It will be replaced by LÉ James Joyce in July. The Naval Service will deploy for a period of approximately 30 weeks in total to this mission in 2018. 

 Other missions on which Defence Forces personnel are currently deployed are the EU training mission in Mali, EUTM, with 20 personnel; the EUFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina with five personnel and the NATO-led international security presence, KFOR, in Kosovo with 12 personnel. Ireland also contributes observers and staff to various United Nations and OSCE missions and personnel to staff appointments at UN, EU, NATO - Partnership for Peace and OSCE headquarters. There are no planned changes to our continued participation in these missions at this time.

I also wish to mention the 60th anniversary which the Minister of State attended on Sunday. It is important that we recognise the 60 years of international peacekeeping work that Ireland has contributed.

On Syria, does the Minister of State expect all troops to return to camp this year? Will the Minister of State specifically outline the improvements that have happened to authorise this return and what has underpinned that?

Estonia and Finland are removing their troops from the Lebanon mission. Will the Minister of State explain why they have made that decision and what countries he expects to partner with Ireland? Can he update the House on the negotiations regarding future partnership countries with Ireland in the UN mission in Lebanon? The Minister of State mentioned a specific amount but does he anticipate that it might be greater in future? Will he outline which countries might join us there?

Following the significant events in August 2014 in the area of separation, troops on the UNDOF mission temporarily relocated to Camp Ziouani from a number of positions. Pending the full return of UNDOF to the area of separation, the mission has continued to maintain a credible presence in the Golan Heights in line with its mandate. The Deputy Chief of Staff of Operations, Major General Kieran Brennan, has visited the Syrian side of the UNDOF operation. With the completion of phase 3, which included medevac and providing safety in the camp, ensuring we have the correct facilities in the Camp Faouar, we agreed to return. I expect that this will happen in September but that depends on ensuring that everything goes okay.

In the context of UNIFIL, the Defence Forces were serving as a joint battalion with the Finns and Estonians, who have pulled back for their own reasons and who are reducing their numbers on the mission. I hope that we will backfill for 12 months and that we will then get a new partner. I anticipate that this will be the Czech Republic and I have spoken to its Prime Minister and Chief of Staff in that regard.

I assume there will be further safety checks in Syria before the mission is authorised. Will the Minister of State confirm this? Will he outline who has had meetings with representatives from the Czech Republic? The Minister of State did not clarify why the Finnish and Estonian missions were pulled back. How advanced are the discussions regarding the Czech Republic partnering with Ireland on this specific UN mission?

The initial phase of the incremental return to the mission to Camp Faouar was completed in September 2016 and further deployment took place during 2017 so we have a number of troops there.

This involved the deployment of a Nepalese mechanised infantry company and elements of the force headquarters staff, including eight Irish Defence Forces officers. As I said, it is anticipated that the relocation of Irish personnel will be completed in September 2018 as further checks and balances are carried out to make sure our troops are safe.

As I have stated I am not sure of the exact reasons but, for their own personal reasons, the Finns and the Estonians have pulled out. I understand they have other missions in Africa. As with ourselves, perhaps they are pulling out because of numbers. It may be because of challenges in their own home countries. They have not pulled out as a result of any particular grievance against the UN mission or anything like that. I spoke to the Czech Minister at a recent European Council meeting. My officials are in contact with her officials in that regard. I also spoke to the Czech Chief of Staff when I was in the company of my own Chief of Staff at a recent overseas mission. The Czech Republic is looking at this very seriously. I understand and know that it cannot accommodate us during 2018, but it definitely will towards the end of 2019. That is one of the reasons we are going to backfill in 2019.

Protected Disclosures

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

38. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he has received a protected disclosure from a member of the Defence Forces (details supplied); if he has responded to the disclosure; and the action that has been taken on foot of the disclosure. [27762/18]

In December 2017 the Minister of State received a protected disclosure from an Air Corps technician who served between 1991 and 2013. He made very serious allegations as to how his health was compromised in that period and as to how he was victimised as a consequence of the resulting bouts of sickness. What action did the Minister of State take on foot of that disclosure?

As the Deputy is no doubt aware, section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 sets out confidentiality requirements regarding the protection of the identify of a discloser. Therefore it is not possible for me to go into detail on any actions being taken on foot of any individual disclosure so as to ensure that such individuals' confidentiality is not breached.

However, as I have previously stated in the House, the health and welfare of the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann are a priority for the Department, the Defence Forces and me. I am fully committed to compliance with the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and to the protections contained in that Act. To this end I want to ensure that those making protected disclosures are reassured that, where such disclosures are made in accordance with the legislation, they are and will continue to be dealt with in a thorough and fair manner. I have made it clear to my Department and the Defence Forces that the protections of the Act must be afforded to those who make qualifying disclosures under the Act.

The Act does not preclude the Minister of State from answering the question and saying whether he contacted the person who made this disclosure. It does not preclude him from doing as he did in the past when this House was made aware of other whistleblowers. He met them and dealt with an independent assessor who also met them. In this case, has the Minister of State contacted the person who made the disclosure? Has he had any communications with the person in question other than to acknowledge receipt of his disclosure? Did he make the assessor aware of the case?

This man had major complications and major problems within the Defence Forces and the Air Corps. He was doused with chemicals such as greases, oils and even aircraft fuel. When he complained to the doctors he was told to suck it up, to get back into his uniform and to get on with it or he was called a malingerer or a bluffer. He had to attend a private doctor. He was exposed to chemicals such as trichloroethylene, Ardrox 666, MEK and other chemicals. I am sure the Minister of State is aware, as this man says it in his disclosure, that it was around this time that he began to become sick with symptoms such as diarrhoea, tremors and anxiety. Is the Minister of State aware, or has he taken any action to find out, whether he was victimised and put onto dirty duties such as raking grass and cleaning stairwells and offices using the very chemicals which were affecting his health?

The Minister of State is not precluded because I have not identified the person in question. He is not precluded from saying that he received the disclosure, that he has contacted the person and that it is being dealt with. The Minister of State has had this disclosure for a long time and there does not seem to be any movement on it.

If the Deputy reads the legislation, I am precluded from discussing any protected disclosure from any individual. That is clearly set out in the Act. All protected disclosures which I receive or which are received into my Department are treated as having the utmost importance and go through a clear process within my Department and in respect of all other parties involved. As the Deputy knows, there are a number of legal complexities around all protected disclosures made. There are no clear-cut answers to most of them. The Deputy spoke about some of the chemicals being used in the Air Corps. I am at liberty to say that there have previously been some historical parliamentary questions in the Chamber, to which I have replied. I have outlined to all Deputies within the House that I appointed an independent person. I have been in contact with other people who have previously made protected disclosures. I am now seeking legal advice on the best way forward in respect of issues around chemicals and the Air Corps.

At the end of the protected disclosure, which I ask the Minister of State to look at again, this man says that he is in dire financial circumstances. He states that he is due maritime patrol duty moneys from 2009 to 2015. Most other personnel have gotten this reinstated but he has not. I ask the Minister of State to progress that claim without me identifying the person or giving anything else about his identity away. I have permission to give that identity. Perhaps I will do that at another stage. If that alone was done, it might help alleviate the dire circumstances this very ill man is in. I ask the Minister of State, at the very least, to look at that.

I will of course look into the matter if anyone is fairly due moneys. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I will look into that for the Deputy. If the Deputy wants to write to me on that issue, and if he has the permission of the person in question to do so, I have no issue whatsoever in providing a full reply on that specific issue. The Deputy will have to write to me on it, however. I am not going into the contents of the protected disclosure made by this person. It would be totally inappropriate for me to go into the detail of any protected disclosure. I reassure all Members of this House that my Department, the Defence Forces and myself treat all protected disclosures with absolute urgency and that we take every opportunity to deal with them.

Question No. 39 answered with Question No. 35.
Top
Share