Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000

Vol. 524 No. 5

Other Questions - Defence Forces Health and Safety.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

107 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that adequate safety standards apply to all military installations here in respect of land, sea and air services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22948/00]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

110 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Defence the reason an air safety officer was not appointed in the Air Corps, having regard to the recommendation made by consultants (details supplied) two years ago; when a safety officer will now be appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22967/00]

Ivor Callely

Question:

139 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Defence the evaluation and assessment of the way in which the duties of our Defence Forces personnel, in particular the FCA, impact on their health and welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22871/00]

Emmet Stagg

Question:

143 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has to provide a proper auditing system for accidents or dangerous occurrences within the Defence Forces; if the results of any such system will be made known to personnel and representative associations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22998/00]

Ivor Callely

Question:

200 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Defence the likely impact of the way in which the duties of Defence Forces personnel may impact on their health and welfare; the research that has been undertaken in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17502/00]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

212 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if standard safety procedures are observed at all times in the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23362/00]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

213 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to concerns in relation to safety operational procedures in the Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23363/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 107, 110, 139, 143, 200, 212 and 213 together.

As three of these questions are for oral answer, a time of not more than 18 minutes is allocated to them.

Given the role of the Defence Forces, it is inevitable that members of the forces are from time to time involved in inherently hazardous duties. Accordingly, every effort is made by the military authorities to make military training safe and realistic for the tasks and contingencies that military personnel may face from time to time.

I am satisfied that the military authorities regard health and safety matters within the Defence Forces as a priority issue. The Defence Forces have put a great deal of work into implementing the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, and they have demonstrated a high degree of commitment to the safety of personnel. In that context, I am advised by the military authorities that safety statements, which are regularly updated and reviewed, have been in place in all units since October 1991, and safety representatives are in place at unit level throughout the Defence Forces.

A Defence Forces advisory committee on health and safety, comprising both civilian and military personnel, has been engaged in directing and monitoring a comprehensive implementation of the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989.

As part of the ongoing implementation of safety measures, personnel involved in manual handling are given manual handling instruction on an annual basis. All personnel receive instruction on care of hearing prior to annual range practices.

An evaluation of how the duties of Defence Forces personnel impact on their health and welfare is carried out at unit level by the unit commander, on an annual basis as part of the annual safety audit.

One of the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report on the Air Corps was that one of the more senior positions in Air Corps headquarters should be dedicated full-time to the maintenance of a proactive aviation safety programme, including the monitoring of compliance with such a programme. The general officer com manding the Air Corps has appointed a senior officer to the appointment of air safety officer on foot of that recommendation.

In all the circumstances, the protection afforded to members of the Defence Forces under the terms of the Safety, Health and Welfare Act, 1989, and associated regulations is considered satisfactory. The need for constant vigilance in this important area is recognised.

With regard to the highest safety standards, will the Minister comment on whether they are being applied? If not, why not and whose fault is it?

Has the Deputy any installation in mind?

In any installation or operation involving military personnel. Is the Minister satisfied that the highest safety standards are applied at all times? If they are not applied at all times, what is the reason, given the importance the Minister attaches to the appointment of a safety officer?

The application of the highest safety standards is clearly a matter of primary importance not just to me but to the military authorities at every level. Adherence to the health and safety legislation of 1989, the various statements and the procedures put in place is exacting. The military authorities assure me they are being put in place at all levels.

With regard to the earlier question, let us take the Air Corps as an example. People who have constant dealings with the Air Corps will acknowledge that its adherence to and application of safety standards and its management of aircraft and so forth are accepted internationally to be of the highest international standard. I have no doubt that this is the case throughout the services.

With regard to the safety officer appointed to the Air Corps, what staff are involved with the officer and what strength will his decisions have? Will they be sacrosanct? Who is his commanding officer and, in relation to a safety matter, who does he report to or correspond with to ensure the problem is dealt with? What status does the officer have? Does he operate alone or does he have a number of staff? What position does he have in the Air Corps?

With regard to the Minister's earlier reply, the report of PDFORRA to its annual general meeting does not agree that the health and safety legislation is being applied. It claims the opposite and that the Department is only going through the motions of applying the Act, that no effort is being made to meet the criteria laid down by that Act and that no training is given to ordinary members of the Defence Forces in relation to implementing the Act.

Since the enactment of the Safety, Health and Welfare Act, 1989, the military authorities have undertaken a major review of this problem and a number of measures have been taken to improve the effectiveness of care of hearing procedures within the Defence Forces. For example, particular emphasis on preventative measures is included in the recruit training syllabus. Appropriate signs are now in position on all firing ranges. I will not go into further detail.

It is unfair to the military authorities to suggest that senior officers in command are not adhering to the highest safety standards. All the information I have from successive chiefs of staff is to the opposite effect. Young people joining the Defence Forces today can be satisfied that every possible effort is being made in that regard. Any investment that is required and is requested of me will be met as well.

The Minister should talk to the people at the coalface. They have a different opinion.

They are not telling me anything about it.

The Minister did not answer my question with regard to the safety officer.

The officer was only appointed on 5 October. I have not yet had any requests for additional staff. Clearly, it will be a matter for the military authorities. He will report to the general officer commanding the Air Corps. I look forward to him conducting effective and continuous monitoring in the future.

In the Price Waterhouse report on the Air Corps of 1998 one of the strongest recommendations was the appointment of a flight safety officer. Why did the Air Corps not act on such a strong recommendation on that occasion?

A huge bank of the work which was previously within the remit of the Department of Defence is now undertaken by the military authorities. Quite recently when a promotion matter was given to me for my signature – I do not have any other part in it – the same question arose as to why it was not attended to somewhat earlier. I agree the matter should have been addressed earlier but it is in place now and will, I hope, be effective.

What changes have been incorporated by the Minister into the safety standards since the fatal crash in Tramore in July 1999 in which four young officers tragically lost their lives?

There are a number of matters relating to that. The first was the air investigation report which made a number of recommendations with regard to the appointment of a safety officer. There is also the air safety audit. I am awaiting a recommendation on the sourcing of the experienced military personnel who will assist in the determination of that. A number of other matters relate to the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the training and other matters which it has undertaken. As I said earlier, every possible effort will be made to put into effect every recommendation that is made.

I am asking about what has been done, not what will be done.

We must await the military court inquiry which began on 16 October and which will follow the coroner's report that is carried out today. Extensive—

I did not ask about that. I do not want answers to questions I have not asked.

Extensive investigations are being carried out and recommendations will be made by the experts. Each recommendation will be put into effect.

I call Deputy Durkan.

What has been done? I did not get an answer to my question.

Will the Minister give an assurance that adequate safety procedures and standards are in place, that they are being applied on a regular basis and are being monitored regularly and that there will not be a repetition of incidents which put the lives of personnel in danger?

The answer is yes in so far as it lies within my responsibility.

Has the Minister considered his position in relation to the matter we discussed earlier. Does he not think he should resign as a result of what happened?

That question is not in order.

It is a good question.

Will the results of the investigation by the military court of inquiry be made public?

The investigation results of the military court of inquiry is confidential. From time to time Deputies may wish to play around with issues—

Is the Minister embarrassed by it?

—but I deplore this form of politics where the Deputy is trying to deliberately pin the blame on me for that accident. Members who try to do that do not do this House a service.

The Minister should cut out the sermon.

Top
Share