Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2001

Vol. 533 No. 4

Other Questions. - Ministerial Air Transport Service.

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

27 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence if he proposes to replace the Government jet with a new aircraft; the reason a replacement is required; the specifications for the proposed new plane; and the procedure he proposes adopting with regard to its acquisition [9108/01].

Brendan Howlin

Question:

66 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has to acquire a new Government jet for the Defence Forces; the likely cost of the purchase; the process which will be used to acquire the aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the matter [9015/01].

Ivor Callely

Question:

77 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Defence the criteria adopted in the purchase of the new Government jet; the likely total cost in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter [7889/01].

Alan Shatter

Question:

86 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Defence if he proposes to replace the Government jet with a new aircraft; the reason a replacement is required; the specifications for the proposed new plane; and the procedure he proposes to adopt regarding its acquisition [9161/01].

I propose to take Questions Nos. 27, 66, 77 and 86 together.

The ministerial air transport service is currently operated by the Air Corps using the Gulfstream IV executive jet, acquired in 1991, as the principal aircraft backed up by the Beechcraft King Air turboprop aircraft.

The Beechcraft provides only a limited MATS operation and it is also used for pilot training. Effectively it operates nationally, to the UK and, to a minor extent, to Europe. The issue of the replacement of the G IV jet is under active consideration at present. The consideration is in the context of the increased level of business for Government Ministers and officials to Europe and further afield.

The business of the European Union itself has grown by an unprecedented degree over the past decade both in the size of its market and in the depth and range of its activities. These changes have increased significantly the travel requirements of Government Ministers and officials.

There is an ongoing requirement for the Government to maintain a very active involvement both bilaterally and through the EU and multilateral bodies like the United Nations, in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas so as to build Ireland's political and economic relations with countries from these regions. This requirement also involves substantial air travel by Government Ministers.

The ministerial air transport service has been a major asset for successive Governments. The service has proved to be extremely flexible to meet the changing timetables of Government Ministers. In this regard I acknowledge the major role played by the Air Corps in operating the service so effectively over the years.

It is important that any action required to maintain the high standards set for the operation of the ministerial air transport service is taken. In that regard, all options which could improve the service available to the Government are being examined. No decisions have been made as yet but I expect to be in a position to bring a memorandum to Government within a matter of weeks.

Is the Taoiseach using the Government jet?

Are reports of the Taoiseach not wishing to use the jet because of safety concerns true or untrue?

We are not responsible for media reports.

That does not answer the question.

There have been a few occasions on which the jet was unexpectedly unable to meet the Taoiseach's travel arrangements and other arrangements had to be made at the last minute. There is pressure to get to places on time. One such occasion was an important visit to the North.

What is the proposed cost of replacing the Government jet? The Minister said the matter was under active consideration. What sort of timescale is he considering?

The Minister recently privatised part of the search and rescue service which was disappointing for the Air Corps. Surely the purchase of helicopters for the Air Corps should be a priority.

In March 2000 I dedicated £55 million over the next three years for the purchase of two medium lift helicopters for the search and rescue service, with an option to purchase a third helicopter. I also announced plans to purchase two further helicopters for military transport. I am at present engaged with military authorities on the issue of training aircraft. I wished to ensure that the funds available to my Department were primarily dedicated to these areas.

Any decision on facilities for ministerial air transport would not come from my immediate budget. However, no decisions have been taken on the acquisition of further aircraft. All options are being examined.

The final payment of about £14 million on the G4 is due this year. This will bring the total cost of the G4 up to about £29 million. The project would have cost £16 million for cash in 1991. If one invested £16 million in Government bonds in 1991, it would return about £39 million today.

Does the Minister accept that the Air Corps is disappointed that part of the ser vice has been privatised? Does he further accept it is disappointing for the Air Corps that he is actively considering purchasing a new Government jet while he has allowed part of the Air Corps' work to be privatised? This has a real effect on morale, is disappointing and will have implications for Air Corps training and recruitment. Does the Minister accept that the Air Corps is disappointed he has not allowed it to continue to carry out this work, particularly in view of the fact that Members know of the dedication and sacrifices its personnel have made?

We are straying outside the scope of the question.

This matter is linked. It is a question of priorities and decision making.

I have not allowed any part of the work carried out by the Air Corps to be privatised. I inherited a situation in which there was a need for new aircraft for the Air Corps. I provided the kind of funds which no previous Government has ever attempted to provide. Tenders for the helicopters will be submitted on 19 April. This is a positive, progressive advance on anything which happened in the past. I am preparing for the acquisition of other aircraft.

As regards the G4, considerable opportunities for training and advancement for pilots are involved in the military air transport service. It would be wrong to suggest that the Air Corps is not involved in the training and operation of military air transport. The Air Corps carries out these roles very well.

No decision has been taken on the acquisition of new aircraft for ministerial transport. However, decisions have been taken, and finance has been provided, for the areas in which the Deputy and I are interested.

Is it the case that parts of the Government jet had to be sent to the manufacturers for overhaul because Air Corps maintenance staff could not carry out the repairs? If these press reports are correct, why did parts have to be sent to the manufacturers for refurbishment?

Air Corps technical orders and manufacturers' manuals are very prescriptive in terms of the repair, maintenance and overhaul of aircraft. The Deputy will understand the seriousness of the matter. There are occasions on which aircraft are returned to manufacturers for considerable periods for overhaul. I support this process as the manufacturers have the necessary resources to carry out the work. However, the Air Corps has the resources to carry out normal maintenance work. Manufacturers are involved only when necessary.

Top
Share