Vol. 564 No. 2
62 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by PDFORRA that increased operational activity will have serious implications for some specialists within the Naval Service, especially in regard to the requirement that ships' engineers spend two out of every three years on seagoing duty; the steps being taken to address the concerns expressed by PDFORRA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8922/03]
81 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the serious staffing problems in the Naval Service, particularly in the engineering and mechanical section; and his plans for alleviating these difficulties. [8978/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 62 and 81 together.
I am aware of the statements made by PDFORRA in relation to its concerns regarding the deployment of ships engineering staff. The position is that the level of operational activity of naval vessels has been reasonably consistent in recent years with each vessel being away from the naval base for an average of 161 days in 2000 and 2001 and an average of 170 days in 2002. I expect that the level of activity in 2003 will be in keeping with recent years.
PDFORRA has raised concerns about two particular groups, engine room artificers and electrical artificers. The position with engine room artificers is that the number of such appointments in the Naval Service was increased from 76 to 85 following the reorganisation of the Naval Service arising from the White Paper on Defence.
A total of 70 engine room artificers are serving at present and a further nine will complete their naval training later this year. The situation will continue to improve as significant numbers of trainee engine room artificers complete their training and come on stream over the next four years. In addition to the nine I have already mentioned, a further 29 apprentices-trainee technicians are currently at various stages in the training process. They will all come on stream over the next four years and will both meet the current shortfall and replace any further wastage that may occur.
The position with electrical artificers is that the number of such appointments in the Naval Service was increased from 42 to 48 following the reorganisation of the Naval Service. A total of 32 are serving at present. A further 24 are currently in training of which three will qualify and become operational later this year. The balance are at various stages in the training process and will come on stream in the coming years.
The reorganisation of the Naval Service was designed to ensure that when fully implemented all personnel would spend alternate periods of two years in a shore based appointment followed by a ship based appointment. In this regard, I should point out that two years in a ship based appointment does not imply that people spend two years at sea.
While the increase in the number of appointments for both engine room artificers and electrical artificers may have created some short-term difficulties, I am assured by the military authorities that the arrangements in place to provide suitably trained and qualified personnel will see an early improvement in the situation.
What response has the Minister made to the concerns expressed by PDFORRA on this issue? Does he accept that expecting people to spend such long periods at sea can lead to unacceptable levels of stress?
I do not know how to answer this question. There are many jobs which involve unacceptable levels of stress at times. One example is the stress Deputies put me under from time to time. As I have outlined, there are short-term problems which are being remedied by the numbers of people being trained. In spite of that, the number of days at sea has increased in recent years and we still had a ship doing virtual commercial work for us in Hong Kong for St. Patrick's day in 2002 and in Savannah and Miami this year. There were also other expeditions.
I am not saying there are no areas where there is not excessive stress from time to time. That is part of life. There is no Utopia where everything is in apple-pie order every day for everyone. There is no point in pretending otherwise. We depend on the capacity, ingenuity and commitment of people to manage situations during difficult periods until we are in smooth waters once again. That is what is happening without undue stress. The Naval Service has been doing extraordinarily well.
Would the Minister agree this is a vicious circle? Would he agree that during the past five years, from 1996 to 2001-02, 43 mechanics and engineers left the Naval Service, many because they were suffering from work-related stress directly as a result, they maintain, of the fact that they are obliged to spend two years out of every three in service at sea. They claim that the ideal objective is a ratio of two to two. Negotiations are going on at present between PDFORRA, the representative body, and the Department. Will the Minister indicate whether there is any chance of going back to the original situation where the ratio was two to two?
There is no chance of that. I have looked at the international statistics in this area. This was examined in the context of the White Paper on the reorganisation of the naval service, the service plan, investment in the ships and galleys and other improvements. In recent years in various areas and professions a number of people have opted for alternative job opportunities, pay sometimes being the decider as it has slowed down considerably in recent times. That is something one has to live with.
People with special expertise are offered other opportunities. I have met many people in the Naval Service in the past number of years and they appear to have excellent morale. We have purchased the LE Niamh and the LE Róisín and improved facilities in general. I have received many complimentary reports from abroad about the Naval Service and there is no cause for alarm whatsoever.
Given that the ideal is two and two, what is the average at the moment for serving personnel? Is it true that as a result of a recent change in regulations, if a person wishes to transfer from the Naval Service to the Army he or she must first resign from the Naval Service and re-enlist at the bottom of the ladder? Why was that change made?
These are administrative and personnel matters which are the responsibility of the Defence Forces. They are not within my remit but I will get the exact figures for the Deputy.
It seems to be a strange decision if that is the case, but I do not have any personal control over these matters.
Will the Minister check out that information?
Yes, I will.
