Jimmy Deenihan
Question:7 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence his reasons for closing the Defence Forces barracks in Longford, Monaghan, Rockhill and Lifford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36423/08]
Priority Questions.
Army Barracks.
The consolidation of the Defence Forces formations into a smaller number of locations is a key objective of the White Paper on Defence. The dispersal of personnel over an extended number of locations is a major impediment to essential collective training and imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barracks management, administration, maintenance and security. The consolidation process is designed to facilitate higher training standards, while freeing up underutilised resources and personnel for operational duties.
The funding previously realised from the disposal of surplus barracks and properties has, together with pay savings, provided some of the resources required for infrastructure, training area development and equipment procurement. In this regard, the White Paper states: "The thrust of the Government decisions in the White Paper is based on their recognition of the necessity to enhance the equipment and infrastructure available to the Defence Forces". The current phase of barracks closure is another important step in achieving the vision of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper.
While the closure of barracks and sale of the properties has provided funding for investment, it was never the driving factor for the consolidation of defence infrastructure. The White Paper acknowledged that the current spread of barracks gave rise to significant inefficiencies in manning and organisation which needed to be addressed. Moreover, as has been pointed out in many independent reports on the Defence Forces, the primary driver for barracks organisation and personnel deployment is the efficient and effective delivery of military capabilities. As I indicated in response to many questions in the House, Defence Forces properties are kept under constant review in terms of addressing Defence Force requirements and ensuring the most appropriate organisation of the Defence Forces, taking account of the operational requirements.
The development and increased capability of the modern Defence Forces, when taken together with improved security along the Border, has removed the rationale for having seven barracks-posts along the Border and provided the opportunity for consolidation of units in a smaller number of locations. It should be noted that the British Army has closed most of its Border posts.
The current plan has been put together in close consultation and co-operation with the Defence Forces general staff and provides an overall package which will serve the needs of the Defence Forces into the future.
The Government seems to have got itself into another fine mess and has failed to produce a plan for the managed closure of the four barracks in question. For example, senior personnel are unable to brief the 650 personnel who will be moved as a result of the closures. Last Tuesday, when the budget was being announced, a senior officer in Monaghan barracks had no knowledge that the barracks was to be closed.
What savings will the four closures achieve given the costs associated with maintaining and securing the barracks and the substantial cost of moving Army personnel? Additional costs will arise from providing accommodation for personnel and storage facilities for equipment in other barracks. The Minister does not seem to realise that personnel who will be required to relocate as a result of the closures will face significant transport costs. For example, those based in Donegal town will have to make a daily round trip of approximately 150 miles to Finner. That is not good enough.
While I have not received an exact figure, I am advised that substantial cost savings will be achieved through the closures. Payments will reduce in respect of barrack guard duties, storage, utility costs, maintenance, heating and lighting etc. As I indicated, however, the main driver for the decision was that the Army was too widely dispersed over too many barracks, particularly in light of the size of the Defence Forces and the population of the country. A particular problem that arose on the Border due to the situation in Northern Ireland has been resolved. There was no justification for maintaining no less than seven of our 20 Army barracks in the Border area and for that reason the decision was taken to consolidate.
From conversations with members of the general staff and Permanent Defence Force, their view appears to be that this is a good step for the Army as better collective training and less wider dispersal will ensure greater efficiency in the use of Defence Forces resources.
I take account of Deputy Deenihan's comments regarding transport costs. Provision has been made for removal and transport costs to be provided for a certain period. However, even when one takes these factors into account, the previous programme of barracks closures resulted in a much better, more efficient military organisation and delivered cost savings. This outcome will also be achieved with the current programme.
Does the Minister agree it is unacceptable to provide a closure date of 31 January 2009? Will he assure the House that the 14 week lead-in period will be extended? Perhaps the Government will make another U-turn on this issue. The Minister stood alongside Deputy Peter Kelly in front of Longford barracks and gave a commitment to the personnel in the barracks and the people of the town that the barracks would not be closed while he was Minister for Defence. This commitment was given on record and a photograph of the Minister and the Deputy is available. The programme should be implemented in a calm, collected, structured fashion, which is not the case. I appeal to the Minister to undertake to postpone the closure of the barracks from 31 January 2009 and extend the lead-in period to between six months and one year.
It is advisable, when taking steps of this nature, to set a target date. Clearly if the process is not completed by the target date of 31 January 2009, it will be completed at a later date. However, I am assured by the military that it will be able to meet the date.
There is no way the completion date will be met.
In so far as doing a U-turn is concerned, I note Deputy Deenihan's initial statement on the matter did not oppose the closure of the barracks. I do not know whether he supports or opposes the decision in principle. I am aware, however, that Deputy Bannon is opposed to the closures as he has tabled a motion requesting that I reverse the decision to close Connolly barracks. On the other hand, in a television interview given on 28 September, Deputy Varadkar stated the Department of Defence had huge numbers and he did not know what it did. The Deputy wants us to further reduce the personnel available to the Department. Which of the three Fine Gael Deputies represents the party's position?
We have heard typical spin from the Minister. Deputy Varadkar did not advocate the closure of Army barracks.
Defence Forces Recruitment.
Brian O'Shea
Question:8 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence the progress made during 2008 in regard to bringing the Defence Forces medical corps up to full strength; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35946/08]
Military medical services and their facilities exist to maintain the health of the Defence Forces and support them in operational and overseas activities. The focus of the military medical service is on primary care, occupational medicine, acute trauma management, preventative medical programmes and field medical training.
A key issue in the provision of medical services to the Defence Forces has been the shortage of medical officers, that is, doctors, in the medical corps. The services of civilian medical practitioners are used to provide back-up to the medical corps in ensuring the primary health care requirements are met. The difficulties with the recruitment of medical officers have endured for some time despite the concerted efforts of my Department and the Defence Forces. The numbers attracted to work in the Defence Forces have served only to address natural wastage. The pay and allowances of doctors and dentists were increased substantially in consultation with the Minister for Finance. In addition, the Defence Forces have undertaken an intensive recruitment campaign. The results of both of these initiatives have been disappointing.
Apart from the issue of the numbers of medical officers, a review of the provision of medical services, in association with the representative associations, is ongoing as part of the modernisation agenda for the Defence Forces. In view of the complexity of the challenge facing the Defence Forces in this area, I decided to engage consultants to make recommendations on the best means of meeting the medical requirements of the Defence Forces. The consultancy will focus on the sustainable provision of the relevant medical expertise and services to the Defence Forces.
PA Consulting has been awarded the contract for the medical consultancy. I expect its report to be delivered before the end of the year. I eagerly await receipt of the report and assure the House that following consideration of the recommendations I will publish the report and engage with all the key stakeholders regarding its implementation.
The development of the medical corps forms part of An Agreed Programme for Government. I am committed to providing a sustainable medical service to meet the needs of the Defence Forces both at home and abroad. Notwithstanding the current position, I assure the House that Defence Forces personnel requiring medical treatment receive the care they need.
When the medical corps has been described as being in a state of virtual collapse, the Minister's last statement requires examination. Essentially, does he not agree, given that 15 doctors have left the medical corps since 2000 and only ten have been recruited, that this represents a very poor situation? I understand there are 22 doctors out of the full complement of 47. The PA Consulting report is expected by the end of the year, but I understand the position has not changed since July. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the report will be received before the end of the Dáil year, that there will be no restriction in terms of resources in 2009 in the context of implementing its recommendations and that he will do something substantial as regards the suggestion I have made to him on a number of occasions, namely, that student doctors should be given financial assistance on the quid pro quo that they give a certain designated amount of service to the Army or the Defence Forces generally after they have graduated?
In reply to the various points made by Deputy O'Shea, it is true that more people have left since 2000 than we have managed to recruit. However, it is not true to say that the medical service is in a state of collapse because, as Deputy O'Shea and the House will be aware, where we cannot provide medical service within the Army, we engage outside medical services.
We have done our best to maintain the strength of the medical corps at its establishment level, which is 47 doctors, but unfortunately we have failed. We raised the pay and allowances considerably and undertook a number of intensive recruitment campaigns, but we failed. Therefore, we are bringing in consultants to advise us on how best to approach this problem. Deputy O'Shea wants to know whether I will give a categorical assurance that the consultants' report will be available before the end of the year. I cannot give that assurance, but I am informed that it is expected. It will be a surprise if we do not have it before the end of the year. The consultants were to consider four items and are on the third already. I am fairly optimistic we will have the report by the end of the year.
Deputy O'Shea's suggestion about student doctors is a good one and the consultants have been made aware of it. We will see what they have to say about it in their report.
Is there merit in representatives of the Defence Forces at senior level, or indeed senior officials of the Minister's Department, addressing students in the medical schools with a view to directing their attention towards the Army as a career? It is a fine career and appeals to patriotism as well as professionalism. RACO has made an interesting suggestion to the effect that there will be provision to give training in specialised areas of medicine to attract people.
There may be merit in that. Obviously, we will be doing something about the situation as soon as we have the consultants' report. We will not be bound precisely by what they say. Other useful suggestions will be taken on board too and I will bear that one in mind.
Overseas Missions.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:9 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied with the air transport support that is available to the Irish mission on the ground in Chad; if the mission has been assigned new security duties outside their area of operations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36424/08]
The issue of the required air transport for the Defence Forces contingent deploying to Chad was considered in detail as part of the planning process for the deployment. A detailed review of the requirements was conducted by the military authorities as is normal in any case of overseas peace support operations. I requested and received the requisite assurances from the Chief of Staff in relation to helicopter medevac and strategic lift. The Chief of Staff advised me that he was fully satisfied with the arrangements in place for the Defence Forces contingent in EUFOR.
Within the theatre of operations, EUFOR has four French attack helicopters and five French Puma helicopters, which are under the operational control of the operational commander. The French also supply EUFOR with one reconnaissance mission per day by a Mirage, as well as having two Mirages on standby for close air support. The Polish battalion has three Mi 17 helicopters in theatre.
The provision of both strategic and tactical lift for Defence Forces personnel in theatre in Chad continues to meet the requirements of the military authorities of the contingent there. Strategic and tactical lift is met both from commercial sources and through support from EUFOR assets deployed in theatre. I am aware that some concerns have been expressed regarding the helicopter lift contracted by the Defence Forces for the contingent in Chad. In progressing planning arrangements for Ireland's participation in Chad, a requirement for tactical lift in the Irish area of operations to support resupply of the mission and enable forward projection of the contingent during the rainy season in particular was identified by the military authorities. I should emphasise that this was primarily a requirement for the transport of cargo and supplies to the base camp in Goz Beida during the rainy season, along with the forward deployment of forces during this period.
The Defence Forces contracted a civilian company through their standing supplier of strategic air transport to provide this helicopter lift. Two helicopters arrived in theatre on 28 June 2008 to provide for the operational deployment of troops and to facilitate the rapid movement of supplies, stores and equipment from the forward logistic base in Abéché to the battalion base in Goz Beida.
In late September, a question arose in relation to the certification of the two helicopters for use with passengers. The issue that arose was a regulatory licensing one relating to civilian registered helicopters and did not reflect on the safety, technical or operational functions of the helicopters. Notwithstanding this, it was decided that pending the resolution of the matter, the transport of Defence Forces personnel on board the helicopters should be restricted. The helicopters remain operational for the use of cargo and emergency evacuation purposes as required to support the operation in Chad.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In relation to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel to provide a guard at the force headquarter in Abéché, the 98th infantry battalion was requested by the force commander to provide personnel for force protection duties. The background to the request was the withdrawal of the Swedish contribution to Chad at the end of their tour of duty. The Swedish element had provided force protection until their departure and no other country came forward to replace them. Thus, the force headquarters had to seek assistance from the units serving in the field, the Irish, French and Polish battalions.
Following appropriate consideration by the Irish military authorities, it was agreed that the Defence Forces would provide a platoon level commitment on a rotational basis for security at the force headquarters. The platoon comprising approximately 30 personnel took up duty in Abéché for the period from 7 October until 26 October 2008.
Who decided to lease these helicopters, knowing quite well that they could only move equipment and food, but not personnel? The first thing they should have looked into was whether they were licensed to move troops. Parts of the area under Irish control are 300 km from the base in Goz Beida. Surely someone made a mistake, because lives could be at risk over this issue.
Can the Minister assure the House that he now has cover for the Irish mission in its area of operations? Finally, as he may be aware, the greatest challenge now lies ahead, since the rainy season is over. I understand that guerilla forces, bandits and rebel groups are queuing up at this stage to do various things. The Irish mission will be there in the centre and needs this type of support now more than ever. I am sure these helicopters cost a good deal, and perhaps the Minister can tell us how much.
To address Deputy Deenihan's last point first, I understand the helicopters were released on 13 June last until next April. We still do not know the final cost, but it will be in the region of €3 million.
And they cannot carry troops. This is absolutely disgraceful.
To deal with the Deputy's first two points, I accept there is a problem. Let me emphasise that there is no question about the safety of these helicopters. It is a question of the air operation certificate, which covers what these helicopters are supposed to do — there is a question as to whether they could carry personnel. The better view is that they cannot, and they are not allowed to carry personnel, only cargo. The primary reason for getting those helicopters into theatre, to supplement what we had already, was to move cargo around, particularly during the rainy season. It was feared that we might become isolated from our supply base during the rainy season. The military entered into that contract. I agree with Deputy Deenihan that something is not quite right. As a result, when it came to my attention, I issued a directive that no more personnel be carried on those helicopters, except in the event of an emergency evacuation, which they are licensed to look after.
I also asked the Chief of Staff to investigate and issue me with a report, which I should have by Friday. I have referred the matter to the internal audit section of my Department and I am awaiting a report from there. As regards Deputy Deenihan's final question on whether we now have sufficient air support, this is a matter to be dealt with in his report by the Chief of Staff. Having studied his report, we will see where we will go on that. The general view at present is that these things are mainly used for carrying cargo and equipment around and that we have sufficient cover.
I made the case strongly in the House for two helicopters for medical evacuation some time ago. The Minister now tells me that——
They can be used for that. Their licence covers them for medical evacuation in emergencies.
Fine. That is a very important point. It seems quite strange that we spent €3 million on something which cannot move people. Under what caveats are the Irish forces operating in Chad? Recently they were asked to protect the headquarters when the Swedes moved out but the commander said it was not part of their role. They said there was no caveat to cover that. Does the Minister have a list of caveats that he can give us telling us what the Irish Defence Forces can or cannot do in Chad?
That was in the second part of my answer which I did not have time to deliver. A request came in from operational headquarters to supply a platoon sized contingent of approximately 30 troops to provide protection for force headquarters in Abéché. I am not aware that request was actually refused. It was considered.
The people considering the request have to take many things into account such as the extent to which they will still be able to perform their ordinary duties, which is protecting civilians, United Nations personnel and the humanitarian agencies out there. It did not come in at the best time. It came in at the time of the changeover, when the rotation of troops was taking place. Having considered the request, they reckoned that they could supply the 30 troops on a rotational basis. They have been sent there from 6 to 26 October. That is their first stint there.
Will the Minister supply us with the caveats?
Ceist Uimh. 10 in ainim an Teachta Brian O'Shea.
This is very important.
It might be very important but we have gone two minutes over time. We are restricting time on other Deputies.
Sail Training Vessel.
Brian O'Shea
Question:10 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence the report he has received on the sinking of the Asgard II off the French coast; his future plans in regard to the provision of a sail training vessel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35947/08]
As the Deputy will be aware, on 11 September 2008, the national sail training vessel, Asgard II, sank in the Bay of Biscay off the coast of France. The Asgard II was on a cruise from Falmouth in the UK to La Rochelle. On board were five crew and 20 trainees. All crew and trainees were evacuated successfully and are safe and well.
The decision to abandon the vessel and take to the life rafts was made by the captain because the vessel was taking in water and was flooding. Weather conditions at the time were moderate. All trainees and crew were rescued by the French life boat service and taken to the island of Belle Île. I take this opportunity to compliment the captain and crew of Asgard II on the very professional manner in which all the trainees were quickly and safely taken off the vessel. I would also like to pay tribute to the French life boat service for quickly coming to the rescue of the trainees and crew and bringing everybody safely ashore; and to the authorities in Belle Île on the way they looked after things.
The Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which is a statutory independent body, is carrying out an investigation into the cause of the incident. I have no information as to when the result of that investigation will be available.
Asgard II was insured with Allianz Plc for the sum of €3.8 million. Following consultations with insurance company representatives, Coiste an Asgard decided to arrange a survey of the vessel using a remotely operated vehicle in order to establish her status prior to any decisions being made in regard to salvage. This survey, which was carried out between 26 and 29 September, revealed that the vessel is lying upright in 80 m of water close to where she sank and appears to be largely intact. Damage to one of the hull planks has been observed but it is not possible, at this stage, to determine whether this has resulted from impact with the seabed or was the original cause of the sinking.
At a meeting between Coiste an Asgard and the insurance company on 9 October, it was agreed that the insurance company would seek tenders for the salvage of Asgard II and that a decision on whether to proceed with a salvage operation would be made in the light of the outcome of the tender process. I understand that the closing date for the receipt of tenders is 31 October.
Pending a decision on the future of Asgard II, the board of Coiste an Asgard is considering the question of procuring a suitable temporary replacement vessel. At this stage, I am not in a position to indicate when a decision might be made as to whether to procure a replacement vessel.
Like the Minister, I compliment the captain on the very effective way this crisis was dealt with. Everybody came out of it safe and sound. The French authorities also played an important part in the rescue. Having said that, we still do not know what happened. I have read speculation that debris from ships floats around this area and that it is quite a problem.
I understand from the initial under-sea survey that the cause is not readily visible. Effectively, it is not clear whether the damaged plank the Minister mentioned was caused by impact with the seabed or whether it was the cause of the accident.
Salvage is now on the agenda and, obviously, the tenders will have a bearing on whether that happens. I take the points the Minister made that we do not know what happened and that it may be some time before he knows.
Have ships such as the Dunbrody or the Jeanie Johnston been considered by Coiste an Asgard as possible replacement sail training vessels? That project is at an initial stage, if at all. Will something happen before the end of the year?
As Deputy O'Shea rightly recognises, we will not know the precise cause of the accident until the Marine Casualty Investigation Board concludes its investigation. I assure the House that when it does, I will have no difficulty publishing its report. In regard to Deputy O'Shea's second question, Coiste an Asgard is considering a number of possibilities for replacement. It has not yet reported back to me on its considerations in that regard.
Are the French authorities involved in the investigation? If so, has the Minister received any information from them?
The investigating body is the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. Naturally, it must talk to the French authorities and the French life board service, in particular. I understand that nobody other than the Marine Casualty Investigation Board is directly involved in the investigation. It has primary responsibility for the investigation.
Was it not involved in the underwater survey?
I cannot answer that question exactly but I understand the underwater survey was commissioned by Coiste an Asgard. I do not know who it got to do it but I can get that information for the Deputy.
Toxic Waste.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:11 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence when he will publish the consultants’ report which his Department commissioned on toxic waste concerns at Haulbowline, County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36425/08]
Following concerns arising in regard to work undertaken on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, at the ISPAT site, as a purely precautionary measure, I directed that an independent investigation of any potential health issues arising at the naval base in Haulbowline be undertaken. An independent environmental health and safety assessment was commissioned by my Department in July of this year. A comprehensive and detailed assessment of soil, sediment and air quality was carried out in July to assess any potential risks posed to human health.
The initial report by the independent consultants was completed at the beginning of September. This report concluded that any risk arising within the naval base falls within the acceptable range, meaning that there is no exposure to undue risks and that no mitigating action needs to take place. The consultants advised that there was an area in the base, however, where certain levels were elevated. As a result, the consultants were requested to undertake additional testing in these particular areas to confirm the earlier test results. These tests have now been completed and my Department received the addendum report just over two weeks ago and the final consolidated report last week.
Following these further investigations the consultants again concluded that there is no exposure to undue risks. However, to ensure that best practice is followed in regard to matters like this it has been decided to cap one area which will be done by importing a layer of topsoil or by laying hard core.
The now completed report is in the final stages of being examined and I expect to receive a report from the Department and the military authorities next week. Once I have received this report, a joint meeting of the Naval Service and civilian employees partnership committees will be convened locally at the naval base and the report will be presented to them. It will be published immediately after that.
Again, I wish to state clearly that the findings show there is no unacceptable risk posed to personnel at the naval base and this is clearly supported by the independent assessment.
I welcome the Minister's response. Hopefully, it will go some way towards reassuring naval personnel at Haulbowline that their health is not at risk. The Minister said clearly it is not at risk, despite the fact they are sitting on half a million tonnes of hazardous waste. We can only accept the Minister's assurance and I am sure it will assuage any concerns they have. The Minister gave a commitment that he will brief the personnel as soon as possible. Will he ensure he does that? Also, will he publish the report as soon as possible?
I remind the Minister that traces of chromium 6 found on the site were analysed in a German laboratory by one of the contractors hired to remove some waste from the site. The results gave rise to some concern. Does the consultants' report rule out any possible contamination or threat from chromium 6 or from the inordinate levels of mercury found in the Cork Harbour area — 25% higher than the acceptable level? Does the report provide an assurance that there is no threat from chromium 6, mercury, zinc or any of the other obvious contaminants on the site, given the half of million tonnes of waste underground there?
Deputy Deenihan mentioned my assurance to the House. I am simply communicating to the House the results of the report. To reiterate, a joint meeting will be convened in Haulbowline, hopefully next week when the report is ready, between representatives of the naval staff and civilians and the details of the report will be explained to them. I will then immediately publish the report and make it available to Opposition spokespersons. It will also be available on the website.
I appreciate what Deputy Deenihan says about levels of certain contaminants being found. However, the report states categorically that the level is far below the risk level identified by the Health and Safety Authority. In other words, the report states the site is quite safe, despite what is buried underneath. I understand that raised levels of contaminants were found in a certain part of the site where lead and zinc batteries had been buried. It is proposed to cap that part of the site, although that part of the site is quite safe as things exist. However, it is best practice to cap such areas. Essentially, the report gives a clean bill of health to Haulbowline.
A report issued by an official — an engineer from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — last December pointed out that because of the high levels of mercury, immediate emergency treatment was required for certain parts of the site. I hope that work has been carried out in the meantime.
The Minister is aware of the importance of playing pitches for naval personnel, as exercise and recreation is very important for them when they spend a lot of time on sea manoeuvres. The playing pitches at the naval base have been closed for some time. Can personnel use these pitches again and is it safe to do so? Can the Minister assure them it is safe to do so?
My interpretation, from what I have been told of the report, is that there is no risk at all. Unless there is some other impediment to using the pitches, personnel should not be prevented from using them on the premise the report has discovered it is in any way dangerous to use them. My information is the report appears to give an absolutely clean bill of health to the site. The report will be published next week, discussed locally at Haulbowline and then published generally, including on the website. We will send the Deputy a courtesy copy.