Vol. 691 No. 2
1 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the age of each ship in the Naval Service; the schedule for replacement of each ship; the costs involved in the replacement; if safety or other concerns have been raised as to the suitability of each ship for continued usage by the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34970/09]
The following are the ages of the eight ships in the current flotilla: LE Emer, 31 years; LE Aoife, 30 years; LE Aisling, 29 years; LE Eithne, 25 years; LE Ciara, 25 years; LE Orla, 24 years; LE Róisín, ten years; and LE Niamh, eight years.
Naval vessels have a minimal lifespan of approximately 30 years. Accordingly, three ships are due for replacement now and over the next few years —LE Emer, commissioned in 1978, LE Aoife, commissioned in 1979 and LE Aisling, commissioned in 1980.
Following a detailed examination of the needs of the Naval Service within my Department, a vessel replacement strategy for the Naval Service was put in place. The strategy combined with a continuous process of refurbishment will ensure that the operational capability of the Naval Service is maintained at a satisfactory level.
Following Government approval in July 2007, a tender competition for the purchase of replacement vessels for the Naval Service commenced. The competition provides for the potential purchase of up to five replacement vessels — two offshore patrol vessels, OPVs, with an option of a third and one extended patrol vessel, EPV, with an option on a second. The options that I mentioned provide an effective value for money opportunity, at locked in prices, to provide replacements for Naval Service vessels which will reach the end of their service life in the years immediately following the current three-vessel replacement programme.
In so far as the OPVs are concerned, the tender competition has progressed to the stage where we now have a preferred bidder in place and contract negotiations are all but concluded. However, no contract has yet been signed as this requires Government approval on funding. This will be considered in the context of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010 which will include consideration of the McCarthy report.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes nor would it be appropriate to divulge the proposed cost of the replacement OPVs as this information is commercially sensitive and the procurement process has not yet been completed.
On the larger EPVs, my Department intends to complete the contract negotiations for the OPVs before the second stage of the EPV competition is initiated. As with the OPVs, any decision to award a contract for the purchase of an EPV must be approved by the Government.
With regard to safety, there is a programme of continuous planned and preventative maintenance to ensure that all Naval Service vessels are kept in a seaworthy condition and the Naval Service will send ships to sea only in such a condition. As Minister for Defence, the health and safety of all Defence Forces personnel and compliance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 are of utmost importance to me.
The acquisition of modern new vessels will ensure that the service will be fully equipped to carry out its day-to-day roles in enforcing the State's sovereign rights over our waters and our fisheries and meeting Ireland's obligations in the area of maritime safety and security and fisheries protection.
Will the Minister confirm whether an article that appeared on a national newspaper on 11 September last, stating that he was seeking €104 million for two new patrol vessels and a sail training vessel, is correct? Did he approach the Government for this funding at that time?
Is he aware that during the summer when the three ships in question, LE Emer, LE Aoife and LE Aisling, were in dry dock for cleaning purposes faults and structural cracks were discovered on the hull of the ships? This must be serious. Is the Minister concerned about this?
I understand that as ships get older, the noise level emanating from them increases. The reports I receive state that there is excessive noise on these ships. Is the Minister making provision to measure this noise in case it might cause damage to those on board?
I am sure the Minister would agree that the Naval Service is now playing a more important and vital role, especially in the interception of drugs coming into this country, and for that reason alone he should make a case to Government for the immediate replacement of these three vessels.
On Deputy Deenihan's first question, I recall that interview which took place at Haulbowline naval base. A number of members of the media to whom I spoke on that occasion asked what was the position on the ship replacement programme and I told them I was seeking funding from the Government to replace, over a period of time, three ships that are nearing the end of their useful lifespans. There was speculation about the amount of money that would be involved. A figure of €104 million was mentioned. I would hope we would be able to do it for less. We are discussing specific figures with the preferred tender, but until such time as I get approval from the Government I do not want to say any more on that. The House can be assured that I am making strenuous efforts in the course of the budgetary discussions we are having at present to get money for ship replacement.
I am aware that, after the LE Emer was power-washed recently, a hole of approximately 4 cm in diameter was found in the hull. Following an ultrasound operation put in place to test the hull generally, two other areas gave rise to concern. As a result, the steel from the hull has gone to a laboratory and tests are being conducted. Of course, repairs were carried out where they were necessary. It required a further dry-docking of the ship for an extra three weeks, and an extra €100,000. It was a fairly expensive job. That is what happens when ships get older and that is why we must replace them after a certain period of time.
On the noise issue raised by Deputy Deenihan, I am aware that noise is a problem in the three oldest ships. It is not a problem in the newer ships and it certainly will not be a problem in any replacements. We have conducted surveys on the three oldest ships. We have spent money on the LE Emer, which is the oldest ship. The jury is still out, to a certain extent, following tests on whether it has necessarily done a great deal of good and we are now faced with perhaps incurring considerable expenditure to alleviate the situation on the LE Emer. We are examining that closely at present. Those are the problems one encounters as ships get older.
Will the Minister confirm that the LE Emer is seaworthy and that he is merely concerned about its general health and safety?
According to the press report, the Minister mentioned that he was seeking permission from the Government to spend the €3.8 million derived from the insurance on Asgard II following its sinking. Is he making provision at this stage for a replacement sailing vessel for Asgard II?
That is an extension of the question.
It is not.
On the Deputy's first question, I am obviously concerned with health and safety and I am assured by the Naval Service that it has done the appropriate repairs to the LE Emer. I am further assured by the Naval Service that it will not send a ship to sea unless it is satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the ship is seaworthy and safe. However, as I stated, problems are developing in the older ships because everything has a lifespan. A ship’s lifespan is approximately 31 to 33 years. The McCarthy report seemed to suggest it could be longer in certain cases but I do not necessarily agree with that.
There is a specific question later on the other matter Deputy Deenihan raised. However, the insurance money has been paid. It is in a suspense account in my Department, which means, in layman's language, that I cannot touch it without permission from the Department of Finance. I have sought that permission and I am still awaiting a response.
2 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence the progress he has made on the implementation of the recommendations of the independent strategic review of the defence forces medical service. [34969/09]
5 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the PA Consultants report on the medical services; if the representative associations have been consulted on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35068/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together.
The PA report is an important milestone in addressing the challenges to the provision of medical services in the Defence Forces. Implementation will take time and commitment. This is being achieved in consultation with the representative associations. On receipt of the report in June this year, I asked that implementation of the recommendations proceed immediately.
The PA report reviewed the medical services required for the Defence Forces in light of their roles and operations, assessed the current arrangements for the provision of medical services and proposed a model for future delivery of medical services.
As the House will be aware, the consultants have recommended a programme of major change. The high level recommendations include a centralised command structure for the medical corps and the creation of a medical services management and administrative function which structure will provide strategic planning, resource allocation and overall responsibility for the management and delivery of the medical service. It also proposes the development of medical officer lead care teams, together with a refocusing of medical staff on appropriate clinical tasks. The report also recommends steps leading to a reduction in the number of doctor interventions and medical assessments and better management of health services outsourcing.
The report reaffirms the need for a dedicated medical corps and addresses the challenges facing the Defence Forces in the recruitment and retention of medical officers. The structure and systems recommended have been designed to meet the demands and needs of the modern Defence Forces both at home and abroad and provide medical officers with a fulfilling and rewarding career. The governance structure proposed in the report for the delivery of change in this area has been put in place. It consists of a high-level steering group composed of senior military and civilian personnel. The role of the steering group is to provide planning guidance, to clarify the approach to recommendations where required and to ensure the project is implemented effectively.
A dedicated programme group with civilian and military representatives is now co-ordinating a range of projects. It is making progress on a number of the PA recommendations, including the structure of the medical corps, the alignment of Defence Forces and medical corps strategies and the development of medical information systems. Preparatory work has also commenced on the recommendations on training and education, clinical issues and the centralised command structure.
Valuable consultation has occurred with the representative associations in the preparation of this report. The consultants had a number of meetings with the representative associations and received submissions from them. In addition, the consultants conducted a workshop with the main stakeholders, including the representative associations, to update them on progress and to validate views on a number of issues.
Progress on the ongoing preparation of the implementation programme is being reported to the associations through the partnership medical sub-group and through the normal conciliation and arbitration, C&A, process. The associations will be also formally consulted on the implementation programme when it has been approved by the steering group. Any issues within the scope of representation can be then addressed through the C&A scheme.
I am not convinced there is any great urgency in what the Minister has outlined to us. He is talking about structures, but we need results. The Minister must agree that the report was quite an indictment of the present system. For example, the Defence Forces are high users of primary health care compared with the civilian population and other armed forces, and the current requirement for medical assessment is not met, with a shortfall of approximately 60%. What I find worrying is the statement in the report that, "The Medical Corps does not take a systematic, information-based approach to planning and management of services". Does the Minister have a timeframe for bringing about this large cultural and structural change in the services? What is there is obviously adequate, although we have not alluded to the fact that there is a major problem with recruitment. Has there been any improvement in recruitment since the Minister set about implementing the recommendations in the report? All in all, the report describes a shambles. This needs to be put to rights quickly.
Naturally, I do not accept the Deputy's contention that there is no urgency. I have informed the Department and the Defence Forces that I want progress in this area as a matter of urgency. As the Deputy recognises, it involves a revolutionary change in the provision of medical services within the Army. It is a sea change; we are turning the whole system, which is no longer adequate, on its head. This will take time and we need to bring people with us, which is one of our major problems. We must sit down and talk to people, whether they are from the representative associations, the general Army staff, or the medical corps. One of the recommendations of the group was that we set up an implementation strategy, which we have done in the form of the steering group and the progress group. The latter has done quite a lot of preliminary work and hopes to report back to the steering group within the next two or three weeks.
As I see this evolving, there are a number of specific tasks that need to be done — what they call in departmental jargon "work packages". I am hoping most of those will be done within the next 12 months. Some can be done immediately, while others will require longer consultation. Once those specific tasks have been done and practical matters attended to, the rest will fall into place. I am considering a timeframe of 12 to 18 months for implementation, which is short in view of the depth and width of the report.
The Deputy asked about difficulties with recruitment. I accept what he said about the report's conclusions about the current system, but let me remind the House that under the present system, when it is unable to provide the service for which it has been designed, we outsource the rest of the work. People are not left without medical attention, whether at home or abroad. That is an important point.
If we can put in place the new system as recommended by the consultants, there should be no problem with recruitment because we will not need to recruit many more. We will be able to reduce the establishment of the medical corps, which is at present 47, although there are only 24 working there. In addition, it will be a more rewarding and challenging career — one in which medics are practising medicine rather than spending all their time on administration. They will also get recognition for the work they have done in the medical service of the Defence Forces. However, we are just starting to implement the report, so it would be unrealistic to expect a flood of recruits. I have no doubt that when the report is fully implemented it will be much easier to recruit.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy O'Shea about the urgency in implementing the recommendations. In the summary of the major work packages required for the delivery of the future medical services, most of the proposals seem to be scheduled as immediate or short term. Looking at the page, one can see these words all the way down. That no recommendation has yet been implemented from a report that took a number of years to produce and was published last June means it cannot be a matter of urgency. This is not the message that is given out.
The general feeling among the representative bodies is that the Minister should get on with it so they can know what hand he is playing in this. They feel the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible because they have been waiting around for so long.
I want to ask the Minister about a particular aspect of the report, although he may not be able to answer it here. The report, as he knows, successfully identified many of the obstacles that deter non-consultant hospital doctors from entering careers in the Defence Forces. One of the main issues is that time served in the medical corps is not recognised by professional training bodies. Since the report was published, has the Minister consulted with the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and the Irish College of General Practitioners to secure the necessary recognition for doctors who have served time in the medical corps? This is a critical issue. If the Minister could ensure such recognition, I am assured more doctors would join the Defence Forces.
Deputy Deenihan is right in that the timescales for many of the recommendations in the report are short term or urgent. That is true for the most part, but there are also recommendations that will require some time to implement. As I said, I am aiming for a timescale of 12 to 18 months, which is short in view of the revolutionary nature of the report. We are talking about moving from a situation in which each officer commanding in a particular area is in charge — he or she decides what medical services are delivered and what the doctors do within his or her brigade — and towards a centralised command structure based in Dublin, the Curragh or wherever. That is a sea change. In addition, qualified doctors who are currently engaged in considerable amounts of administrative work will no longer be doing so but instead will be providing medical services. The number of unnecessary assessments, which, in my view, are a waste of a qualified doctor's time, will be reduced, thus ensuring more efficiency. In addition, we must ensure recognition for people so it will be worth their while, career-wise, to enter the Army.
Deputy Deenihan asked if I had consulted with the Royal College of Physicians and so on. I have not done so because I personally am not implementing the report. It is a matter for the Defence Forces to implement it and report to me. Naturally, my Department will maintain oversight in the matter. The Department, in its discussions with the Defence Forces, has pointed out that the portrayal of the Army as a rewarding career is central in terms of attracting people. If work in this regard has not already commenced, it is about to do so. Initial contacts may already have been made. I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.
I call Deputy O'Shea on a brief supplementary question.
What I found most alarming in the report is the finding that medical corps activity is not aligned to the strategic requirements of the Defence Forces, which is a major indictment of what is happening. It underlines the urgency of the matter. The whole system is seriously out of sync. I am aware the Defence Forces is responsible for implementing the recommendations. However, I put it to the Minister that he must adopt a hands-on approach and ensure that, on a week to week basis, progress is being made.
The Minister stated that procedures in terms of sickness absence in the Permanent Defence Force is a driver of primary care demand as most sick leave requires certification by a doctor. As I stated earlier, there is a shortfall of 60% in this regard. The expert panel found that PDF policy emphasis on medical assessments is excessive and inconsistent with international defence health practice. The system, as described, is a shambles. Will the Minister assure us that he will adopt a hands-on approach and drive this?
A final supplementary question from Deputy Deenihan.
I suggest the Minister invite the steering committee to address the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on this issue. The opportunity presents for the setting up of a general practitioners training course within the medical corps. This would ensure that people who join could pursue, as part of their training, a general practitioners training course which would be of assistance to them in the community. This might encourage a number of people to join.
The last figure we received in respect of medical practitioners in the Defence Forces is 23. How many have we now and how many of them are non-national? Also, how many nurses are there in the Army?
Deputy O'Shea expressed the urgency of this matter, of which I am aware. My Department is represented on the steering and progress groups. I will keep in touch with staff of both groups. The Army medical service, developed in the 1930s and 1940s and perhaps suitable for the prevailing situation then, has not kept pace with change. I agree there is non-alignment between the strategy of the medical corps and that of the Defence Forces. We must, therefore, bring them into line. The current service is demand-driven and we need a strategy-driven medical service. That is the reality of the situation. It is what we must achieve. The Deputy can rest assured I will keep in close touch with the steering group in this regard.
On Deputy Deenihan's suggestion in regard to a GP training course and inviting the steering group to address the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I will discuss both issues with my officials. The current number of doctors is 24, one third of whom are non-national. I will check the figure for the number of nurses and communicate the information to the Deputy.
3 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the cost in the years 2002 to date in 2009 of the ministerial air transport service; the average cost of usage per Minister as charged; the full economic cost of the usage had it been charged; the average distance travelled by journey per Minister; the procedure by which usage is authorised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34971/09]
The ministerial air transport service, MATS, provides the Government and the President with an independent, flexible and effective air transport service to assist in meeting national and international obligations. The service is more flexible than commercial air travel in that it is not bound to set routes, timetables or schedules. This flexibility can be very important in a wide variety of situations. For example, where EU meetings end up taking longer than originally expected, it is vital that departure times can be altered as required at short notice. This helps Ministers to fulfil to the greatest extent possible all of their duties at home and abroad.
The service also has the distinct advantage of being able to operate from military air bases with all the flexibility that this brings. Government jets can fly closer to many intended destinations using military, rather than civil airports, and this can lead to substantial savings in travel time. The service offers a degree of privacy for the conduct of official business during flights which is not available on commercial flights and allows Ministers to carry out their duties with the maximum of efficiency. The availability of the service for special tasks in times of crisis ensures independence of movement on critical occasions.
The ministerial air transport service is primarily provided by the Gulfstream IV and Learjet 45 aircraft, which were specifically acquired for that purpose. The Gulfstream IV was acquired in December 1991 and the Learjet entered service in January 2004 as a replacement for the Beechcraft Super King Air. The Beechcraft continued in use until January 2009 as a backup aircraft for the MATS, in addition to its primary role as a pilot training aircraft. However, it is no longer available for Ministerial air transport or any other taskings.
Helicopters are used for ministerial air transport in situations where, for operational reasons, fixed wing aircraft are not available or the point of destination is not close to an airport and in circumstances where there is a requirement for greater flexibility than can be delivered by fixed wing aircraft. The CASA maritime patrol aircraft is occasionally tasked with MATS flights in exceptional circumstances and where the dedicated MATS aircraft are not available.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The use of any Air Corps aircraft for ministerial transport is subject to authorisation by the Taoiseach, taking into account several factors such as the necessity to undertake the engagement and amount of notice received, the demands of the particular schedule, the availability and suitability of other travel arrangements, overall cost considerations, the numbers in the delegation and security considerations. Once approved by an Taoiseach, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question, the Department of Defence and the Air Corps.
My Department follows normal practice in the aviation business of costing aircraft by reference to the cost per flying hour under either of two headings, namely, the direct cost, that is, the costs which are additional to those associated with having the aircraft and which only arise when the aircraft is flown, including maintenance, fuel and support services such as catering costs, cleaning services and airport handling charges; and the total cost, that is, the direct cost plus the costs associated with having the aircraft, for example, depreciation and personnel costs. The average hourly costs associated with Air Corps aircraft used in providing the ministerial air transport service in the period in question are contained the following tabular statement.
I would like to emphasise that the direct and total costs quoted are average costs which are calculated by taking a number of variables into account. It is not possible to assign an exact cost to any particular mission or Minister. These figures are kept under review and were updated in 2002, 2005 and 2009. The current estimated hourly costs associated with the Gulfstream IV are a direct cost of €4,050 per hour and a total cost of €7,890 per hour. The current estimated hourly costs associated with the Learjet are a direct cost of €1,270 and a total cost of €2,950 per hour. These two aircraft are the dedicated aircraft for the ministerial air transport service.
Ministerial usage of the service averages at 660 hours per year since 2002. Further details of hours flown per aircraft type are contained in the second following tabular statement. The cost of the ministerial air transport service is funded through the Defence Vote and not currently charged out to Ministers.
With regard to distance travelled by members of the Government on Air Corps aircraft, I am advised that the Air Corps does not use this method to calculate aircraft utilisation and, therefore, information on distance travelled is not available.
|
Aircraft |
2002 |
2005 |
2009 |
|||
|
Average Direct Cost Per Hour |
Average Total Cost Per Hour |
Average Direct Cost Per Hour |
Average Total Cost Per Hour |
Average Direct Cost Per Hour |
Average Total Cost Per Hour |
|
|
€ |
€ |
€ |
€ |
€ |
€ |
|
|
Gulfstream IV |
2,500 |
5,550 |
3,500 |
7,100 |
4,050 |
7,890 |
|
Learjet 45 |
— |
— |
1,000 |
2,100 |
1,270 |
2,950 |
|
Beechcraft |
900 |
1,400 |
1,200 |
1,600 |
1,320 |
1,770 |
|
CASA |
1,000 |
2,400 |
1,250 |
2,800 |
1,335 |
2,820 |
|
EC135 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
430 |
1,590 |
|
AW139 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
1,470 |
3,130 |
|
Alouette |
800 |
1,400 |
1,100 |
1,700 |
— |
— |
|
Dauphin |
1,700 |
2,800 |
1,650 |
3,100 |
— |
— |
|
Year |
Type |
Hours |
|
2002 |
Gulfstream IV |
335.00 |
|
Beechcraft |
21.83 |
|
|
CASA |
9.92 |
|
|
Dauphin |
3.33 |
|
|
Alouette |
11.08 |
|
|
TOTAL |
381.16 |
|
|
2003 |
Gulfstream IV |
505.37 |
|
Beechcraft |
79.67 |
|
|
CASA |
8.42 |
|
|
Dauphin |
9.17 |
|
|
TOTAL |
602.63 |
|
|
2004 |
Gulfstream IV |
487.08 |
|
Beechcraft |
121.67 |
|
|
Learjet |
413.08 |
|
|
Dauphin |
21.55 |
|
|
TOTAL |
1043.38 |
|
|
2005 |
Gulfstream IV |
395.75 |
|
Beechcraft |
90.00 |
|
|
Learjet |
293.83 |
|
|
CASA |
6.92 |
|
|
Dauphin |
19.58 |
|
|
Alouette |
1.00 |
|
|
TOTAL |
807.08 |
|
|
2006 |
Gulfstream IV |
411.52 |
|
Beechcraft |
89.75 |
|
|
Learjet |
232.67 |
|
|
CASA |
2.50 |
|
|
Alouette |
11.17 |
|
|
EC135 |
34.75 |
|
|
TOTAL |
782.36 |
|
|
2007 |
Gulfstream IV |
281.33 |
|
Beechcraft |
69.83 |
|
|
Learjet |
170.25 |
|
|
CASA |
2.42 |
|
|
A111 |
2.00 |
|
|
EC135 |
19.17 |
|
|
AW139 |
15.08 |
|
|
TOTAL |
560.08 |
|
|
2008 |
Gulfstream IV |
344.92 |
|
Beechcraft |
70.67 |
|
|
Learjet |
234.33 |
|
|
CASA |
4.58 |
|
|
EC135 |
23.17 |
|
|
AW139 |
22.67 |
|
|
TOTAL |
700.34 |
|
|
2009-to date |
Gulfstream IV |
179.50 |
|
Beechcraft |
0.75 |
|
|
Learjet |
186.50 |
|
|
EC135 |
7.67 |
|
|
AW139 |
12.83 |
|
|
TOTAL |
387.25 |
I believe the Minister was coming to the more pertinent part of my question.
The reply is lengthy and the Minister has only two minutes to reply. If the Deputy asks a brief supplementary question the Minister may be able to provide him with a lengthy reply.
I am sure the Minister will agree that this service should be based on need and relevance rather than convenience. Perhaps he will confirm the number of flying hours by Ministers in, for example, the past year or, if that statistic is not available to him, for 2008. What was the actual flying cost per hour?
There is a direct cost and indirect cost involved.
We are aware of that.
Which cost is the Deputy seeking?
The total cost.
The total cost includes the cost of depreciation of the aircraft, including wages, salaries and simply having the aircraft. One then adds to that figure the cost of fuel, maintenance, landing charges and so on and one gets the total cost. It costs a particular amount to keep the aircraft.
The average per hour, taking the total cost, depends on the type of aircraft used. I will go through the figures for the different aircraft.
The Minister need only give the figures in respect of Gulfstream IV.
The costs in that regard are the highest by far. For 2009, the average total cost is €7,890 per hour and the average direct cost is €4,050 per hour.
A trip to Brussels takes approximately two hours each way and the aircraft could be parked for a number of hours, costing up to €40,000, whereas a scheduled flight to Brussels for a person travelling business class costs approximately €2,000. Is an effort made at all times to consider the use of scheduled flights internally and externally so as to reduce the budget for this service? For how many flying hours did the Ministers use the jets and the helicopters in 2008 and last year? The Minister did not answer that.
The total to date in 2009 is 387.25 hours.
Was that just on the jet?
No, that was the total for everything.
What are the figures for within the country?
Am I answering a question or is this an exchange across the floor?
I am facilitating an exchange, if the Minister is happy with that. It is the best way to elucidate information. It would help, however, if one Deputy would sit down.
The total to date in 2009 is 387.25 hours. I will issue a tabular statement to the Deputy that includes all years from 2002. We had only a few days to put the information together but he will get it all. I have answered dozens of questions and freedom of information requests on this and all the information the Deputy is seeking is already in the public domain. We will, however, make it available again.
4 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that Ireland end its participation in Chad in March 2010 and rationalise its overseas commitments to a smaller number of key missions; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35067/09]
Despite the current difficult economic circumstances, the Government continues to support and commit resources and personnel wherever it can to support peace, security and development in trouble spots throughout the world.
Following Ireland's participation in the EU-led mission to Chad, the mandate of which expired on 14 March 2009, Ireland's initial commitment to the follow-on United Nations Mission in the Republic of Chad and the Central African Republic (MINURCAT) is for a period of one year to 14 March 2010.
Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. Decisions on all of the issues arising, including continued participation in MINURCAT and in other overseas missions, will be a matter for the Government in the context of the Estimates.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of the Estimates process.
This has been a successful mission, with very few incidents, led initially by Lieutenant General Pat Nash. It resulted in positive recognition of the country. Foreign missions are the lifeblood of any army so it is important from both a humanitarian and a logistical point of view that this mission continue after March and the Minister must signal his intentions soon. It took €20 million to move the equipment out to Chad and set up camp there. What will it cost to bring back that equipment instead of continuing the mission, which will be mostly paid by the United Nations?
I agree this has been a successful mission. There were initial doubts due to the logistical difficulties, the absence of air access and difficult terrain. General Nash and his people overcame those difficulties and the mission has been an outstanding success. Foreign missions are indeed the lifeblood of a peacekeeping defence force, which is what our Defence Forces are.
I take the point about the costs of sending people to Chad. The EU force came to an end on 14 March and the mission was then taken over by the United Nations. We have committed ourselves up to 14 March 2010 anyway, so the question is whether we go beyond that. Our mission to Chad costs about €7.5 million net per annum, even though we are getting money from the United Nations. The question of whether we can afford to continue will be a matter for the Estimates process. As the Deputy knows there is a crisis in the public finances and we must all find savings. I take the point about the money spent getting people out there and the success of the mission. I will recommend to Government when I am preparing my Estimates that we remain in Chad beyond 14 March 2010. I cannot give a definite guarantee the Government will agree to that but it is what I will propose.
I have consistently raised the issue of medical evacuation. The facilities that existed during the EU mission are no longer available. If the mission continues, will the Minister ensure medical evacuation facilities will be put in place?
If after the budgetary process the mission continues beyond 14 March 2010, and even in the interim, I will ensure that matter is attended to.
Question No. 5 answered with Question No. 2.
