Vol. 695 No. 2
1 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he has decided if participation in MINURCAT in Chad will continue beyond March 2010; if not, when he expects the decision to be taken; his views on this matter; the expected cost involved in the termination of participation in March 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42384/09]
I offer Deputy Deenihan my sincere condolences on his recent bereavement.
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 troublespots throughout the world. Following on from 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 Central African Republic and Chad, MINURCAT, is for a period of one year to 14 March 2010.
Planned expenditure levels for my Department are being considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This includes consideration of the McCarthy report. 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. Should the Government, in the context of the Estimates, decide to withdraw from Chad, the costs of the repatriation of troops and personnel from the now UN-led mission will be met by the UN.
Certain additional costs arise to the defence Vote on an annual basis from participation in overseas missions. The additional annual cost for participation in Chad, net of UN reimbursements, is approximately €8 million per annum. As such, withdrawal from Chad would result in a net saving to the Vote of a similar amount.
I thank the Minister for his expression of sympathy.
If the Irish withdrew from the mission, would it make it unviable? It would certainly make it very difficult for the United Nations to continue with the mission as it stands. That there is a group in training to take over in March 2010 is an indication that the mission will be continued. It would be very unfair to the personnel in training if the mission were not continued. Will the Minister be more specific and make a greater commitment in the House in view of the fact that the savings accruing from withdrawing would be negated by the cost of bringing the troops and equipment back to Ireland?
It is not that I do not want to be specific. I wish I could be but, as Deputy Deenihan will be aware, we are engaged in a very difficult Estimates process leading to the production of a budget on 9 December.
With regard to the viability of the mission in the absence of Irish troops, it is true that the authorised maximum number of personnel for MINURCAT is approximately 5,200. There are only approximately 2,600 in the field at present. I agree with the Deputy that the loss of 400 experienced Irish troops, who have been in the field from the beginning as part of the EUFOR mission, would be a major blow to the mission in Chad. I do not agree that the savings to the Defence Forces would be negated by the cost of bringing the troops home. That would be the position if the troops were still under the aegis of EUFOR but they are now under the aegis of the United Nations. The UN will have to meet the cost of bringing the Irish mission home from Chad.
Including equipment.
Yes.
I reassure the House that, because of the good work being done and the expertise being gained by the Irish troops, it is my preference that we continue in Chad. I am doing everything possible in the course of negotiations on the budget to ensure this outcome. However, I cannot give the House an absolute assurance.
The response to the Irish mission has been very positive in the refugee camps in Darfur and the refugees themselves and their leaders are very anxious to have the Irish stay.
Consider the Medevac facilities provided by the UN to ensure the mission will be well supported in terms of any evacuation that could occur, bearing in mind the possibility of an extension beyond March. Is the Minister happy with the level of facilities by comparison with the greater level provided when the mission was under the aegis of EUFOR?
I am aware of the views of the locals the mission is designed to serve. I am very conscious that the NGOs and UN personnel would all love to see the Irish stay.
There is a level-one medical facility in the Irish camp at Goz Beida and a level-two medical facility in Abeche. There is a dedicated Medevac helicopter located in Abeche on a 24-seven basis and there is a couple based in Goz Beida. The latter are not specifically for medical evacuation but can be used for this purpose in the event of an emergency. I am happy with the facilities.
2 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence if the Defence Force payroll savings being sought by him will be achieved through retirements; if so, if he will maintain current rates of pay for serving members; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42418/09]
The Defence Forces have improved in every respect since 2000 through the implementation of the White Paper. This represents a significant public service success story and has been acknowledged by both the Taoiseach and myself. Arising from the White Paper on Defence, we have created modern, well-equipped Defence Forces capable of meeting the needs of the Government and the public and ensuring value for money.
The White Paper on Defence set out a figure of 10,500 personnel for the Permanent Defence Force as the strength sufficient to deliver on the roles laid down by the Government for domestic operations and to provide a sufficient pool for rotation for overseas missions in addition to maintaining sufficient depth across the required range of skills.
The strength of the Defence Forces at 31 October 2009 was 10,013. This reduction has resulted from the moratorium on recruitment and promotion in the public service introduced by the Government in March of this year. I am acutely aware of the impact of the moratorium on the Permanent Defence Force, particularly in light of the very high turnover rate that is part of any military organisation. I am addressing the impact of the moratorium with my colleague, the Minister for Finance.
The Deputy will be aware that discussions are ongoing with the public sector trade unions affiliated to ICTU about mechanisms to deliver the required savings of up to €1.3 billion in the public sector pay bill in 2010. Discussions are also taking place between officials of my Department and the associations representing members of the Permanent Defence Force in parallel. While I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of these various discussions, it is my view that any agreement reached will apply across all sectors of the public service. In the context of the adjustments required in 2010, I do not, therefore, foresee scope to offset a reduction in numbers against pay levels within the defence sector specifically.
Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary processes for 2010. This will include consideration of the McCarthy report, and the decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes.
I find that answer somewhat disappointing. It is obvious that more than 500 members will have left the Defence Forces by 31 December. The Government's target of having a payroll cut of 6.85% will be achieved because the figure of 500 — the true figure will be in excess of this — is one eleventh, or approximately 9%, of the full complement. Therefore, the saving will be more than achieved. If an organisation such as the Defence Forces achieves the cut the Government seeks, why can it not be treated in isolation as a special case?
I have told the Deputy my opinion, namely, that reductions in public sector pay must be applied across the board. Admittedly, they must be applied in a way such that those who can bear them most will bear them most and that there will be as little impact as possible on those who can bear them least.
I have made the point to the Minister for Finance that, because of the high turnover in the Irish military, as with any military, the moratorium has hit the Army very hard. The complement has reduced to 10,013. Nevertheless, the Army is in good shape and is well trained and well equipped. It is lean and mean and a far better organisation than it was before the White Paper was implemented. However, I am concerned by the precipitative drop in numbers, particularly over the past nine months. I made proposals to the Minister for Finance to allow me scope to recruit, not solely at the level of enlisted personnel, and also to make promotions and recognise certain people acting in positions above their rank. We have almost reached a conclusion on those deliberations. I spoke to the Minister about it as late as yesterday and today. We will have reached a conclusion before 9 December. I am conscious of the importance of the Army's role both at home and abroad. My aim in these difficult budgetary discussions is to maintain operational capability in the Army and command arrangements.
From what the Minister said, it appears that despite how well a particular Department, organisation or agency performs in terms of reducing numbers and achieving saving targets, the Government's approach will be an across-the-board cut, albeit that it may be less at the lower levels. That appears to be what the Minister is saying.
The Minister indicated that his talks with the Minister for Finance reached conclusion today. Does that mean he has reached agreement?
No, I said that we have almost concluded our deliberations. We have until just before the budget and we will have reached a conclusion before then. I agree with Deputy O'Shea that the Defence Force is the only public sector organisation in the country where numbers have fallen in the past ten years. I have pointed that out to my Government colleagues and I am putting forward that as a consideration when we are discussing the savings that will apply to the defence sector. Let us make no mistake, however, all sectors have to play their part. I am simply trying to get recognition for what has been achieved already. I hope that will be the case.
3 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the number of posts within the Defence Forces vacant due to the moratorium as of 1 November 2009; the number per brigade and by service; if he has been requested by the Chief of Staff or others in the Defence Forces to vary the nature of the moratorium in view of the impact it is having on the functioning of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42385/09]
The White Paper on Defence of February 2000 sets out a figure of 10,500 personnel for the Permanent Defence Force comprising 930 for the Air Corps, 1,144 for the Naval Service and 8,426 for the Army. I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force as at 31 October 2009 was 10, 013 broken down as follows: 807 for the Air Corps, 1,031 for the Naval Service and 8,175 for the Army. On 31 October 2009 the difference between the authorised strength of the Defence Forces and the actual strength was therefore 487. The distribution of these vacancies between the various formations is being managed by the Chief of Staff on an ongoing basis. The detailed breakdown between the various formations is not immediately available and can be forwarded to the Deputy if required.
I am acutely aware of the impact of the moratorium on the Permanent Defence Force, particularly in light of the very high turnover rate that is part of any military organisation. I am monitoring that impact on an ongoing basis in conjunction with the Chief of Staff and my departmental officials. Specific requirements have been identified and I am in ongoing contact with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, regarding limited exceptions to the moratorium, which are targeted at maintaining the operational capability and command arrangements of the Permanent Defence Force.
To date, I have obtained sanction to fill a number of key posts, including Deputy Chief of Staff, operations, two brigadier-general posts and director of military prosecutions as well as achieving agreement to recruit 42 cadets for which the competition has been recently run. In addition, sanction was granted for 42 acting appointments for our mission to Chad and 20 for Kosovo. I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government at home and overseas.
The Defence Forces have improved in every respect since 2000 through the implementation of the White Paper. This represents a significant public service success story. However, the economic reality is such that the defence organisation must contribute to the correction of the public finances. I intend, with the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively across all roles. Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. That will include consideration of the McCarthy report and the decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government.
The Minister has more or less accepted that the continued extension of the recruitment and promotions ban is affecting the operational efficiency of the organisation to some extent. He is no doubt aware that staff are acting up to a level for which they are not qualified. The services are being carried out on a must-do basis because of legal and personnel requirements. The operational efficiency of the organisation is currently affected. Those persons who were due for promotion before the moratorium should be entitled to be promoted.
Did the Minister indicate that there would be a recruitment drive for the Permanent Defence Forces next year, and that he would get that concession to make up for the approximately 500 members he has lost to date?
I am aware of the difficulties the moratorium is causing, not just in the Defence Forces but in other parts of the public sector. It is a necessary measure to bring the public finances back into order, which everyone agrees should be done. The moratorium has hit the Army particularly hard because there is a high level of turnover in any military organisation. The problems adverted to by Deputy Deenihan have been brought to my attention. That is why I have asked the Minister for Finance, first, to recognise certain acting-up appointments, second, to allow me to go ahead with a certain number of promotions, including in those instances to which Deputy Deenihan referred and, third, to allow me to start recruiting now to the Permanent Defence Forces so that the numbers do not drop any further, as they inevitably will unless we proceed with some recruitment now.
Our discussions have not concluded yet, but I have made the strongest case possible to the Minister for Finance. I have spoken to him on a number of occasions and the matter will be concluded shortly. I do not wish to pre-empt what the conclusion will be but the Deputy knows my aims.
Given that the Army probably will be called in next Tuesday in a significant way, is the Minister satisfied that the personnel is available to it at this stage in spite of the lack of recruitment and promotion to meet the tasks the Government might assign next Tuesday? Is he satisfied the necessary capacity is available?
I am advised by the Chief of Staff and the Army command that the Army remains fit for purpose for whatever duties might be assigned to it either at home or abroad.
4 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the cost of new riot gear bought in 2009 for use by the Defence Forces; the reason for buying the new gear in 2009; if the buying of new riot gear is related to fears of civil disturbances here in the immediate future; if the Defence Forces have received additional training over and above that normally provided with regard to peace support missions abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42455/09]
The primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order rests with the Garda Síochána. The Defence Forces, pursuant to their role of rendering aid to the civil power, assist the gardaí as required in a range of duties, which include the provision of troops for cash escorts, prison escorts and the provision of military guards at a number of vital installations.
As part of the aid to the civil power role, the Defence Forces continues to maintain an anti-riot capability in order to meet a contingent and operational capability at home and overseas respectively. The Defence Forces Annual Training Plan provides for training in a broad spectrum of such aid to the civil power related activities. This training plan also includes riot control training and the maintenance of stand-to parties for the purpose of rendering assistance to the Garda Síochána at demonstrations and marches, if such assistance is sought by the gardaí.
It is essential, therefore, that all military personnel involved in such training be suitably equipped from the health and safety perspective. In that regard, the provision of suitable personal protective equipment for the Defence Forces is a matter which is kept under review in my Department and the procurement of a range of equipment for use by the Defence Forces for training on aid to the civil power duties and for overseas service was undertaken this year.
The equipment included the acquisition of personal protective equipment for use by the Defence Forces in public order and crowd and riot control operations at home and overseas. This equipment affords protection for personnel from the threats of airborne thrown missiles, hand held weapons and from violent physical contact. In addition, protective shields and batons were also acquired for the Defence Forces to replace existing stocks, which had not been replenished for a number of years. The total expenditure on the equipment this year is €344,000 inclusive of VAT.
I can confirm that the purchase of this equipment was planned as a replacement programme due to fair wear and tear of equipment during normal training and is not related, as the Deputy asks, to any fears of civil disturbance in this country in the immediate future. The equipment is required to enable the Defence Forces to train and carry out its roles at home and overseas to the highest possible international standards and best practice. The purchase of this equipment is a small element of an overall equipment modernisation programme which has seen tremendous strides made in the equipment now available to Defence Forces personnel at all levels to cover the varied roles they are engaged in on a daily basis.
I welcome the Minister's clarification of the question about the issue of being involved in aid to civil power in certain circumstances.
Regarding aid to civil power, will the Minister confirm if the group on emergency planning, for example, which will be critical next Tuesday, has met this year and, if so, the number of times it met? Also, what role does the Minister envisage the Army having next Tuesday in the event of being needed for fire services, even in this House, by local authorities, in prisons and so forth? Are contingency plans in place that will avail of the Defence Forces in certain circumstances next Tuesday?
That is expanding the nature of the question, which is about the purchase of riot gear.
It is to do with aid to civil power.
The Army has two roles domestically — aid to the civil power, which we have been discussing, and aid to the civil authority, which means the Army can be called in in the event of an emergency. The emergency planning committee meets approximately once every month or six weeks; a meeting is due to take place in the next week or so. The last meeting was three or four weeks ago. There are long-standing arrangements in place and liaison between the Army and the various emergency services. The Army will be available if required, as it usually is in the event of an emergency, in its role as being able to be called on as an aid to the civil authority as opposed to as an aid to the civil power. Aid to the civil power is a matter of whether the gardaí want the Army's assistance.
Has the Minister addressed this problem specifically? There could be chaos in this country next Tuesday. As Minister for Defence, has the Minister examined the role, in terms of emergency planning and the Government interdepartmental working group, that the Army may have to play? Has he not even considered that or does he believe the Army will have a role next Tuesday?
I do not immediately see a role for the Army next Tuesday but we have looked at that. Arrangements are in place whereby the Army can be called upon if needed. There are well-known lines of authority in that regard and long-standing arrangements which can be put in place.
5 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General which has highlighted the failure to follow proper procurement guidelines in obtaining the helicopters for the Chad mission and the inability of the aircraft to carry passengers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42329/09]
I can assure the Deputy and the House that I am fully aware of the audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the leasing of helicopters by the Defence Forces for Chad and I am advised that the findings of the report have been accepted in full by my Department.
The findings outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General are broadly in line with the findings of the investigation carried out by the internal audit unit of the Department of Defence, which was finalised in February 2009.
It is important to take into account the overall context in which the issues regarding the contracting of the helicopters occurred. The deployment and sustainment of the Defence Forces contingent to Chad was the most challenging logistics project ever undertaken by the Defence Forces. The unprecedented extent and nature of the deployment meant that the project was a very important learning exercise for the Defence Forces. Overall, the very difficult task of deploying and sustaining the Irish Battalion has been accomplished in a very professional manner.
Given the remoteness of the Irish Battalion's base in Goz Beida, the absence of a road infrastructure, the isolation anticipated during the rainy season and the considerable distance from the nearest hospital, the need for comprehensive helicopter support was recognised from the outset.
The authority to procure air support for the Defence Forces, including helicopters, was delegated to the Chief of Staff. A contract was signed by the Defence Forces at the end of May 2008 with a UK company, Air Partner, for the charter of two Mi-8T helicopters for use in Chad. The two civilian registered helicopters arrived in theatre in Chad on 28 June 2008. The contract duration was originally scheduled for ten months and was subsequently extended by a further six months.
In late September 2008, a question arose on the certification of these helicopters for transport of passengers. On further investigation, it was discovered that the helicopters were classified as cargo carrying only in the air operator certificate. The issue was a regulatory and licensing issue relating to civilian registered helicopters and did not reflect in any way on the safety, technical or operational capacity of the helicopters.
Pending the resolution of the matter, the helicopters were restricted to cargo transport only for a period of time. The certification matter was resolved when the company replaced the helicopters with two other helicopters, which were appropriately certified at no additional cost to the Department. The new helicopters became operational in January 2009.
In purely operational terms, the contracted helicopters performed well in service and provided vital support to the Defence Forces. The requirement for the helicopters was very much a real one. Even when their use was temporarily restricted in 2008 while the certification issue was being resolved, the helicopters continued to fill an important role by providing logistic support. They remained available as emergency cover for casualty evacuation. They continued, therefore, to provide an essential capability throughout the period.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The findings and recommendations in the Department's internal audit report have been fully accepted and acted upon. First, the procedures for delegating authority to military personnel generally have been reviewed and strengthened. This was done by a thorough review and amendment of the delegation instruments by which the Secretary General of my Department delegates budgetary control and responsibility to the Chief of Staff. In addition, the terms of reference of the civil-military high level planning and procurement group have been revised to ensure that all procurement decisions are monitored at the point of decision to go to tender and before contract award. Finally, the military authorities have provided additional training to military personnel on procurement procedures, and further courses have been and will continue to be scheduled on a regular basis.
I want to ask the Minister a number of specific questions. Why was only one charter company approached with regard to the leasing of helicopters for the mission? Also, why was the advice of the contracts branch in his Department, which was given in March 2008, that the existing framework agreement did not make provision for helicopter lease ignored? Also, why was Air Partner asked to more or less evaluate its own documentation which effectively meant that the tenderer was involved in evaluating its own proposal? There should have been expertise within the Defence Forces and the Air Corps to do that entire task. Those are three specific questions.
What procedures have been put in place to ensure that similar problems will not occur in the future? Have such procedures been put in place and, if not, when will that be done?
Deputy Deenihan asked the reason only one company was approached and the normal tendering process not undergone. As I was not personally involved in this, nor were the civilian staff in my Department — this was done by the military — I can only try to guess what happened. To put the matter in context, we were going into a position which, for reasons I have outlined in my reply, air support was essential. We had 400 troops in the middle of the desert in one of the most logistically difficult countries in the world, with a road infrastructure of approximately 300 km in a country which is double the size of France. Air support was essential.
When we joined the EUFOR mission our understanding was that our partners in the EUFOR mission would supply the requisite air support, and we literally found ourselves let down at the last minute. I am not saying things were done right because there was a rush, but this may explain the reason things were not done right. The people involved in this have put their hands up. The internal report conducted by my Department was reinforced by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and found that there was fault in the way the contract was placed. We admit that and we regret it. The Chief of Staff wrote to me apologising for what happened. The normal procedure would be that we should have a proper tendering process, and various people tender. What should have happened also, as Deputy Deenihan rightly states, is that the Air Corps should have been consulted and the business case should have been put in writing to be evaluated by the high level group.
Deputy Deenihan asked what was done. A number of things have been done. The moment this matter was brought to our attention we revoked the authority to carry passengers. For three months, the company was restricted to the terms of its air certification, namely to carry only cargo to supply the troops. It was, however, available for medical evacuation purposes in the event of an emergency.
We instituted an internal inquiry through the audit section of my Department. The new procedures mean that the method by which authority is delegated to the military for performing specific tasks has been tightened up considerably. There will be no doubt in future about who has the delegated authority and the scope of that authority. The high level military civilian procurement group will now examine and monitor these contracts when they go to tender rather than just before the contract is to be placed. It will occur at a much earlier stage in the process, which will enable more discussion and evaluation.
This type of procurement was relatively new to the Defence Forces and they have since received further training in procurement procedures. They will be wiser in future.
Has any consideration been given to the internal authorisation limits? At the moment, they are €750,000, whereas this was €3 million. Has consideration been given to increasing those limits so people will be able to authorise contracts for more than €750,000 at this level?
I am almost fully certain that the limit has been raised to €1 million.
