I suggest that the Minister makes a brief opening statement followed by equally brief statements by the Opposition spokespersons. We will then proceed to consider the subheads individually.
Estimates for Public Services, 1999.
Vote 36: Defence.
Vote 37: Army Pensions.
I am pleased to bring forward for the committee's consideration the Defence and Army Pensions Estimates for 1999. Before dealing with those in detail, I wish to refer again to yesterday's tragic events.
The tragic incident involving the death of Private Kedian is most disturbing. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Twice already this year I have had occasion to request that the matter of firings close to Irishbatt positions by Israeli Defence Force/De Facto Force personnel be protested by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the strongest manner to the Israeli authorities. In the most serious of the earlier incidents, two Irishbatt personnel, Corporal Noel Roche and Private John Flaherty, were injured when a mortar round impacted on the roof of UN position 6-38 at Haddathah. It was extremely fortunate that their injuries were not more serious or that there was no loss of life on that occasion.
In the case of yesterday's tragic occurrence, Irishbatt personnel have reported that the first of two mortars fired impacted 15 metres south/south west of position 6-42 (Brashit). There were Israeli markings on the percussion cap, and crater analysis indicated that the mortar was fired from the general direction of Israeli Defence Force/De Facto Force Compound W 144. The second mortar, which impacted within position 6-42 and which caused the death and injuries, also bore Israeli markings.
I am greatly perturbed by this latest incident which has had such tragic consequences. The military authorities believe that the Irish Battalion position was deliberately targeted, as was the case earlier in February this year. Against this background, and in view of the tragic loss of a young soldier's life and the serious injuries sustained by another, I have requested the Minister for Foreign Affairs to protest the matter in the strongest possible manner to the Israeli authorities.
I take this opportunity to once again acknowledge the contribution the Defence Forces make to Irish society. As a nation we take pride in the excellent work carried out by the Defence Forces at home and in overseas missions. The patience and diplomacy of Irish soldiers serving down through the years have helped make very significant inroads in maintaining peace and allowing normal day-to-day life proceed in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, yesterday's tragic incident highlights the fact that there are risks attaching to such service.
Turning to other matters, I will now up-date the committee on recent and on-going developments in the Defence Forces. As Deputies are aware, a programme of reform and reorganisation of the Defence Forces has been under way for the past few years. It is fair to say that the reform process is the most substantial and wide ranging experienced by the organisation since the foundation of the State.
The main impetus for reform and change came from studies carried out under the auspices of the efficiency audit group - EAG - especially the report of management consultants, Price Waterhouse. These studies demonstrated the need for major reform of the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces to ensure they would have the capacity to carry out the roles approved by Government in the most efficient and effective manner.
The Defence Forces review implementation plan was approved by the Government in March 1996. The plan set out the reforms to be implemented in the three year period 1996-8. It was prepared with the full participation and agreement of the military authorities. It constituted the first phase of a reform programme which Price Waterhouse estimated would take ten years to fully implement.
The first phase of the reform programme has now been substantially completed. For the information of Deputies I will give a brief up-date on what has been achieved to date. Following the enactment of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1998, a new organisational structure for Defence Forces Headquarters was put in place in October last. This involved a revision of the range of statutory duties of the Chief of Staff and the allocation of the duties of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General to two new appointments of Deputy Chief of Staff, one with responsibility for operational matters and the second for support matters.
The revised duties of the Chief of Staff give a new emphasis and focus to his responsibility for the effectiveness, efficiency, military organisation and economy of the Defence Forces. The previous arrangement whereby statutory responsibilities were shared between the top three military appointments has been replaced by a more streamlined management system which enhances the position of the Chief of Staff in line with the recommendations in the consultant's report.
Last November the revised regional organisation of the Army, as proposed in the implementation plan, was brought into effect. This involved changing from four territorial commands and five brigade headquarters to three brigades and a training centre. The task of amalgamating various service support units into a new logistics corps and rationalising operational units is being actively pursued. Under the new arrangement there will be nine larger size infantry battalions instead of the current 11. These structural changes are designed to reduce the number of layers in the military organisation, to increase unit sizes and to enhance the operational capability of the Defence Forces.
These reforms would count for very little if the emotive and thorny issue of barrack closures had not been tackled in a positive way. For many years it had been obvious that the Defence Forces had far too many barracks and that the pattern of deployment was more appropriate to an army of occupation in another era and took no account of modern methods of transport and communications. The proliferation of installations has been a significant cause of wasteful duplication in areas such as stores, catering and administration. The burden of guarding installations has been a major drain on personnel resources. In addition to hindering the working capacity of the Defence Forces, the dispersal of troops over an excessive number of locations has also impeded collective training in the Defence Forces, which requires the concentration of troops in large numbers. The need to maintain an unnecessary network of old buildings has led to major expense on building repairs and maintenance to the detriment of providing more up-to-date and important new facilities.
Five of the six barracks approved for closure by the Government in July 1998 were vacated by September and the sixth, Clancy Barracks, will be vacated next year. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all concerned for the positive manner in which the various military units were relocated within a very short period of time. While everything is not yet perfect at the new locations, I believe the vast majority of the people affected recognise the huge amount of work that has already been done or is now in train to ensure that the accommodation and facilities at the new locations are up to the highest possible standards.
A very important element of the Government's approval of my proposal to close barracks was the agreement that 60 per cent of the proceeds from the sale of the six barracks will be made available for investment in infrastructure and facilities at other barracks. Total revenue from barrack sales is estimated at approximately £50 million, which means that an estimated £30 million will be available for the redevelopment of other installations.
A programme of investment centred on the Curragh Camp and Collins Barracks, Cork, and covering the three years, 1999-2001, has been drawn up and is now well under way. Funding of £6 million is provided in this year's Defence Estimate under Subhead V. Expenditure this year will mainly be related to the engagement of design consultants with the bulk of the programme expenditure expected to arise in 2000. Expenditure on the barrack investment programme arising from the sale of barracks is additional to the on-going normal expenditure on new building works, which has been substantial in recent years. Some £11.1 million is provided this year for such projects.
The voluntary early retirement scheme which commenced in 1996 concluded in 1998. Over 1,500 members of the Permanent Defence Forces availed of the scheme at a total cost over the three years of approximately £65 million. The VER scheme has helped to address the age profile problem, to reduce the unacceptably high number of soldiers who were unfit for full medical duties and to create scope for the recruitment of young, physically fit personnel. A policy of regular on-going recruitment is now in place within the overall approved strength level of 11,500 provided for in the implementation plan. Over 600 recruits were enlisted in both 1997 and 1998 and arrangements are under way to enlist over 550 personnel this year. The fruits of this policy are in evidence in the higher proportion of younger soldiers in units throughout the country and especially in the fact that approximately 45 per cent of the current UNIFIL contingent are on their first overseas assignment.
Commencing in the current year, there are annual net pay savings of approximately £15 million arising from the reduction in strength of the PDF over the past three years. It has been agreed that half of these savings will be made available to the Defence Vote to provide additional funding for equipment and infrastructural programmes. These savings will be used to purchase 40 armoured personnel carriers over five years. The sum of £7.5 million, representing 50 per cent of this year's pay savings, is included in the 1999 Estimate under subhead G - Defensive Equipment.
As Deputies will be aware, two armoured personnel carriers are at present undergoing testing by the military authorities as part of the competition in progress to select the most suitable vehicle for the needs of the Defence Forces. I expect that a contract will be signed later this year and that the first APCs will be delivered towards the end of next year.
While we must be mindful of the many significant changes and developments which have either been completed or are in the process of being implemented, it is important to look to the future. This Government made a commitment to the publication of the first ever White Paper on Defence. This is a major undertaking. It will provide a framework for the evolution of a national defence policy and the continuing reorganisation process in the Defence Forces.
Overall, the White Paper presents a positive opportunity to map out a strategy for the development of the Defence Forces and Civil Defence over the next ten years. A range of foundation work is now under way which will form the basis of the future planning elements of the White Paper. These foundation elements relate to an assessment of the defence and security environment, an examination of the progress already made in the reorganisation of the Defence Forces and the White Paper consultative process. To date, the consultative process has involved the receipt of 45 written submissions from a wide range of individuals, groups and organisations. A series of informal consultation meetings have now begun between the civil and military members of the Department's White Paper project management group and a number of individuals, groups and organisations. These meetings will provide an opportunity for further elaboration and exploration of aspects of the written submissions. In addition, full consultations will take place with the Defence Forces representative associations in relation to their submissions.
The timetable for the White Paper will depend on the completion of the consultative and planning elements and the subsequent work. Subject to the satisfactory completion of this work, the aim is to finalise proposals for submission to the Government by late summer. As I have said, the White Paper will provide a framework within which the reform process can continue. Among the areas for development are the Air Corps and Naval Service.
The Defence Forces review implementation plan made specific provision for the special studies of the Air Corps and the Naval Service on the basis that the initial Price Waterhouse review had necessarily concentrated on the Army. The Government considered the Price Waterhouse reviews of the Air Corps and the Naval Service in the middle of last year. A planning and implementation process was set in train to give effect to the Government's decision.
The Price Waterhouse report sets out a range of recommendations for more effective and efficient air and sea services. Some of these recommendations can be proceeded with fairly quickly while others will take longer. As with the reorganisation of the Army, the changes in the Air Corps and the Naval Service will be of a positive nature aimed at ensuring the ongoing development of these services consistent with the needs of the State and those of the taxpayer.
It is important that implementation of the recommendations is undertaken in a planned way which has regard to the development of the Defence Forces as a whole. This is why I have asked the Chief of Staff in conjunction with the General Officer commanding the Air Corps and the Flag Officer commanding the Naval Service to submit implementation plans for my consideration to give effect to the effectiveness and efficiency recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report. The Chief of Staff has received draft implementation plans and work is continuing on the military side to finalise these for my consideration. The plans will include the necessary steps for the relocation of Air Corps and Naval Service headquarters to Casement aerodrome and Haulbowline, respectively. In directing that the headquarters of both services be relocated as the initial step in the reorganisation process in the Air Corps and Naval Service, I am giving a firm and tangible indication of my commitment to this process.
In parallel, and as part of the general White Paper process, I asked the Chief of Staff for proposals to address the long-term air and sea requirements of the State from a military perspective. These proposals will form the basis for the longer term development of the Air Corps and Naval Service to complement the ongoing effectiveness and efficiency measures. I recently received the Chief of Staff's initial proposals and these are currently being considered. Of course these proposals, including the question of future requirements for aircraft and ships, will have to be assessed and evaluated in the broader overall context of the White Paper on Defence.
I have also emphasised the importance of involving all of the relevant stakeholders in the process. Accordingly, I have established a special consultation group to provide a forum for the input of the key stakeholders in relation to the State's air and sea services. This consultation group, which I chair, comprises representatives from the civil and military branches of my Department, from the Department of Marine and Natural Resources, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
As I mentioned, draft implementation plans were recently submitted to the Chief of Staff and these are currently being finalised for my consideration. Once these plans have been received the consultative group's principal work will begin. Further meetings of the group will be held as the planning and implementation process develops.
Full consultations will take place with the Defence Forces representative associations in accordance with the normal system of representation. In addition, arrangements are being put in place to ensure that the representative associations are kept informed of developments. However, I must add that I am conscious of the need for a balance to be maintained between such consultations on the one hand and my duty as Minister in relation to the formulation of defence policy on the other.
Another area of defence which requires development is the Reserve Defence Forces, principally the FCA and An Slua Muirí. It was recognised in the Defence Forces review implementation plan that a special study of the Reserve Defence Forces was necessary. The military board which is charged with doing the detailed work of the review will shortly submit its final report to the Chief of Staff. This will be considered by the special civil-military steering group which will report to me soon after. The study will form the basis for positive development of the Reserves as an important voluntary element in our society in the years ahead.
While I am on the subject of the Reserves, I wish to commend the commitment and dedication displayed down the years by members of the FCA and An Slua Muirí - all on a voluntary basis. These people have made an invaluable contribution to so many communities throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Of course while these studies are being brought to a conclusion, other positive developments are continuing to take place in the Defence Forces. In the Naval Service the new fishery patrol vessel, which will cost over £20 million, will be delivered next September. Five of the existing Naval Service vessels have undergone major refitting in the past few years, the most recent being the LE Eithne which was completed earlier this year in the naval dockyard, Haulbowline at a cost of over £2 million. The two remaining vessels - the LE Orla and LE Ciara - will undergo refurbishment over the next two years with work starting on the LE Orla this year.
A £3.9 million contract was placed last year for the supply of 16 turrets and fire directing systems for fitting to existing Panhard armoured cars. The first two turrets and fire directing systems were delivered and fitted in April of this year and the balance will be delivered towards the end of the year.
A major programme to provide the Defence Forces with modern tactical VHF radios at an overall cost of over £10 million was brought to completion at the end of 1998 with the delivery of the final batch of radios and equipment. These radios use state of the art electronic technology, including encryption and frequency hopping, and make up a totally secure communications network for the Defence Forces.
The need to provide modern vehicles has been given particular attention in recent years and a further substantial amount is being provided this year for troop carrying trucks and for vehicles employing the latest technology for the transportation of stores and equipment in standardised loads.
There are at present about 750 personnel of the Defence Forces serving with 15 missions under the auspices of the UN, the EU and the OSCE. In October 1998, I signed, on behalf of Ireland, a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations in relation to the United Nations Standby Arrangements System - UNSAS. We are committed to provide up to 850 military personnel for UN service at any one time under UNSAS. The decision to participate in UNSAS is a tangible expression of Ireland's continuing commitment to involvement in peacekeeping operations.
Following the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU common foreign and security policy provides for a new role for the EU in the fields of peacekeeping and the prevention and management of international crises through the inclusion in the Treaty of the Petersburg Tasks. The Petersburg Tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks and peacekeeping tasks. Ireland will be entitled to participate in such missions and we have indicated our willingness to do so on a case by case basis.
The Government has indicated that it is proposed that Ireland will join Partnership for Peace on a mutually agreed basis in the second half of 1999. As regards the implications for the Defence Forces of a decision to participate in PfP, it is envisaged that any future role for the Defence Forces would be in the area of peacekeeping and humanitarian and rescue tasks - all activities in line with the Defence Forces traditional involvement and experience in these areas.
Turning to the issue of loss of hearing claims, a major challenge for my Department in recent years has been the management of the unprecedented volume of compensation claims from current and former members of the Defence Forces for alleged loss of hearing due to their military service. By 19 May 1999, a total of over 14,200 claims had been received. Although there has been a marked decline in the numbers of new claims arriving, the Department is still receiving approximately 100 new claims every month. Some 3,300 claims have been dealt with to date at a cost of £61 million. Plaintiffs' legal costs amount to an additional £17.2 million. The average quantum of settlement for claims is of the order of £13,000 in 1999 - down from over £34,000 in 1995.
It had been hoped that the acceptance by the courts of the Green Book system of measuring hearing disability, which was published in April 1998, and the setting of a reasonable compensation tariff based on that system, would form the basis upon which a non-court compensation scheme could be established. However, the tariff laid down by the High Court in the case of Hanley v Minister for Defence in July 1998 was a serious setback for this proposal. The State has lodged a certificate of readiness with the Supreme Court in the appeal of the Hanley case, and I understand that it will be heard on 1 July 1999.
As the committee will be aware, I announced last February that I had directed officials of my Department to draft proposals for a hearing loss compensation scheme for serving and former military personnel. This work is in progress and will obviously be influenced by the outcome of the Hanley appeal in the Supreme Court.
The main issue in the State's appeal of the Hanley case is the scale of damages laid down by the High Court. If this tariff were to be reduced, I would envisage that the vast majority of claims could transfer from the courts to an out of court compensation scheme which I propose to establish. This compensation scheme will provide for the speedy resolution of claims by reference to established and accepted criteria of assessment and compensation rather than a tribunal with attendant delay and representation costs.
The cost to the Exchequer of the proposed scheme will, of course, depend on the scale of compensation under the scheme, as well as on the number of applications which are received. In recommending the level of compensation to the Government, I must be mindful of striking an equitable balance between the rights of claimants with genuine injuries and what can be afforded by the taxpayer while having regard to the view of the Supreme Court on these cases. I would, however, be hopeful that if the majority of legal claims were to transfer to the compensation scheme, the cost of resolving these would be substantially less than they otherwise would, both in terms of quantum and legal costs. In the meantime, the Department is continuing to settle current cases on an out of court basis where a reduction on the Hanley level of damages can be achieved.
In conclusion, I wish to affirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that the Defence Forces are organised, trained and equipped to carry out their very important tasks in an efficient and effective manner. As we prepare to turn the century, I am confident that the Defence Forces will successfully meet the challenges ahead.
Chairman, if I have been unable to meet the criterion of a short presentation, it is because of a number of issues in my Department of which I wanted the committee to be aware.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Defence Estimates. Obviously at Estimates time the focus is on the Defence Forces and this debate takes place in the shadow of very difficult circumstances, with the death of one member and injury of another in the Lebanon.
It is hard to focus on the Estimates in the circumstances because it brings home to each and everyone the huge contribution the Irish peacekeeping force has made. I remember many years ago hearing about the deaths in the Congo and the effect they had on the public at that time. They raised awareness of the role of the Defence Forces in peacekeeping throughout the world, and the same feeling was obvious yesterday. The peacekeeping role of the Defence Forces goes on quietly and unsung and only at a time of tragedy do we focus on their work internationally. The same applies to their role at home where their work is often hidden. The Defence Forces provide the basic security in the country and give basic support to other agencies but their work goes unsung.
In recent weeks the focus has been on the political context in which the Defence Forces will operate. It would appear at this stage that the Government has made the decision that the Defence Forces will operate in the context of Partnership for Peace. I welcome that. Given the number of conflicts in the world and the need for high quality peacekeeping and peace enforcement, the opportunity to train with and be involved in exercises with other forces is important for our Defence Forces. In the longer term it will contribute greatly to dealing with conflicts throughout the world. It is easy to forget the conflicts until you see at first hand the work that goes on in the Lebanon, which so frequently goes unreported - for example, communication with local communities, the de-escalation of tensions between the two warring communities and the humanitarian work. The public only sees the work of the Defence Forces internationally at a time of crisis, as we have in the Lebanon at present.
The moves of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Barak, will have implications for the future of peacekeeping in the Lebanon. We may be entering a dangerous period, given the political moves that may be developing. I hope every effort can be made through the UN and diplomatic channels to ensure that UNIFIL do not become a target once again, as they did on this occasion. There have been a great many near misses and the Minister is very unhappy with the situation. It is very difficult for the troops. Given the very difficult political position, it will be more unstable and difficult for the local population if troops withdraw. I hope every effort will be made by our representatives at the UN and internationally to ensure we do what we can to press for as much stability as possible so that our peacekeeping force will not be at further risk.
A White Paper on the Defence Forces is due. I have previously expressed concern that the White Paper on Defence could be used as an excuse to delay implementation of the Price Waterhouse report, which would be extremely bad for morale. I am concerned at the slow rate of implementation of the recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report, particularly in relation to the Air Corps and the Naval Service. I question the lack of investment in the Air Corps and the Naval Service. What is very striking in the Estimates is the amount of money being spent on maintenance in these areas, and it has increased dramatically, whereas decisions on capital investment have not been made. What is the timescale for capital investment in the Air Corps and the Naval Service? Has the Minister discussed this matter with the Minister for Finance? Is the Minister for Finance still maintaining the position his Department held in its infamous memorandum as a submission to the White Paper? I welcome the Minister's views on capital investment in both services.
It is clear from an elementary assessment of the demands made on the Naval Service that we have a fewer vessels than required to provide the services for monitoring, fisheries protection, environmental protection, tackling pollution and intercepting drugs. An analysis of the number of vessels that other countries have shows we have far fewer for the area we patrol. We should analyse how we intend to deal with this in the years ahead. I have raised at Question Time on a number of occasions the very poor condition of the Air Corps fleet and it would appear from the Estimates there are no plans to tackle this in the short-term.
The Minister has not given a timetable for the publication of the White Paper - the Taoiseach mentioned June, but today is 1 June - and it would be unfortunate if its publication was further delayed. Undoubtedly there is an interaction between the content of the White Paper and the investment decisions I have raised. The sooner it is published the better for serving members of the Defence Forces.
The members of the Defence Forces have been through a period of investigation and assessment and are the most analysed group in the country. This has been very difficult; however I think it has been worthwhile. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward legislation which was passed by the House. It is very important that we have a more effective administrative structure in the Defence Forces. We are aiming to have a modern Army, well equipped to take its place internationally. That is a major task since the Defence Forces were neglected for quite some time.
I welcome the continuous recruitment. However it leads to some difficulties, for example, we have a large number of very young inexperienced soldiers in Lebanon. We have to achieve a balance between youth and experience. While it is terrific that young people are becoming involved, we must ensure we have sufficient experienced personnel in the trouble spots.
There is scope for more positive action on the role of women in the Defence Forces. The number is extraordinary low and there are many young women who would be interested in a career in the Defence Forces. Will the Minister consider the initiatives that have been taken in some other forces where information has been given to women about the work and career opportunities offered by the Defence Forces?
From meeting young women soldiers who are involved at present I am aware that they are enjoying their work and welcoming the challenge. They are happy to have had the opportunity to become members of the Defence Forces. Representation of 2 or 3 per cent in the modern Defence Forces is not good and we should seek more balance. It would be of benefit to the Defence Forces generally to examine the barriers which remain and to try to find out what is preventing change in the current position.
Another context in which the Defence Forces operate at present is the problem of and the very bad publicity surrounding the deafness compensation cases. Given the figure of £65 million provided in the Estimates for this year, one must ask what is happening in setting up a new mechanism to deal with deafness compensation. Will we wait until the Hanley case is decided or does the Minister intend to proceed with a plan prior to the Hanley judgment? While this problem festers, it creates the possibility of ongoing bad publicity for the Defence Forces. It also means that continual demands are made on the Exchequer and a possibility of new cases being entered.
I welcome the reduction in the number of cases, but I am sure the Minister and his officials will agree that the level is still significant. A significant number of new cases are still being lodged and until a formal system is put in place, which would remove the issue from the courts and offer an alternative, they will continue to be a major drain on the resources of the Defence budget. They will also continue to be a major problem for the morale of the Defence Forces. It is a serious issue and given that £65 million has been earmarked for this year, when will the alternative system be set up? Will there be adjustments to the Green Book? Will a tribunal be set up in 1999?
The closure of barracks has been a major challenge for the Defence Forces, particularly the personnel who were relocated. In terms of the approach to barrack closures it is obvious that the issue of consultation with the local communities must be taken into account increasingly. There is scope for creative public private partnerships with regard to land use in local areas. On the basis of its experience to date, perhaps the Department could give more information to Deputies and the public about consultation with local communities and whether a formal mechanism will be put in place for consultation in areas where it has not yet been set up. This information would be interesting in the context of the savings resulting from the closure of barracks.
In relation to overseas service, will there be a change in 1999 in the overseas allowance? I am not sure if provision has been made for it in the Estimates. I ask the Minister to deal with this specific issue. There have been no changes to the allowance for some time and the committee would welcome information on the precise position in that regard.
The pace of reform has been difficult for the Defence Forces in the sense that there will be much uncertainty until the White Paper is published. When it is issued, it will be a great help in settling into a more definite routine of reform, in which the Government's approach to defence issues is clearer.
I thank the Minister's staff for their work during the year. It has been a very demanding year for the Defence Forces and huge extra demands have been placed on the Department. Although there has been much reallocation, I note the staff figures remain much the same despite the extra burden. I pay tribute to the work of the Department.
I offer my sympathy to the family of Private William Kedian who was tragically killed yesterday. In addition, I wish a speedy recovery to Private Ronald Rushe from Boggagh, County Offaly, who sustained serious injuries.
I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the work they have done, particularly since the Minister took up office. The issue of barracks closures was thorny and it had to be grasped. As the Minister said, the number of barracks was more appropriate for an army of occupation than the number necessary in nowadays. I take on board Deputy Fitzgerald's point about local communities. The areas should be used, if possible, as the basis for enterprise zones. The number of jobs in Ireland is increasing and if those locations were marketed as new enterprise areas, it would be good for the towns concerned.
With regard to the loss of hearing claims, I am delighted about the information from the Minister regarding the reduction in the number of new claims. Recently, we were told that 100 claims were being lodged each week. The figure now is 100 new claims every month. This is a significant reduction. Regarding the number of claims settled, which represent approximately 25 per cent of the total claims received to date, it is comforting to note that £61 million covered the 3,300 claims. On that basis, it is probable that the total bill will be approximately £250 million. This is a large sum, but it is significantly less than earlier estimates.
I am delighted that the average quantum of settlement has reduced to approximately £13,000 from £34,000. This is a significant achievement. I am aware of the Minister's work in trying to set up the out-of-court compensation scheme. I am sure this scheme would not be welcomed by lawyers because it would minimise the amount of money made by them from loss of hearing claims. The Solicitors Bill introduced recently is most welcome. This will outlaw the type of advertising which effectively helped to create an avalanche of claims.
With regard to the Partnership for Peace, I am delighted there is a commitment to the UN to provide up to 850 military personnel for service on the United Nations stand-by arrangement. This shows Ireland's continuing commitment to the UN. At the same time, we wish to be associated with and participate in the Petersberg tasks which are part of the Amsterdam Treaty. Ireland has always played its part in humanitarian rescue and peace-keeping tasks. Our participation in the Partnership for Peace will allow us to continue that role. Hopefully, it will help to keep the armed forces sharp and allow them to train and keep up to speed with all the other participating countries.
The voluntary reserve defence forces are an important element of the Defence Forces and should be encouraged, helped and developed. I hope the special study which is now being developed and brought to a conclusion by the military board charged with it will help to develop and encourage voluntary reserves in the country. I look forward to discussing the Estimates of the Department and I congratulate the Minister and his staff on the great work they are doing.
Is it agreed that we will proceed with a consideration of the subheads? Agreed.
With regard to Vote 36, subhead A1, how many staff are in the Minister's Department?
The figure is 440.
What impact has the management of the deafness compensation claims had on the staff in the Department?
Between the staff in the Defence Forces, my Department and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor as many as 100 personnel are engaged in these claims in one way or another. This has had a significant effect on departmental operations, but we have managed by making adjustments. For example, where work was not as important in some areas we were able to transfer personnel. However, dealing with the claims has brought grave pressure to bear on the administration, not only in terms of personnel but also because of their ultimate impact on the Defence Forces as a whole. The number and quantum of claims has reduced substantially. While this is a spectacular improvement, we must keep alert.
Deputy Fitzgerald referred to areas that could do with more investment. If too much is directed towards one area it is not easy to allocate resources to other areas. It is important, therefore, to control this aspect. The personnel involved are working very hard. The costs involved are £800,000 for civil servants, the same for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and £1.1 million for military staff.
If the Minister was to proceed with the establishment of a board to deal with deafness compensation claims how does he envisage it would be staffed?
Depending on the success of the compensation scheme in attracting litigants away from court, there would not be a substantial changes in the initial stages. Each individual with a claim undergoes an audiogram test which would have to be assessed and valued. If it became clear over time that cases would not have to be contested in court, that personnel would not have to be called to give evidence and that medical personnel would also not have to be called when they could be doing other work the picture would begin to change. Not only would there be beneficial financial consequences, there would also be the potential release of staff to concentrate on other aspects of work in the Department which are very also very important. Nobody expected the issue surrounding these claims to become as large as it has. It has affected everybody.
What is the timetable for the establishment of such a compensation board?
I indicated in the Dáil that if there was to be a delay in the Hanley case I would like to proceed independently of it. However, since the lodgment of our certificate of readiness in the Supreme Court, I understand the case will be heard in early July. I will, therefore, await the outcome. However, we are well advanced. Most of the tedious work has been done and we are now awaiting advice from the Attorney General because in some aspects of what we are doing we are effectively capping awards. We will be ready to proceed shortly after a decision in the Hanley case. It will be this year.
The committee would welcome that because it is the way to proceed. It will offer justice to individual claimants as well as dealing with the macro effects of the expenditure and its impact on the economy and Defence Forces. Is it the Minister's intention to give the job of dealing with the adjustment figures and insurance claims, including the adjudicating involved, to an independent company or a State agency?
We had consultation with at least one company. Its original proposals were almost equivalent to the worst case scenarios in the courts. It did additional work on this and there were further discussions. My Department has developed considerable expertise from dealing with these cases and this will form a considerable element in the development of the scheme. We are not ruling in or ruling out the use of outside expertise to streamline these cases. There has been a considerable degree of experience in the country as a whole as to how these cases are managed. For example, when I was Minister for the Environment, the corporation and the county had changed its attitude to dealing with these cases. There is a reservoir of experience to call on.
We want this system to work. We want to attract litigants away from court and to find a balance between what is fair to a genuinely injured party and what the taxpayer can afford. There is no need to continue with bad publicity for the Defence Forces.
It is a unique challenge in terms of numbers. No previous Government has been faced with such claims on such a scale, one third of which come from serving soldiers and two-thirds from retired personnel. We are well on the way to moving towards an out-of-court environment. It will be decided in due course whether to involve outside agencies.
It must be acknowledged that we have not established a system by which the Defence Forces are excluded, nor have we established a pension board.
Would be very happy with any of the systems established elsewhere.
I see why the Minister would be happy.
Under other systems a claimant must have a significant disability attributed to his service before he crosses the threshold for compensation. The position here is different. It has caused a problem for us because a huge percentage have disabilities considerably below the level which would qualify for compensation in any other jurisdiction. I inherited the problem from the previous Administration.
I accept the problem has existed for some years. It is a difficult issue that must be addressed.
With regard to item No. 4 under subhead A5 in respect of computer equipment, there is a small sum of £20,000 extra. Subhead A7 relating to consultancy services shows there was no IT consultancy in 1998 or 1999. Perhaps the Department has expert in-house IT. In light of the lack of money spent in this area and in terms of year 2000 compliance, is the Department happy it can deal with the changeover without problems?
It is unusual to be asked such a question. Normally we are asked why so much money is spent on consultancies. We have advanced to the stage where we do not need such a consultancy - if we needed it we would acquire it. As far as our year 2000 obligations are concerned, we are meeting all the deadlines required, with the exception of one which involves fishery protection. We will meet that requirement in October this year.
That problem arose because we have a 200 mile limit and there are different methods by which one can deal with these type of problems in terms of modern technology. First, one must identify whether the ship is in the correct waters and second, what action is to be taken. It took some time to organise that because one is dealing with a vast expanse of water. That will be resolved by October and we are on schedule. We do not need to spend more money on consultancy. We have built up in-house expertise in all areas. We also avail of training courses and opportunities for upskilling.
Obviously this year presented a particular challenge——
The figures are up to 31 October.
——so it was a reasonable question to ask.
I said the question was unusual not unreasonable.
On subhead C and the overseas allowance, which also arises under a different subhead, will the Minister inform the committee of the current position? Is he planning to increase the allowance? Is it included in this year's Estimates or does the Minister plan to come back to the committee?
Overseas allowances increase in line with pay. The Deputy is right that there has been no significant adjustment, outside of pay, to overseas allowances. This has become an issue in the past few years. However, during pay negotiations last year, the representative associations made it clear they wanted pay and overseas allowances dealt with separately. A claim has now been submitted for an increase in the overseas allowances. That is proceeding satisfactorily through the appropriate schemes.
At a UNIFIL review last year I said I was anxious to process this matter. It was delayed last year because, as I said, it was not included in the pay deal. A separate claim has now been lodged and we will deal with that through the normal channels. We will be as open, fair and generous as we can afford to be within required limits.
As regards the negotiations, does the Minister accept it can now be dealt with separately from the pay deal?
The pay deal was agreed.
The argument was that it should have been included in the pay deal but was not.
No, the argument was the direct opposite.
I beg the Minister's pardon - it was asked that it would be dealt with separately, but did the Minister want it included?
I did not mind one way or the other. In fairness to the representative associations, they felt there was a certain amount available for the pay deal and were afraid a proportion of that would be spent on overseas allowances. However, there was agreement on pay and that is completed. This is a separate claim which will be dealt with through the normal channels. We will approach that positively within the required limits.
Do the Estimates cover a possible agreement?
When the Deputy is in my position and I am in hers, she will never make provision for something on which there is no agreement——
I notice the Minister has included money for APCs for which he has not yet placed an order.
——which makes one's jobs a great deal more difficult. I am trying to help the Deputy so that she will not make the same mistake when she is in my position.
The Minister has included money for APCs even though practice trials are still taking place. I do not accept that argument. A political decision is needed in relation to the overseas allowance. As the Minister said, it has not been adjusted for a long time.
A claim would not have been submitted except for the positive soundings I conveyed. I am the instigator. I was first out of the traps. I said I would like to do something about this matter.
The Minister has to cross the finishing line. There is a great deal of expectation. Requests for an increase are reasonable. We have seen again this week the seriousness of the duties carried out. In terms of morale, there is something quite different about serving overseas. I accept that the Minister said it is being considered separately. However, action is overdue and a political decision is necessary.
The political decision has been made for some time now. A procedure is available for negotiating these matters. Once a positive approach is taken by us, that goes through normal channels. There are different views about how should be done and various missions which are different from one another. These matters have be teased out. We are approaching the matter positively.
Does the Minister envisage the same arrangements will apply to the security allowance for those serving in Honduras?
As I recall, there was a slight disagreement as regards that mission which was resolved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.
On subhead C and the security duty allowance figures of £7.2 million and £ 7.5 million, has this any connection with the later Estimates as regards the receipts from banks?
No.
Is it totally separate?
Yes.
On subhead F, I notice the number of civilians in the Defence Forces has decreased slightly this year. Is that correct?
Yes.
Is the civilianisation programme in the Defence Forces - we discussed this matter in the Dáil recently in relation to the Navy - still a priority and part of the Defence Forces programme? Are there difficulties in recruiting civilians to perform certain tasks?
My understanding is that 60 to 70 per cent of the non-pay area has been delegated. Questions arise as to which parts of this work should be handled by civilians and which by members of the Permanent Defence Forces. We have set up a number of pilot schemes. There was a very long delay in the reform process - the Deputy touched on this point - and making considerable changes over a short timeframe has very major implications for the way we do things. A number of pilot schemes are in operation and we are proceeding to make changes as quickly as we can.
I am not aware of any difficulties with recruitment. Generally recruitment has gone well across the board. Equally as a counter to that, in the modern development economy people are leaving and taking up other opportunities and, in the context of overall numbers, it is something that has to be managed. The Deputy referred to the decrease in the number of civilian employees. The ratio of civilian employees to the total number is very high by international or other standards and this gives scope for reorganisation in the future. We encourage staff to retrain, to upgrade their skills and take on other spheres of responsibility.
Who is responsible at administrative level for the programme of civilianisation of functions? What career opportunities are available?
My information is that it is mainly in the catering sector. I have a great interest in this area and I would like to provide the Deputy with more detailed information on all these developments and on training. I cannot answer the question fully off the top of my head, except to say we are examining different aspects and it will require more time and ingenuity as the pattern of work changes and we try to carry out the functions more economically by civilianisation.
Will the Minister give some details on subhead G?
We are in the final stages of selecting one of two APCs which are being tested. As a consequence of the voluntary early retirement scheme, nd other measures, we have resources to purchase 40 over five years. It is a scheme which I would like to accelerate, but a great deal will depend on the sales of the barrack lands. I have been anxious to use the resources, which are surplus to our needs, and which will ultimately be sold to up grade the equipment and facilities generally. I have to wait to see how the first phase goes and we are at the stage where we expect to be able to order the first batch later this year with a delivery date later in the year 2000. The Deputy will see from the graph for equipment and facilities that it is rising. We will have to gear up in the context of our future responsibilities in Partnership for Peace, an issue raised by both Deputies Fitzgerald and Ardagh.
In the Dáil I raised the fact that some of the people who submitted tenders were dissatisfied with the process, and in reply the Minister said he was perfectly satisfied with it. Obviously people will be disappointed. Is the Minister satisfied that to narrow the field to two tenders is the appropriate way to proceed in awarding very important contracts?
Following the Deputy's question in the Dáil, I researched the matter further, notwithstanding the fact that I was perfectly happy that the technical group who continually monitor, examine and adjudicate on these matters had put an enormous body of work into it, and I discovered that a significant number of the 12 competing tenders did not get past the first fence in terms of meeting the requirements laid down. Not more than four made it to the final adjudicating process. I am perfectly happy with the process and even if I had any doubts what I have been hearing since has confirmed that view.
The process is completely neutral. There is no question of preference. The only criteria are the best we can afford for the Defence Forces, the most suitable for our requirements and who meets the bill. Everything outside that is discarded. I had no knowledge of which company the Deputy had an interest in but if it had a relationship to the domestic scene, I understand there were not only perfectly legitimate reasons but ones which were entirely acceptable to the company.
: There is a figure of £19 million in the Estimates. How will this sum be spent?
From this figure £8 million will be allocated for armoured personnel carriers, £2.6 million for the Panhard AML light turret upgrade scheme to which I referred; £800,000 for night vision equipment and £510,000 for the 84 mm RCL sight upgrading. These are the main items, the remainder is for all sorts of equipment from the smallest item to guns and so on.
In relation to £8 million for armoured personnel carriers, is that a first payment or how will the contract work? Has the contract been awarded yet?
No.
Will the contract be awarded in 1999? Is the £8 million the first payment?
Yes. The £8 million is a down payment on the first APC.
If the tender does not go ahead this year, has the Minister for Finance agreed to roll over the money into next year's Estimates?
We have had nothing but the best from the Department of Finance.
That is very reassuring after that memorandum.
We do not expect a delay but, should it happen, the money will roll over.
To what does subhead H1 refer?
The main items are aircraft and air traffic control equipment £1.6 million; training £O.51 million; airbase facilities and ground equipment £0.6 million; spares, maintenance for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft GiV £0.86, the Casa £0.70, the Dauphin £1.35, the Dadawent £1.04, Gasselle £0.26, beachcraft £0.24, the Cessna £0.06, the Marquette £0.14 and the Garda aircraft £0.52. It is spread over a large number of items. If I could take on board the Deputy's earlier questions. As I indicated in the Dáil, the draft implementation plan is with the Chief of Staff arising from my direction to have both organisations come forward with their own proposals on the basis of the Price Waterhouse review.
Anticipating some of the Deputy's questions, the Naval Service will get its first new ship in 14 years at a cost of over £20 million. We meet our responsibilities in terms of fisheries protection, dumping at sea and illicit drug trafficking as well as possible. The Casa aircraft is totally underestimated in terms of its work and the radar information, identification and support services it supplies to the Naval Service.
It would be great if more resources were available. When the plan is available, the consultative group will consider it before the final analysis of what is required is reached. I must then face up to whatever responsibilities emerge in that regard. It would pre-empt that process to expect decisions to be taken at this time. It also falls into the pattern of the issues I mentioned earlier. I felt that as long as there was a significant demand on the Exchequer with regard to compensation, I would be unable to raise the moneys some people thought possible for re-equipping, refurbishment and new aircraft and ships unless I considered our property portfolio in an entirely different way. This would allow greater independence to the Department in terms of how significant funds were found without recourse to the taxpayer.
We will decide on these matters as soon as we reach the first phase of the implementation plan. Further consultation is required before we reach that stage. I ask members to bear in mind that the new ship will come into service in September and £2.1 million is being spent on refurbishing, re-equipping and developing existing ships. This area will receive a large amount of money this year.
Is the Minister saying that until the deafness compensation cases have been moved into another arena and the costs have been significantly reduced that money will not be spent on the Naval Service or Air Corps in terms of further capital investment?
No. I said that as long no rein was put on the soaring final bill, my potential to raise significant funds for new equipment, etc. would be minimal. I said that I had to do two things. I must rein in the compensation to a sizeable level and I must raise funds in my Department from the State's property portfolio which would enhance the possibility of re-equipping, etc., without recourse to the taxpayer. In the final analysis, there also are demands in the health, education and transport areas.
I will not pretend that certain things can be done quicker than is possible. That only raises morale for a short time before it is lowered again. I will deal with the matter on a sensible and incremental basis with solid progress each year. There have been few, if any, reports comparable to this year's report on the Defence Forces in terms of constant recruitment, a new ship, APCs, refurbishment and other developments in addition to controlling the compensation cases problem.
What is the Minister's view——
I remind the Deputy of the pressure on the committee to proceed. The room is needed by another committee.
I understood we had until 5 p.m.
Yes, but on current progress it will be 7 p.m. before we finish.
I presume we can continue until 5 p.m. and see what stage we reach. Must we finish the Estimates today?
I would like to do so.
That is fine. Is the Minister satisfied with the current vessel concentration, which is one ship per 18,857 square miles, but which does not include the full marine designated area? Does the Minister accept in principle that there is a need to further develop the Naval Service? There is a need for more ships of varying types if we are to have anything like the patrolling capacity of other EU countries.
Initially, I shared the Deputy's view. However, the Price Waterhouse report did not bear that out. My recollection is that the report mentioned eight ships. It has not yet arisen but the question will arise in the future as to what precisely the ships will do, what will be the State's requirements and what mix and type of ships are required. All this work must be done. In a nutshell, the group which was asked to consider this matter from the point of view of future requirements did not come down in favour of a significant increase in the number of ships. The report mentions eight ships.
Did the Price Waterhouse report not recommend further investment in vessels for the Naval Service?
No. There will be further investment as the ships get older. A new ship will come into operation shortly. However, my recollection is that the report recommended eight ships.
I understood that the report stated that the demands are increasing all the time, huge tasks have to be met and we must continually assess vessel numbers.
In the final analysis, my recollection is that the number was eight. However, we should not argue the point because during the consultations after the first phase of implementation we will look at the resources available and the best way to approach the future. We will be as positive and open as possible about that matter. It is a massive resource which must be protected. Huge new demands are being placed on us and there is much raking of the fishery resource by foreign fishery interests. We have an abounding responsibility to protect it. We will be as positive and progressive as possible.
However, we are not in a financial position today to increase dramatically the number of ships. We are fighting against many odds to try to keep up the numbers in the Naval Service. We need to look at how future recruitment systems will develop and to consider how that matter can be addressed. We must consider promotion systems in that regard. Therefore, jumping ahead to a promise of an unlimited number of items without looking at the whole system would be injudicious and is not supported by the review.
The Chairman was concerned about the pace of the proceedings of the committee. However, these are the main subheads in relation to the Naval Service and Air Corps. There will not be a difficulty in relation to time. Is the Chairman happy with the way matters are proceeding?
Has the discussion moved from subhead H to subhead J?
The debate developed. The Minister responded to points I made earlier.
I was trying to take some of the steam out of what we have to do later.
In relation to subheads H and J, the amounts being spent on maintenance are, understandably, very high. There is a need to invest in new equipment in both services. I appreciate that the new ship will come into operation soon and that is most welcome. However, there are huge demands in terms of maintenance because so many of the aircraft are old and due for replacement. Is that correct?
Yes. However, in studying this matter in more depth recently, I was amazed to discover that aircraft, similar to our aircraft, which were purchased seven years before ours and which has flown double the amount of hours are regarded as totally safe and airworthy in another EU country. On the European scale, the stress and strain on our aircraft appears to be considerably less than in other countries.
In regard to specialist activity, the life of these aircraft may be considerably greater than we know, depending on the stress they have been under. Safety is a priority. We have a number of aircraft and we will make sure that they are in fine working order, but we do not deal with securing funds to purchase new aircraft until such time as they are required at which time everybody concerned discusses what is required.
I take it no money has been allocated in this year's Estimates to purchase new aircraft.
No. It would be jumping the gun if we were to do so. We must look at what type of aircraft is required and that must be linked into the requirements for the future, about which there are major arguments.
Must we await the White Paper on Defence before that question can be answered?
The first phase of the implementation plan must be ready.
The Minister agrees with the point I raised in the Dáil; I said no decisions on capital investment in the Navy or the Air Corps would be taken until the White Paper is published.
No, I said the first phase of the implementation plan must be ready.
Does that involve any new investment in aircraft or ships?
I expect it will, but I have not received the plan yet. We will know what is in it when we get it. The Price Waterhouse review estimates certain requirements in respect of ships and aircraft over an 18 year period. What will be needed for the first phase and for the second and third phases must be decided on the basis of the implementation plan. Similar aircraft purchased seven years before we purchased ours with double the number of flying hours are still flying very well in another extremely wealthy EU country.
I look forward to seeing the recommendations in the reports that will be sent to the Minister.
We have covered subhead J.
Will the Minister give a breakdown of the expenditure under subhead L?
The following is a breakdown of the expenditure: the cookhouse and dining complex in Coolmoney, £669,000 odd; Collins Barracks - new armoury, £790,000; Connelly Barracks' roof, £156,000; Cathal Brugha Barracks' dining hall, £1 million odd; new mess in Finner Camp, £823,000; the roof of Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick, £199,000; the relocation of a fuel system at Casement Barracks, £634,000; Naval Base medical centre, £391,000 and the Naval Base galley and new works, £2.982 million. This detail will bore members because the likes of this investment has not been seen before in the Department of Defence, but I am happy to take the credit for it. The expenditure also includes the following: ammunition depot, £4.61million; detention block, £0.4 million; battle range, £0.5 million; Cathal Brugha Barracks, £2 million; Custume Barracks, £0.8 million; Templemore, £0.3 million; Sarsfield Barracks club, £0.168 million; Casement hangar, £5 million; Casement SNT workshop, £0.4 million; Casement Garda air support building, £1.45 million; Naval Base oil tanks, £1.4 million; and Naval Base, £1.1 million.
Is the Deputy happy with that breakdown? Would she like the Minister to furnish that list?
Major investment is needed in a number of the buildings and barracks used by the Defence Forces. I am glad that some investment is being made in them.
What does the Deputy mean by "some investment"? Record investment is being made in them.
Some investment is being made. The Minister will know from a recent question in the Dáil that there are serious problems in Baldonnel concerning accommodation and the buildings in which personnel must work. I know the Minister has made some attempt to deal with those problems. He can read out a long list of investments but there are some serious problems that must be addressed. I welcome the investment has been made.
Having inherited what I did in the Department, does the Deputy expect me to solve all the problems in the first couple of years? There is no question but that I am a magician to be doing what I am doing.
My job is to ask the Minister questions about how investment in the Defence Forces is proceeding.
We are building an engineering block and a new hangar in Baldonnel. The Deputy raised the accommodation issue in connection with the Gormanston transfer, which we must address. By the time I leave office, the Deputy will not know that place.
I am sure the Air Corps would welcome that as they would welcome investment in their fleet. Despite the comparisons the Minister made with another EU country, decisions must be made on our fleet.
Subhead L is linked with subhead V, which deals with the barrack reinvestment programme of an estimated £6 million. That is a new subhead the Minister introduced. Will he clarify the link between the two subheads? Is the barracks reinvestment programme connected to subhead L?
That is the additional programme that arises from the potential sale of lands.
I will return to that matter.
It involves the swimming pool in the Curragh Camp, £2.9 million; the NCOs mess, £1.5 million; officer accommodation and other ranks' accommodation in Connelly Barracks, £1 million; combat support college, £3.5 million; Collins Barracks men's new dining hall, £1.7 million; NCOs new mess, £1.1 million and accommodation for all ranks £1.1 million.
Is it based on the assumption that the sale of barracks will proceed in 1999?
No.
On what assumption is it based on?
We succeeded in closing five barracks. The last one will be closed in July next year. We reached agreement with the Department of Finance on how this matter would proceed and some of these sales have started.
Will the Minister clarify the figure of £6 million? Was that an agreement based on the assumption that the sale of barracks would proceed at some future point but not necessarily in 1999?
I would be very disappointed if two sales were not concluded in 1999.
Which two?
Fitzgerald Barracks and Devoy Barracks.
We are linking subhead V with subhead L. That is based on an agreement with the Department of Finance in relation to barracks.
That is my understanding. There will be a new three year expenditure programme. There will be substantial investment in year two and the expenditure in year one and year three will be substantially lower. We will not keep these lands forever. The property market is developing and we should not lose out if there is a delay because of extraneous matters we could not possibly have foreseen.
Under subhead L, in relation to the buildings and the land owned by the Department of Defence, we discussed a list of the portfolio of the Defence Forces property during the debate on last year's Estimates. Will the Minister clarify what is happening in relation to that list? What work has been done in the Department on valuing that property and assessing its use in future years?
Is the Deputy referring to the lands and properties or the lands that have been vacated?
The Minister mentioned the buildings.
We have lands that are surplus to our requirements. Apart from those lands that have been dedicated to barracks, I hope to make an announcement soon about putting those lands up for sale by tender.
Will some of those lands be used for housing?
Officials in my Department have had meetings with officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government and local authorities. The Taoiseach raised this matter with me and in circumstances where this is a feasible proposition, consultation will take place with local authorities to discover, to what extent, we can ease the pressure in this area.
Is that list publicly available?
No.
Does the Minister plan to publish it? Does he plan to make a portfolio available?
I am sure we can do so. I see no reason why not. I am more interested in what lands we have that are surplus to our requirements and that could be used to raise funds. When I make a decision on those, it will be published. I see no reason why everything we have cannot be placed under scrutiny.
It is a critical question which we need to examine. I am interested to hear that the Minister is already in discussion with a number of Departments. Is he considering selling some of the land?
Yes. The Deputy is not listening to me. I have told her I want to reinvest. I want to do the things she wants me to do, so that she will stop asking me these questions.
Subhead T deals with the Army deafness issue, the estimated compensation figure for which is £68 million. In my opening address I raised a number of questions on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this key issue as we conclude the Estimates. I welcome the fact the Minister hopes to establish a compensation board in 1999. Obviously people will still have the right to go to court?
Yes.
This is an alternative mechanism for which we hope the Minister will receive support from the representative associations and from the public. I believe he will. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter and where it stands now. The figure for compensation payments in this year's Estimate is £68 million. Is that based on the expectation of court cases continuing as at present, or has the Minister built in assumptions about the establishment of the board? On what is he basing that particular figure?
At full blast in the courts, with everything going without a hitch, in terms of the experience to date, most of that money should be drawn down. It could be somewhat less than that if the compensation board is working actively before then. We are obliged in the current economic situation to have Estimates of what would be the full reality and, if anything, slightly above that. There is no room for Supplementary Estimates, as the Deputy knows. I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier this year. I am awaiting the Hanley judgment and we will proceed this year after that. I do not know if there is anything else I can add to the questions the Deputy has raised.
The only other issue relates to the terms of agreement with the legal profession. Earlier in the year, the Minister was hopeful of negotiating lower fees where particular firms were dealing with a large number of claims. In the last few weeks he told the Dáil that has not proved to be possible. Is he still in negotiations and does he hope to come to an agreement with the legal firms?
Apart altogether from the high tariff which I inherited and which has come down substantially, one of the main forces driving me to establish an out-of-court arrangement is the fact that, as far as these cases are concerned, up to 30 per cent of the tariff goes towards legal costs. That is a huge and unnecessary drain because there is so much similarity between the cases. Consultations with the Law Society and the legal firms representing the plaintiffs, represent another part of what has to be done to complete the way forward for an out-of-court scheme.
Will the Minister refer to the figures that have been paid to particular firms? What have firms dealing with a large number of cases received? Is it correct that none of them has agreed to any reduction in costs?
One firm in Kildare has received over £5 million. Another firm, in Limerick, has received in excess of £2 million.
How does the Minister expect legal fees will be dealt with in the context of a compensation board, if it is established?
I want to reserve judgment on something that has yet to be negotiated. I will put it this way. At present, on top of the tariff that is paid, there is a 30 per cent surcharge which must be paid to the legal services mounting these claims. That is paid by the State. Quite a number of those firms will already have engaged in some work and would have incurred costs associated with the work so far. In light of that, negotiations are necessary. However, a huge number of claims have been paid by my Department for which the State has paid considerable legal fees and on top of which a no foal no fee figure, in excess of 10 per cent of the award, has also been paid to these firms.
It is an issue which causes me considerable concern and is the driving force behind my ambition to have an out-of-court environment for such cases. I do not want to say more than that at this stage because these are intricate matters in terms of how we arrive at a solution to these cases and because of some of the work that has already been done on them.
As regards dealing with other compensation cases that are taken against the Defence Forces or, indeed, claims that are made by serving members of the Defence Forces, is the Department of Defence considering an alternative way of managing cases? For example, is the Minister actively considering a reformed Army pensions board as a result of the experience of these cases?
In the first instance no, because the huge concentration of 11,500 cases on our hands will require considerable devotion and effort. The Department has over 700 claims outside the hearing ones, which is a significant number. The experience we gain will be important for how we proceed with those claims in future. It is well known that some of those cases are of a nature which need to be handled in a different way, either by the plaintiff or the State.
I understand some other defence forces are experiencing a large number of claims, for example, in relation to post traumatic stress disorder. The claims are developing in a similar way to our own. The issue of how to deal with other types of compensation cases will be real in future for all defence forces. Other defence forces have mechanisms, or exclusions, for dealing with such claims. It is important to establish a mechanism to ensure that claims relating to deafness and other issues can be dealt with. Does the Minister agree with that view?
I would agree, but it is often difficult to draw a comparison with other countries. The tariff paid in Ireland in respect of compensation claims is between two and three times greater than the EU average. When comparisons are made of particular kinds of claim, one must take account of the fact that we have been primarily a peacekeeping force. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make comparisons with countries that have been engaged in war. The Deputy's point is that the experience we gain here could be invaluable for avoiding excessive legal costs arising from further claims. That is something I am determined to do. I also want to learn the lessons of health and safety so that best practices are conducted and we will not lay the foundations for any potential future claims by neglect.
Are members of the Minister's staff actively involved in the development, with the Department of Finance, of a State claims agency? The Minister's Department would obviously be among the most experienced, given the lessons of the deafness compensation cases.
There was tremendous synergy between the Department of Finance and the Department of Defence, but the Deputy has mentioned an area where there might not be ultimate agreement in relation to these matters. There are different views about how that should be proceed and it has been actively engaging not just those two Departments but the Government as a whole.
I await with interest the outcome of the synergy between the Department and the Department of Finance in relation to the capital investment in the Navy and Air Corps, a la Price Waterhouse.
I am tired of reading it out for the Deputy. Any other Minister would probably have left in despair.
The Minister is avoiding the bigger investments. As regards subhead U, relating to advertisements, I appreciate that continuous recruitment is in place and I congratulate the Minister on the efforts that have been made. However, given the shortages in the Navy and other areas of the Defence Forces, there is a reluctance in the Department to undertake the sort of advertising that has been done in the UK, although it is on a different scale there. Is that something the Minister would consider or is it not appropriate? Given the experience the Department has, does the Minister think that sort of advertising is not required here? Very often the work of the Defence Forces goes unnoticed and the chance to alert people to the opportunities that exist can be missed. Is there a need to look further at the way we run recruitment advertisements?
It is something that keeps on changing. When the President, Dr. Mary McAleese, visited the troops in Lebanon, she was the first President to visit that country. Similarly, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, was the first Head of Government to visit the Lebanon. Many suggestions were made concerning those visits, the Deputy's included, regarding video presentations, etc. All the advice available to me suggests that expensive blanket advertising across a range of media is not as successful as the more direct local approach via local press and radio, and secondary schools.
In the three years during which I have had responsibility for this matter, we have been able to take in approximately 2,000 new recruits. One must also take into account the fact that there has never been so much competition for jobs. We have actually gone abroad to encourage people to come back to take up employment here. It is a unique challenge to ensure we continue to attract people. Everywhere I go I meet people who want to be in the Army, Navy or Air Corps. We have to find them wherever they are. I would accept any advice about how better to advertise. The basic advice I have received, and which I have accepted, is to concentrate on schools and local radio, rather than blanket national advertising.
As regards the recruitment and involvement of women in the Defence Forces, more information on training opportunities needs to be made available to girls schools. Has that been considered? Perhaps the Minister should re-examine it.
Some of our personnel visit schools, although I do not know to what extent that is done nationally, or whether it is done in girls schools. If not, we will see that it is.
It might be worth looking at. On subhead W, am I right in thinking that a report, assessment or review is currently being undertaken on civil defence?
The current review is on the Army Reserve and on the Navy and Air Corps. We are including an important section in the White Paper on civil defence.
I wish to ask a question under subhead Z, relating to receipts from the banks in respect of cash escort services. The Chairperson's colleagues raised a similar point at last year's Estimates and it was discussed also in the Dáil at Question Time. Are the banks paying enough for the cash escort services? What is the current position? Is the Minister satisfied that an appropriate amount is being demanded from the banks?
The figure of £3 million from the banks is divided into £2.25 million for the Department of Defence and £0.75 million for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Excluding pay, the cost of allowances to provide that service is £1.9 million.
What is the estimate for pay costs?
I do not have the figures. I will come back to the Deputy on that.
I am delighted that we have received 45 submissions on the White Paper. A number of them have requested more time because they view it as a unique opportunity. We are prepared to grant more time, but not an unlimited amount.
A number of young soldiers in UNIFIL are contributing enormously to our commitment to the United Nations. Under the UNSAS agreement we are committed to providing 850 personnel, but there is no way we could fulfil that commitment without the new recruitment programme. We were depending on people who had already served with the UN. Almost two-thirds of the UNIFIL troops are highly experienced. Nobody goes out there without proper training so these fears are groundless. The commitment we are getting from younger recruits coming into the force is uniquely good on all flanks. The military authorities are happy that experience and youth are properly blended. However, the Deputy should bear in mind that without the recruitment we would be way down on the required figures.
Is the White Paper expected this year?
I would have preferred the late autumn of this year. However, given the number of submissions that have been made and the request for further time, I am not sure if we will meet that target, but we will try to ensure that it is this year.
It would be disappointing, in terms of the overall management of the Defence Forces, if the White Paper was not ready until 2000.
Many groups have put a lot of time into their submissions and they have requested more time to discuss them. We will proceed as fast as we can. We are attempting a blueprint for the future, something that has never been attempted previously. I hope it will last the test of time and will have a strong consultative basis. I also hope people will believe in and support it and that it will receive resources and commitment. We are firing on all cylinders.
On Vote 37 - Army Pensions, who is covered by the compensation claim mentioned in subhead F? Are they the local Defence Forces?
Yes.
When it refers to numbers in respect of death and personal injuries does it mean there has been ten claims?
It refers to the numbers being paid at present.
Are they recent claims?
They go back a long time. They are old LDF claims.
That concludes our deliberations. The committee may shortly add defence to its title.
I thank the Minister and wish him the best in the year ahead. He has grasped a number of difficult issues since taking office. The rewards of his efforts are being felt in terms of better equipment and facilities for the Army. I have no doubt that the morale of the Army will be improved considerably in that regard. He deserves credit for taking difficult decisions at an early stage. It will be appreciated in the years ahead.
Thank you, Sir. We work as a team and we have had much support across the floor of the House for those difficult decisions.
I thank you, Sir, your staff and the Minister.