We will now proceed with subheads A1 to A7 of Vote 36 pertaining to salaries, wages and allowances. Subhead B relates to Permanent Defence Force pay while subhead D relates to defence equipment. Are there any questions about any of these subheads or subheads C and E?
Vote 37 — Army Pensions (Resumed).
I have a question about subhead F which relates to professional consultant and specialist fees. Am I right in saying this amounts to €3 million? Item No. 2 — civilian employees' training, overtime and subsistence — amounts to €2.441 million. Does this include the entire wages of the 990 civilian employees? If that is the case, the total for professional consultant and specialist fees, at €3 million, seems particularly high because it exceeds the entire pay budget for 990 civilian employees.
There is €13 million in the pay budget. There is also €2.441 million for training and overtime payments. Professional consultant and specialist fees are paid to doctors and medical personnel as well as for a range of other services.
Are there any questions about subhead H which relates to Air Corps equipment and expenses?
Is the purchase of the Lear jet mentioned in the Estimates? Under what heading is it included? Has it to do with the Department of Defence at all?
It was paid for in full last year. As the last arrangement for the G4 resulted in spending over a long period, we decided not to go down that road again.
I am now moving on to subhead I which relates to military transport.
I understand there is a sale of obsolete or surplus vehicles this week, perhaps on Saturday. I know the Minister is familiar with a certain group, the Lebanon War Veterans Organisation, the members of which are anxious to obtain a few of the vehicles in question. They are doing worthwhile work, travelling the country with a show which provides good PR for the Army. They have been given vehicles from other defence forces, including those of the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany and the USA, but the Defence Forces have been slow in coming forward with any vehicle they could use in their show.
Deputy P. McGrath took the Chair.
Would the Deputy say his lifestyle had improved in recent months because of contacts with this group? I say it has been enhanced considerably, as has mine. As a result of all this pressure, I am considering the matters involved. I do not want to say any more about them because we are nearly always trying to raise as much money as we can from the disposal of surplus assets. The more lenient I am with one group, the more lenient I must be with the next. In this regard, I am already under pressure from a number of colleges whom I have accommodated. I must take all of these matters into account. However, I am mindful of how stressful my life could be if I do not respond positively in this case. I understand the Deputy may be having similar problems.
Yes.
It would be a relief to the Deputy if I was able to do something, would it not?
Absolutely.
We will consider it.
We will move on to subhead J which relates to the Naval Service. Are there any queries?
I wish to deal with some of the questions that arose earlier rather than waiting until the end. A question was asked about the reduction in the Naval Service allocation. This arises because there was an additional purchase of marine fuel in the latter half of 2003 which reduced the requirement for this year. There is no reduction in services. In fact, the number of days at sea will increase.
We will move on to subhead K — Barrack Expenses and Engineering Equipment — in which there has also been a major reduction.
This can arise from one year to the next. Towards the end of last year we obtained a supply of items, including furniture, bedding, utensils, cleansing equipment, tools and office supplies and services. It is not as though the figure in one year must equal that of the year before. Opportunities arise and many of these purchases were made towards the end of last year. They need not be repeated this year.
The major cut is in the area of engineering equipment, the allocation for which has been reduced from €6 million to €2 million.
That had to do with the commencement of the mission to Liberia towards the end of last year. There were extra expenses for engineering equipment and other aspects in developing the camp in Monrovia.
Subhead L relates to buildings. Again, there is a reduction of €4 million.
A number of installations are mentioned. At the risk of sounding parochial, is there anything planned for Finner, Lifford or Rockhill?
There has been major expenditure in County Donegal generally in recent years. I have had the pleasure of opening a number of new installations at Finner Camp. The Deputy does not normally come as far south as that.
I do. In fact, I will be there on Saturday on business.
Funding is being spread across a number of installations. As is the case for all Estimates, projects are sometimes completed in one year, resulting in a different allocation the following year depending on engineering works, preparation and so on. In recent years infrastructural and building developments have been at an extraordinarily high level. We are at full stretch in order to keep going.
Like Deputy McGinley, I shall be parochial. There is an ongoing problem with a perimeter wall in Mullingar, for which some moneys have been set aside but not enough to carry out the works. Is there any way the Minister could find additional funds to allow them to be completed? The wall is currently causing a road safety problem. I ask the Minister not to tell me it is outside his remit.
I do not want to say it is outside my remit but some legal issues are being dealt with in conjunction with the local authority. Once these are sorted out, I will be anxious to help in any way I can.
I thank the Minister.
It is not a question of not having the resources to do the work. We only need to remove the legal obstacles to do with the roadway.
Can that be expedited?
We will investigate the matter.
We will move on to subhead M which relates to ordnance, clothing and catering while subhead N relates to communications and information technology. Again, there is a substantial reduction.
In 2003 signal equipment, additional radios and intercom equipment for overseas missions were purchased.
Subhead O relates to military training; subhead P, travel and freight services and subhead Q, medical expenses.
The subhead covers the cost of medical treatment of Defence Forces personnel in civilian hospitals. Who is responsible for the maintenance and running of St. Bricin's Hospital? Is the cost included in the Estimates?
Yes.
Through the Department under subhead Q.
No, it is spread under a number of headings — pay, buildings, maintenance and so on.
Is it intended to maintain the hospital as a medical facility for Defence Forces personnel?
It is well known that I want to share this resource with the Eastern Regional Health Authority. Negotiations were under way for a couple of years but are in abeyance. There is also a question of greater linkage with the Mater Hospital. I am anxious to retain a part of St. Bricin's Hospital to meet exclusively military requirements but there is surplus accommodation that could help to relieve pressure on the health service for additional beds. I would like to proceed on that basis. There are some indications that the additional costs involved in developing the hospital to meet health and safety requirements for modern hospitals are beyond my reach but an accommodation might ultimately be reached. The hospital will, however, continue to look after the needs of the Defence Forces.
The Minister will agree that there is dissatisfaction within the representative bodies at the level of medical services available within the Department of Defence. Medical personnel are very unhappy.
I would not say they are very unhappy. Generally, the provision of health services for the Defence Forces, with the medical personnel we have and access to general medical services across the State, is as good, if not better, than for most other groups, bearing in mind that we probably have the fittest, youngest and healthiest workforce. Having said that, we have experienced difficulties in recruiting medical personnel and are engaged in a number of initiatives in consultation with the representative associations. We have tried to compete as best we can.
We could do with increasing numbers, particularly to assist with our UN missions. We would normally have two doctors on the Liberian mission. We are stretched but when unable to provide the service from within our own resources, we ensure it is provided within the general medical services available.
I am told that personnel based in other parts of the State are obliged to travel to Dublin for any meaningful medical attention. Is the Minister happy with the level of service provided in the regions?
The situation can always be improved. I have indicated that we have had difficulties in trying to recruit sufficient numbers of medical personnel to manage from within our own resources but I have not received any major complaints from the associations about this. Commanding officers in the different battalion areas ensure that if services are not available locally or from within our own resources, they will be able to deal with situations as they arise.
We will move to subhead R — Lands. Is the subhead agreed to? Agreed. Subhead S relates to the Army Equitation School.
While I congratulate those involved with the Army Equitation School, I note there has been a slight decline in the allocation this year, as there was last year. The school has achieved major success in recent years. Is the Minister satisfied that the allocation is sufficient to allow the school to continue to perform at the highest level?
We have increased substantially the number of horses available to the Army Equitation School in recent years. Last year there was a provision of €900,000 but we spent over €1 million. If the school and the purchasing group representing it make a recommendation and there is a suitable purchase, I will be as flexible as possible to ensure the winning streak continues. Those involved in the school are tremendous representatives of the country and have enjoyed major success throughout the world in recent years. We have some of the finest young riders we have ever had and I want to this continue. We can see how well they are doing from the results of competitions, domestically and internationally.
Is the subhead agreed to? Agreed. Subhead T is next.
The question of legal fees was raised by Deputy Sherlock. They were the reason I introduced the early settlement scheme which has worked very well with the result that legal costs are now substantially lower than they were a few years ago. Most of the costs associated with the amount already paid relate to earlier years.
Are the hearing cases almost complete?
I announced in July 2003 that I was terminating the scheme for anyone who would make a claim after a particular date because the issue had been in the public domain for ten years. Claims are now coming in at the rate of one or two a week.
One or two additional cases a week.
Yes, an infinitesimally smaller number than in previous years.
The Minister will agree that the entire hearing loss saga did not reflect well on the Defence Forces and generated much comment throughout the State. Is he satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to ensure we never see a repeat?
The only basis on which we can work is that no successful case has been taken against the Department arising from claims made in the last 15 years, they were all from a much earlier period. Health and safety measures have since been put in place by the Defence Forces, with ear protection of a high quality. I never believed, however, that all of the claims made could be sustained on the basis of damage done to hearing while serving in the Defence Forces. There were a number of claims associated with activities in the Defence Forces but that is not the case in all of them.
Is the Minister claiming that some got money to which they were not entitled?
I am repeating what I said in the past.
Is that not what the Minister said?
That is sometimes a matter for others to delve into. I did the best I could to stop something escalating out of all control. I am not sure I should say any more at this stage.
As the guardian of public finances in the sector, the Minister has indicated in what he said that public moneys were used to compensate undeserving cases.
The Acting Chairman may interpret what I said in whatever way he decides.
What the Minister has said is very clear. We will move on to Subhead U — Miscellaneous Expenses. Subhead V relates to the Civil Defence Board. Are there any queries?
There were two questions raised. We have increased substantially the resources of the Civil Defence Board. In the past five or six years 116 new vehicles have been purchased, some €2 million has been spent on clothing, over €1 million on footwear and €300,000 on inflatable boats. The aspect of providing enhanced facilities for Civil Defence has been very well dealt with.
Deputy Hoctor asked about the transfer to Roscrea. While the physical work on the building is almost complete, the building has to be fitted out. This will involve a tendering process. We will put pressure on the successful applicant to quickly fit out the building. We are talking about the end of May or June, or, I hope, not later than mid-July. I do not control the tendering process down to the last detail.
Will the Minister be there to open the building? Perhaps Deputy Hoctor will open it.
People have been trying to get rid of me for almost 35 years. They have not yet succeeded.
The Minister might let us know if the perceived difference of opinion between himself and the chairman of the Civil Defence Board has been resolved. How does the matter stand? Will it have implications for the decentralisation programme? I understand there are reservations at board level about the location and the standard of facilities available there. All of this has generated a good deal of media comment in recent days.
The transfer of Civil Defence to Roscrea goes ahead as planned. The difficulties that have arisen with the chairman of the Civil Defence Board are very serious but there is a time and a process in place to deal with them. While it is true that one or two other board members support the chairman in his reservations about the building in Roscrea, I have no say in such matters. The Office of Public Works makes its decisions independently. The matter went through the proper process. Ministers are not involved in deciding which buildings are suitable but I am confident the building in question will offer first-class accommodation.
While I have never met or spoken to the Civil Defence Board chairman, from what I have learned he seems to be competent and highly qualified. I understand he has a doctorate in his field of discipline. Great confidence was placed in him only a year or two ago by the Minister and the former Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Brennan. It is amazing that in such a short time there could be such a divergence of opinion between the Minister and the chairman who just a few months ago commanded such respect. We need to find out more about this matter. What is the basis of the disagreement? The decision to appoint a board chairman is not made lightly. Questions must be asked and answers given as to the exact nature of the differences of opinion. Are they personal? Do they relate to policy, or is there something about which we have not heard?
I do not wish to say much more on the matter. The differences relate to a very serious matter and my decision has not been taken lightly. It concerns a certain process which is under way.
I do not want to prolong this matter but I have been a Member of the House for 23 years and can recall only two cases where a board chairman has been dismissed, one of which involved Údarás na Gaeltachta a significant number of years ago. The other occurred in recent years. The current case is very disturbing and serious, about which, I hope, we will find out more.
We may discuss the matter another day. Subhead W relates to the Irish Red Cross Society while subhead X relates to Coiste an Asgaird which is funded by the National Lottery. Are there any queries?
Where is the original Asgard which generated controversy last year or the year before? I recall a spokesman from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism saying it was stored in the grounds of Kilmainham Prison where it was disintegrating almost daily. It was then moved to the Point Depot. We have not heard about it since. Does the Minister know its whereabouts, or does it remain his responsibility?
Asgard I is currently located at St. John's Road under the auspices of the Office of Public Works. The Deputy is correct. There was considerable debate about whether Asgard I should be restored and returned to sea, or conserved. It was suggested that considerable private funding might be available to support an initiative to restore the boat and return it to sea but this ran into difficulty. The private finance did not materialise as envisaged. On balance, it was decided that the boat should be put in storage. Some work has to be done on it but it will not be returned to sea.
Is it safeguarded against rot?
A conservation programme will be carried out under the auspices of the National Museum.
Is the boat now in an enclosed area, or out under the elements as it was when the controversy arose?
I understand it is in an enclosed area. Proper conservation measures are in place.
Is the boat no longer the responsibility of the Department of Defence but that of the OPW?
Correct.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is waiting to speak to the committee. Subhead Y relates to appropriations-in-aid to the Defence Vote. Is the Minister satisfied that the amount paid by the banks, €2.8 million, represents a reasonable effort at meeting the costs incurred by the Department in providing bank escorts? I understand that, if one apportions the cost in a realistic manner, it runs to a great deal more.
That is not true, although I can understand the reason it is sometimes thought to be so. Having said that, I intend to undertake a review, bearing in mind that the transit operation generally has reduced considerably and that my costs are either covered or very nearly covered by the amounts the banks pay to the Department. However, the matter has not been fully reviewed for some time and I intend to do so now. Whether that will present an opportunity I do not know but we may be able to achieve something more through it. I will have a go at it.
I see that the Minister intends to collect a great deal of money from land sales. What lands exactly does he have in mind?
The sale of Clancy Barracks has been completed for €25 million. Probably another €8 million or €9 million will be raised through smaller sales the length and breadth of the country.
Does the Minister regularly look at his Department's land bank? I am thinking, in particular, of the Camp Field in Mullingar. It is now virtually unused but in a very valuable location. From the point of view of local authority or private housing, it would realise substantial assets.
At the beginning I sought to look at the larger, more lucrative property portfolios which would raise the kinds of funds that I needed to complete the refurbishment and equipment acquisition programmes. As I have progressed, I have come fairly close to the end of the major ones. I have been using my time to try to get €25 million as distinct from €200,000. I am now coming to the stage of considering the smaller pockets of property. I am glad that the Acting Chairman has given me an indication of one in Mullingar. There are a few small items to be attended to at Mullingar barracks.
A great many.
It would be handy to have some resources down there, too. We will also look at the Camp Field.
We have dealt with UN receipts, the increased provision in 2004 for UNMIL Liberia, EU receipts, and receipts from property sales. Vote 37 relates to Army pensions.
A major sore in my part of the country and, I am sure, in any garrison town, is the number of Army personnel who opted out of the widows' and orphans' pension scheme and left their widows high and dry. I have come across many cases but can think of two women, in particular, one of whose husbands had 42 years' service in the Defence Forces. She went to the barracks soon after he died to collect her widow's pension only to be told that her husband had opted out of the scheme. Another woman whose husband had 38 years' service was left in a similar situation.
Let us examine what happened. The pension schemes were introduced in 1979 with another chance in 1985. Army personnel were asked at the time whether they wanted to join or get out. However, the only ones it will affect are the widows who were not consulted at all. They had no part whatever in deciding or even knowing whether their husbands were in or out of the scheme. They are the ones left holding the baby — literally, in some cases. Their husbands opted out of the scheme, which meant that, when they died, their widows received no pension whatsoever. They were left with a social welfare pension alone rather than, as they had expected, a Defence Forces pension for the many years that their husbands had served.
There is a relatively small number of widows. It is also remarkable that there are a number of serving personnel in the Defence Forces who are still outside the scheme. Would the Minister consider talking to them again and giving them the option of joining? The funds raised through their contributions to the pension scheme would go a long way towards funding those widows who have no pension from the Defence Forces because of something done without their knowledge.
The scheme has been compulsory for many years. The Acting Chairman referred to several cases which would cause anyone's heart to go out. There are one or two in my constituency too. I am very familiar with the issue. It was an extraordinary breach of trust in partnerships and marriages that people could opt out, as they had to. My Department made a great effort to explain the need for the scheme and what it entailed. The difficulty arises on two fronts, the first being that the commission on pensions made no recommendation in this regard. This concerns the former Department of Forestry, the local authorities, the health boards and a great many individuals.
One says to oneself that we must surely find a way because the individual who is suffering is totally innocent. However, no contributions were made when they could and should have been made. From a Government point of view, we will need to examine this. At the last estimate, to which I would not like to be confined — I do not know whether anyone could make a full estimate — the cost would be €16 million across the known cases in the different Departments. I will certainly undertake to consider the matter with regard to my responsibilities but I have exhausted every avenue up to now. I genuinely feel very sorry for the individuals concerned. It is clear from the Acting Chairman's own words that he has exactly the same problem and the same position on it.
That is right. The final point that I wished to make was that the selling of the scheme was done by officers of the Defence Forces. There was a difference in the degree of persuasion used. I know one officer, now retired, with whom I was very friendly. In his own words, he repeatedly paraded the group for which he was responsible until everyone was in the scheme. He would not let anyone opt out, and kept exerting pressure. In other cases——
It might not have been done as well.
It might not have been done so vigorously. In one case that I came across the serving man was a chef and did not take part in normal parades. He believed he was not made fully aware of the scheme. He only got backchat on it rather than a full frontal approach from his officer.
It is a shame that this has happened in this day and age. Many still working for the county councils and health boards are not in the scheme. I recently came across someone who worked for a county council, a youngish girl who had opted out. She wanted back in but was not allowed. It is a shame that there is no mechanism by which people such as she can rejoin when they realise they have made a mistake.
The matter is not my responsibility but I am genuinely concerned and anxious to help. I do not want to pretend it is easy and it certainly has been tried. I have tried it myself extensively. It is still a problem that needs to be resolved.
I understand the Minister's predecessor, the former Deputy Andrews, had made positive soundings and created an expectation that it was going to happen. The Minister might refer back to this.
I have enough responsibility without being responsible for what others say.
As we know from earlier in the meeting. Is subhead A agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead B agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead C agreed to?
I understand there is a scheme whereby the relations of a member of the Defence Forces who dies while serving abroad on a UN-mandated mission are entitled to death benefit which I believe is in the region of €80,000. However, if the mission is not UN-mandated — it could be either with the European Union, the OSCE or NATO — this grant is not payable. I am not sure if an amendment of the pensions Act would be required. Is the Minister aware of this discrepancy? Is so, are there any plans to rectify it in order that the relatives of someone who dies while serving with a legitimate organisation such as the European Union, NATO, the OSCE would receive the same benefit?
My Department has received a claim which will be processed through the conciliation and arbitration scheme in connection with the type of situation referred to by the Deputy. This is something that will be considered in due course. However, it presents a number of problems. It is an anomaly in the way matters have been dealt with up to now. However, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the conciliation and arbitration process between the representative associations and my Department to determine the best solution.
Will the nature of the payment require an amendment of the pensions Act or can it be done by——
I do not think a legislative change is required for an adjustment to be made.
Is the matter being looked at?
Yes.
Is it within the Minister's remit?
Once we have gone through the normal process. The claim has just been received.
Is it the Minister's decision?
I am not nearly as powerful as the Acting Chairman believes I am.
Is subhead C agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead D agreed to? I presume the figure is shrinking on an annual basis for veterans of the War of Independence.
Three remain.
Is subhead D agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead E — Compensation Payments — agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead F — Medical Appliances — agreed to? Agreed. Is subhead G — Appropriations-in-Aid — agreed to? Agreed.
I thank the Minister and his officials for coming before the committee and answering all of the questions asked. On behalf of the committee, I congratulate the Defence Forces on the work they do and, in particular, the role they play abroad and the way in which they promote the image of this country overseas on peacekeeping missions in 21 countries. I hope the Minister will pass on the committee's good wishes to serving members. He will recall that the committee held discussions as regards the acquisition of new aircraft. Members expressed a desire to see some of the new equipment being purchased. A date towards the end of June, after the elections, might be appropriate.
I thank the Acting Chairman for his comments with regard to the Defence Forces which will be conveyed to the Chief of Staff. We will be happy to facilitate a visit by members of the committee to Baldonnel. I understand there is also a request on the way from the committee for a visit outside Ireland.
There is a conference coming up in September which I was going to mention to the Minister. It concerns homeland security, European defence and security and parliamentary diplomacy. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to consider the matter.
I have not.
Perhaps the Minister will consider it and let the committee know if it would be appropriate for it to send representatives to the conference in which interest has been expressed. It would help the committee if the Department had a view on whether the issues to be covered would be relevant to members.
The Acting Chairman will recall that he was wondering where I would be in July. The conference is due to be held in September.
I thank the Minister. The select committee stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday next when it will meet in private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.