Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:122 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the steps being taken to overcome staff shortages in the Naval Service. [25506/03]
Priority Questions. - Naval Service Personnel.
As the Deputy is aware, the main day-to-day role of the Naval Service, as a component of the Defence Forces, is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the European Union.
As part of the modernisation process in December 2000, I authorised a new organisation for the Naval Service which saw an increase in personnel numbers from the 959 serving at that time to 1,144. Given the specialist nature of many of the additional positions it was not possible to fill them until such time as personnel had completed the necessary training. It was always accepted that it would take some years for all appointments to be filled by suitably qualified people.
I am aware of the particular difficulties regarding the deployment of ships' engineering staff, especially engine room artificers and electrical artificers. The position regarding engine room artificers is that the number of such appointments in the Naval Service was increased from 76 to 85 following the reorganisation of the Naval Service. A total of 70 engine room artificers are serving at present and a further eight will complete their naval training later this year.
Circumstances will continue to improve as significant numbers of trainee engine room artificers complete their training and come on stream over the next four years. In addition to the eight who are to complete training next year, a further 29 apprentices/trainee technicians are currently at various stages in the training process. They will all come on stream over the next four years and will meet the current shortfall and replace any further wastage that may occur.
The position regarding electrical artificers is that the number of such appointments in the Naval Service was increased from 42 to 48 following the reorganisation of the service. A total of 42 are serving at present, and a further 18 are at various stages of the training process and will come on stream in the coming years.
The reorganisation of the Naval Service was designed to ensure that when fully implemented all personnel would spend alternate periods of two years in a shore-based appointment followed by a ship-based appointment. Two years in a ship-based appointment does not imply that people spend two years at sea.
While the increase in the number of appointments for both engine room artificers and electri cal artificers may have created some short-term difficulties, I am assured by the military authorities that the arrangements in place to provide suitably trained and qualified personnel will result in an early improvement in circumstances.
The Naval Service has succeeded in increasing its operational deployment output by over 30% since 2000. On the basis of its deployment to date and the planned days for the remainder of this year, it is forecast that it will achieve 98.5% of its target in 2003. In the Naval Service value for money implementation plan, the Naval Service committed to achieving 95% of the target. The 5% margin is designed to facilitate events which militate against achieving the full target, such as mechanical failure, temporary specialist shortages and other unforeseen occurrences.
In addition to fulfilling its main day-to-day role of providing a fishery protection service, the Naval Service also provided support to Enterprise Ireland events in China and the southern states of America. No Naval Service vessel is tied up as a result of a shortage of personnel.
If what the Minister says is true, why are all the services required and envisaged under Ireland's obligations to the European Union in terms of fisheries protection not being observed? Will the Minister state why personnel are expected to serve more than the normal period at sea? Will he confirm that the two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off rota that usually applies is not being observed because it cannot be? Furthermore, will he indicate if it was wise to proceed with the service until such time that he had put in place the necessary backup and training procedures to ensure adequate staffing for the foreseeable future?
As Deputy Durkan knows, the capacity and will of the Government to support a navy is without any parallel in history. The Naval Service was waiting for a new ship for 14 years and we purchased the LE Niamh and LE Róisín at a cost of €45 million. The Deputy will note from my reply the increases in personnel and the training that is taking place to make sure we meet the reorganisational requirements that were set out.
In addition to meeting its fishery commitments, performing a drug interdiction role and carrying out other work, the Naval Service was able to support Enterprise Ireland in China and southern America, while also increasing its output in fishery protection and day-to-day activities by 30%. This has been achieved without any complaints to me by PDFORRA. The Naval Service should be complimented on this.
While difficulties in meeting technical requirements have occurred in certain areas, each of these, as I stated, has been addressed systematically by training new appointees to meet them to the fullest possible extent. The Naval Service should be complimented on its ongoing reorganisation and general activities. There is, however, no room for complacency and we are not taking anything for granted. The Naval Service deserves thanks for increasing its output by 30%, undertaking work on behalf of Enterprise Ireland and extending its remit in many areas. The evidence is before the Deputy.
The Minister is becoming as adept as the Taoiseach at giving the House a history lesson and a vision of the future—
I give them only when they are helpful.
—while offering little information on the underlying cause of the problem. He should recognise that Opposition Members are not criticising the Naval Service but asking him questions about his responsibility for providing a service. Has adequate provision been made to ensure the normal rota can apply immediately and, if not, why not?
I have already explained that we still have to meet the full requirements in some areas. We increased the number of Naval Service personnel in the reorganisation and introduced a range of training programmes. Like the Deputy if he were Minister, I will never be in a position to state everybody has exactly what he or she wants on a given day because we do not live in a utopian world.
That is obvious.
While we work in difficult circumstances from time to time, we do our best. I will do my level best to ensure the financial resources are available and the best support is given to the flag officer in his and his colleagues' attempts to eliminate any shortfalls. In addition to the normal training programmes, we go outside the service to try to attract people who already have undergone training through direct entry and have had some successes in this regard. Everything possible is being done.
The Minister did not answer my question as to whether the rota will be observed and if it can be enforced.
The Deputy does not want to listen.
Will the Minister answer my question, which I will repeat, with the words "Yes" or "No"? Will the normal procedural rota will be observed with immediate effect?
If I had a report which stated the Deputy's activities had increased by 30% in a couple of years, I would be satisfied that he was meeting any rota requirements he might have.
While the answer in my case would be "Yes", clearly the answer to my question is "No".
There has been an increase of 30% in activity, regardless of whether the Deputy likes it.
The Minister's performance is not showing any improvement.