Vol. 673 No. 3
99 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if suitable permanent office, living and storage accommodation has been provided in Finner Camp, Custume Barracks and Aiken Barracks for the units and personnel required to transfer to those locations from the barracks and posts being closed; the amount spent on providing this accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3662/09]
In keeping with the budget announcement last October, the four military posts at Lifford, Rockhill, Monaghan and Longford closed last week with the personnel transferring to Finner, Dundalk and Athlone. I would like to take this opportunity to record my, and the Government's, appreciation of the professional manner in which the closures and transfers were conducted.
The military authorities had conducted a detailed review of the immediate requirements to enable the closure of the four barracks. This identified that most of the requirements for those transferring to a new location could be met from existing resources. However, a need for some immediate works, mainly the provision of storage facilities, was identified. These were provided in advance of the moves at a cost of about €550,000.
In addition to the immediate requirements, some medium-term capital works will be required in Finner Camp, Custume Barracks and Aiken Barracks to provide more permanent arrangements for the transferring personnel. These are being advanced within the Department's capital programme.
My Department is engaged in an ongoing capital programme designed to modernise and enhance the training, operational and accommodation facilities available to the Defence Forces, both permanent and reserve. The programme focuses mainly on infrastructural projects comprising the construction of new buildings and the refurbishment of existing buildings. The cost of the projects associated with these closures will be approximately €2.5 million.
In October the Minister made a promise in this House that if the logistics were not in place the transfer of personnel could be delayed. In the case of Aiken Barracks I understand the facilities in place are not adequate. The Minister is moving 150 personnel into a barracks which is operating at full capacity.
Single soldiers are expected to sleep in rooms which are about half the size of a prison cell with no facilities whatsoever. There are no locker facilities or basic washing facilities. I understand that the showering facilities, because of the additional numbers using them, are not adequate. This is serious. I could see it being a case for the Health and Safety Authority and I would be amazed if it did not visit this place in the next few weeks.
The Minister made a commitment that people would not be moved until the logistics were in place. Is he aware of the conditions the 150 personnel concerned have to endure until such time as the building in question is finished?
Deputy Deenihan is correct. I gave that commitment and immediately after giving it in the House I spoke to the Army Chief of Staff and his deputy chiefs. I told them if the project could not be completed by 31 January, I would not get too upset. I communicated that to them and they assured me it could be done but that it was a matter for themselves.
I admit the situation in Aiken Barracks, which the Deputy referred to, has not been brought directly to my attention. I am assured by the military that everything is proceeding according to plan and that the immediate work to be done was the provision of extra storage facilities, which was done in all three barracks at a cost of €550,000.
There are some capital works, such as the provision of shower rooms and locker rooms, which are taking place as we speak. They will cost approximately €2.5 million. I have told my Department and the military that I want those works to be completed as quickly as possible. I understand they will be completed quite quickly.
I understand the builder on site had difficulties and a new builder had to be appointed, which is not the fault of the Minister. Can the Minister clarify when he thinks the building will be completed? In the meantime, Army personnel are leaving perfect living quarters in Monaghan and the Minister is putting them into accommodation which is totally unacceptable.
Can the Minister give us an indication today of when the building will be completed? Can he assure us that the personnel will be in satisfactory living accommodation within a short space of time and will not have to wait for a number of months?
I have had no direct complaints from individuals or PDFORRA, their representative organisation. They may have made complaints to the Department or military but certainly have not come to me. The military or Department have not brought these matters directly to my attention. In view of what Deputy Deenihan said, I will ascertain approximately how long the repair works of the new buildings will take. I am told it should be done in the next four to six weeks but I will get a more precise timescale and communicate it to the Deputy.
100 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence when a decision will be made as to whether to proceed with efforts to salvage the Asgard II; if his attention has been drawn to the concerns that the vessel may be further damaged by rough seas and fishing activity in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3654/09]
101 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if the second survey he commissioned on the possibility of raising the Asgard II has been concluded; if so, his intentions in regard to the vessel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3726/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 100 and 101 together.
As I indicated to the House previously, the board of Coiste an Asgard decided in early December last to arrange a second underwater survey of Asgard II. Due to factors outside its control, it was not possible to arrange that survey until last week. However, due to adverse weather conditions, the survey could not be completed successfully, apart from taking a sonar picture which appears to show that the vessel is still in an upright position.
A meeting of the board of Coiste an Asgard is taking place this afternoon at which the question of the salvage of Asgard II will be further considered. Arising from that meeting, I expect to get a recommendation from the board within the next day or so as to whether to proceed with a salvage operation. I will then make a decision on the matter immediately
I am glad to hear a decision is imminent. However, all the Minister knows at this stage, despite it being indicated in early December that there would be a second inspection of the vessel, is that the vessel is in an upright position. What is his advice on the current state of the vessel, given that it is located in very turbulent waters? Bearing in mind the fact that more damage can be done by gill netters and a maritime notice has been posted by the French authorities which indicates the vessel is there, does the Minister have any evidence gill netters are operating in the area?
What information does the Minister have on the condition of the vessel? Will the decision he will make be a negative one in terms of salvage?
Deputy O'Shea is correct. We did promise last December that there would be a second inspection. However, due to weather conditions, it was not possible to organise it until last week and even when it was organised the weather was so bad the normal type of inspection done in the first instance could not be done. Due to the appalling conditions, all that could be done was to take a sonar photograph.
I have no information that the condition of Asgard II has deteriorated to any significant degree due to it still being down there. I am aware of the situation regarding gill netters and the fact that a notice was posted by the French authorities. There is nothing to indicate any further damage has taken place. As the Deputy knows, the initial survey showed the vessel was in an upright position and this was confirmed by the sonar photograph taken last week.
The board is meeting today and will make recommendations to me having considered the matter thoroughly. I am not bound by its recommendation but I will take it into account seriously when making a final decision. That will happen later this week.
In view of the fact that the Asgard II is a maritime icon, a national flagship and an ambassador for this country, surely there should have been more urgency on the salvaging of the ship. It is now five months since it sank and we have had two surveys.
The Minister must have been able to act and make up his mind on whether it was salvageable or not after the first survey. How many surveys does he need? In the meantime, we have lost a number of weather windows when a salvage operation could have been carried out.
Does the Minister intend to salvage the Asgard II? Is the intention to draw down the insurance which, I understand, is approximately €3.8 million and leave the Asgard II at the bottom of the sea? This is important. The Minister is responsible for it and can answer these questions. People are wondering, because of the timeline involved, if the intention is to abandon the ship entirely and draw down the insurance.
I have not made a final decision on that yet. The fact is that the Asgard is a very popular institution and it is true that it has been a great ambassador for Ireland. The other side of the story, however, is that the ship does not have any historic significance per se as it is only 30 years old. It is called the Asgard but does not have any connection with the original vessel. We must apply hard logic in making these decisions; one cannot make a decision based on emotion. There are a number of difficulties with the salvage operation: first, one must take into account the cost involved; second, one must also take into account what damage, if any, might be caused to the ship during the salvage operation; and, third, if the ship is salvaged in a fairly undamaged state and it can be repaired, one must carefully examine the cost. We must therefore take all those factors into account.
I did not recommend that a second survey take place. The first survey took place to ascertain the condition of the ship in so far as it could be ascertained. That survey confirmed that the ship was upright and did not appear to have been substantially damaged. The board of the Asgard determined that there should be a second survey, I presume to check if any deterioration had occurred in the meantime. It took a while to organise that. It could not be organised until last week due to poor weather conditions. Divers can only examine the site if weather conditions are favourable. Even when they dived to the vessel they found they could not undertake a proper survey, but just took a sonar photograph. That is in the past, however, and the board of the Asgard is meeting this afternoon and will make a recommendation to me on what it thinks should be done. I will of course take that recommendation into account.
I take on board much of what the Minister has said. It is a question of where we will go from here. Even if the vessel is raised, its reconstruction will take a long period, so what will the Minister do to provide a temporary replacement training vessel? If it is decided not to salvage the Asgard, what will the Minister do about providing a replacement vessel? I very much hope that the Asgard can be salvaged and I look forward to the decisions that are about to be taken in that regard.
Is there any further information on the cause of this accident? Does the Minister expect that the survey or the eventual raising of the vessel will shed a great deal more light on that?
Deputy O'Shea has posed three questions. First, no matter what happens we will need a replacement if we are to have a sail training season from May to September-October. On my instructions, the board of the Asgard is actively pursuing the question of a replacement. It has examined a number of possible replacement vessels with a view to leasing one for the season at least. I have asked the board to report back to me at the end of the month on that matter. Therefore it is determined that the sailing season will take place from May to September-October and a replacement vessel will have been identified within a short space of time.
Second, Deputy O'Shea asked what will happen if we decide not to salvage the Asgard. If we do not salvage it, we will have the €3.8 million insurance money which we will use towards the cost of a replacement vessel. That is our intention if we do not salvage the Asgard.
Third, the Deputy will be aware that the relevant authority is investigating the cause of the accident. It is a statutory authority and we do not have any access, but we have the right to ask them what stage they are at. That is the only right we have and as late as a few days ago they told us that they had not yet completed their investigation. That is all I know about that. Of course the Deputy is right in that if the vessel is salvaged, I imagine it will certainly throw light on what happened. It will certainly show the full extent of the damage.
Judging by the tone of the Minister's initial response I am afraid the Asgard is doomed to remain at the bottom of the sea. I certainly hope that is not the case, however, if it is intact as the Minister’s survey said it was. Can the Minister indicate how much it will cost to salvage the vessel, as well as the cost of a replacement vessel? I think the latter could be in the region of €9 million to €10 million. If the Minister is looking for a new vessel, the Jeanie Johnston has a proven track record and was built as a training ship. If it comes to that, it would provide an ideal opportunity as the Jeanie Johnston could be used temporarily. In this time of fiscal rectitude, it might be the solution for the future.
I would advise Deputy Deenihan not to take any interpretation from my tone. I am trying to remain neutral in this matter and am awaiting a report from the board. I will communicate with the Deputy as soon as I make a decision.
The Minister should be leading.
One does not have a dog and bark oneself. We get advice from the board. I can only give a rough estimate of the salvage cost due to the way the system operates. When the salvage operation is commissioned, from the time they start mobilising, one is paying for it. Even if a salvage operation were to take place, our advice is to delay it for a while until the weather improves. There is no point in having the job mobilised and be paying by the day, while the weather prevents the salvage team from working. I have been told that the general figure is in the order of approximately €2 million. The cost of a replacement vessel varies. My advice is that it would not cost in the order of what Deputy Deenihan mentioned.
The figure was mentioned in some newspaper.
We will see in due course. I know there are some objections to using the Jeanie Johnston. It has been suggested as a replacement vessel for the next sailing season with a view to using it as a permanent replacement for the Asgard. There have been a number of objections to that, however. I have asked the Department to give that realistic consideration. It may well be that the Jeanie Johnston will be used as a replacement, which would give us an opportunity to evaluate it in the event of not raising the Asgard. That will depend on what other options come to light.
The Minister will need something temporary in the meantime anyway.
Yes. As I said to Deputy O'Shea, we will have something in the meantime, and the Jeanie Johnston is one of those options.
102 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence his views on the call made at its recent annual conference that PDFORRA should be allowed to join the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3655/09]
The position is that under the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990, the Defence Force representative associations are prohibited from being associated with, or affiliated to, any trade unions or any other body without the consent of the Minister. Accordingly, the representative associations, RACO and PDFORRA, cannot be affiliated to ICTU at present. A similar arrangement applies to the Garda Síochána representative associations.
The basis for the prohibition is that it would be inappropriate to apply the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 to members of the Defence Forces. The taking of any form of industrial action is felt to be irreconcilable with military service. As has been done in the past, the Defence Forces may be called on to contribute to maintaining vital services in times of industrial action. The potential for serious difficulties could arise in these circumstances if the associations were affiliated to ICTU.
However, a number of mechanisms have been put in place through the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme to compensate for the prohibition on affiliation to ICTU. These provide the representative associations with structures and processes which enable them to make representations and negotiate on behalf of their members. In addition, a framework exists which facilitates the associations in engaging with the official side in talks parallel to those taking place between the social partners at national level. This parallel process was operated in respect of the discussions at national level on the framework for a pact for stabilisation, social solidarity and economic renewal over the past weeks.
I am not quite sure whether the Minister said that this can happen with his consent — in other words, that PDFORRA can be affiliated to ICTU. If there is a will to do something, a legislative way can be found to do it. What is wrong with a situation, as sought by PDFORRA, whereby there would be no agenda for industrial action or to subvert the State in any way, but representatives of PDFORRA could take part with ICTU on an information basis? In that way they would be better informed for their members and could make a better input for them. This would be against the background of being prohibited from doing anything that would subvert the State or involve PDFORRA members in industrial action. We need to move with the times here and I put it to the Minister that it is not an unreasonable request to be allowed affiliation in that context. If the Minister really wants it, a way can be found to do it. The Minister will not meet any obstacles from the Labour Party in that regard.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said. The difficulty to date is that it is felt to be inappropriate and that it might be a question of divided loyalties. For example, 2,000 members of the Defence Forces were recently trained to step into the prisons in the event of a threatened prison officer strike. It is felt there might be a conflict of interest in such a situation as they might be affiliated to ICTU, but be used, as it were, to undermine a strike by another section of the public sector. The same thing applies to the Garda Síochána.
With regard to admitting the military to the industrial relations structure, we have been to the forefront of Europe where it is acknowledged, by PDFORRA and more widely, there are excellent mechanisms in place whereby PDFORRA and RACO can make their case to the appropriate authorities. There is also the parallel mechanism which enables them to represent themselves at social partner level. PDFORRA would be the first to admit, and has claimed in my presence at various conferences, that it has gained much from that process. The defence organisation has gained too as a result of closer partnership, co-operation and interaction with PDFORRA and RACO.
The issue of membership of ICTU has been put forward a number of times. It does not apply, as yet, for the Garda Síochána. If there was to be a change, therefore, I would have to talk to my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has the right to decide on whether the Garda Síochána should become affiliated with ICTU.
This request has not been put to me formally since the PDFORRA conference last year. If it wants to come back to me on the matter, I am prepared to look at the situation. To be honest, I do not see how the PDFORRA members are disadvantaged in any way by not being affiliated to ICTU. They do not seem to see a disadvantage either.
I accept the Minister's good will in the matter and his willingness to see the situation move forward as far as is practicable. I understand he suggests the door is open for PDFORRA to make an appropriate application to him, that he will look on it as favourably as possible and will seek to facilitate its request in so far as he can. If changes are required, the Minister should, having consulted with PDFORRA, consult his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to see how this agenda can be moved forward. The fact we are to the forefront in Europe is welcome, but there is a further distance to be travelled to arrive at a more satisfactory agreement or arrangement on PDFORRA.
If the request comes to me again, I will consider it afresh. I could not see the change being made in isolation. In other words, I cannot see a situation whereby we would let the military avail of the facility while the Garda is prevented from doing so, because the reasons it is not regarded as appropriate for one organisation are the same reasons for the other. However, if the request comes to me again, I will examine it afresh and consult with my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
103 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself with the resources being provided to the medical corps within the Defence Forces in view of the fact that a large number of the sick days being taken by soldiers are due to delays in waiting to attend consultancy appointments and delays in being assessed by medical boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3727/09]
Military medical services and their facilities exist to maintain the health of the Defence Forces and to support them in operational and overseas activities. The focus of the military medical service is on primary care, occupational medicine, acute trauma management, preventative medical programmes and field medical training.
A key issue in the provision of medical services to the Defence Forces has been the shortage of medical officers, namely doctors, in the medical corps. The services of civilian medical practitioners are used to provide back up to the medical corps in ensuring the primary health care requirements are met. The difficulties with the recruitment of medical officers have endured for some time, despite the concerted efforts of my Department and the Defence Forces. The numbers attracted to work in the Defence Forces have served only to address natural wastage. The pay and allowances of doctors and dentists were increased substantially in consultation with the Minister for Finance. In addition, the Defence Forces have undertaken an intensive recruitment campaign. The results of both of these initiatives have been disappointing. Apart from the issue of the numbers of medical officers, a review of the provision of medical services, in association with the representative associations, is ongoing as part of the modernisation agenda for the Defence Forces.
In view of the complexity of the challenge facing the Defence Forces in this area, I decided to engage consultants to make recommendations on the best means of meeting the medical requirements of the Defence Forces. The consultancy is focusing on the sustainable provision of the relevant medical expertise and services to the Defence Forces. PA Consulting was awarded the contract for the medical consultancy. I eagerly await receipt of the report and assure the House that following consideration of the recommendations, I will publish the report and engage with all of the key stakeholders with regard to its implementation.
I understand that in referring to consultancy appointments, the Deputy is referring to appointments with medical officers of the Defence Forces medical corps. Improvements in the provision of medical services will contribute to ensuring that absences due to sickness in the Defence Forces are kept to a minimum. My Department is addressing the issue of sick leave arrangements more broadly in tandem with the consultancy. A review group representative of my Department, the Defence Forces and the representative associations has been established to ensure that military sick leave arrangements are the most appropriate and in line with current best practice. Notwithstanding the current situation, I assure the House that Defence Forces personnel requiring medical treatment are getting the care they need.
Will the Minister clarify, if the medical service is adequate and he is satisfied with it, why 135,000 sick days were taken last year by just 20% of Defence Forces personnel? Does the Minister agree this is, in most cases, because of the absence of a proper and well-resourced medical corps for the Defence Forces? A soldier on sick leave may have to wait for weeks, or months in some cases, before he or she can access the medical board to certify fitness to return to service. I point out to the Minister that, as reported recently in the newspapers, these sick days are confined to approximately 20% of the Defence Forces.
This is a major issue. I am aware the Minister has appointed consultants whose report we have been awaiting for approximately a year. It is amazing they are taking so long to come up with recommendations. This looks bad for the Army and the Defence Forces. It is unfair that those people who want to return to work cannot, in many cases, get treatment or clearance from the medical board. The Minister may not be aware that a member of the medical board cannot have seen or treated any of these people previously or he or she is ruled out of being on the board.
Is the Minister aware or concerned about this problem? Apart from waiting for the consultants' report, what is he going to do about it?
Deputy Deenihan asked if I was satisfied the current service is adequate. A number of issues are involved. First, it is adequate. Any soldier who needs primary care will get it. I agree there is a shortage of doctors in the Army, but we have an arrangement, as the Deputy will be aware, with civilian doctors who step into the breach. That has been the established position for many years. I reiterate that any soldier who needs immediate medical treatment will receive it within the same timescale available to any other person in the country.
I agree there were 135,000 sick days last year. This works out at approximately 12.99 sick days per individual. My advice is that while this is a large number it is not wildly out of line with the rest of the public sector. This gives me some satisfaction because the nature of military duties means that a minor injury which might not prevent somebody from working in an office might prevent him or her from undertaking military duties in view of the consequent risk. While a total of 12.99 sick days per person is not grossly out of line with the rest of the public sector, nevertheless there is room for improvement and I take this point.
I want to allow a brief supplementary question.
Deputy Deenihan asked me a question about the medical board and I will answer it.
The figure for sick days is out of line. With regard to sick days, the figures I have show that the average in the public sector is 3.5 whereas in the Army it is 13. The nature of being involved in a military force is different from being involved in the Garda Síochána or other occupations. The training is very physical, much time is spent outdoors and the people face challenging situations. This is why they need adequate medical backup. There is a fundamental failure in our service to our Defence Forces which is reflected in the number of days spent on sick leave. People who do not want to be on sick leave cannot get treated or be seen by consultants or the medical board. It is serious and the Minister must deal with the matter as soon as possible and not wait for a consultancy report which may not come out for another year given the way consultancy reports are finalised.
According to the official script I received from the Department, sick leave in the Defence Forces is not significantly out of line with the range across the public service and this is the information on which I am relying.
It is wrong.
I do not accept for one second the contention that there is extra sick leave in the Defence Forces because people cannot see a doctor quickly. People in the Defence Forces can get treatment for primary medical conditions and see a doctor as quickly as anybody else. Even though we do not have sufficient doctors in the Army there is a very good arrangement between the Army and civilian doctors who provide their services.
What about the consultants and the medical board?
So far as the consultants' report is concerned, I concede that I expected it by the end of last year. It has not arrived. I asked about it again today and I expect to have it within the coming weeks. I understand it was ready but was held back to make improvements which is fair enough.
With regard to medical boards, I accept the point that there are delays due to the small number of doctors we have and the fact that they are geographically spread. As Deputy Deenihan rightly stated, neither of the two members of the medical board can have seen the person previously.
Can this be reduced to one and can ex-Army doctors be used?
We are examining urgently a way to speed this up. The minimum period is 56 days but it is running well beyond this in some cases.
