Dáil debates

Thursday, 19 November 2009

2:00 pm

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General which has highlighted the failure to follow proper procurement guidelines in obtaining the helicopters for the Chad mission and the inability of the aircraft to carry passengers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42329/09]

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can assure the Deputy and the House that I am fully aware of the audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the leasing of helicopters by the Defence Forces for Chad and I am advised that the findings of the report have been accepted in full by my Department.

The findings outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General are broadly in line with the findings of the investigation carried out by the internal audit unit of the Department of Defence, which was finalised in February 2009.

It is important to take into account the overall context in which the issues regarding the contracting of the helicopters occurred. The deployment and sustainment of the Defence Forces contingent to Chad was the most challenging logistics project ever undertaken by the Defence Forces. The unprecedented extent and nature of the deployment meant that the project was a very important learning exercise for the Defence Forces. Overall, the very difficult task of deploying and sustaining the Irish Battalion has been accomplished in a very professional manner.

Given the remoteness of the Irish Battalion's base in Goz Beida, the absence of a road infrastructure, the isolation anticipated during the rainy season and the considerable distance from the nearest hospital, the need for comprehensive helicopter support was recognised from the outset.

The authority to procure air support for the Defence Forces, including helicopters, was delegated to the Chief of Staff. A contract was signed by the Defence Forces at the end of May 2008 with a UK company, Air Partner, for the charter of two Mi-8T helicopters for use in Chad. The two civilian registered helicopters arrived in theatre in Chad on 28 June 2008. The contract duration was originally scheduled for ten months and was subsequently extended by a further six months.

In late September 2008, a question arose on the certification of these helicopters for transport of passengers. On further investigation, it was discovered that the helicopters were classified as cargo carrying only in the air operator certificate. The issue was a regulatory and licensing issue relating to civilian registered helicopters and did not reflect in any way on the safety, technical or operational capacity of the helicopters.

Pending the resolution of the matter, the helicopters were restricted to cargo transport only for a period of time. The certification matter was resolved when the company replaced the helicopters with two other helicopters, which were appropriately certified at no additional cost to the Department. The new helicopters became operational in January 2009.

In purely operational terms, the contracted helicopters performed well in service and provided vital support to the Defence Forces. The requirement for the helicopters was very much a real one. Even when their use was temporarily restricted in 2008 while the certification issue was being resolved, the helicopters continued to fill an important role by providing logistic support. They remained available as emergency cover for casualty evacuation. They continued, therefore, to provide an essential capability throughout the period.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to ask the Minister a number of specific questions. Why was only one charter company approached with regard to the leasing of helicopters for the mission? Also, why was the advice of the contracts branch in his Department, which was given in March 2008, that the existing framework agreement did not make provision for helicopter lease ignored? Also, why was Air Partner asked to more or less evaluate its own documentation which effectively meant that the tenderer was involved in evaluating its own proposal? There should have been expertise within the Defence Forces and the Air Corps to do that entire task. Those are three specific questions.

What procedures have been put in place to ensure that similar problems will not occur in the future? Have such procedures been put in place and, if not, when will that be done?

4:00 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Deenihan asked the reason only one company was approached and the normal tendering process not undergone. As I was not personally involved in this, nor were the civilian staff in my Department - this was done by the military - I can only try to guess what happened. To put the matter in context, we were going into a position which, for reasons I have outlined in my reply, air support was essential. We had 400 troops in the middle of the desert in one of the most logistically difficult countries in the world, with a road infrastructure of approximately 300 km in a country which is double the size of France. Air support was essential.

When we joined the UNFOR mission our understanding was that our partners in the UNFOR mission would supply the requisite air support, and we literally found ourselves let down at the last minute. I am not saying things were done right because there was a rush, but this may explain the reason things were not done right. The people involved in this have put their hands up. The internal report conducted by my Department was reinforced by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and found that there was fault in the way the contract was placed. We admit that and we regret it. The Chief of Staff wrote to me apologising for what happened. The normal procedure would be that we should have a proper tendering process, and various people tender. What should have happened also, as Deputy Deenihan rightly states, is that the Air Corps should have been consulted and the business case should have been put in writing to be evaluated by the high level group.

Deputy Deenihan asked what was done. A number of things have been done. The moment this matter was brought to our attention we revoked the authority to carry passengers. For three months, the company was restricted to the terms of its air certification, namely to carry only cargo to supply the troops. It was, however, available for medical evacuation purposes in the event of an emergency.

We instituted an internal inquiry through the audit section of my Department. The new procedures mean that the method by which authority is delegated to the military for performing specific tasks has been tightened up considerably. There will be no doubt in future about who has the delegated authority and the scope of that authority. The high level military civilian procurement group will now examine and monitor these contracts when they go to tender rather than just before the contract is to be placed. It will occur at a much earlier stage in the process, which will enable more discussion and evaluation.

Procurement was new to the Department and it has since been trained in procurement procedures. It will be wiser in future.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has any consideration been given to the internal authorisation limits? At the moment, they are €750,000, whereas this was €3 million. Has consideration been given to increasing those limits so people will be able to authorise contracts for more than €750,000 at this level?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am almost fully certain that the limit has been raised to €1 million.