Vol. 496 No. 4
25 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the progress, if any, made in his consultations on the future use of closed Army barracks and lands with local communities; if he will continue with the use of private security firms to guard these barracks; the cost to date of this security; the timescale envisaged for this security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23130/98]
The Government, on 15 July 1998, approved a programme of evacuation and sale of six barracks which are considered surplus to military requirements. This decision is part of the relocation, refurbishment and re-equipment of the Defence Forces as recommended in the context of the Price Waterhouse report regarding the rationalisation of military institutions generally. The Government remains fully committed to this important programme.
It is expected that up to £50 million will be raised from the immediate sale of the barracks, and 60 per cent of the proceeds will be invested in the redevelopment of other military installations and new equipment. The balance will be used both to meet the cost of compensation claims and for investment in the local communities where closures take place.
The proposed sales will provide prime sites to meet housing, commercial and industrial development needs in the areas concerned. In addition, 15 per cent of the proceeds are to be devoted to community projects in the areas concerned. This is a consultative process involving many Departments, agencies, councils and organisations, including my own Department. While there have been preliminary discussions with local community groups, various details and arrangements still require to be sorted out.
Private security firms will continue to secure the properties and will remain in place until the sale of the properties is completed. The current contracts will be reviewed after a three month period. It is not possible at this stage to give a definitive indication as to when the sales will be completed. However, they will be completed in the shortest possible timeframe.
The costs incurred for private security services up to 6 November 1998 is approximately £51,000.
When we discussed this previously the Minister said he would like to see a comprehensive consultation plan being put in place with local communities where barracks are being closed. What progress has the Minister made on this issue? Is he having any difficulties on zoning these properties for future sale? Has he had satisfactory answers from local authorities on the zoning question? The Minister says he cannot comment on the timescale at present. Does he envisage private security firms being used irrespective of timescale or will that decision have to be reviewed by the Minister at a later stage? The review of the private security industry has strongly recommended the need for regulation of that industry. Does that issue concern the Minister? Has he raised the matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Does he foresee more legislation in this area? Is this a prelude to more privatisation of services to the Defence Forces?
I will deal with the last question first. There seems to be a mythical presumption that it is possible to secure valuable commercial sites on a free basis. Last year the cost of securing barracks in security duty allowances alone was £4.5 million. The savings arising from the closure of these barracks will be a permanent saving of approximately £0.5 million per year. It is also important to realise that the activity analysis in the Price Waterhouse review, which relates to the day to day requirements of what the Defence Forces do, brought out a significant finding. The bulk of the work conducted by the Defence Forces every day consists of housekeeping duties and security of barracks, and the Defence Forces were not then available for operational duties, collective training or United Nations service. Apart from the inappropriateness of giving soldiers these duties, there would be a significant cost in security duty allowances. It is not as if there is a choice that means this can be done for free.
Obviously I will review this position if it continues too long, but I have already had discussions with a variety of groups that I am trying to get together. In that way we will not get different views from different groups, and there will be a coherent philosophy at local level on what should happen. The value of the site can be enhanced and it can be put up for public tender as quickly as possible. Some sites will take longer than others to sell, though I hope the smaller sites can be sold fairly immediately. The others will involve longer discussions.
There is some present discussion on legislation to regulate the security industry. I am happy with the local firms involved, but I do not want them there one day longer than they are needed. However, we must protect these properties from wanton destruction which would adversely affect the sales of very valuable lands.
Is the Minister satisfied he will be able to sell these barracks and that he will not be inhibited by legal matters of ownership or zoning? Is he satisfied that he now has a uniform approach to consultation across the various barracks so that local communities will be satisfied with the plans that are made for the use of those buildings and lands?
The time for this question has expired. We must proceed to the Question No. 26. There is a strict time limit on Priority Questions.
