Joan Burton
Question:9 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Defence the reason it has been decided to defer the planned replacement of old FN pistols for the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13080/03]
Other Questions. - Defence Forces Equipment.
I am advised that the Defence Forces have conducted studies and technical trials with a view to considering the requirement to replace the Browning 9mm semi-automatic pistol which is currently in service. The concept of a personal defence weapon such as a pistol is undergoing a radical reappraisal from a military perspective. New calibre weapons are currently being designed with a requirement to provide protection for an individual for up to 50 metres away.
However, the Defence Forces are in the position that this requirement may be met with a short barrel version of the Steyr rifle currently in service and, therefore, a new personal defence weapon programme may not be necessary. Due to ongoing developments, it has been decided by the military authorities to defer a replacement programme until a common industry approach evolves with respect to newer systems under development and the full potential for the use of the short barrel Steyr rifle is developed.
It could be argued that this is a method of reducing expenses in the Defence Forces. If our Defence Forces personnel are serving overseas, does having this type of weapon indicate that they are way behind developments in the defence forces of other countries? When will the decision in this regard be made or is the current weapon considered appropriate and acceptable internationally as a defence weapon for our Defence Force personnel, who have done so well in representing our Army and this country? Deputy McGinley referred earlier to the age of these weapons. Is something being done in regard to that?
When Deputy McGinley and I were talking earlier, Deputy McGinley was shooting from the hip. The position is not as Deputy Wall suggests. Overall, we put all programmes under scrutiny, as we should. From time to time decisions are taken to develop a particular programme but technology changes and innovations occur and these must be examined. That is what is happening here. In the meantime, we are at no disadvantage. The equipment is perfectly operative. We do not want to see the use of these guns, nor do we want people to be put in a position where they have to use them. Thank heavens, it is not a big feature of our United Nations work. Otherwise, we would have many more problems on our hands.
Does the Minister not agree that a programme adopted to replace the pistols has been cancelled or deferred? The pistols are 40 years old and need to be replaced. What is the estimated saving as a result of this deferral?
This is not a saving. Our Estimates provide for spending millions on equip ment and improving accommodation for the Defence Forces so this is insignificant in that context. In this case the military hierarchy is looking anew at its requirements and the changes that have taken place therein. It has nothing to do with a cutback. The Defence Forces are right. If there is further use for its existing resources in this area, as there is, and if new changes are coming, it would be nonsense to go forward with a programme which would be premature in terms of what is available. All our work and Estimates are subject to that type of analysis. One can spend or intend to spend in one area and change one's mind because one intends to do something else. I hope everybody would do that when it is not necessary to spend it in a certain area.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.