Frank Feighan
Question:12 Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Defence the progress made on providing a workplace child care facility in the Curragh Camp; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35987/08]
Other Questions.
Child Care Facilities.
A request to provide crèche facilities for members of the Defence Forces has been made by the Defence Forces representative associations.
The Defence Forces partnership steering group, which was established following on from Partnership 2000, has tasked a partnership sub-committee with examining the issue of the provision of child care facilities under a number of headings, including demand for places, location and cost.
The partnership sub-committee has now completed a survey on the demand for crèche places in the vicinity of the Curragh. Work has also been completed with regard to a possible site and estimates of costs. Following on from this, I understand the sub-committee has submitted a draft report to the partnership steering group on the feasibility of the project. I am assured a final report will be available in the near future.
Will the Minister request the report as soon as possible? I asked a similar question in November 2007 and received a similar response. I remind the Minister that apart from personnel on site in the Curragh, it is proposed to move 400 people from headquarters in Dublin there, resulting in approximately 3,000 people being on site in the Curragh. It will be like a small town. Almost every other Department of that size has a crèche facility for its employees. Why, therefore, should there not be a facility at the Curragh?
I understand there is a question mark over the facility on the grounds of costs. Why discriminate against Army personnel in the Curragh? Male and female personnel equally require the crèche facility to help them manage their daily lives. If a facility was available they could have their children cared for close to their workplace, just like other people. Will the Minister demand this report be presented to him? I understand it has been completed, but that there is a reluctance to move on it because of cost factors, but they should not come into consideration. Personnel at the Curragh should receive the same treatment as personnel in other Departments.
With regard to the initial question, I will study the report. I have not received it yet and do not know what is in it, but I will make inquiries as to when it will be available. With regard to the general issue of cost factors, the position is there is no funding available from the Department of Finance for the infrastructure. Therefore, if we decided to put a crèche in the Curragh, the cost would have to come from the depleted capital budget of the Department of Defence, which has been considerably reduced this year. I am not saying it will not, but that is from where it would have to come.
One of the major factors I would have to consider with regard to making that decision would be the other demands on our capital budget. I would also have to consider whether the crèche would be self-financing. The other crèches provided by the public service are all self-financing and one at the Curragh would have to be the same. That would depend on demand. Those details will be in the report. I will inquire this evening as to when the report will be available, but I understand it will be available quite soon.
I am sure that if the Minister gave Army personnel the opportunity to make that choice, they would welcome it. With regard to the altar of fiscal rectitude within the Department, I am sure the Minister would not discriminate against young children with regard to much needed child care facilities, particularly at a time when the Minister is trying to encourage more female personnel to join the Army. Recruitment in that area is not going too well. I am aware the Minister has said previously that having a child care facility in the Curragh would not be a major incentive for attracting women into the Army, but it could be one of the many incentives necessary to attract women into the Army. Therefore, the idea should not be dismissed. I hope the Minister does not dismiss it.
Deputy Deenihan referred to the altar of fiscal rectitude. Many things have been sacrificed by many Governments throughout the history of the State on the altar of fiscal rectitude. I will give this undertaking to the House. If a decision must be taken as to whether I provide money from my reduced capital budget to provide the infrastructure, the decision will only arise if the report indicates there is sufficient demand to make the crèche self-financing. If we get to that stage and I am considering it, I will look at the proposal very sympathetically.
Departmental Staff.
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:13 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the way he will achieve the reduction of 3% in payroll costs for his Department as announced in July 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35873/08]
Joan Burton
Question:31 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Defence if it is intended to effect a reduction in staffing levels in his private or constituency offices or those of the Minister of State in his Department arising from the requirement intended to achieve the reduction of 3% in payroll costs for his Department. [35874/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 31 together.
My Department will achieve the 3% reduction in payroll costs by adopting a rigorous programme of efficiencies and through the prudent management of its resources. Specifically, a range of measures is being put in place to ensure that the required payroll reduction is achieved, including not filling vacancies arising from natural wastage and anticipated retirements and reductions in overtime.
My Department has 387 whole-time equivalent staff, including four permanent civil servants in my private office and six permanent civil servants in my constituency office. Since the announcement in July, nine posts in my Department remain unfilled, representing more than 2% of posts. Other vacancies that may arise between now and the end of 2009 will be managed on a case-by-case basis in order to stay within budget. In addition to these measures, my Department will continue to seek out savings while maintaining its existing level of service.
To some extent this question has been overtaken by the budget. Some nine posts are not being filled. Will they remain unfilled?
For the moment.
We have read reports that recruitment to the Defence Forces is also being slowed down. Is that taking place as a result of the 3% reduction in payroll costs or the budget?
Nine posts remain unfilled because we are trying to reach the 3% target. The Defence Forces are also subject to the 3% target. The total payroll allocation for the civil servants in my Department is €19.2 million. In 2009, the allocation will be €19 million. It will result in a slowdown in recruitment for the Army. The total payroll allocation for the Defence Forces for 2008 is approximately €486 million. In 2009, the allocation will be €478 million. It will certainly result in a slowdown in recruitment. Up to now the level of Defence Forces personnel has been approximately 10,500. I believe we will be somewhat below that for the foreseeable future.
Earlier we discussed the medical corps. Does this restriction mean in effect that if doctors apply in response to a recruitment campaign, the money will not be found to make those appointments? In other words will recruitment into the medical corps also be slowed down or stopped?
That is a very interesting question and the answer is "No". Whatever happens, Army people who need medical assistance will get it. As the Deputy will be aware from the replies to previous questions, in so far as we cannot provide that medical assistance ourselves, we contract it in from outside. The cost of doing that for this year is estimated at approximately €4.5 million. I would prefer to spend it on a properly constituted medical corps in the Army rather than recruiting private medical expertise from outside.
Does the Minister expect to make a saving in personnel, resulting from the closure of the four barracks? I again ask a question I asked during Priority Questions. How much does he expect to save through the closure of these four barracks?
The answer to the first question is "No". There will be no reduction in personnel. Some 635 troops and 46 civilian staff are being moved throughout the different barracks. The troops will be moved to the different barracks being organised for them. The civilian staff can accept redeployment if redeployment is available for them. At the moment I am discussing with the Department of Finance a scheme for voluntary redundancy if somebody would prefer to avail of that rather than be redeployed. It is quite possible that some of those civilian posts will not be filled. However, those people are entitled to stay in their jobs until they reach retirement age if that is their wish.
Various estimates have been made of the savings. It will release properties to be sold, but it is very difficult to sell them in the current climate. I understand that across the various subheads for maintenance, stores, lighting and heating, etc., there will be considerable savings. It will enable us to keep within the targets set for us by the Department of Finance for next year.
What impact will this policy have on the overall strength of the Defence Forces of 10,500?
It will reduce it slightly. It is currently at approximately maximum strength. We are at approximately 22 or 23 below the 10,500 to the best of my recollection. It will mean that the average figure of 10,500 will drop slightly. I am told it will not drop very considerably.
Overseas Missions.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:14 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which further overseas deployments under the EU or UN flag are contemplated for members of the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35014/08]
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:38 Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the number of Irish troops serving overseas; the location of same; the nature of their duties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34983/08]
Seymour Crawford
Question:44 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Defence the number of Army personnel based overseas; the locations of same; the number of personnel in each of those locations; if he is satisfied that all such activity can be justified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35128/08]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:177 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the future participation in EU or UN sponsored missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36428/08]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:178 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the position in regard to the deployment overseas of Defence Forces personnel; the degree to which Army, Naval Service and Air Corps personnel are currently on such missions; the extent of such proposals in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36429/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 38, 44, 177 and 178 together.
Ireland is currently contributing 746 Defence Forces personnel to 13 different missions throughout the world. Full details, including ranks, of all personnel currently serving overseas are listed in the following tabular statement. While personnel from all services are liable for overseas service and serve overseas, as a matter of policy, Air Corps and Naval Service assets are not deployed overseas.
The main overseas missions in which Defence Forces personnel are deployed are the UN mandated EU-multinational mission to Chad and the Central African Republic with 409 personnel, the NATO-led international security presence, KFOR, in Kosovo with 234 personnel and EUFOR, the EU-led operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 44 personnel. Other personnel are serving as monitors and observers with the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Staff are also deployed at the organisational headquarters of the UN, EU, OSCE and NATO.
The European Union military mission to Chad and the Central African Republic, established under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1778, was formally launched by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 28 January 2008. A total of 409 Defence Forces personnel are currently serving with EUFOR — 18 at the operational headquarters in Paris and 391 in Chad, of whom 23 are at the force headquarters and 368 as part of the 98th Infantry Battalion. The headquarters of the 98th Infantry Battalion are located at Goz Beida in south east Chad. Ireland is the second largest contributor to the mission with 409 personnel. The aim of the mission is to protect civilians in danger, particularly refugees and internally displaced persons, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and protect UN personnel. The mandate of the EUFOR mission is due to expire on 15 March 2009. A United Nations "blue hat" mission is due to take over from the EU mission on that date.
KFOR was established in June 1999 to support the maintenance of civil law and order within Kosovo, so as to develop a climate of safety and security, which will enable the transfer of increased responsibility to the civil authorities. Ireland has participated in KFOR since August 1999. The Irish 39th Infantry group currently serves in the multinational task force centre. In addition to Ireland, the taskforce also comprises troops from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland and Latvia. The Irish contribution to KFOR currently comprises an APC mounted infantry group of some 223 personnel and 11 personnel in staff posts at KFOR headquarters.
Ireland has participated in EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina since December 2004, the successor mission to the stabilisation force in Bosnia and Herzegovina with which Ireland had previously been serving since 1997. The Irish contingent with EUFOR currently comprises 44 personnel. The role of the Defence Forces personnel currently serving in EUFOR is to provide personnel for the headquarters, the military police unit, verification teams and the national support element. All Irish personnel are located at Camp Butmir, Sarajevo.
With regard to future deployments, Ireland occasionally receives requests for participation in various missions and these are considered on a case-by-case basis. When considering any particular request, the existence of realistic objectives and a clear mandate, which has the potential to contribute to a political solution, consideration of how the mission relates to the priorities of Irish foreign policy and the degree of risk involved are among the factors considered.
|
No. |
|
|
1. UN Missions |
|
|
(i) UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) HQ |
7 |
|
(ii) UNTSO (United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation) — Israel, Syria and Lebanon |
12 |
|
(iii) MINURSO (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) |
3 |
|
(iv) UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) |
4 |
|
(v) MONUC (United Nations Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo) |
3 |
|
(vi) UNOCI (United Nations Mission in Ivory Coast) |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
31 |
|
UN Mandated Missions |
|
|
(vii) EUFOR (EU-led Operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina) |
44 |
|
(viii) EUFOR TCHAD/RCA (EU-led Operation in CHAD and the Central African Republic) OHQ — Paris |
18 |
|
EUFOR TCHAD/RCA (EU-led Operation in CHAD and the Central African Republic) FHQ — Chad |
23 |
|
EUFOR TCHAD/RCA (EU-led Operation in CHAD and the Central African Republic) 97th Inf Battalion |
368 |
|
(ix) KFOR (International Security Presence in Kosovo) HQ |
11 |
|
KFOR (International Security Presence in Kosovo) 38th Inf Group |
223 |
|
(x) ISAF (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan) |
7 |
|
Total number of personnel serving with UN missions |
725 |
|
2. Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) |
|
|
(i) OSCE Mission to Bosnia & Herzegovina |
2 |
|
(ii) OSCE Mission in Belgrade — Serbia |
1 |
|
(iii) OSCE Mission in Skopje — Macedonia |
1 |
|
(iv) Staff Officer, Higher Level Planning Group, Vienna |
1 |
|
Total number of personnel serving OSCE |
5 |
|
3. EU Military Staff |
|
|
Brussels |
6 |
|
New York |
1 |
|
4. Military Representatives/Advisers/Staff |
|
|
(i) Military Adviser, Permanent Mission to UN, New York |
1 |
|
(ii) Military Adviser, Irish Delegation to OSCE, Vienna |
1 |
|
(iii) Military Representatives to EU (Brussels) |
4 |
|
(iv) Liaison Office of Ireland, NATO/PfP (Brussels) |
2 |
|
(v) Military Representative to NATO/PfP Co-ordination Cell/Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), Mons, Belgium |
1 |
|
TOTAL NUMBER DEFENCE FORCES PERSONNEL SERVING OVERSEAS: |
746 |
|
Lt Gen |
Brig Gen |
Col |
Lt Col |
Comdt |
Capt |
Lt |
CF* |
Total Offr |
NCO |
Pte |
TOTAL |
|
1 |
2 |
12 |
31 |
60 |
41 |
11 |
2 |
160 |
331 |
255 |
746 |
*Forces Chaplain.
The Irish deployment in Chad is part of a EUFOR mission, which will end on 15 March. Has the Minister considered making this a blue hat mission because it cost so much? A total of €20 million was expended because of the initial delay to the mission, the transportation of equipment and the putting in place of logistics. Is there a strong case for changing the EUFOR mission to a blue hat mission? Is it likely this will happen after March?
It is implicit in the Deputy's question that a request will be made by the UN. However, we have been requested by the UN to contribute to the blue hat mission that will follow the EUFOR mission after 15 March. Before making a final decision, we must consider various issues such as the composition of the proposed mission, its mandate, which countries currently involved in Chad will remain with the UN mission and the important question of logistical support, about which the Deputy rightly has had a great deal to say. I take his point about the cost of the transfer of equipment. The Department has made a significant investment and I am favourably disposed to continuing the mission under the aegis of the UN but it will require a Government decision, which will, in turn, require Dáil approval. We will have the UN mandate and all the information we need by 15 December and, therefore, the decision will be made shortly thereafter. If we decide to contribute to the blue hat mission, that will be put before the House.
The Oireachtas has sanctioned payment for the mission in Chad. In the context of the Department's Estimate, is it likely the mission will be extended next year when this round comes to an end?
As Deputy Deenihan pointed out, transporting the equipment overseas was a major factor in the cost of the mission. We have incurred that cost and it would be bad value for money to rush back on 15 March. The Exchequer is paying for this mission but when the UN takes over, it will carry the cost, by and large, although the organisation pays in arrears and is sometimes a good bit in arrears but that must be discounted. Other factors must be considered and the safety of our troops is always our paramount consideration. We must establish what size mission is involved, the other countries that are prepared to contribute and the logistical support the force will have. For example, it has been hinted the UN will seek a force almost twice the size of the present force in Chad. That will require considerable logistical support because of the terrain and I am not disposed to recommending the deployment of our troops without sufficient logistical support.
We must examine all those factors but, taking everything into account, including the humanitarian consideration, the good work that has been done, which has been effective on the ground, the work that remains to be done in that unfortunate part of the world, the cost incurred and the fact that the UN will pay, I am favourably disposed. However, the Government will have to discuss the matter.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is thinking about this because of the financial and moral logic involved. If he committed the troops to a UN-led mission, we would obtain a return that we are not in receipt of currently. Would that mean withdrawal from the commitment the Minister has given to the EU battle group because the troops would be committed to the Chad mission? As a result, they would not be available because the number deployed on overseas missions is based on a specified percentage of the Defence Forces complement.
Under our UNSAS commitment, up to 850 troops can be deployed overseas at any time. Sometimes that number is slightly exceeded but that is the general position. This equates to 10% of the enlisted personnel in our standing Army. The military authorities manage the figures and I have been assured by them that our commitment to the battle group will not be affected. We can participate in missions to Chad, Kosovo and Bosnia while maintaining our commitment to the battle group. A battle group will only involve troops being on the ground for a limited period of 30 days, which can be extended to 120 days. I accept that by 2011 a number of troops will be on stand-by in case they are needed because that is the next time the battle group of which we are part will be needed. With regard to the number of troops on the ground, they will be deployed only for 30 days up to a maximum of 120 days. I am assured by those who manage personnel in the military that they can accommodate the battle group while maintaining our current overseas commitments.
If 800 troops are deployed on a mission, another 800 under the Minister's rules cannot be committed to an EU battle group even if that is only for 30 days. There is a contradiction.
There is no contradiction. Ireland is part of the Nordic battle group and our commitment is to 95 troops. A total of 746 troops are deployed abroad currently. If our full complement abroad was maintained and troops were needed to be on stand-by for the Nordic battle group for a period or if troops had to be deployed in one of its operations, we would still be within the 850 troop limit.
Defence Forces Remuneration.
Liz McManus
Question:15 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Defence his views on the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the continued payment of Border duty allowance to members of the Defence Forces despite the changed circumstances in regard to the security situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35885/08]
In response to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Accounting Officer of my Department stated it was the Department's view that the conditions that led to the introduction of Border duty allowance, BDA, no longer exist, and I agree with that assessment. The Defence Forces have played a key role in the Border area in aid to the civil power. The overall nature of the Defence Forces activities in the Border area has changed as the political and security situation has evolved. For example, static checkpoints and border patrolling involving the Defence Forces has ceased. The recent announcement in the budget of the closure of the four barracks in the Border area reflects these changed circumstances.
While Border activities such as patrols and checkpoints are no longer necessary, activity by personnel stationed in Border area has not ceased. The Border units are obliged to maintain their capacity to respond to the impact of emergencies and contingencies on the border, normally through the provision of assistance to the civil authorities. Operations in response to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, BSE and the threat of bird flu are examples. Border units are, therefore, required to maintain mobile support units in barracks on a 24-hour basis. A separate security duty allowance is payable to Defence Forces personnel generally when engaged in specified security duties. Personnel in receipt of BDA cannot claim security duty allowance for such duties, which are performed on an ongoing basis. The removal of the BDA would be partly offset by the payment of security duty allowance in these cases.
The Comptroller and Auditor General noted that the changed circumstances relating to BDA was addressed through its inclusion in the Defence Forces modernisation agenda agreed with the representative associations in June 2007 under Towards 2016. The modernisation agenda encompasses a broad range of issues to further improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the Defence Forces. As the BDA involves the pay and conditions of service of members of the Permanent Defence Forces, it must be addressed through the Comptroller and Auditor General scheme with the representative associations and this process is under way. It is intended that implementation of changes agreed through the review will begin during the lifetime of the Towards 2016 agreement. The Deputy will appreciate that, as discussions between the Department and the representative associations are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the matter at this time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he explain how €25 million was paid through this allowance between 2003 and 2007 given that, during and subsequent to 2002, there were no Border-specific activities?
It is not a net cost. Our agreement with the representative associations of the Defence Forces is that members of the Defence Forces who are entitled to security duty allowance for their security duty do not get it if they are also in receipt of Border duty allowance. The net cost is just over half of that €25 million.
The best explanation is that the Defence Forces have undergone a substantial modernisation and reorganisation process. We have reduced the size of the Army considerably and we have reorganised it, the Naval Service and the Defence Forces Reserve. To bring people with us, we needed to negotiate with the representative associations, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, and the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA. Over the years, we have needed to bring them along on various tough decisions.
Phasing out the Border duty allowance will not be liked by the Army. We did not try to reach simultaneous agreement on all difficult topics. Rather, we proceeded gradually and are only now discussing the withdrawal of Border duty allowances. I expect the process to conclude in the near future. I will not give a specific timescale.
As someone living near the Border, I appreciate the service provided by the Army as a backup to the Garda in a difficult situation. The Minister mentioned foot and mouth disease and other matters, but my main concern is that, as part of the reorganisation, Monaghan town barracks will be closed. While this does not relate to the question, the Minister discussed reorganisation and how he has negotiated different matters. Have negotiations been held with the 200 personnel in the Monaghan barracks regarding the facility's closure? Has the Minister agreed any compensation for the closure with the Government, as occurred in respect of Castleblayney?
This is a question on the Border duty allowance.
It relates to Border duty, as the closure of the barracks will have a major effect on the area.
It is okay.
There was a question on barracks closures.
I assure the House that I will table one. I would appreciate the Minister's comments because the families of the 200 personnel will be affected in a matter of a few weeks.
The Deputy piggy-backed his question well.
I appreciate that Deputy Crawford has legitimate concerns about the closure of Monaghan barracks. I would prefer to be standing here saying no barracks will be closed.
Particularly when the Minister promised that he would not do so.
The situation has changed considerably, as Deputy Deenihan is aware. We will not discuss that matter now.
On negotiations, the Chief of Staff will tomorrow visit all of the barracks affected by the closures and speak with the relevant personnel by Friday at the latest. There is a compensation scheme for those who incur moving costs, including travel expenses and expenses associated with buying new houses and furniture, storing furniture and so on. It is a detailed scheme. The Army has held discussions with the representative associations, PDFORRA and RACO, concerning a number of claims that will be handled through the conciliation and arbitration process. I have undertaken to give a copy of the compensation scheme to Deputies Deenihan and O'Shea and I will send another to Deputy Crawford.
I thank the Minister.
Defence Forces Reserve.
Michael Noonan
Question:16 Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied that the numbers in the Army Reserve Defence Force will reach 12,000 as stated in the White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36016/08]
The White Paper on Defence 2000 outlines the blueprint for the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, comprising approximately 12,000 personnel. The RDF review implementation plan was formally launched in July 2004 and provides for the phased enhancement of reserve capabilities until the end of 2009. The plan set out the proposed establishment of the reserve. The non-integrated element of the reserve was to have an establishment of 9,692, which came into force in October 2005 when the reserve was reorganised. The military authorities have informed me that the strength of the reserve as at 31 August 2008 was 7,856.
The plan provides for the development of an integrated element of the Army reserve with a proposed establishment of 2,656 personnel. In line with the plan, a pilot integration project was initiated in 2007 and, while numbers participating were much lower than expected, valuable lessons were learned. The pilot was extended into 2008 and the military authorities are currently reviewing the project. A report will be submitted to me outlining options for the further development of the integrated reserve.
I have previously acknowledged that numbers in the reserve have declined in recent years. This trend in reduced volunteerism is not confined to the reserve, but is indicative of broader societal trends. It should also be noted that, as part of the implementation process, a more rigorous approach is now taken to removing the names of non-effective personnel from unit rolls. This accounts for part of the apparent fall in numbers in recent years.
In light of the Government decision of 8 July 2008 requiring savings across the public sector, a planned recruitment and awareness campaign for the reserve has been postponed. It is intended to revisit this important project when the budgetary situation permits.
The reserve has, more or less, been abandoned by the Government. The Minister has tried to explain the declining numbers, but the current figures fall far short of the projected 12,000 and the revised figure of just over 9,000. It is less than 8,000 and declining rapidly. Does the Minister agree that there may be a correlation between this and the decline in the reserve's funding? In 2007, funding was at €13 million. In 2008, it was at €10.45 million. It will be further reduced to approximately €10 million. Not enough resources and funding are being invested in the RDF to encourage people to join.
What is the proposed RDF training budget for 2009? What was the man day expenditure in 2008 as opposed to what was budgeted for it? These are important questions.
I deny that the Government has abandoned the reserve. Everyone understands that numerous savings across different sections and Departments are necessary given the current budgetary situation.
Beyond the reserve, there has been a decline in the number of volunteers. This is affecting the reserve's numbers. Another impact stems from the active attempts to remove non-effective personnel from rolls. Deputy Deenihan referred to a figure of 12,000. The projected figure for the non-integrated reserve is approximately 9,600, but the current complement is approximately 7,800. It has been subjected to a rigorous attitude towards the removal of non-active members from the rolls, which was not present previously.
Deputy Deenihan's budgetary figure of €10 million is approximately correct. Going from memory, a reason for the declines in 2007 and 2008 was that the numbers coming forward did not necessitate that level of funding. Those figures comprised all of the expenditure incurred. A number of improvements have been made to build up the reserve. For example, we have improved the available weaponry and training. I have instituted a graduated gratuity scheme whereby people training for a certain amount of days get one amount, people training for more days get a larger amount and people training for the integrated reserve get an even larger amount. We were to have a recruitment campaign, but I have postponed it temporarily.
I will allow Deputy Deenihan to ask a brief supplementary question because I want to allow another question.
It is obvious that the integrated reserve is not working. The reaction from PDFORRA and RACO suggests this is an exercise that will not work and that it may represent a waste of valuable resources. Will the Minister consider abandoning the proposal entirely?
Deputy Deenihan is correct that the response to date has been disappointing. Perhaps the requirements are too rigorous. However, there is no intention of abandoning the scheme. Instead, we are considering various ways of making it more attractive and easier for people to come forward.
Army Barracks.
Bernard Allen
Question:17 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Defence if he will honour the commitment he made to the 12 families who have been living in Cathal Brugha barracks married quarters for more than 30 years in view of the recent notice to vacate the houses issued by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35951/08]
Chris Andrews
Question:42 Deputy Chris Andrews asked the Minister for Defence the situation regarding the married quarters at Cathal Brugha barracks, Dublin; if he will report on the meeting held with the residents on 23 September 2008; the options available to the existing residents; his plans to achieve a solution favourable to all concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34616/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 42 together.
Defence Forces married quarters are provided to serving members until their retirement or resignation. Defence Forces regulations state the quarters must be vacated within 15 days of leaving the service. The current situation has arisen as a result of a failure to do so.
Following previous attempts to resolve the situation regarding the unauthorised occupation of the quarters in question, a letter was sent to the occupiers on 11 September 2008 as a first stage in commencing a process of dialogue. The occupiers were requested to make arrangements to vacate the premises and to make alternative arrangements for their accommodation as soon as possible, but no later than the end of October 2008. On 18 September, a further letter issued to the occupiers inviting them to a meeting with the Department on 23 September. At that meeting they were informed the deadline was not set in stone and that my Department would, if at all possible, welcome the opportunity to work with them to achieve a solution favourable to all parties. It seems all occupiers wish to purchase the quarters.
My officials undertook to review the possibility of selling to the occupiers and a further meeting has been scheduled for the end of October. It is hoped substantial progress will be made by that time to facilitate a solution that meets the needs of both the occupiers and the Defence Forces. I am encouraged that the process of dialogue has commenced and hope it will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Given that the families concerned have occupied these houses for the last 30 years, the letter of 11 September was most insensitive. It was a strange way of commencing dialogue to tell the families that they must vacate their homes by October. That is not good practice. Given that the people concerned are now to be given an opportunity to purchase their homes, will the Minister ensure that enough time and every assistance is afforded to them in securing finance, which may be difficult to do in the current climate? The matter should be put in abeyance for a time to allow all concerned to purchase their homes. In the event that some — probably only a small number — are not in position to do so, will the Minister afford them further opportunity by lengthening the period of time available to them?
The decision to allow the residents to purchase their homes represents a welcome step forward in addressing their concerns. Will the Minister confirm that he will be in a position to allow them so to do? Is he confident he can resolve this issue without the need for the families to be dislocated?
I agree with Deputy Deenihan that the first letter may have been a tad insensitive. When it was brought to my attention, a second letter issued. A meeting with the families is to take place towards the end of October. I am aware of the difficulties for people in securing loans in the current economic climate. I assure Deputies Deenihan and Andrews that I will instruct my officials to be as reasonable and sensitive as they can and to do everything possible to assist these people to purchase their homes.
Is the Minister saying there is no problem in principle with these people purchasing their homes?
Yes.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.