Vol. 691 No. 2
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Minister for Defence the number of members of the Permanent Defence Force by rank who have retired to date in 2009 before reaching the mandatory retirement age for their rank; the number by rank who have retired on age grounds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34803/09]
23 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Defence the impact the moratorium on recruitment and promotion is having on the operational effectiveness of the Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34808/09]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 6 and 23 together.
I am advised by the military authorities that the number of officers of the Permanent Defence Force to retire in the period 1 January to 30 September 2009 before reaching the mandatory retirement age for their rank was 25. A further 23 retired on age grounds. In the case of enlisted personnel, the number discharged prior to reaching the mandatory retirement age was 228, while 47 retired on age grounds. Including figures for deceased personnel, this brings the total number of personnel to leave the Permanent Defence Force to 335 up to 30 September 2009. The tabular statements I will provide to the Deputy give a detailed breakdown of the figures by rank.
I am keenly aware of the impact that measures such as the moratorium on recruitment, promotion and acting appointments are having on the Permanent Defence Forces in light of the very high turnover rate that is part of any military organization.
The turnover rate has increased significantly in recent months. I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Defence Forces at 30 September 2009, the last date for which figures are available, is 10,081. My focus is on retaining the capacity of the organization to operate effectively across all roles. This will represent a significant challenge in the coming months. I am in contact with my colleague the Minister for Finance with regard to targeted exemptions from the moratorium. The impact of the moratorium is being kept under constant review.
I have secured the Minister for Finance's approval for the recruitment of 42 Army and Naval Service cadets this year. Approval has been also received for 42 acting-up positions for the current Chad contingent and 20 acting-up positions for the next Kosovo deployment. Sanction has been also received to fill the posts of Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations), two posts at Brigadier General and the Director of Military Prosecutions by way of promotion. Within the past week the promotion has proceeded of 10 NCOs who had commenced the process prior to the moratorium.
I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government at home and overseas.
|
Reason |
Lt Gen |
Maj Gen |
Brig Gen |
Col |
Lt Col |
Comdt |
Capt |
2/Lt |
Total |
|
Retirement On Age Grounds |
1 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
23 |
|||
|
Discharged Before Reaching Mandatory Retirement Age |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
2 |
25 |
|
|
Deceased |
1 |
1 |
|||||||
|
Total |
1 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
16 |
9 |
2 |
49 |
|
Reason |
Sgt Major |
BQMS |
CS |
CQMS |
Sgt |
Cpl |
PTE 3* |
PTE 2* |
Apprentice |
Recruit |
Total |
|
Retired On Age Grounds |
1 |
2 |
5 |
12 |
15 |
8 |
4 |
47 |
|||
|
Discharged Before Reaching Mandatory Retirement Age |
2 |
6 |
5 |
9 |
39 |
30 |
117 |
10 |
3 |
7 |
228 |
|
Deceased |
1 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
11 |
||||||
|
Total |
3 |
8 |
10 |
22 |
59 |
40 |
124 |
10 |
3 |
7 |
286 |
|
Rank |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Total |
|
Sgt Major |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|||||||
|
BQMS |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
||||
|
CS |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
||
|
CQMS |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
21 |
|
|
Sgt |
7 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
7 |
54 |
|
Cpl |
2 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
38 |
||
|
PTE 3* |
7 |
13 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
29 |
121 |
|
PTE 2* |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
||
|
Apprentice |
3 |
3 |
||||||||
|
Recruit |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
|
Total |
26 |
22 |
19 |
13 |
25 |
30 |
40 |
52 |
48 |
275 |
|
Rank |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Total |
|
Lt Gen |
1 |
1 |
||||||||
|
Maj Gen |
1 |
1 |
||||||||
|
Brig Gen |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||||||
|
Col |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
||
|
Lt Col |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
||||
|
Comdt |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
15 |
||
|
Capt |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
|||
|
2/Lt |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||||||
|
Total |
7 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
48 |
The Minister's establishment figure for the strength of the Defence Forces was 10,500 and already the figure has fallen to 10,000. If this trend continues it could fall to 9,500 by the end of 2010. The Minister will accept that there is a brain drain and generally the command structure will be damaged. There are now positions of command that are not filled, which could lead to confusion and, further down the road, a threat to lives on overseas missions. I welcome the Minister's comments on promotions, because people were leaving the Defence Forces for that reason. There is a leave of absence scheme for the public service at the moment, but that does not apply to the Army. People are certainly very annoyed because it does not apply to them.
Through the implementation of the White Paper since 2000, we have seen significant changes in the Army, in terms of the quality of personnel, equipment and training. My advice is that the organisation is now in a very healthy state in terms of personnel and equipment. It is true that the McCarthy report proposes that we reduce the size of the Permanent Defence Force from 10,500 to 10,000 over two to three years. In the meantime, we have a moratorium on recruitment to the public sector, which includes the Army. Almost uniquely among public service organisations, there is a very high turnover of personnel in the Army. Many people who were not due to retire on age grounds left the Army for one reason or another, even since 1 January 2009. The fact that we cannot recruit to replace those people means that the overall number is dropping quite precipitously.
I do not accept Deputy Deenihan's contention that the command structure is falling apart, but I do accept that there are problems. In a detailed submission I sent to the Minister for Finance, I have asked to be allowed to recruit people at least to replace the people we are losing until the Estimates process concludes and we decide whether or not to implement the recommendations of the McCarthy report in whole, in part or not at all. We have problems with people who are acting up to positions but who are not getting the appropriate allowance. These people are also affected by the moratorium. We are also having a problem with promotions. I have got around some of those problems, as I indicated in my original reply, but I have made submissions to the Minister for Finance on the other issues. I am hoping that we will have a decision on that before the next question time on defence issues.
There is much unease among the Defence Forces at the moment, and I think the Minister got that cold wind yesterday when he was at the PDFORRA conference. They are just not happy. People must be encouraged to stay in the Defence Forces. Unlike other public service bodies, they reacted to the White Paper and reduced their number from over 14,000 to 10,500. They have complied with every request that was made of them. When the Defence Forces are asked to do something, they do it. However, they now feel they are being victimised vis-à-vis other public service sectors. The Minister must support the Defence Forces. He will have to get some concessions on promotions. The moratorium on recruitment must be reviewed at the end of the year. It is one of the few proposals from the McCarthy report that has already occurred without even being implemented.
Which proposals on defence from the McCarthy report does Deputy Deenihan actually support?
I support many parts of the report.
Questions come from the Opposition for the Government.
I am waiting to find that out. Maybe we will find out before 4.45 p.m. As I have acknowledged to the House, the moratorium——
The Minister is rattled.
I am not in the least bit rattled. The Deputy flatters himself.
The Minister, without interruption.
I have already acknowledged that the moratorium is having a particular impact on the Army, because of its large turnover of people. We are now down to 10,081, whereas we should have 10,500. We are being affected by the moratorium more than any other public service organisation. I have made that case very strongly to the Minister for Finance and I appreciate Deputy Deenihan's support. I am sure he supports me in that case.
Absolutely, but the Minister for Finance is not listening to the Minister for Defence.
That remains to be decided. We have quite a few concessions so far, but the recruitment, the acting up and the limited number of promotions are all absolutely vital. We will have decisions on that very shortly. The budgetary process is only beginning today with regard to Cabinet meetings.
The conditions of the Army have improved out of all proportion in the last ten years due to investment in training, infrastructure, quality of personnel, equipment and so on. This has happened because the Government has invested a great amount of money in the Army. At the moment, we have a crisis in the public finances. Every Department has to take its share of the pain. We do not like taking it, as we would prefer to be spending money rather than cutting back. We all want to be liked, but I know of Deputy Deenihan's claim to be in favour of public expenditure reductions. Which proposals from the McCarthy report that deal with defence does he favour?
I am favour of many of the proposals, but Deputy O'Dea is the Minister, at least for another week.
The Minister informed us that 25 officers from the Defence Forces retired before reaching the mandatory pension age, as did 228 enlisted men. He has indicated that most of those are from the Army, but how exactly did they break down? Was there any pattern to the retirements of these people? Did it come later in the year or earlier in the year? We are dealing with a period from 1 January to 30 September. Was there a trend towards more people retiring as the year went on?
I understand people are concerned that gratuity lump sums will be taxed in the forthcoming budget. That seems to be a major issue. I congratulate the Minister on the issue relating to the 42 Army and Naval Service cadets. It was an achievement and we should acknowledge that. However, why has there been no recruitment into the Air Corps for the last two years?
I do not have the figures in the body of the answer for the breakdown from the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps, but I think the Deputy will find it in the tabular statement. If it is not there, he can get back to me and I will obtain the figures for him. I do not know the details of the time pattern of retirement either, but I will get the information for him in so far as I can do so.
I do not think Deputy O'Shea expects me to tell him what the position will be with respect to the gratuity. I cannot offer any words of reassurance or otherwise on that issue. That is a budgetary matter and it will be decided.
We will know after Saturday whether the Minister will be allowed to decide.
Deputy O'Shea will know the exact position in December when the budget is delivered by the Minister for Finance.
The Minister is optimistic.
I am optimistic by nature.
I will also get the Deputy some up to date information on the Air Corps.
7 Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the allocation for the Reserve Defence Force be reduced by two thirds; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34784/09]
11 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Defence his views on the opinion expressed in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes regarding the Reserve Defence Force. [34848/09]
29 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence his proposals in regard to the future of the Reserve Defence Force. [34850/09]
38 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the plans for the future of the Reserve Defence Force; and the number at present and the projections for the future. [34692/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 11, 29 and 38 together.
The report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes included a recommendation for full year savings of €5.6 million, arising from a two thirds reduction in the strength of the Reserve Defence Force. This is one of many recommendations contained in the report.
Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the budgetary and Estimates process for 2010. This includes consideration of the recommendations contained in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. The decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government. As this is the subject of an ongoing deliberative process, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this point.
The Government introduced a moratorium on recruitment to the public service with effect from 27 March 2009 and, as with the broader public service, the defence organisation is required to operate with reduced funding. My first priority for the reserve was to consolidate the gains that have been made over recent years. In this context, limited recruitment in order to replace existing members who leave during the course of 2009 was sanctioned. This ongoing limited recruitment is being closely monitored and will be kept under review in light of the uptake of paid training and the future budgetary provision available to the Department of Defence. At the end of August 2009, the total strength of the reserve was 6,973.
While the budgetary provision for training of members of the reserve has been reduced for 2009, a total of 60,000 paid training man days has been provided. This is sufficient to allow all current members to undertake paid training during 2009. The budgetary constraints and moratorium on recruitment have also required the postponement of overseas service for members of the reserve for the foreseeable future.
The Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan has provided the framework for the development of the reserve over recent years. Revised organisation structures came into effect in October 2005 and the reserve has been reorganised along similar lines to the Permanent Defence Force. In line with the plan, new equipment, clothing and opportunities for improved training have been delivered. The development of an integrated element of the reserve was intended to further enhance the capability of the reserve. In line with the plan, a pilot integration programme was introduced in 2007 and extended into 2008. The numbers participating in these pilots were disappointing and this element of the plan has not achieved the intended results. As the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan is reaching its conclusion, there is a requirement to critically examine the progress that has been made to date and to consider options for the future development of the reserve. This will be informed by the valuable lessons learned from the implementation process.
In addition, the Reserve Defence Force was selected for review as part of the 2009–11 phase of the Government's value for money and policy review initiative and this review is scheduled to commence in the near future. It is anticipated that the review, together with the general budgetary situation, will also assist in informing decisions regarding the future development of the reserve.
Will the Minister confirm the breakdown between effective and non-effective participation of the 6,973 members of the reserve? How many of these reserve members attended training courses this year? I understand from what the Minister has said that the integrated reserve has now been put on the back burner and it is likely he will not persevere with that proposal. Also, the front line reserve was promoted as part of the overall plan. What are the plans now for the front line reserve? It would be easier to put those plans in place rather than put the integrated reserve in place because the front line reserve would include former personnel of the Defence Forces.
The figure for those classed as non-effective as of 1 August is 989. With regard to the integrated and front line reserves, my focus is on preserving the reserve at a reasonable strength. I do not accept fully the recommendations of the McCarthy report. I am trying to do my best to preserve the reserve and to consolidate the progress we have made in implementing the initial 2000 White Paper on the reserve over the past number of years.
On the integrated reserve, only approximately 300 people have trained for this, which is disappointing. Both the integrated reserve and the front line reserve will have to wait for the moment. As the Deputy knows and as I have informed the House, we are committed to a second White Paper on Defence to take matters forward from here. Both matters will be dealt with in that context.
The Minister knows both Deputy Deenihan and I will support his efforts in maintaining the strength of the Reserve Defence Force. With regard to the current strength of the reserve, the McCarthy report proposes reducing it by a further 2,000. Is that correct? I am concerned in that regard. The numbers in the Permanent Defence Force numbers are also decreasing and if the trend for this year, so far, is repeated next year and the following year, we could have well over 1,000 fewer members of the Permanent Defence Force.
The tasks carried out by the Reserve Defence Force to augment the work of the Permanent Defence Force are important, for example, the provision of armed escorts, of logistical support and security of vital installations. Does the Minister expect we will reach a stage where the combined manpower of the Permanent and Reserve Defence Force will not be adequate to take on all the tasks needed in support of the civil power and the national interest?
With regard to the Deputy's first question, what the McCarthy report proposes is that we reduce the reserve by two-thirds, with a view to saving €5.6 million. Therefore, only one-third of what remains of the reserve would survive the McCarthy proposals.
What figure did McCarthy work on?
I think he worked off the figure at the beginning of the year, approximately 7,500. Therefore, he was talking in terms of having a reserve of approximately 2,500.
The figure the Minister gave for the current strength of the reserve was 6,973. Is the two-third reduction McCarthy proposes a two-third reduction on the White Paper figure or the figure as it stands?
I think it is the figure at the beginning of the year, which was approximately 7,500.
That number is further reduced at this stage.
Yes, but I will double check the situation for the Deputy. When the moratorium was first introduced, we were advised by the Department of Finance it also applied to the reserve. We had a situation where we had a certain number of non-effective people each year — people who do not turn up for training etc. — and numbers were continually dropping, so I got sanction from the Department of Finance for limited admissions to the reserve to keep it up to the strength it was at the start of the year, which was approximately 7,500 or 7,600. We have been recruiting on a phased basis to bring the numbers back up to that number and are committed to not letting the reserve fall below that number. I am very anxious to preserve the reserve, but am prepared to do whatever we have to in order to engage in the budgetary process.
On the other question asked by Deputy O'Shea, I am also determined to preserve the maximum number of people in the Permanent Defence Force. The McCarthy report recommends we reduce numbers to between 10,000 and 10,500 in total, but does not make it clear whether it sees that as a permanent reduction or a reduction during the period of the financial crisis. However, McCarthy suggests the reduction should be made over a two to three year period. Due to the moratorium, numbers have already reduced to just over 10,000. This is a matter for discussion between me and the Minister for Finance, but I am committed to maintaining the greatest possible strength in both the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force.
More than 1,000 people qualified for admittance to the reserve this year, but only 200 were selected. Therefore, 800 young people who went through all the procedures and who complied with fitness tests and character assessments were left disappointed. How much does it cost to recruit one reservist?
That is a very specific question.
If the Minister does not have the information, that is fine. The point I am making is that it makes sense at this time to encourage young people to join the reserve. It gives them discipline, keeps them fit, gives them a sense of responsibility and a sense of nationhood. Rather than discourage people from joining the reserve, we should be encouraging them. Has the Minister any intention to encourage more people to join the reserve? What plans has he to encourage them or will the decline continue, irrespective of the McCarthy recommendations?
I find myself, once again, in total agreement with Deputy Deenihan. We should be encouraging people to rejoin the reserves. The changes we have made in terms of better equipment, training, uniforms, etc., are an encouragement in itself, as well as the fact that we have targeted gratuities — the more training one does the more one earns, or as near as possible. Basically we are going through a difficult time but I want to re-emphasise to the House that I am committed to the reserves.
Deputy Deenihan's initial question is a good one because it occurred to myself to ask why, if we are committed to maintaining 7,600 or whatever at the start of the year, have we only taken on 200, because we are supposed to take on another 700 or so under that mandate. The Army has told me there is recruitment on a phased basis. The director of the reserve force decided on the criteria in which he would recruit people. Some of the people selected, then, were not interested, but I have asked the Army to speed it up. It is agreed that it is happening too slowly and the Army is going to speed it up. A number of the young people, as mentioned by the Deputy, will be accommodated, hopefully, in the very near future.
Given that there are 450,000 unemployed and the figures are rising and the fact that reserves are recruited from the 17 to 35 age cohort, is there merit in the Minister having discussions with his colleagues, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to see whether there are ways to use the Reserve Defence Force to upskill people, to occupy them usefully and put them into services that support the civil power, so that they might, for instance, retain their welfare payments or whatever? We need to think outside the box, and rather than accepting the projected reduction in numbers — no doubt, while the Minister will fight his corner, there may be some inevitability about this — we will need to look at other ways to cater for that group of people who, because of unemployment, need to be upskilled and involved in activities that raise their self-esteem and give them a sense of usefulness. This would be in terms of providing services that are in the public interest and that would add to our society.
Is the Minister aware, as I pointed out previously, that young people, especially close to the Border, are joining the reserve force in Northern Ireland, another jurisdiction? Surely it is somewhat embarrassing to us in the Republic that we cannot accommodate these people here.
As regards Deputy OShea's question, I stand open to correction. I thought that if somebody in receipt of social welfare wanted to become part of the Reserve Defence Force, that would not interfere with his or her entitlement. That was my understanding of the position.
My point is that there should be an extension of the arrangements already in place.
I take the Deputy's point and we should use the Reserve Defence Force more in relation to the unemployed in terms of reskilling, etc. That is something I shall think about.
With regard to Deputy Deenihan's point I was not aware that there were great numbers of people flooding across the Border to join the reserve in the North. However, I shall take his word for it. As far as I am concerned, my job involves facing cutbacks in my Department and a specific recommendation from Mr. McCarthy, whose report constitutes the backbone of what we are considering in terms of budgetary matters at the moment, to the effect that the Reserve Defence Force should be cut by two-thirds. My priority is to keep as many as possible not only in the force but also in the Permanent Defence Force. When we come to discuss these matters, I will not be found wanting, and I appreciate the support of the Opposition.
8 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence his views on the opinion expressed in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that there is no need for two large Army barracks in Dublin. [34849/09]
12 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that his Department’s property portfolio be rationalised; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34775/09]
14 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the number of barracks be reduced; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34768/09]
26 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks be reviewed with a view to possible sale; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34772/09]
41 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Defence his plans, arising from the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes, to rationalise the property portfolio of his Department. [34854/09]
60 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence his proposals in regard to rationalising the number of Army barracks here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34847/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 12, 14, 26, 41 and 60 together.
The defence property portfolio is kept under ongoing review by military authorities and the staff in my Department to ensure the most effective use of military resources having regard to the roles assigned by Government to the Defence Forces. This includes ongoing review of the organisation, structure and formation of the forces and the consequential requirement for military barracks and other properties.
The funding realised from the disposal of surplus property together with pay savings has provided resources for the modernisation of the Defence Forces and has been invested in new infrastructure, equipment and training area development. Any further properties that are considered surplus to military requirements will continue to be disposed of and the funding invested to meet the current and future equipment and infrastructure needs of the Defence Forces.
A process of consolidation has recently been undertaken with the movement of the Defence Forces out of Monaghan, Longford, Lifford and Rockhill Barracks. The question concerning the need for two barracks in Dublin, along with the issue of any further consolidation across the Defence Forces as a whole, will be among the issues to be considered in the context of the Estimates process having regard to the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes.
Cathal Brugha, which is referenced in that report, is a very significant installation with a wide range of facilities, accommodation and storage depots and would be costly to replace. This will need to be factored into our consideration, particularly in the current financial situation. Consideration will also need to be given to the operational requirements of the Defence Forces and where personnel would be relocated.
The recommendations in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes and the decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government in the context of the estimates and budgetary process. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes.
I share the misgivings about an installation of the size of Cathal Brugha Barracks being taken out of the Army property portfolio at a time when the national finances are in crisis. Will the Minister not agree that this is not the time to be disposing of property, in the first instance? As he pointed out, there would be a very significant upfront cost, as the McCarthy says, in terms of finding alternative accommodation. The McCarthy report says the rationalisation of premises would contribute to the reduction in numbers in the Permanent Defence Force. I am not sure what he means by that. Does the Minister have an understanding of that statement in the report, to the effect that the rationalisation of premises will contribute to the reduction in numbers? Does he mean, in fact, that if places are closed it is easier to get rid of people?
Anybody reading that would have to interpret it in his or her own way. All I can say is that my interpretation might not be that far from Deputy O'Shea's. I agree with him that it is a very bad time to be disposing of a property such as Cathal Brugha Barracks. It is an enormous property, very well located in Dublin and would have yielded a fortune if disposed of a couple of years ago during the height of the boom. This is a very bad time to be selling it since the market is flat.
As the Deputy rightly points out, and the McCarthy report recognises this, there is an upfront cost which would have to be incurred before the sale would take place. We would have had to provide some place for people to go to. Basically, we are looking for ways to save money now rather than ways to spend more. I do not envisage anything will be happening in that regard in the near future. For information purposes I should inform the House that we have about 30 smaller units throughout the country, empty at present, which we believe may be gradually sold. We are appointing valuers to see what type of money we should be seeking for them. Some of them are old with specific types of usage only and as such would not be suitable for certain types of development. We are looking at this in the immediate future. We are not looking at the imminent disposal of Cathal Brugha Barracks, however.
Where there might be an opportunity for a community to acquire a unit, say, among the 30 the Minister said were being sold, would sympathetic consideration be given to this rather than to an individual who might buy the premises for commercial purposes? On the issue of the barracks that were closed, can he give us any update as regards any proposal to put those properties up for sale, and what are the maintenance costs, now that they are closed? Have approaches been made by communities for the use of any of those barracks? I believe such an approach has been made to the Department of Defence in regard to the Donegal barracks. Will the Minister give favourable consideration to this suggestion if approaches are made?
While I do not have the information to hand, I will get the complete up-to-date position for the Deputy in regard to the plans for barracks that are closed, the maintenance costs and so on. During the last period of barrack consolidation, we made some facilities available to local communities, as the Deputy is aware. Times are tougher now and most of those properties will be sold off by public tender. However, we have the right to allocate them directly to communities or to other State organisations if we so wish. All I can tell the House is that I will consider any proposal that comes in, and I will do so as sympathetically as possible within the constraints upon us.
Is there a security cost in regard to protecting the 30 premises listed? The Reserve Defence Force has a role in the staffing of military posts during periods of Permanent Defence Force deployment. Is this a way in which savings could be effected where private security is currently being provided? Is there a scenario whereby the role of the Reserve Defence Force could be increased so that they could provide the security? In the context of what I suggested earlier, namely, getting more people involved in the Reserve Defence Force, I suspected there might be grounds for going ahead with such a development and, while there might not be any saving as such, the money already being spent on security could be used in this manner.
That is a useful suggestion, which I will certainly discuss with my officials.
9 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the full market value of rent should be paid by overholders of married quarters; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34778/09]
10 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the number of overholders resident in married quarters of the Defence Forces; the rental charged to overholders for the use of the quarters; the average length of time overholders remain in Defence Force quarters following their discharge from the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34751/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.
Defence Forces married quarters are provided to serving members until their retirement or resignation. The Defence Forces regulations state that the quarters must be vacated within 15 days of leaving the service.
There are 52 married quarters currently overheld throughout the country — 39 in the Curragh, 11 at Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines and two in Dublin 7. Ten of the properties at Cathal Brugha Barracks are in the process of being sold to the current occupants.
The charge for married quarters accommodation is currently in range of €42.16 to €80.76 per week for enlisted personnel and between €381.22 to €411.22 per month for officers. Overholders, if they are in receipt of a pension or gratuity, pay an additional 10% on these charges. There are some cases where there is no pension or gratuity and, as a result, it is not possible to deduct at source the relevant charge.
The period of time that overholders remain in Defence Forces quarters following their discharge varies with each family and their particular circumstances. As such, an average would not appropriately reflect the particular circumstances of each individual's situation. Officials in my Department are currently putting in place procedures to address each individual overholder on a case-by-case basis in order to rectify this situation in the interests of the Department, the military and the families involved.
Any increase in the charges will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the recommendations in the McCarthy report. Any decision, as with decisions on all of the issues arising from that report, will be a matter for the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes.
Given that the overholders are concerned about their future, I ask that every effort be made to be sympathetic towards them. Where local authorities are concerned, I ask also that efforts would be made to rehouse these people in local authority houses in co-operation with the local authorities.
I agree. Ten of the 11 properties at Cathal Brugha Barracks are under negotiation at present with the current occupants at a very competitive price. The other overholders will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and we will be as sympathetic as possible.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
