Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 2010

Vol. 715 No. 1

Other Questions

Naval Service

Dan Neville

Question:

26 Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Defence if contract negotiations in respect of the purchase of new ships for Naval Service have been completed; and if he will make a statement on matter. [29924/10]

Ciaran Lynch

Question:

38 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Defence the progress made regarding the commitment given in Renewed Programme for Government that the Naval Service vessel replacement programme will be advanced within the resources made available by the Government. [30169/10]

Os rud é go bhfuil an freagra ar Cheisteanna Uimh. 26 agus 38 díreach mar an gcéanna leis an fhreagra ar an gceist atá díreach déanta againn, ní gá dom an freagra a léamh amach arís.

Since the answer is identical to the preceding one, we will proceed to supplementary questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Will the Minister outline the demands and stresses on the eight Naval Service vessels? Will he agree this small flotilla is under much pressure in dealing with fisheries protection, illegal drug interception and other duties?

Has the Minister considered any contingency plans to replace any of these vessels, either by leasing or otherwise, to keep the flotilla up to strength in the event of one of them becoming non-operational?

I do not want to give the impression that a flotilla of eight is comfortable. The job is, however, being well done within existing resources. LE Aoife was off the west coast of Clare recently and LE Aisling will be in Galway docks next year celebrating 30 years. LE Niamh is returning from a long and positive trip to South America in which it was part of the celebrations of the Irish connection to the historical freedom movements in Argentina and Chile. It also visited US east coast areas which have strong Irish maritime links.

The addition of the Casa aircraft to fisheries protection and drug enforcement has given additional capabilities. New equipment has also made these jobs somewhat easier and more professional.

The Minister was dealing recently with the naval section of the Reserve Defence Forces. It was proposed it could become involved in some of the patrol work already done by the Naval Service through the purchase of a specific craft which would cost €1 million. When I last raised it, the Minister indicated to me that the craft in question may not be suitable for the adverse waters off the west coast, where most patrols are done.

I understand the total number of out-of-operation days for all vessels in the flotilla last year came to 200. Will this increase this year, now that they are coming to the end of their lifespan? Is it better value for money to acquire new and speedier vessels, rather than just repairing the existing ones? Is the 2014 delivery date for the three new vessels just a notional date?

The issue of the date will only arise sometime in the second half of this year if I get the approval I referred to earlier. The further out that date goes, the further out the delivery date in 2014 goes.

It is possible to accommodate comfortably dry-dock repairs to the flotilla within the amount of patrolling days available. I have had no indication that this position is likely to change.

What proportion of EU waters are patrolled by the Naval Service? Has it increased recently? Has there been any discussion with our EU partners on our assisting patrols in these waters by providing extra naval capabilities?

Some of those questions extend the range of the original question, as well as the range of our marine capacity.

Historically, there have been four extensions to the exclusion area for which we are responsible from three to six to 12 to 200 miles with some additional shelf areas added. Relative to Ireland's size it is a very large proportion of EU waters for fisheries protection.

With regard to patrols against drug shipments, the equipment available in both the vessels and their supporting aircraft has assisted enormously. We frequently forget to acknowledge that Irish fishermen have been extraordinarily helpful in drawing the authorities' attention to certain vessels. There are two surveillance systems in use and I am happy as to how well-equipped they are. Deputy Stanton may have seen the live picture at the Haulbowline naval headquarters and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority headquarters in Clonakilty which shows the location of every vessel in Irish territorial waters. Of course, one still needs the vessels to make the interceptions.

Defence Forces Recruitment

P. J. Sheehan

Question:

27 Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Defence the number of staff appointments recommended in the Defence Forces medical service review that have been made to date; scheduled to be made by September 2010; the timeframe in which he expects full implementation of this review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29978/10]

Joe McHugh

Question:

35 Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Defence when the central medical unit recommended by the PA Consulting Group review of services will be formally established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29912/10]

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

56 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Defence the progress made regarding the commitment given in the Renewed Programme for Government to develop the role and contribution of the Medical Corps to expand its capacity to deliver a range of medical facilities on UN-mandated missions. [30170/10]

The PA Consulting Group report assessed the current arrangements for the provision of medical services and proposed a model for future delivery of those services. It recommended a programme of major change and working groups have been set up to progress the various projects identified. These continue to meet regularly and all have submitted reports.

The line officer, in the rank of colonel, to command the new centralised medical unit for the medical corps took up duty on 14 June 2010. He has the responsibility of implementing the model for the future medical service. PA did not identify structures, numbers and processes within the centralised command structure in detail.

The organisation and establishment working group was asked to recommend a structure to include staff appointments for the future medical service. It has now completed its final report, which has been submitted to the steering group for consideration and approval. Final reports from three of the working groups — training and education, financial arrangements and outsourcing, and organisation and establishment — have now been completed. The final report of the future medical information system working group will be completed in the next two weeks and, along with the other three final reports, will be considered by the steering group, with a decision expected by the end of this month. The clinical review working group is not due to submit its final report until 30 September 2010; however, monthly reports are being submitted in the interim. It is only following completion of this phase that full implementation of the PA recommendations can be achieved.

The process for implementation also requires that there must be consultation with the representative associations regarding any change within the scope of representation. It is expected that there will be substantial progress before the end of the year in implementing recommendations.

The development of the medical corps forms part of the agreed programme for Government. This includes the expansion of the capacity of the medical corps to deliver a range of medical facilities on UN-mandated missions. I am committed to providing a sustainable medical service to meet the needs of the Defence Forces both at home and abroad. The structure and systems recommended by PA have been designed to meet the demands and needs of the modern Defence Forces at home and overseas. I assure the House that Defence Forces personnel requiring medical treatment are getting the care they need.

Will there be one centralised medical command structure, as recommended, when all these reviews are completed? In addition, will there be a shift towards illness prevention and health promotion in the new structure?

Illness prevention and health promotion are dealt with quite positively in the Defence Forces. By definition, all members are within a particular age cohort — from late teens or early 20s to mid-50s — and are in good health when they join, based on medical checks. Thus, their requirements in the health area are quite different from those of the population at large. One of these is preparation for overseas service. I do not have any particular concerns in this regard.

As I mentioned, I am waiting for the fourth working group report, and the steering group has been meeting regularly, updating its information on the basis of recommendations. It has been a slow and somewhat fraught process. However, in the end, particularly after the last report is received in September, we will move towards a much better quality of service, perhaps along the lines the Deputy intends.

Since 1 January this year, how many people have left the medical corps for any reason? Has there been any new recruitment? Pending the implementation of the new structure, is the old structure becoming much less effective than it was? What has been happening in this regard?

I am pretty sure some people have left. I will obtain the exact numbers for the Deputy. Some have also been recruited during that period. It is an unusual medical area which is quite attractive to some, in terms of recruitment, and entirely unattractive to others. Recruitment is not as straightforward as one might expect.

What is the level of illness and injury in the Defence Forces?

Off the top of my head I could not say, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I will try to find out, although it will be difficult to obtain detailed information. When it is available I will send it to the Deputy.

Defence Forces Strength

Noel Coonan

Question:

28 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Defence the current strength of the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29927/10]

Mary Upton

Question:

51 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Defence the current strength of the Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30150/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 51 together.

I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force on 31 May 2010, the latest date for which figures are currently available, was 9,809. I provided the breakdown of numbers in a previous reply, so I will not repeat it.

Targeted recruitment will be carried out in 2010 to maintain the operational capability of the Defence Forces. In this regard, I recently approved the recruitment of 40 recruits to the Naval Service. In addition, as I have already stated, the military authorities will shortly advertise for some limited recruitment to the Army. I intend, with the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively across all roles while contributing to the necessary public service economies.

I have not given the figures for the Reserve Defence Force, but Deputy O'Shea has more or less provided them. On 31 May 2010 there were 6,200 members, comprising 5,934 Army Reserve and 266 Naval Service Reserve personnel. The Department has secured approval for limited recruitment to the Reserve Defence Force subject to the overall strength not exceeding the figure at 1 January last year, which was 7,671. This recruitment is continuing and is being monitored in light of the uptake of paid training with the reserve and future budgetary provisions.

What is the actual establishment of the Defence Forces at present? Where are vacancies occurring in the various cadres?

In theory, the establishment ought to be 10,500. Arising from the agreement following on the McCarthy report, that was reduced to 10,000. Currently, there are just over 9,800 personnel, and when the new recruitment process is completed, this will rise by 40 in the Naval Service Reserve and a certain number more in other areas, as well as the figure to be decided with regard to cadet intake. As the number leaving has diminished considerably compared to previous years, it seems the final number will comfortably outstrip the expected strength. The total of 10,000 ought to be achieved.

As I have said previously to Deputy O'Shea, I have reservations about sticking to the round figure of 10,000 because it looks contrived. I would be far more comfortable if, for example, the figure were 10,200 or 9,700, established on the basis of a certain calculation. We all have a certain suspicion of round figures, particularly of that nature.

The Minister says there will be some recruitment to the Army. In the Defence Forces generally, will there be any cadet intake this year? I ask this because the number of people retiring may result in an imbalance; we may lose a disproportionate number of officers compared to NCOs and privates. This raises the need for an effective organisation. In addition, it takes longer to train cadets. What is the effect of retirements on officer strength?

In fact, relatively few people are leaving — fewer than might have been expected and fewer than was the case in the past. There are concerns about the age profile and we are trying to address this, but it can only be dealt with by a new intake. Colleagues will remember that ten or 15 years ago the age profile had become very high. This has improved dramatically with recruitment over the years. As I said previously, if many people were leaving the issue of the age profile could easily be addressed, but when small numbers are leaving one is confined to small recruitments. I hope to have a cadet class at some point.

When the Minister advertised for 40 new recruits for the Naval Service — I take it the process has been carried out, or at least the advertisements have appeared — how many applications were received?

The closing date was a number of weeks ago. The number was fairly large, although not as large as I had expected. I will obtain it for the Deputy. The Naval Service is somewhat specialised, so the number might not be as large as it would be for the Army.

There have been reports in the past that young people from this part of the country were crossing the Border and joining the British Armed Forces. Is there any information available to the Minister to indicate that this is happening currently and, if so, to what extent?

There is a long history in some areas of recruitment to armed forces in other countries. Unfortunately, countries across Europe are facing similar economic situations, so there are not many opportunities in other jurisdictions. I do not have figures in that regard. They are not readily available to us and are only likely to become available at a later stage, if at all.

Am I correct that following a recent recruiting programme for the Defence Forces, people who applied at that time had their forms returned to them because a decision was taken not to go ahead with recruitment? Will preference be given to any of those people in a future recruitment campaign?

That issue was raised previously. If I remember correctly, Deputy O'Shea raised the issue in the context of the age limit for the intake. I understand that the new recruitment programme will be a green-field operation. To be frank, that is the only way it can work.

Pat Breen

Question:

29 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Defence if the strength of the Permanent Defence Force will be maintained at the agreed overall level of 10,000 for lifetime of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, the Croke Park Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29905/10]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

32 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Defence if the terms of the Croke Park proposals will apply to the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30144/10]

Bernard Allen

Question:

36 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Defence if the associations representing members of the Permanent Defence Forces have accepted the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, the Croke Park Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29896/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 32 and 36 together.

Within the context of consolidating the public finances, the Government is focused firmly on maintaining the operational efficiency of the Permanent Defence Force. Government approval was secured in the context of budget 2010 for a level of 10,000. I have put most of this information on the record already, except for a part of my reply relating to the Croke Park agreement.

I intend, with the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, to retain the capacity of the organisation. With regard to the terms of the Croke Park proposals the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, accepted the terms of the Croke Park agreement at a special delegate conference on 29 June 2010. The Permanent Defence Force Representative Association, PDFORRA, has rejected the proposals. The implications of the rejection by PDFORRA of the Croke Park proposals are currently being considered.

The Minister said the implications are currently being considered. Who is doing the considering and when might the Minister come to a decision on the situation?

I am not directly involved in the considerations. It is a matter between the military authorities, the association and the Department. There is nothing sinister about the situation. It just happens that some of the organisations, in this case PDFORRA and other trade unions, did not vote in favour of the Croke Park agreement. If there are implications, I will bring them to the attention of the House at the appropriate time.

Against a background in which RACO accepted the proposals and PDFORRA rejected them, is it possible the proposals could apply to the RACO members of the Defence Forces and not to the PDFORRA members and, thereby, be a recipe for division within the Defence Forces? That is a position that should be avoided at all costs.

The Croke Park agreement provides significant safeguards for all public servants. The issue is, obviously, a matter for representative associations and trade unions. As it happens, the four of us here currently are members of a trade union of a particular profession, two of which voted against and one in favour of the proposals. I am sure the details around the agreement will be worked out. I assure Deputy O'Shea that no precipitative action that might cause difficulties or undermine the integrity of the Defence Forces relationship with the Department will be taken.

Can the Minister give us any indication as to what was included in the modernisation agenda that formed part of the pay negotiations and discussions in respect of the Defence Forces?

That broadens the scope of the question somewhat.

One of the criticisms of the agreement was that matters were not spelled out in the kind of detail they could have been. That was the complaint across the entire public sector. Clarifications were sought and given to the general public sector which did not automatically seem to apply, for example, to sectors teaching nursing. That, to some extent, would be the case with the military and this may have given rise to people taking particular positions, more in fear of possible outcomes than with regard to concrete proposals. That is something that must be worked out. I am confident there will not be any major difficulties in that regard.

With regard to these proposals, is there a prospect of structural changes in terms of the formation of the Defence Forces, the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps, particularly with regard to how they relate to one another? Is it likely there will be a more integrated approach between them? Furthermore, how will the Croke Park proposals affect the Department in terms of how it interfaces with the Defence Forces?

I did not answer that part of Deputy Stanton's question. A number of aspects of the Croke Park agreement affect the Defence Forces. These include ongoing co-operation with the overall review and restructuring of the Defence Forces, which I do not think will create any difficulty; flexible and efficient deployment and redeployment, on which, perhaps, I should not comment; a review of the current technical grading systems, a matter that might be of concern to some Members; co-operation with the implementation of the restructuring of the medical services; a review of the tasks attracting security duty allowances and eligibility for those allowances; the review of the non-commissioned officers promotion scheme; and a merit-based competitive promotion policy as the norm in the service. These are the main general points.

Defence Forces Equipment

Leo Varadkar

Question:

30 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Defence if he has received the Marine Casualty Investigation Board’s report on the loss of the Asgard II; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30033/10]

I can confirm that I received a copy of the draft report into the sinking of the sail training vessel, Asgard II. This report was examined by my Department and any comments and observations were submitted by the due date of 27 April 2010. The question of publishing the report is a matter for the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which is a statutory independent body.

I understand the Asgard II was insured. Was the insurance collected, how much was it and what has happened to it? Did it go to the Department of Defence or has it gone to the general Exchequer?

It predates my time so I will answer from memory. My recollection is that it was fully insured and that the full insurance was paid, approximately €3.8 million. My understanding is this money came to the Department of Defence, but was de facto transferred to the Exchequer.

There was a proposal that there should be a replacement vessel for Asgard II. This arose as a serious issue in my constituency recently. For clarification, am I correct to understand that the Minister is not actively considering such a proposal at this stage? Is this something the Minister will consider in the context of a sail training programme? The big interest from Waterford is due to the fact that the Tall Ships event will be here next year but we will not have a large sailing vessel participating. Also, the training programme was a very good programme for young people and it is a pity it has been lost. A proposal was also made that we should lease a vessel. What proposals has the Department in this regard?

As the Deputies will be aware, Coiste an Asgard is still in existence. I had a meeting with the coiste a month or two ago at which we explored some of the questions put by Deputy O’Shea. At this point in time, I do not intend to revisit decisions that have been made on the future of the programme. This is as much, if not more, for financial reasons than for any other consideration. A sail training programme would not have to be dependent on the acquisition of a ship of the standard of the Asgard. I understand the coiste has been engaged in some discussions with sail training groups with a view to accommodating the people referred to by Deputy O’Shea in a sail training programme. Unfortunately, that does not address the Deputy’s difficulty with regard to the event at Waterford. It is highly unlikely that Coiste an Asgard will be in position to have a vessel. On the other hand, the Jeanie Johnston is very pretty and I am sure there are people the Deputy could talk to in that regard.

I am sure the Minister meant to mention the Dunbrody also.

What is the Minister's view on recent reports of diving expeditions to the wreck of the Asgard II? Are there items that could be salvaged from the wreck that may be of value, sentimental or otherwise?

I understand there has been some diving activity. As far as I can establish, permission was not received from the Irish authorities and may well have been refused, and likewise from the French authorities. My understanding is that when the Asgard II sank, before divers could be deployed on behalf of the coiste and the Department, permission had first to be sought from the French authorities, which was forthcoming at that stage. There have been reports that a formal complaint was made about current diving activities by the coiste. My understanding is that the French authorities drew the attention of the Irish authorities to the fact that unauthorised diving was under way at the site. I am informed that there are some serious health and safety concerns and issues in regard to ownership which I am not in a position to go into in any great detail. I understand permission was not received from either the Irish or the French authorities.

Departmental Staff

Kieran O'Donnell

Question:

31 Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for Defence the number of civil servants in his Department at assistant principal officer or higher grades who were appointed to those positions from the private sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29937/10]

The number of whole-time equivalent staff in the Department in May 2010 at the grade of assistant principal officer or higher is 51.3. Two people at assistant principal level or equivalent were recruited from outside the Civil Service as provided for under the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016. As all subsequent staff resources have been sourced from the central applications facility in the context of the decentralisation programme for the Department, there has been no further external recruitment.

Staffing of the Department is in line with recent Government decisions on a reduction in payroll costs and the moratorium on recruitment and promotion.

Does the Minister have any plans to continue the practice of hiring staff from outside the Civil Service?

There are two categories for which that is practical, the first being the general recruitment category. The second is in those cases where, from time to time, specialists such as accountants, solicitors and so on may be required. It would be wise to have recourse to the private sector generally in recruiting those staff, and I have no objection in principle to external recruitment. The difficulty at the moment is that there is a recruitment moratorium, so this issue does not arise in any event.

Will the Minister indicate the number of civil servants currently in his Department?

There are approximately 350 staff; I will come back to the Deputy with the exact figure.

Question No. 32 answered with Question No. 29.

Overseas Missions

Alan Shatter

Question:

33 Deputy Alan Shatter asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether a Defence Forces mission at battalion level should occur within 18 months; his further views on whether a failure to provide for such a mission could damage the Defence Forces in view of his agreement (details supplied) that such a mission is the lifeblood of the organisation; the international contacts he has made, or has had made on his behalf, to international bodies to ensure participation in such a mission; and if he will make a statment on the matter. [29967/10]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

58 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which members of the Defence Forces are likely to take part in overseas deployments through the aegis of the EU or UN over the next two years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30171/10]

Willie Penrose

Question:

62 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Defence the progress made regarding the participation of the Defence Forces in new overseas service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30160/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 33, 58 and 62 together.

Ireland has offered, through the UN stand-by arrangements system, UNSAS, to provide up to 850 military personnel for overseas service at any one time. With regard to future deployments, Ireland receives requests, from time to time, in regard to 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 the key parameters within which we judge an application at UN level. I have already gone through some of the other aspects and I do not propose to repeat them.

We have covered this already, so I will not spend too much time on it. How long would it take for the Defence Forces to have a group ready if a request is made in the coming months for participation in an overseas mission given that equipment needs to be brought up to speed and so on? Will the Minister comment on other developments in respect of the Nordic battle group and other groups in which the Defence Forces are involved and on their readiness for participation in any of those groups?

The second question is somewhat specialised. Irish troops will participate in the Nordic battle group later this year when they go out to a location in Sweden in September. In regard to the lead-in period one would envisage, one of the surprising elements if one looks back historically at Ireland's involvement in UN missions is that on virtually no occasion, when a mission ended, could one have foreseen the next mission. Nobody would have realistically predicted that Chad, Liberia or Eritrea would be Ireland's next engagement, although Lebanon was somewhat predictable. Much attention is directed towards UNIFIL, partly because of our particularly positive engagement in Lebanon historically and partly because of the ongoing need there. However, at this point, we have not been formally invited to participate in a particular mission and we have some work to do before we are ready to engage in any such mission.

The Minister mentioned the Chad mission and the fact that the forces had to be withdrawn prematurely when the Government was committed to keeping them there. The Irish troops were certainly carrying out a very valuable and much needed role in that country. Is there any indication as to conditions there since the withdrawal of the Irish forces? Has the situation improved, deteriorated or whatever? Is there a mechanism whereby we could find ourselves providing troops there again? Obviously the triple lock process must be invoked, but it seems to me to be an uncompleted mission and that the need for involvement by Irish troops remains. Is the Minister favourably disposed towards sending troops back there if the situation were to develop in that fashion?

The first part of the Deputy's query is well beyond the scope of these questions.

It is a massive logistical undertaking to take out all the troops and equipment and then to have to send them back again. When one considers the type of over-land route that must be traversed in the case of Chad, with virtually no roads whatever, it is a huge undertaking. It would be difficult to be enthusiastic about engaging in it, but if the need arose and the UN were to make a request, we would have to consider it according to the same criteria as any other proposal that might be made. It is important to bear in mind that troops from other African countries which are gradually building capacity in this area are generally better received. It is to be welcomed that the emerging African nations are in a position to provide troops in some of these situations; they certainly have some advantages of deployment.

The bottom line is that if the UN tells us we are needed in a particular place, we will examine the proposal fairly regardless of previous history. We would still be in Chad were it not for the logistical difficulties that presented because the mandate could not be guaranteed. I would personally be extremely unhappy with having Irish troops there under the current mandate.

Is it policy to have a battalion equipped, ready and trained to serve overseas should a request be made? As the Minister indicated, such requests may come unexpectedly.

We have an opportunity at the moment to prepare seriously for the deployment of a battalion in some entirely new location. It is difficult to do that when there are troops on various overseas missions, as was the case during the period of the Chad deployment. We now have an opportunity to do something we have not been able to do for some time. In general terms, the turnover in Chad was on a four-month basis, although in other locations it is more likely to be six months. There is a preparedness for that at all times and we would like to be exactly in the position Deputy Stanton outlines in regard to our commitment of 850 troops.

Defence Forces Property

Jan O'Sullivan

Question:

34 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the proposals, if any, he has regarding the Defence Forces property portfolio; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30162/10]

Róisín Shortall

Question:

70 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30155/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 34 and 70 together.

The Defence Forces property portfolio is kept under ongoing review 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.

The question concerning the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks, along with the issue of any further consolidation throughout 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 Barracks is a significant military installation with a wide range of facilities, accommodation and storage depots and would be costly to replace. This must be factored into our consideration, especially in the current financial situation. Consideration must be given to the operational requirements of the Defence Forces and where personnel would be relocated as well. 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 take the point the Minister has made, that is to say, he is not in a position to make any definitive statements at this stage. Will the Minister give an indication of his thinking? We may put forward the proposition that this is not the time to sell property and that the market is flat. On the other hand, if there were a case to be made on financial grounds to close or to cease to use a certain facility which would result in a recurrent saving, is it something the Minister would consider? I am not seeking details in any way. However, I wish to establish whether this is being considered in a serious way at the moment as a means of dealing with the Defence Forces property portfolio. Is consideration being given to dispose of or amalgamate properties and create a new situation whereby all activities would take place in one location and others would cease to operate?

If the only considerations were value for money, operational flexibility, management of resources and so on, there would be a compelling case for consolidation into a relatively small number of locations. However, other considerations arise with regard to deployment of the Defence Forces. Any move would have associated costs. A balance must be struck and consideration must be given to the point, made by Deputy O'Shea, that now might not be the most appropriate or propitious time to sell property.

On the other hand, the Department has an agreement with the Department of Finance that any proceeds would be retained by the Defence Forces and spent on new equipment or whatever is necessary.

Some positive stories have arisen from some of the places where property has become available. Local authorities, VECs and others have become very active, especially in town centre locations. A balance must be struck and I am in no way wielding the axe. One must take a common sense approach.

Is the Minister prepared to take an imaginative and flexible approach whereby such properties might become available for local community needs and so on? Does the Minister not agree that many of these properties are located in towns which are of a strategic nature? There may be ways of proceeding other than selling properties for hard cash. It may be possible to enter into long lease agreements from which the Department would have an income. The tradition of the military could be recognised and maintained in some shape or form in some cases. Property could be used by the Reserve Defence Force at some future date and some modern buildings could be constructed where these older buildings are at present. Will the Minister consider a flexible and imaginative approach?

I have held several meetings with community groups, local authorities and educational authorities with regard to some of these locations. I am well disposed to accommodating them where possible. I must be careful not to set a precedent which could be used against the Department's better interests, especially financially, with regard to some potential outcomes.

I am familiar with one case, which I have discussed with Deputy Stanton, in which it appears some of the suggestions he has outlined could be accommodated, for example, in terms of access to a building for the Reserve Defence Force. In the context of a White Paper, perhaps a different model will emerge for the Reserve Defence Force or the Permanent Defence Force. We should bear in mind all of these points because there is finality about disposing of property and sometimes one might rather such finality had not taken place ten years later.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share