David Stanton
Question:1 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence his plans for reform and restructuring of the Irish Red Cross; the timetable for implementing any such changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38256/10]
Priority Questions
Irish Red Cross Society
The current governance proposals arise from a resolution passed in November 2007, by the council of delegates of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The resolution urged all national societies, as requested by action 3 of the strategy for the movement, to examine and update their statutes, their rules and related legal texts by 2010, in accordance with the Guidance for National Society Statutes and relevant international conference resolutions. This task is being undertaken by many Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world.
The formal report of the working group established by the Irish Red Cross Society to examine the issue of governance was received in the Department of Defence in January of this year. In order to implement the recommendations made, significant amendments to the Irish Red Cross Society Order 1939 will be required. The 1939 order, which was made pursuant to the Red Cross Act 1938 provides for the current governance arrangements of the society.
Representatives of the society and officials from the Department of Defence have had a number of meetings to discuss the specific changes required to the 1939 order and work is ongoing in that regard. Officials from the Department have also met officials in the Office of the Attorney General to discuss the changes that need to be made. The rules of the society, as provided for in the 1939 order, will also need to be amended by the society to reflect the proposed governance changes. As of now it is not possible to give a precise timetable for the implementation of the required changes; however, this work is being prioritised in the Department and good progress is being made.
The recent appointment, by the President, of Mr. David O'Callaghan as chairman of the society is also a positive development. Mr. O'Callaghan is a former career civil servant with experience of matters relating to the Irish Red Cross Society from his time as Secretary General of the Department of Defence. I am fully confident that his appointment will help expedite the reform process under way in the society. The post of secretary general of the society, which is currently filled on an acting basis, was recently advertised and I expect that the society will be in a position to fill the post in the near future.
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the Irish Red Cross Society is a very important organisation both nationally and internationally? It is used here for emergency planning and other purposes, and is an auxiliary to the State. Does he also agree that it should get the greatest of attention from the Minister? What is the delay in implementing the 20 Government proposals? Has the Minister read these proposals and what are his views on them?
I agree that the Irish Red Cross Society is a very important organisation. It is important to remember that the governance of the society is set out under the terms of the Geneva Convention, the 1938 Act and the 1939 order. One of the principal requirements of the Minister is to ensure the independence of the Irish Red Cross Society. That provision is not necessarily put in place because of the requirements relating to the Red Cross in Ireland but because the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies operate internationally, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, and their neutrality and independence from government is a very important consideration in that context. It would be disastrous for the Government to undermine the independence of the Irish Red Cross Society by intervening in the day-to-day running of the organisation and the Government would not countenance doing so.
Further to the proposals arising from the 2007 review of the international societies, the working group set up here made a number of recommendations, which we have discussed here on previous occasions, including that the chairman of the Irish Red Cross Society should be independently appointed when the new system is in place, that the number of Government nominees should be dramatically reduced and many other recommendations on the internal workings of the organisation.
The Minister has not answered my question on why it is taking so long to reach a decision on these proposed reforms. Is it not true that the Department received these proposals in January and ten months later the Minister has not taken much action on them? Is it not time that action was taken? Far from intervening or interfering, as the Minister said, this is supporting and is something the Irish Red Cross Society itself seeks. Is it not true that it is the Minister who is delaying change, reform and progress on this matter, which will lead to the Irish Red Cross Society being open to all kinds of bad press which does not help its thousands of volunteers who do considerable good work, including some of its members who go overseas and put their lives at risk? Is it not about time for the Minister to make a decision that would support and help the Irish Red Cross Society by taking decisions on these reforms? Is it not the Minister's responsibility to introduce changes to the 1939 order?
Of course after the report of the task force was received a number of steps needed to be undertaken, not least of which was consultation with the international Red Cross with regard to whether the working group proposals were appropriate in the context of the changes the international Red Cross had sought in 2007. There was considerable consultation at that level. There was also consideration of the proposals at the level of the executive of the Irish Red Cross Society, which was a very important element of that. There was not a large queue of people seeking to be appointed to the position of chairman of the society and I am very grateful to Mr. O'Callaghan for having accepted it. At this point he and his executive have considerable work to do independently of the Government. Some of these changes are quite far-reaching, and some elements need to be cleared by the Office of the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel regarding the manner in which they are done. I would welcome input from the Houses of the Oireachtas and I would be happy to bring the draft regulations before the relevant committee at the appropriate time if that were the feeling of the House in that regard.
This is a major restructuring and it is more important that it be done properly than done with undue haste and end up being a failure.
Does the Minister believe it can be done in the next 12 months?
I agree with the Deputy on the role of the volunteers in the Irish Red Cross Society and the wonderful work they do as well as the impact of the Red Cross internationally. As previously discussed in the Chamber, it would have been impossible to advance all this in the absence of a chairman being in position to lead the executive as considerable work needs to be done there. I assure the House there will be no untoward delays in moving it on.
Defence Forces Personnel
Brian O'Shea
Question:2 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence the number of Defence Forces personnel who have been diagnosed as suffering from Lariam toxicity in each of the past five years and to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38260/10]
Lariam is authorised for use by the Irish Medicines Board which is the statutory regulatory body charged with regulating the use of medicines, to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines available in Ireland. Lariam was first authorised for use by the Irish Medicines Board in 1989. The authorised product information provides details to ensure the safe and effective use of this medicinal product. While certain risks associated with the use of the drug were highlighted in the Drug Safety Newsletter in 1996 and 2003, the Irish Medicines Board remained of the view that the benefit-risk profile for the product remained acceptable. The IMB continues to review the safety of this and all medicines on an ongoing basis and updates the product information as appropriate.
In accordance with best practice in prescribing this medication and taking account of the contraindications, warnings and side effects highlighted by the IMB, the Defence Forces screen all personnel for medical suitability. The screening system automatically rules out from overseas service personnel with certain conditions, for example depression, anxiety, neurodegenerative disorders etc. which, as has been indicated by the Irish Medicines Board, are more likely to precipitate serious adverse reactions to Lariam. Pregnant personnel are also excluded.
In the case of overseas missions to malarious areas, the medical screening involves an assessment of the individual's suitability to be prescribed the selected anti-malarial agent in line with current Irish Medicines Board guidelines. This typically involves review of the individual's previous experience, if any, with the medication. The individual's medical history is also screened for those conditions, which have been identified as precipitating serious side effects in association with the medication. In addition, blood tests are carried out to ensure that the liver is healthy as liver disease is an accepted contraindication to the use of Lariam.
It is the policy of the Defence Forces medical corps that personnel who are found suitable for Lariam should commence their medication three to four weeks in advance of their travel. The purpose of this precaution is twofold. While it allows a slow build up of the medication in the bloodstream, it also permits assessment by the person of his or her individual reaction to the medication while still in Ireland. During this probationary period the individual can consult with a medical officer over any adverse reaction, minor or major. Some minor reactions may be transient but if persistent or troublesome, the individual will be deemed to have sensitivity to the medication and will be found not medically suitable for the mission.
There are three other anti-malarial medications available, Chloroquine, Malarone and Doxycycline. However, in the case of each of these products there are specific reasons they are not suitable for use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa and I will now set these out. Chloroquine is no longer in use because of the development of widespread resistance to it. Doxycycline must be taken in the absence of dairy products and it can produce sun-sensitivity skin rashes in some individuals. This is particularly significant when used in very sunny climates. For this reason it is not recommended for first-line use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa. Malarone is unsuitable for use as it is licensed for no more than 28 days continuous use in a malarious area by the Irish Medicines Board. In this context, this prophylactic agent is only suitable for use where the overseas deployment does not exceed 28 days.
Defence Forces medical records are mainly manually based at this time and the medical module of the personnel management system does not currently provide a diagnostic breakdown of the clinical status among the Defence Forces. As such, there is no way of providing the specific information sought by the Deputy without examining every medical record of every recipient of Lariam. Even then this would not include those who opted not to seek medical corps medical officer advice. However, the Defence Forces have advised me that as of August 2010, three members of the Defence Forces had been treated for serious symptoms which may have been caused or contributed to by Lariam, although there is nothing conclusive in this regard. I am advised by the military authorities that all these personnel have made a full recovery, and that their cases have been reported to the Irish Medicines Board. In addition, there is a further cohort of seven personnel with less dramatic symptoms, and these remain under review. Again there is no conclusive evidence that the use of Lariam was a factor in any of these cases.
The Defence Forces take all necessary precautions in assessing the suitability of personnel before prescribing Lariam, in accordance with the prescribing instructions and information provided by the Irish Medicines Board. Personnel are screened both before and after deployments and all necessary actions are taken to ensure that those with contraindications to Lariam use are deemed unsuitable for overseas service and are not prescribed the medication.
I tabled this question following a meeting I attended recently with some former members of the Defence Forces and others who are concerned about this subject. A female attending that meeting asked if Lariam can affect fertility in some cases. The Minister mentioned that a blood test is carried out in advance. What exactly does it test? An allegation was made that the reason Lariam is used is because is cheaper than other drugs. Will the Minister advise on that? Are the serving members advised of the side effects of Lariam before they take it? The Minister said three people had serious side effects from having taken it and seven others had less dramatic side affects. The number of people who had side effects to the medication appears to be very small. From what was stated at that meeting, the bottom line is that more than that number have had serious side effects from taking this medication.
Is the Minister satisfied there is sufficient tracking of people who have had side effects from the taking of Lariam as they continue to serve or on leaving the armed forces? I understand the side effects from having taken a relatively small dose of Lariam can be experienced for quite a long time. In respect of the people who had serious side effects, the Minister said that those people are now clear of all symptoms. Is he satisfied that the tracking done in respect of those people is sufficiently strong for such a categorical statement to be made about them?
The issue of the medication affecting fertility has not been brought to my notice at any point. I can have that matter checked for the Deputy. I understand that the blood test is carried out in the main to establish whether there would be any impacts of side effects from the potential effects of Lariam on the liver.
With regard to the prescribing of the medication, all personnel departing on a particular mission have the precautions relating to the use of Lariam, which I outlined in the initial part of my reply, applied to them. In other words, for three or four weeks before they leave, they are in receipt of this treatment and if they have any side effects in that period, they are either assessed in terms of they being relatively minor or assessed as being of such size that the person is deemed unfit to travel. That is the first level. I understand that on return personnel are also tested in that respect. It should also be noted that Lariam was approved first in 1989, and in 1996 and 2003 the Irish Medicines Board issued some additional information and advice on its use.
What is the Minister's response to the fact that the US army ceased using Lariam in February 2009?
I am aware of the fact that the US army has ceased using Lariam. I understand there may be two reasons for that. The first is that many of its soldiers may not be operating in areas where there is a risk of contracting malaria. My understanding is that the vast majority of armies which are deployed in sub-Saharan Africa in particular and in areas where the risk of contracting malaria from mosquito bites is very high continue to use Lariam mainly because it is at this point the drug that is most suitable for long-term use. One of the other drugs I mentioned has very severe side effects which come into play very strongly in sub-Saharan Africa. Another drug is only suitable and approved for continuous use of up to 28 days which, in the case of the vast majority of personnel on our missions, is far shorter than the four or six months stint for which people are deployed. When one goes through all the evidence it transpires that in terms of meeting all the requirements that Lariam is the only suitable drug available at this stage for our personnel.
Defence Forces Strength
David Stanton
Question:3 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the implementation of the employment control framework within the Defence Forces; the expected timetable for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38257/10]
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 all ranks. This reflects the reductions in personnel recommended in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes.
I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force as of 30 September 2010 was 9,625 comprising 7,845 Army, 776 Air Corps and 1,004 Naval Service personnel.
While agreement had been reached with the Department of Finance on the employment control framework for the Defence Forces the official confirmation and details of it were only received on Monday last, 18 October 2010. The ECF is based on a figure of 10,000 all ranks Permanent Defence Force personnel, appropriately configured across the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps to enable them meet the roles assigned by Government.
Officials from the Department together with the military authorities are in the process of reviewing the structures and posts required to meet the operational requirements of the Permanent Defence Force in accordance with the upper limits in ranks provided for in the ECF. Thereafter a detailed proposal will be submitted to me.
Detailed proposals on foot of the review of the structures and posts required to meet the operational requirements of the Permanent Defence Force, within the reduced numbers, will include a phased plan for promotions. This will seek to address the priority posts to be filled in relation to the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force.
Overall numbers in the Permanent Defence Force, including numbers serving at various ranks will be subject to ongoing control and monitoring by the Department of Finance on a monthly basis. This is to ensure compliance within the overall parameters and controls set by Government for each sector. The ECF also sets out that it will be necessary to underpin the reorganisation with the required amendments to regulations and administrative instructions.
While these are challenging times, my priority is to ensure that the Defence Forces are organised, equipped and staffed in a manner which will ensure that they can continue to deliver the services required of them by Government.
I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government both at home and overseas.
Will the Minister agree that the employment control framework is important for the Defence Forces both from the point of view of morale and operations? How many promotions are currently on hold in the Defence Forces? Can the Minister give a breakdown of those and if he does not have information to hand, perhaps he will provide it later. Will he agree that the Defence Forces have already taken major cuts? For instance, the Reserve Defence Force has been virtually wiped out at this stage. It has taken a long time for the employment control framework to be agreed and the Minister might tell why it has taken so long to get it to this stage? How long more will it be before he will be in a position to make decisions with regard to the promotions he mentioned? Will it be one month, two months, six months or whatever? What is his estimate?
I have no control over the review but Deputy Stanton is correct about the issue of morale. The employment control framework, ECF, plays a significant role in this and should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I expect the review's requirements to be undertaken as quickly a possible and given full attention. Until the review is presented to me, I am not in a position to proceed, however.
At yesterday's defence committee meeting I informed Deputies there were 150 personnel in acting-up posts. It may be considerably higher with 95 officers and 95 non-commissioned officers in such posts. This structure must be examined through the review.
I hope the review will be presented to me as quickly as possible and that it can be implemented on a phased basis in a short time thereafter with the completion of the requirements under the ECF. However, the completion of the review is outside of my control.
Are the personnel in acting-up positions being paid for the extra work? Have other vacancies arisen in the Defence Forces that have not been filled by this procedure? Will the Minister publish the ECF? What does it contain? We understood the ECF would provide the template. Now it seems it has to be reviewed too. In short, it will be a review of a review.
The majority of those in acting-up positions are paid. The review will identify the structures and posts needed to meet the operational requirements of the Defence Forces. Given the overall reduction of numbers in the Permanent Defence Force, some reduction in the number of officer and NCO posts is inevitable.
I appreciate it can be frustrating for the Deputies opposite but it is difficult for me to give detailed information in advance of the completion of the review. I do not anticipate publishing the ECF or the review. On the other hand, I would be very surprised if I did not read it somewhere. Professionalism has to be brought to bear in this review. I see no reason for the review to be protracted. I do not want to put a time limit on it because that may put unfair pressure on those involved.
It might be no harm.
That may be the case.
The Deputy is correct the bulk of the work has been done with the ECF and it reflects the downsizing of numbers and the modernisation process. As soon as the review is completed and approved by me, people will be brought into most of the positions in question.
The Minister should put down a specific date for the review to be completed. That would put pressure on for it to be finished promptly.
That is one tactic I have learned in this post.
Defence Forces Ombudsman
David Stanton
Question:4 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the number of recommendations made by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in 2007, 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010 respectively; the number of these which were rejected; the number of these on which he has yet to make a decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38258/10]
The function of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is to act as the ultimate point of appeal for and administrative investigation into complaints made by members and former members of the Defence Forces against other members or former members of the Defence Forces or against a civil servant of the Department of Defence. The ombudsman may investigate a complaint in respect of an action or decision which may have adversely affected the complainant personally. The action or decision complained of must have occurred no earlier than 1 December 2005.
In 2007, the number of recommendations received from the ombudsman was 20 with 15 accepted and five rejected; in 2008, it was 21 with 15 accepted and six rejected; in 2009, 25 with 22 accepted, three rejected and two still to be decided; in 2010, none of the ten recommendations has yet been decided.
The ombudsman's recommendations in these reports cover issues specific to the individual's complaint including proposals for redress in cases where the ombudsman has found a person has been wronged together with any systemic issues the ombudsman identified in the course of her investigation.
In arriving at my determination on each case, I take careful account of all the ombudsman's findings and recommendations. I also take into account the specific and unique requirements of the Defence Forces. In cases where I accept a recommendation, this decision is conveyed to the chief of staff to ensure the action required to give effect to that recommendation is taken at the earliest opportunity.
Where I accept a recommendation from the ombudsman which is of a systemic nature, this is referred to the appropriate branch of the Department or the Defence Forces for consideration in the context of the ongoing development of best practice human resources management.
I welcome the constructive contributions made by the ombudsman in supporting improved human resources practices. Since the establishment of her office in 2005, her input has assisted the Defence Forces in the revision of several human resources procedures including the selection processes for career courses and overseas service. The ombudsman's recommendations have also informed the revision of selection processes for promotion, a new version of which is currently being progressed with the representative associations through the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
In accordance with the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent in the performance of her duties. She is required to cause a report on the performance of her functions under the Act to be laid annually before each House of the Oireachtas. In her 2009 report, the ombudsman referred to several recommendations about systemic matters made by her in final reports which were accepted by the then Minister for Defence and the military authorities. She stated the changes flowing from these recommendations will not only address the grievance in the individual case but will also ensure other members of the Defence Forces will not encounter bad practices, or good practices poorly applied, in the future.
Will the Minister agree the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is competent? On what basis, would he not accept one of her findings? Does he take advice from other parties? If so, does this mean that someone else reviews the ombudsman's work? If that is the case, one would wonder why we need an ombudsman. Why is there a delay in deciding on the ten recommendations made by the ombudsman in 2010? Is it because the recommendations were received late in 2010? What is the delay over the two outstanding recommendations from 2009?
There is a philosophical aspect to the Deputy's question as to whether the ombudsman is the final arbiter which we should not get into.
The first recommendation in 2010 was received on 13 May 2010, the last on 4 October 2010. These are relatively new and some work must be done on them. Some decisions and determinations have been made in 2010 relating to cases disposed of by the ombudsman in 2008 and 2009.
When an ombudsman's recommendation is received, her overarching advice is considered. It is nearly always possible to incorporate that into best human resources practice. Sometimes specifics in an individual case or recommendations on systems in the Department or the Defence Forces may warrant further consideration. As with all ombudsman recommendations, the Minister will turn to the parent Department for advice.
A total of 14 recommendations have been rejected since 2007. Of those in 2007, four related to the educational criteria for a potential officers' course and one related to retention of pay and allowances. In 2008, two related to the eligibility criteria for an aeronautical engineer course and one related to the eligibility of other candidates in regard to a promotion board. In 2009, three related to non-selection for courses, one to non-payment of technical pay, one to non-selection for a course and one to non-selection for acting appointment.
Another way to look at it is to examine the main categories of complaints to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. There are three chief categories — non-selection for promotion, non-selection for courses and non-selection for overseas service. They account for more than half of the cases referred to the Ombudsman. Other categories are pensions, transfers and allowances. A few cases are of a systemic nature and I can supply the Deputy with details in that regard if he wishes.
Is the Minister saying that the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is wrong in her findings in some cases? Is that the reason the Minister has decided not to accept her findings or recommendations? My question has still not been answered. On what basis does the Minister make the decision not to accept a recommendation of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces? How does he judge it? Does he get advice from somebody else and, if so, who is the person or persons advising the Minister not to accept a recommendation? How is it done? The Minister should let us in on the secret or perhaps it is covered by the Official Secrets Act.
There are three potential outcomes when the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces examines a case. Let us say the ombudsman recommends completely in favour of the complainant. If the Minister partially accepts that, he has rejected the ombudsman's recommendation. In some instances the ombudsman recommends partial redress for the complainant. If the Minister only accepts some of that, he is also rejecting the recommendation. Finally, in some cases the ombudsman finds against the complainant. I had intended to find out if the Minister has gone against any of those recommendations. I doubt it but I will let the Deputy know if that has been the case.
The case comes back from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces and is examined by the relevant section or sections. A file, which is usually quite large, is presented to the Minister, sometimes with recommendations or at least with advice as to the procedures that have been followed and the implications of the initial decision and of the ombudsman's decision. Ultimately, it falls to the Minister to make a decision, but it is usually taken with some advice.
Decentralisation Programme
David Stanton
Question:5 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the progress regarding decentralisation of his Department and military headquarters; the expected timetable for such decentralisation and details of same; the locations of all the various sections of his Department and military headquarters following decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38259/10]
The Department of Defence is moving to Newbridge, County Kildare, under the decentralisation programme. All of the Department's Dublin based Civil Service staff will relocate to Newbridge. The Chief of Staff, the deputy chiefs of staff and a number of other military personnel will also relocate. Relocation of staff to the new building has commenced and will be completed by 8 November 2010. This accounts for the fact that I have some difficulty gathering information related to parliamentary questions. Much of the key information is in crates that are on their way to Newbridge. I am sure they will all be found safely for the next Question Time on defence.
Let us hope we do not have a war in the meantime.
The move to Newbridge will see all civil branches of the Department located either in Newbridge or in Renmore, Galway. The management advisory committee, planning and organisation branch, Defence Forces personnel policy branch, international security and defence policy branch, executive branch, legislation branch, litigation branch, property management branch, conciliation and arbitration branch, human resources branch, information systems branch, contracts branch and the office of emergency planning will be based in Newbridge. The allocation of branches to Renmore in Galway is unaffected. The finance branch, internal audit branch and parts of the information systems branch and human resources branch are already located in Renmore.
The following military directorates will be located in Newbridge: strategic planning, finance, litigation, press office, conciliation and arbitration, legislation, and a component of military information communications and technology. The remaining military directorates will be located at their current locations in Parkgate Street, St. Bricin's Hospital, Coláiste Caoimhín, Park House and McKee Barracks, all in Dublin, and also at Kickham Barracks in Clonmel, County Tipperary.
What will remain in Park House, the current Army headquarters building? Is this the end of it and will what is left in Army headquarters not be moved out?
The principal responsibility remaining in Parkgate Street will be the communications centre, which is a considerable physical infrastructure. It has associated staff of slightly more than 50. It will continue to be accommodated in Parkgate Street for the moment until it is relocated. Members will be aware that there was a second phase to the decentralisation project which would have involved military personnel moving to the Curragh. That element was postponed when decisions were taken in the middle of 2009 due to economic and budgetary matters.
The Minister said "for the moment". Could he be more specific about what that means? Is it months or years? What is the plan or is there a plan for the communications centre, which is very important infrastructure? Has the Minister plans to move this communications centre and, if so, what will be the cost of moving it and where will it go? I understand there are many vacant offices in Parkgate Street. Will the Minister move other elements of the military establishment into Parkgate Street from Glasnevin and other places around Dublin? Will the building where Pádraig Pearse signed the order to surrender be retained in military hands? Is the Minister aware of the historical importance of this building and will he work to retain it in the possession of the Department of Defence?
I should have said at the outset that responsibility for the accommodation of the Department of Defence lies with the Office of Public Works, OPW.
It is somebody else's problem.
It owns the property. I understand it has plans for the location of other personnel there. Due to the nature of the communications centre, it is not something that can be moved overnight. In fact, large elements of it must be recreated to facilitate its transfer.
The Minister cannot be serious. What is the cost of that?
The cost is being dealt with by the OPW. It is not as large as one might expect but it is an issue that is being dealt with by the OPW.
Are we talking about millions of euro?
I do not know the figures involved. For very good reasons it is desirable to have the communications centre located in exclusively military surroundings.
It is, so why move it?
Clearly, Parkgate Street will not meet that criterion in the future, particularly if another Department is located there.
Somebody else wants it.
Even if it were not, I understand the OPW has plans for all the property it controls or rents——
It is institutional vandalism.
It will undertake to ensure that the Department is adequately housed.
That is not good enough.
We will move on to other questions.