Vol. 759 No. 2
6Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has to procure or update military hardware in the Defence Forces over the next year; the specific items involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14184/12]
Given the current economic situation, the acquisition of defensive equipment is carried out on a strictly prioritised basis to ensure that the Defence Forces can carry out their roles at home and overseas. In this regard, a ten year equipment development plan for the Defence Forces was completed in 2009. This plan provides the way forward and will ensure that modern and effective equipment is available for both domestic and overseas operations, such as, for example, the UNIFIL deployment in Lebanon.
Investment in new equipment and upgrading of existing equipment for the Defence Forces is provided for under various subheads of the Defence Vote relating to defensive equipment, transport, aircraft, Naval Service ships and stores and communications and information technology equipment. The provision allocated in 2012 for the purchase of defensive equipment is €27.5 million. This allows for the acquisition of a range of priority defensive equipment such as force protection equipment and chemical detection equipment and the implementation of a rifle enhancement programme. It also allows for the acquisition of ammunition types needed to maintain stocks given the training and overseas requirements throughout the year.
The Minister is right to acknowledge that the past decade has seen a significant investment in the military hardware used by the Defence Forces. We have also seen the use of the proceeds of the barracks consolidation programme pursued by the previous Government in the aftermath of the Northern Ireland peace programme. They have been used to update the obsolete military hardware of the Defence Forces.
Different challenges on overseas missions demand specific investment and equipment and along with the ongoing needs of the Naval Service, further investment may be required into the future. The Minister of State has acknowledged today that some €27.5 million will be spent in 2012. Will the Government use the proceeds from sales following barrack closures in Mullingar, Clonmel and Cavan to fund hardware investment or will they be returned to the Exchequer? I was totally against the closure of these barracks because I do not believe their closure represents value for money for the State. Also, they are a significant loss for their local towns. I do not believe they will be sold, because the market is dead. How does the Minister intend to fund future investment in hardware?
As I said in response to an earlier question, over €87 million has been spent already from moneys received from the sale of barracks closed and sold under the Fianna Fáil Administration. That money was ring-fenced and any moneys received from future sales of barracks will continue to be ring-fenced to the Defence Forces Vote. With regard to how the money will be spent this year, some €2 million will be spent on purchasing force protection equipment to further enhance capability to protect personnel, some €3 million has been allocated for an upgrade and modification of 6,000 current in-service rifles. The commencement of the rifle enhancement programme is a priority and it will run for from two to three years. Some €16 million has been allocated this year for the continued acquisition of various categories of ammunition needed to maintain stocks, given the training and overseas requirements. For operational and security reasons, it is not appropriate to specify in any further detail what it is intended to purchase in the coming months. However, some €14.5 million has been allocated in 2012 for payment to the Naval Service and to Babcock Marine under the contract for the provision of two new ships for the service. The first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2014 and the second a year later.
I am aware of and acknowledge the funding that was used from the previous consolidation. Times were different then and the sales then came about as a result of the Northern Ireland peace process when barracks along the Border were closed. Does the Government intend to sell the barracks in the three locations mentioned? If there are successful sales and money is generated, will that money be ring-fenced for future development in the Defence Forces?
Absolutely. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear but all money that comes from the sale of barracks will be ring-fenced for the Defence Forces and for the purchase of equipment. With regard to barracks that are supposed to be closed, the Department has been in contact with various statutory agencies around the country and discussions are ongoing on those properties. If other agencies, such as county councils, wished to take over some of these existing properties, that would be considered good use of the properties.
The Minister said there was a ten-year equipment development plan put in place in 2009.
I said a ten-year equipment development plan for the Defence Forces was completed in 2009 to provide a way forward.
Has that plan been reviewed in light of the current economic situation and has it been adjusted to take into account the reduction in the numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces and the consolidation of barracks?
The key point is that the provision in the budget for 2012 is €27.5 million. This takes everything into account and is a significant amount of money to be spent in this area this year.
7Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Defence the total number of personnel currently serving abroad; the location at which they are serving; the total amount spent on foreign missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14167/12]
20Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the countries around the world to which Defence Forces personnel are currently deployed; the total number of Defence Forces personnel who are currently deployed around the world; if he will outline each mission in which members of the Defence Forces are deployed; if he will report on any upcoming missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14026/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 20 together.
Ireland has offered, through the United Nations standby arrangements system, UNSAS, to provide up to 850 military personnel for overseas service at any one time. This demonstrates Ireland's commitment to the cause of international peace. This is the maximum sustainable commitment that Ireland can make to overseas peacekeeping operations. Ireland is currently contributing 526 Defence Forces personnel to 11 different missions throughout the world. Full details of all personnel currently serving overseas will be listed in the following tabular statement.
The main overseas missions, in which Defence Forces personnel are currently deployed, are the United Nations interim force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, with 455 personnel, the NATO-led international security presence, KFOR, in Kosovo with 12 personnel, the EU training mission, EUTM, Somalia with seven personnel, the EU-led operation ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with seven personnel, and the NATO-led international security assistance force, ISAF, in Afghanistan with seven personnel. Participation by the Defence Forces in these missions is subject to annual review by the Government and ongoing review by the Minister for Defence. As regards participation in UNIFIL, which is our largest mission, Ireland's participation is expected to continue for three to four years. The net additional costs to the Exchequer for the UNIFIL mission in 2011, taking account of UN reimbursements and cost reduction initiatives on other deployments amounts to approximately €5 million.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work being carried out by the men and women of the Defence Forces in their various peace-keeping missions abroad. These people are great ambassadors for our country through the work they are doing and the work that has been done by those who went before them on the first peace-keeping missions decades ago.
Is there a danger any of our overseas missions will be downgraded? There appears to be capacity in the Defence Forces for another UN mission if available. International pressure should be brought on the UN to intervene in Syria and if the triple-lock requirement is met, we would have the capacity to send peace-keeping troops to a country in great need of an international peace-keeping force. People there are being massacred by the hour.
Deputy Troy is right judging by what we see in the media every day. The number of deaths is appalling and civilians are suffering significant casualties. It is not the UN that is the problem. The problem lies with two countries, Russia and China because they have not consented to a UN security resolution. In the absence of the resolution, we cannot send forces to Syria. To attempt to do so, would be an invasion of that country and we cannot do that. What we are doing is investing over €500,000 in humanitarian aid through the Red Cross and other agencies. This is very important and is the area on which we must focus at this time.
In response to a request from the EUTM mission commander, this week the Government approved the deployment of three additional members of the Permanent Defence Forces for service in Somalia. Also, Ireland has received an invitation from the operational commander of operation EUNAVFOR Atalanta to contribute an autonomous vessel protection detachment, AVPD, for the operation. The Department is considering whether it will be in a position to contribute an AVPD to this operation. Apart from these request, no other requests are being considered at this time.
With regard to personnel serving abroad, I would like to put a question the Minister of State may have forgotten to answer previously. Is the Government concerned about the safety of Irish personnel in Afghanistan, particularly given the current climate there? Aside from the 16 civilians, including nine children, killed this week, last month US troops were caught burning copies of the Koran. US marines have also been found to have been urinating on Afghani corpses and last year members of a US unit were convicted of killing Afghani civilians for entertainment. At present, British soldiers are on trial for filming their abuse of Afghani children. Also, US Wikileaks files record 21 separate incidents of British troops shooting dead or bombing Afghani civilians. The climate is getting terrible. If my son was over there I would be very worried about him.
The key point is that our seven personnel are not involved in combat. They serve in the headquarters where they provide services and information relating to the improvised explosive devices. All our army personnel are professional soldiers. They are military personnel and are effectively equipped to deal with their jobs as soldiers in whatever capacity they serve. Notwithstanding whatever else happens, any soldiers serving overseas on behalf of the Irish nation are not sent willy nilly. They are sent on UN mandated peace missions. Our soldiers in Afghanistan are not attacking anyone. They are keeping the peace.
There is no logical reason for them to be there.
What percentage of costs are recouped? Are they recouped on a yearly basis or at the end of every mission?
I will be happy to get that information for the Deputy but I do not have it with me. That is an important question. I am quite sure I can get the answer for the Deputy.
8Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent, if any, of discussions he has had with his EU colleagues in the context of overseas deployment of peace-keeping or peace-enforcement missions under the aegis of the EU or UN; the likely or anticipated location of any such deployment in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14293/12]
During each EU Presidency both formal and informal meetings of Defence Ministers are held. Last November my colleague the Minister for Defence attended the formal meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council with Defence Ministers. The operation commanders of the three current EU-led missions were also in attendance. Discussions were focused on these current operations and future proposed developments.
Ireland contributes Defence Forces personnel to two of the three current EU missions. Ireland contributes seven personnel to the Operation ALTHEA mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ireland contributes seven personnel including the mission commander, Colonel Michael Beary, to EUTM Somalia, the EU's mission to train Somali security forces in Uganda. The Government has this week approved the participation of a further three personnel to this mission.
The other EU mission, Operation EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, is the EU's first maritime operation which contributes to improving maritime security off the coast of Somalia and in the Indian Ocean. Ireland does not currently contribute personnel to this operation. Ireland has received an invitation from the operational commander of Operation EUNAVFOR ATALANTA to contribute an autonomous vessel protection detachment, AVPD, to the operation. The Department is considering whether it will be in a position to contribute an AVPD to this operation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The EU is also planning a regional maritime capacity building mission to enhance the capacity of Somalia and the wider Horn of Africa region to fight piracy. The proposed mission will be complementary to and have close co-ordination with Operation EUNAVFOR ATALANTA and EUTM Somalia and international actors. This will be a civilian mission augmented with military expertise.
Ireland will participate in the Austro-German Battlegroup which will be on standby for the second six months of 2012. The other members of the Austro-German Battlegroup are Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM. Training and planning is currently ongoing in preparation for a battlegroup deployment if such a decision is taken by the council.
Regarding UN missions, Ireland currently contributes 453 personnel to the UNIFIL mission. Other personnel are serving as monitors and observers with several United Nations missions. Discussions are currently ongoing with Finland regarding the planned deployment of a contingent of some 170 personnel of the armed forces of Finland to UNIFIL and the formation of a joint Irish-Finnish battalion from May 2012. The number of Irish Defence Forces personnel deployed with UNIFIL is scheduled to decrease to 332 personnel as a result of the Finnish deployment.
The Department of Defence constantly reviews the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. However, following the deployment to UNIFIL, it is not anticipated that there will be any major deployments of troops to further missions in the foreseeable future.
Within the EU itself, a number of committees, including the Political and Security Committee and the EU Military Committee, keep the issues of troop deployments, including rapid response, under constant review in consultation with all EU member states.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Can he indicate the extent of ongoing negotiations relating to anticipated deployments, given the various hot spots existing on the borders of Europe and worldwide? Can he indicate whether mention has been made of the western Balkans in this context, with particular reference to the concerns expressed by those permanently deployed on peace negotiations exercises in that area? Has that issue been drawn into conversations with a view to further possible deployments in that area?
When a request is made for Ireland to participate in a mission, the issues that arise are dealt with on a case by case basis. They are an assessment of whether a peacekeeping operation is the most appropriate response; consideration of how the mission relates to the priorities of Irish foreign policy; the degree of risk involved; the extent to which the required skills or characteristics relate to Irish capabilities; the existence of realistic objectives and a clear mandate which has the potential to contribute to a political solution; whether the operation is adequately resourced; and the level of existing commitment to peacekeeping operations and security requirements at home. When all of those issues are taken into consideration the decision is taken.
I will ask the Minister for Defence to respond directly to the Deputy regarding his specific query about the Balkans.
Has there been any request for naval support in the Indian Ocean, given the levels of piracy there and our dependence on the sea for much of our import and export trade?
I take Deputy Stanton's comments on board. I agree that is a serious issue. This is the first time we have been asked if we can assist in the provision of an autonomous vessel protection detachment, AVPD. I will bring the Deputy's comments to the attention of the Minister.
9Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the progress he has made in implementing his decision to reduce the number of brigades from three to two; if he has met with various stakeholders; if so, with whom and when; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14159/12]
17Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the restructuring of the Defence Forces organisation, in particular concerning the number of brigades; the resulting implications for the levels of rank establishment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14295/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 17 together.
Arising from the Government's comprehensive review of expenditure, the strength ceiling of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, was reduced to 9,500 personnel. In response to this reduced strength ceiling, my colleague, the Minister for Defence, initiated a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces, both permanent and reserve.
A three brigade Army structure was adopted in the 1990s when the strength ceiling of the PDF was set at approximately 11,500 personnel. It was retained when the White Paper on Defence of 2000 revised the strength ceiling of the PDF to 10,500 personnel. However, it is no longer viable to retain a three brigade structure within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel.
In this context, the re-organisation of the Defence Forces will encompass a reduction in the number of Army brigades from the current three to two. It will also ensure that the organisational structures of the Reserve Defence Force dovetail with those of the PDF.
The re-organisation will ensure that, within the strength level of 9,500 PDF personnel, the operational effectiveness of the Permanent Defence Force is prioritised. A reorganisation to two brigades will bolster the availability of operational personnel by reducing the numbers of military personnel assigned to administrative and support functions.
The Minister for Defence has requested the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of the Department of Defence to bring forward detailed proposals for his consideration. The Secretary General and the Chief of Staff have initiated work in this regard and are keeping the Minister informed of developments on an ongoing basis.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This is a fundamental reorganisation of the Defence Forces. It is a significant undertaking and there is a range of alternative approaches that must be considered. The Minister previously outlined that this work will take some months to complete. Accordingly, the detailed effects of changes arising from the reorganisation, including the implications for the levels of rank establishments, cannot be specified at this point. In advance of receiving a final report and recommendations, the Minister does not intend to pre-empt the ongoing work by commenting on potential future organisational matters.
The representative associations and other relevant stakeholders will be consulted on matters that fall within their remit when options on the reorganised structure are considered and the likely impacts are known.
As has already been said, PDFORRA and the RACO were completely surprised and disappointed last December by the Minister's shock announcement. There had been no indication that this was coming down the stream.
I asked if the Minister has met the various stakeholders. The Minister of State did not say whether or not he has done so. If he has, whom has he met and when?
Which barracks will be the headquarters for the two new brigades? Given its central location and that it is served by a good road infrastructure, Athlone would be an ideal location for one of these headquarters. When will the Minister announce which brigade will be downgraded and where the new headquarters will be located? What number of senior armed forces positions will be removed in the new restructure?
I thank Deputy Troy for his comments; I will inform the Minister that his location of choice is Athlone.
I agree with Deputy Troy.
I am sure the Minister of State is not surprised.
I am not surprised.
This fundamental reorganisation of the Defence Forces is a significant undertaking and a range of alternative approaches must be considered. The Minister previously outlined that this work will take some months to complete. Accordingly, the detailed effect of changes arising from the reorganisation, including the implications for levels of rank establishments which the Deputy raised, cannot be specified at this time. In advance of receiving a final report and recommendation, the Minister does not intend to pre-empt the ongoing work by commenting on potential future organisational matters.
The representative associations and other relevant stakeholders will be consulted on the matters that fall within their remit when options on the reorganised structure are considered and the likely impacts known. There will be consultation.
What is the situation regarding the consultative Green Paper on Defence which I believe was to be part of this process?
I do not have a briefing note on that matter but the Minister has instructed both the Secretary General of the Department and the Chief of Staff to present options. I will bring the issue of the Green Paper to the attention of the Minister.
I gather from the Minister of State's reply that there will be engagement with the various stakeholders when the decisions have been made-----
No, they are options.
This seems to me to be a repeat of what happened when the barracks were being closed in the various locations before Christmas. Representatives from the various barracks were called in after the decisions were made and there was no engagement beforehand. I humbly suggest that the Department should engage with the various stakeholders so that they could contribute to the process when the Minister is considering his options. They are the people on the ground who know what is happening and they are best equipped to contribute to this process. I ask the Minister of State to ask the Minister to engage with the stakeholders before any decisions or options are put on the table and to let these people have their say.
This is exactly what the Minister is doing. The Chief of Staff is in charge of the Defence Forces and it is right and proper that the Minister has requested the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of the Department to come back with options. It is not the Minister's job to micro-manage every aspect as this is the responsibility of the Chief of Staff. However, any good commander will engage in consultation with the professional organisation and with others. I do not envisage any lacuna in the information as regards the options. When the Minister is presented with those options through the proper and correct channels, and by the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General, all those options will be on the table for discussion and their implications will be clearly known.
One of the options will be a decrease in the number of brigades from two to three and this will be a difficulty. In hindsight, the Minister handled this matter badly. He made a decision to reduce the number of brigades from three to two. He is giving the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General the task of coming up with options which fit into the decision which has already been made. This was the wrong way to go about it and in hindsight, the Minister made a mistake. It should have been announced there was a decision to reorganise the Defence Forces and that all options were up for discussion. At that point there should have been engagement will all the stakeholders but that did not happen in this case and that was a mistake.
The Minister will consult with the Secretary General who benefits from the collective wisdom of the Department and also with the Chief of Staff who represents the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service. Therefore, everybody is being consulted. As a result of this reorganisation and other changes, at least 500 people will have the opportunity to apply to become full-time members of the Defence Forces as soon as possible and this is a good news story for those 500 people and their families. This is a great opportunity for young people and I know it will be taken up enthusiastically.
The Minister proposes a restructuring from three brigades to two brigades. This will result in a significant change in the senior ranks. I ask the Minister of State to say when those proposals will be available and to give a timescale in months. Is it true that promotions in the Defence Forces are not going ahead because of this current review? I suggest it would be preferable to conclude this review sooner rather than later.
The Minister is awaiting the report from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General. They want to proceed with proper discussion of all the options and the necessary changes as expeditiously and as effectively as possible. I do not envisage a protracted delay.
10Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has developed for the future of closed army barracks sites in Mullingar, Clonmel, Castlebar and Cavan; if any progress has been made on these plans; the consultations that have occurred with the local community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14191/12]
Tá an Teachta as láthair inniú. Ní fheadar cén fáth.
Táimid anseo.
When the Government took the decision to close a number of military barracks, my colleague, the Minister for Defence asked his Department to enter into discussions with other Departments, local authorities, State agencies and community groups regarding the possible purchase of the properties to benefit the local community as a whole but with particular emphasis on job creation measures. In this regard, officials from the Department of Defence have met with officials from the various agencies and discussions are ongoing.
I can assure the Deputy that every effort will be made to dispose of the barracks so as to maximise the benefits to the local community.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. It is a pity it has to be raised at all. The Minister of State visited the constituency last week and I hope his local organisation gave it hot and heavy to him about the closure of the barracks.
I heard the Deputy was watching us outside.
The same as in 1998.
This day week, the Army personnel in Mullingar will be walking through the town of Mullingar for the last time. The Minister of State has referred to the proposal to make Army barracks available to the community. Four years ago, Longford town barracks was closed and at this stage negotiations are still ongoing between the Department and the local authority. There is no funding available from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to the local authority which has been told it must come up with the funding itself. The only way to generate funding is from the local rate payers. Is this what will need to happen with regard to the barracks which are being closed before Christmas, that if the local rate payers wish to maintain ownership of their barracks they will be the ones who will have to pay? This should not happen. Unfortunately it has been decided that the barracks will be closed but the Department of Defence should engage with the local authorities and local groups in these towns to make the barracks available free of charge. These are the people's barracks and not the property of the State. The Reserve Defence Force has advertised for premises in an area where the barracks is to be closed in a week's time. Last night, the Reserve Defence Force in Mullingar met for the last time in Mullingar barracks and they do not know where they are going. I understand this is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of State but no premises has been sought for the Reserve Defence Force. The Department of Defence has shown little flexibility to allow the Reserve Defence Force to remain in the barracks at least until an alternative location is found. However, there is no need for an alternative location. The barracks should be given back to the local community and the Reserve Defence Force should be allowed carry out its good work.
That was a very lengthy supplementary question.
The Reserve Defence Force is a very important part of the Army infrastructure. The Department has advertised as late as this week in its search for space adequate for its needs. A full-time barracks is staffed with full-time members of the Defence Forces. I am a former member of the Reserve Defence Force - as is Deputy Brendan Smith. I was a long-serving member of B Company, 8th Battalion and I was a good sharp-shooter in my day. Deputy Durkan is a good sharp-shooter still. The Reserve Defence Force has an important role as a part-time reserve but it does not require the facilities to which Deputy Troy refers. As regards the issue being debated by Longford County Council, this is a matter for discussion. I will mention it to the Minister.
The decision to close Dún Uí Néill barracks in Cavan town is absolutely the wrong decision. I debated the matter with the Minister, Deputy Shatter.
It is the most modern barracks not only in Ireland but in Europe. It is also the most cost effective barracks in Ireland. The Minister of State, who comes from a neighbouring consistency, will know that the personnel based in Dún Uí Néill did us proud in dealing with the difficulties on our Border during the troubled times in this country and in serving on missions abroad with great distinction. It is most disappointing that the personnel in Dún Uí Néill will march through Cavan town on St. Patrick's Day for the last time and that 140 personnel will be lost to the town. It breaks a long military tradition in Cavan town, admittedly, under a different regime dating back to the 1700s.
There will be a huge cost involved in getting a location to house and provide a training centre for the Defence Forces Reserve. As the Minister of State is aware, their equipment must be stored and it just cannot be moved and collected when it is needed. There are huge costs involved in providing an adequate centre for the Defence Forces Reserve whose members do excellent and unsung work.
Sadly, this is the last day we will have the opportunity in this House to refer to the outstanding contribution of so many members of the Permanent Defence Forces in all of the locations mentioned, although the people of whom I am aware are based in Dún Uí Néill in Cavan. I had the opportunity twice in the past fortnight to attend different functions in that most modern barracks which is an integral part of County Cavan and of the wider Cavan-Monaghan-Meath-Leitrim-Longford area. This is most disappointing.
I do not know if the Minister of State is aware that the Estimate in regard to the so-called saving on the closure of Dún Uí Néill is in the order of €300,000. However, that does not take into account the rental arrangement that must now be entered into in regard to the Defence Forces Reserve and the ongoing security of the site which will be a requirement on the vacation of Dún Uí Néill by the serving members. All of these arguments point to the ill-thought out proposition in the first place and the fact there is no real saving involved and that that has not been the agenda all along.
Very understandably and very correctly, there has been a key and critical focus on the serving military personnel based in Dún Uí Néill but what is the Department of Defence's position in regard to non-military personnel based in Dún Uí Néill, namely, those involved in maintenance and upkeep, some of whom were transferred from other closed military installations? The closure of the Monaghan military barracks some years ago saw the relocation of very qualified maintenance personnel to Dún Uí Néill in Cavan. Where do those personnel now stand? What is the prospect for their continued employment or relocation? Will the Department of Defence proactively assist their transfer within departmental interests in the Cavan-Monaghan area rather than force them to relocate to what most likely will be impossible distances for their very rooted family interests in Monaghan and Cavan? If the Minister of State is not in a position to fully respond, will he please undertake to put this question to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on his return and advise this Deputy of exactly what is intended in that area of concern?
When the Minister for Defence met the various representatives from the barracks and Oireachtas Members, he gave an indication that a foreign college was interested in locating in the premises. This foreign college seemed to have been interested in locating in Mullingar, Cavan and in Clonmel. Will the Minister of State confirm if three foreign colleges are interested in locating in the barracks or whether one college may be interested in locating in one barracks? What progress has been made and when can we expect enrolment into these colleges?
I would like to refresh the memories of Deputies opposite, in particular. Since 1998, ten barracks have been closed. In July 1998, the then Government, of which Deputy Smith was no doubt a Minister, announced the closure of six barracks, including Ballincollig and Fermoy in Cork, Devoy in Naas, Magee in Kildare, Castleblayney, which is in Deputy Smith's constituency, and Clancy in Dublin. It involved 880 personnel.
Will the Minister of State read out that again?
We are not deaf.
I am not finished. In 2009, the then Minister announced the closure of four barracks, including Monaghan in Deputy Smith's constituency, Lifford in Donegal, Longford in Deputy Troy's consistency, and Rockhill House in Donegal. Notwithstanding that-----
We are in this situation because of the policy of Deputy Smith's party in government and the way the economy was run.
However, I will address this issue if I may. We all know of the issues along the Border and Deputy Smith and I, in particular, know there were significant events north of the Border which demanded that we needed such a response.
Some south of the Border, unfortunately.
Thankfully, that is all over now. That is a very important issue. We must now reorganise our Defence Forces in a practical and realistic way. Irrespective of whether Deputy Smith believes it, we all know change must happen. Change is never easy but we must talk about the positives. In the reconstruction taking place, at least 500 young people will have the opportunity to become full-time members of the Defence Forces in the next year or so. That is very positive and constructive. That is what this Government is doing. It is making those decisions in light of that.
Does the Minister of State have the number of those who took early retirement?
The Minister of State did not reply to my question.
What about Deputy Ó Caoláin's question?
I apologise. I did not hear what the Deputy said.
I thought the Minister of State was listening to me.
I was listening but did not hear what the Deputy just said.
I asked about non-military personnel in Dún Uí Néill barracks in Cavan and, presumably, in the other locations. They are a particular area of interest that has had little or scant attention heretofore and I would like to know exactly what the Department of Defence intends to do to facilitate their continued employment.
I have not been asked that question officially and it is not on the Order Paper. I have not been briefed on it but I will ensure the Deputy gets a reply as quickly as possible because it is an important question and it should be fully and promptly responded to.
All we got was a history lesson from the Minister of State. He did not outline what his future plans or proposals are for the barracks.
I have to take the next question.
We do not know what will happen in regard to the colleges, what negotiations-----
We do not have much time.
-----or what consultation he has had with the community groups.
That is enough, Deputy.
We are talking about the present and the future for the personnel of these barracks. We are no wiser.
11Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Defence the role the Defence Forces will play in the annual 1916 commemoration this year; the budget for the commemoration; the role that the Defence Forces has in the organisation of the 1916 centenary celebrations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14175/12]
In 2006, a large military parade in Dublin marked the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising. Since then, a simple dignified military ceremony has taken place in front of the GPO each Easter Sunday. The ceremony starts at noon and lasts approximately 25 minutes. The President lays a wreath and the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence also have officiating roles. The event involves participants from the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and the Defence Forces Reserve. The ceremony consists of a reading of the Proclamation by a member of the Defence Forces, the laying of a wreath by the President and a flag raising ceremony. Details of the 2012 ceremony will be published shortly in the national newspapers and the ceremony will be open to the general public.
The Department of Defence has no overall budget for the annual 1916 commemoration. The Defence Forces are not paid additional salaries or expenses for participating at State ceremonies. Expenditure by the Department of Defence normally consists of overtime and travel and subsistence expenses which amounted to approximately €3,300 in 2011 and postage costs which totalled just under €600.
It is felt that a ceremony of this nature is appropriate and constitutes a sustainable commitment in the coming years towards the centenary in 2016.
Special arrangements for the centenary anniversary will be addressed in the context of the forthcoming Decade of Centenaries. The role of the Defence Forces in the organisation of the 1916 centenary celebrations will be considered by the all-party Oireachtas consultation group, which is chaired by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan. The group has met on three occasions, the most recent meeting being on 6 March last.
The Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, said the 1916 Rising centenary commemorations will highlight Ireland's culture, language and poetry rather than the military ceremonies of the past. The Taoiseach stated he was keen to involve all parties in the State and wished to set up an inclusive structure that will have an all-Ireland dimension. It remains unclear what role the Defence Forces, heirs to those who fought in the Rising and the War of Independence, will have in the commemoration if emphasis is to be placed on other elements. Will the Minister of State confirm whether British military personnel will be involved in the commemoration, if the Minister for Defence sees the 1916 Rising as having primacy of place in the various centennial anniversaries in the coming years and if the Defence Forces will play a central part in that?
The question I was asked is the one I am answering, namely, what happens annually. I do not wish to be rude but the Deputy might listen again to the key point in my response. I reiterate that there is an all-party group dealing with this issue. It is not only one side of the House, but all sides that will put their perspectives on the commemoration.
The Defence Forces will have a critical part to play, as they always do. As one who attends as often as I can, I can state it is an Army officer who reads the 1916 Proclamation. The President has a very important place in our Constitution in regard to the Army. He - or she, as was the case last year - is present. As one who has a relative who fought in the Old IRA, I am very proud of this ceremony and I hope to be present on the day to commemorate all those people.
As to the Deputy's reference to the British Army, the history of this country shows that this year, when the Queen of England attended in the Garden of Remembrance, in the presence of the Army, proper and due respect was shown by all sides to our history. Our past - our history - was properly and respectfully addressed on that occasion so I do not see any commemoration as being confrontational in respect of anybody else. Our Oireachtas will make the recommendations to the Minister. The ceremony will be all-inclusive in terms of our nation and its parties and it will honour and respect the great sacrifices Irish soldiers have made throughout the years in the service of our country, both here and abroad.
As one who has attended regularly at the GPO, I can state it is always a dignified and very appropriate occasion. The one that marked the 90th anniversary was most appropriate.
In recent years there have been ceremonies in other major urban centres throughout the country at which our Permanent Defence Forces and our Reserve Forces have participated. Does the Minister of State know whether there are such plans for 2012?
Notwithstanding the role the Defence Forces will play in the upcoming commemorations, I put to the Minister of State that the best way of commemorating is to finish the job those involved set out to achieve, namely, to unite this country, respecting all traditions and cultures. If we are true and serious about commemorating those who fought in 1916, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to continue that journey and achieve those goals.
To clarity for the Minister of State, part of the question referred to the annual 1916 commemoration but part referred to the centenary element which is coming up in 2016. That was the element on which I focused. I also referred to the budget the Department of Defence would have for the centennial commemoration of 1916.
We are at cross purposes here. Question No. 11 asked about the role of the Defence Forces in the annual 1916 commemoration which I addressed; and the budget for the commemoration, which we discussed.
I asked about the role and the Minister involved. I ask the Minister of State to read on.
It is envisioned that the framework for commemorations of the decade of centenaries relating to the period 2012 to 2022 will be developed by officials and approved by Government. Particular commemorative initiatives and arrangements for them will be brought to the all-party group. That is the key point I wish to make. There has been a significant level of engagement with various interested parties in regard to the programme, on both a North-South and an east-west basis. From an overall perspective, the Government's approach to these commemorations will seek to respect historical accuracy, promote tolerance, respect and inclusiveness, and recognise the all-island and east-west shared past nature of the decade.
One of the cornerstones will be the military service pensions archive project, the purpose of which is to make the records in question available to both the public and to historians in good time for the centenary.
To finish the job of the men of 1916 is to have peace on this island, which we have, and unity of purpose, North and South. It is not to finish the job in a military sense-----
I never said that.
My point is, that is not what it is, lest there be any doubt about it on either side of the House. I am glad to hear the Deputy state that. There is no room in this country for militarism. What we want is unity, North and South. We have cohesion and contact, North and South, in a very progressive way. Long may it continue the way it is going.
It is important to clarify what I stated, which was that we should unite the country and make it inclusive of all traditions and cultures.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
