Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 2012

Vol. 773 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Electricity Transmission Network

Deputy Damien English

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this issue, the 500 kV interconnector power line from Meath to Tyrone. This initiative has been under way for a long time and I am glad we have reached this stage where we have an expert commission's report and a report by the Oireachtas committee. I have tabled this issue to discover what the next steps are with this project.

This project has been under way since March 2007, although it was kept quiet by those in power before the last general election. It was given the go ahead without any proper consideration of alternatives. The nod was given to drive this connector using overhead power lines regardless of that being right or wrong. That is not acceptable.

I will use my time today to deal with EirGrid's attitude from the very start of this development. Its attitude was arrogant and out of order when dealing with people on a sensitive planning issue. I am disappointed a semi-State body would take that approach. I was also disappointed the then Minister did not have an open mind on this and was not willing to discuss it. There were many questions at the time.

We have come a long way in recent years and we have more answers, with the Oireachtas committee working on it in February. There were many good hearings, with all sides getting a chance to discuss the issues at a proper forum. That happened on foot of the report of the commission, which was published in January, and I thank the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for allowing the commission and starting this initiative. I did not have faith in previous reports but most people I spoke to had full faith in the experts picked by the Minister. They gave us a report that addressed technicality, feasibility and cost and that gave us an opportunity to have a real look at this with an open mind. During many of the meetings I have had with the Minister in the last year or so, he has shown an open mind on this. The attitude of EirGrid has also improved, which probably reflects the thoughts of the Minister of the day. That does not, however, make up for the sins of the past and how it was dealt with from the very outset.

The report of the expert commission clearly stated that it is technically possible to go underground with this interconnector. Reliability is still a concern for some but all are agreed it is technically possible. There is still a dispute over costs but at the first meeting I had with EirGrid officials, which Deputy Shane McEntee and Deputy Simon Coveney also attended, I was told this could not be put underground, that it was not possible. Since then I, along with my other colleagues, Deputies Regina Doherty, Heather Humphreys, Seán Conlan, Ray Butler and Joe O'Reilly, have met EirGrid and we were told it would cost up to 40 times as much. Since then, EirGrid has met people who have told the company it would be 20 times the cost, ten times the cost or eight times the cost. It has changed so much that we are now debating two or three times the cost, and everyone accepts this can happen. There has been a great improvement but what happened was disgraceful. The unnecessary hassle, concern and cost to the communities we represent in Meath, Cavan and Monaghan was unacceptable. Those communities had to fight a State organisation that was up to the job and did not check all alternatives.

We are further on now with more information. I thank the NEPP on behalf of the Meath and Monaghan anti-pylon campaigns for all the work it did with us as representatives to develop our thoughts on this and bring it to a stage where a proper report by international experts was commissioned. It brings clarity to many issues. The experts were clear that the high voltage direct current, HVDC, line was worth looking at. In the early discussions, everyone ruled that out but the experts were very generous in saying it was due to improvements in technology, offering EirGrid an opportunity to excuse its behaviour. That HVDC line was ruled out five years ago but now we know it is possible. The debate continues about its reliability and the merging of areas but we can work on that.

It is to be hoped we can use the reports by the commission and the committee to develop this further. We must recognise the work that was done and at high cost to some involved in the process. That is not the way it should be. If any further planning applications are submitted in the years ahead, there must be a proper debate on them.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte)

I am grateful to Deputy Damien English for raising this important issue. The Meath-Tyrone transmission line has been in development since 2006 and has been marked by considerable local controversy, as Deputy English has noted. In line with the programme for Government, I appointed an independent international commission last year to review the case for, and cost of, placing all or part of the project underground. I received the commission report in January and forwarded it to the Oireachtas committee for debate and consultation. The committee heard from all stakeholders, including local residents' groups, and published its report on 15 June.

The commission's report is not prescriptive and does not recommend any particular option. In assessing technology options, the commission considers that a new HVDC underground cable would be a feasible solution, while estimating that the cost could be approximately three times as much as the overhead option, costs that would be borne by electricity consumers. I note that EirGrid does not agree that placing the connector underground is appropriate for the North-South project on the grounds of both technical feasibility and cost. The Oireachtas committee's report does not make definitive conclusions on the costs or technical feasibility of placing underground the North-South line. It notes the differing views and also outlines some concerns about the new HVDC technology.

The Government wishes to have policy certainty on the strategic and economic importance of developing infrastructure such as the proposed North-South transmission line. Accordingly, following the reports of the expert commission and the Oireachtas committee, the Government this week considered a comprehensive memorandum dealing with the strategic importance of transmission and other energy infrastructure. The Government approved a statement of policy on the matter, which I am publishing on the Department's website today. An Bord Pleanála will be required to have due regard to the policy objectives set out in this statement of Government policy.

In the statement, the Government reaffirms the imperative need to develop and renew our energy networks to meet both economic and social policy goals. The planning process provides the necessary framework to ensure necessary standards are met and comprehensive consultation is built into the process. The Government acknowledges the need for social acceptance and the need to build community gain into project planning and budgeting. The Government mandates the network companies to plan their developments safely, efficiently and economically. They are also required to address and mitigate human, environmental and landscape impacts.

The Government does not direct infrastructure developers to particular sites routes or technologies but it endorses, supports and promotes the strategic programmes of energy infrastructure providers, particularly EirGrid's Grid 25 investment programme. It is Government policy and in the national interest, not least in the current economic circumstances, that these investment programmes are delivered in the most cost-efficient and timely way possible, on the basis of the best available knowledge and informed engagement on the impacts and the costs of different engineering solutions.

On the Meath-Tyrone transmission line, I have advised my Government colleagues that it is now an operational matter for EirGrid to complete preparations for re-submitting a planning application to An Bord Pleanála, taking appropriate account of the reports of the commission and the committee. It will be a matter for An Bord Pleanála to address all relevant factors in arriving at a final decision, including the Government's policy statement.

I fully agree with the Oireachtas committee that EirGrid must respect the need for early, ongoing, informed and transparent engagement with stakeholders and local communities in progressing its planning application, and I have made this view plain to EirGrid.

Deputy Damien English

I thank the Minister for his clarity and for updating us on the position. As a local Deputy I am disappointed that the Government cannot or will not come out and specifically suggest a technology. I would not expect the Government to suggest the route because I understand who will pick the route and I accept that. However, I hope there can be direction with regard to the technology. I accept it cannot be done for whatever reason. Not even the committee could sort out the meshed network, but that work will continue. However, for the purpose of clarity, is it fair to say that the door is open now for either technology to be used? Five suggestions were given by the commission of experts. Is the door open for everyone, including EirGrid, to examine this properly? It may be possible to convince the company that this can be done within cost. It is important to know the position because previously, that door was closed. I am keen to ensure that I am reading the situation correctly.

The other matter I would like to discuss is the question of whether the overhead option is the most economical in terms of costs. I dispute the claim that the underground option would cost three times as much. It may be less. Even if it were twice as much we could have a debate and try to swing it over. Is there room to manoeuvre? Can we work on the costs in a timely way? The experts never did so but will the Minister get an assessment of the real cost of delay? We should factor these into the real cost of this project. The Minister referred to informed engagement. From my comments earlier, the Minister will realise that I never fully believed that EirGrid was informed about underground technologies or that it really sought to be. I assume this means EirGrid must be so informed and that An Bord Pleanála will have the power to assess the application on its merits and the case for all of these technologies.

The Minister stated that EirGrid must take appropriate account of the reports of the commission and the committee. Will we be able to refer to those reports and to the experts' opinions from the commission reports? It is important to have these available and it is important that the people have trust in this application. I have maintained in all of the debates that we need fair play and a fair crack of the whip. I take it from the Minister's reply that we will now have this opportunity, although I would have preferred if the Minister had announced today that we were putting it underground. Will the Minister clarify that we will have a fair crack of the whip, that we will get a chance to argue for a certain technology and that EirGrid will be obliged to improve its listening and engagement style? Otherwise this will not be dealt with properly by An Bord Pleanála.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I assure Deputy English and his colleagues in respect of the latter point that EirGrid must have regard to the policy statement endorsed by the Government yesterday. That policy statement will be available this afternoon and will be sent to the various stakeholders concerned.

Deputy English has put a blunt question to me about whether the door is open to underground options. I have no wish to mislead the Deputy or the House. The question can only be answered in the context of the statement of policy agreed yesterday. Having said that, I am not being prescriptive about an issue that is best decided by the planning process. Government policy is that any decision should be timely and cost-efficient, and I say as much given the times in which we live. Deputy English will know that the Tyrone-Meath line is only one line in a transmission network envisaged in the GRID25 strategy. I must be careful; there would have to be a compelling case to treat this one line differently from the rest. However, when the Deputy has an opportunity to study the statement of policy he will appreciate that all the work put in by the international commission and Deputy Andrew Doyle and his committee is reflected in it. EirGrid and An Bord Pleanála must have regard to the Government's statement of policy in the matter of the delivery of infrastructure for such energy projects.

Special Educational Needs

Deputy Seán Crowe

On 27 June this year Scoil Mochua, a special school on the Old Nangor Road in Clondalkin, Dublin 22, was informed by its special educational needs organiser that it would lose two teaching staff in the upcoming school year. This is one example but it could apply to other special schools throughout the country, including St. Joseph's Special School in my constituency. Scoil Mochua was subsequently informed that it would lose one teacher from the start of August. Given that the school expects to have between 52 and 54 pupils enrolled in the coming academic year, this cut will reduce its pupil-teacher ratio below a level acceptable to meet the particular needs of the children in the school.

The pupils attending Scoil Mochua are in the main severely or very severely physically disabled. They have multiple disabilities and little or no independent function. In many cases they are non-verbal. In reply to a parliamentary question yesterday the Department maintained that the basis of the cut in teaching numbers in Scoil Mochua was that in the view of the National Council for Special Education the school "has an appropriate level of teaching staff to cater for all of the children enrolled in the school from September". However, the principal of Scoil Mochua believes that the NCSE has difficulty recognising the significance of the complex disabilities that affect the majority of the pupils at the school. On this basis she strongly believes that the pupil-teacher ratio is wrong and will have a detrimental impact on the children's education. This view is strongly shared by the parents of children attending the school.

Will the Minister reverse this damaging cut to this school and other schools that cater for pupils with some of the highest levels of educational need in our society? I call on the Minister to review - I am using that awful term again - the category of "physical disability" used by the NCSE to take account of the needs of severely physically disabled children, to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio accordingly, and to review the category of "multiple disability" to include physical disability and other associated or additional disabilities. This category should include severe communication difficulties, including an inability to communicate verbally, and limitations in independent function, especially with regard to hand function and personal care activities. I have no doubt that if the Minister were to seriously undertake this review he would conclude that the current criteria used to determine the pupil-teacher ratio at schools such as Scoil Mochua in Clondalkin are inadequate.

We are discussing the most vulnerable people in the education system. They did not cause the economic crisis or the crisis in the banks. In the majority of cases their parents were not the cause of these either. These parents would go to the ends of the earth to try to get the best for their children. The Minister will be aware of the sacrifices such parents have made over the years to try to get an education for their children. They want to give their children a chance. They maintain that one extra teacher, extra hours or extra support will make all the difference. Given the multiple layers of disability experienced by its students, the school is asking for a review to be initiated by the Minister to examine this area and establish whether flexibility can be shown in the system in the case of such children.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I thank Deputy Crowe for raising this issue. I advise the Deputy that there has been no reduction in the number of teaching staff allocated in the special school sector for the forthcoming school year. The NCSE is responsible, through its network of local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, for allocating resource teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs, to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE also is responsible for determining the appropriate staffing levels for the support of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools. The NCSE operates within the Department's criteria in allocating such support.

I wish to clarify for the Deputy that the Department has always valued the contribution made by special schools to the continuum of provision being made for children with special educational needs.

The Department is aware that many special schools now enrol students from disability categories other than from those provided for by their school designations. The Department has, therefore, authorised the NCSE to allocate teaching resources in accordance with the complexity of need that exists within individual special schools, as opposed to primarily by school designation. This is a significant change. For example, a school which is designated to cater for children with physical disability may now have a mixed enrolment including children with multiple disabilities as well as children with physical disability.

In line with its designation, this school will currently have a pupil teacher ratio of 10:1. However, under the terms of circular 42/2011, the allocation in respect of the children with multiple disabilities will be improved from 10:1 to 6:1. This provision will be of significant benefit to such a school.

From the 2012-13 school year, all special schools will be staffed based on their actual current pupil profiles and the disability category of each pupil, and in future years school staffing schedules will be reviewed and updated each year by the NCSE.

The nature of the disabilities of pupils attending special schools means they have significant educational needs. This is reflected in the level of teaching staff allocated to special schools.

However, the Department is aware that a number of special schools currently retain posts which are surplus to their allocations. The NCSE will manage the staffing of special schools and where necessary will suppress posts in schools, which have excess teaching posts, in order to ensure there are posts available to meet the needs of schools with growing pupil numbers. Whereas I understand that schools may wish to maintain current staffing levels, the NCSE must ensure that, where there are surplus teaching posts in schools, these must be redirected to meet the needs of children who need this support.

I have asked the NCSE to provide formal advice on the appropriate nature and configuration of educational supports which should be allocated to schools to provide students with special educational needs with the opportunity to develop to their full potential. I expect this advice to be delivered early next year. I thank the Deputy once again for raising the matter.

Deputy Seán Crowe

I asked that the Minister look at the idea of a review in this area.

The Minister stated that the allocation for schools like this will increase, but this particular school tells me that on 27 June it was told it was losing two staff and, subsequently, it has been informed that it will lose one. I am not sure whether that one is because the numbers are not growing in the school. That is a possibility.

My main argument is that these children, because of the multiple disabilities that many of them have, are outside the normal structure in the allocation for schools. The Minister stated in his reply that he has taken cognisance of that but the difficulty is that this school is one of those that will lose a teacher. Basically, that is what I am asking the Minister about.

We all stood for election on the matter. I note the positive manifesto the Minister set out in supporting schools, parents and children with special educational needs. I suppose people want to see that coming about.

This is one school that is affected. It is losing a teacher. It will make it more difficult for those teachers in the school. It also will be more difficult to impart an education in the school because it is losing a teacher.

I do not know whether there was an extra allocation in the school. I suppose my appeal is that for schools like this there is a need to look at all of those multiple disabilities. The argument of many in the sector is that the Minister is not taking cognisance of this and really looking at the needs of the child, and this is more about the needs of the education system rather than the needs of the child. It is on that basis, on behalf of the most vulnerable children in the education system, that I ask that the Minister have a look at this again. It is an area worth looking at. The parents deserve at least that the Minister look again at this process.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I wish to clarify for the Deputy that the Government has maintained funding for resources for children with special educational needs at a time when, as everybody in the House will be aware, there is a continued requirement to make expenditure savings across a range of areas.

The programme for Government clearly states that education will be a priority for the Government and that we will endeavour to protect and enhance the education experience of children, young people and students. In this regard, the Department has prioritised the level of supports being provided to special schools.

I wish to reiterate that there has been no reduction in the number of teaching staff allocated in the special school sector for the 2012-13 year. That does not mean that some schools have not had a reduction in their allocation and that other schools have not had an increase, but overall there has been no reduction in the staff allocated in the special school sector for the 2012-13 school year.

However, at a time of constrained resources it is necessary to manage and deploy resources as prudently and effectively as possible. It is, therefore, necessary to suppress any surplus posts in schools which have excess teaching posts in order to ensure there are posts available to meet the needs of schools with growing pupil numbers. I think the Deputy will agree that resources left in an area that are not in accordance with criteria mean public resources are not available for another deserving area.

School Curriculum

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber.

Project Maths has been hailed as the answer to the below average standing of Irish 15 years olds in the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment rankings of international student performance. However, major questions and doubts have been raised about this new Project Maths subject.

I am concerned that pupils are not being taught basic mathematical concepts. I am concerned that we are giving 25% extra to honours mathematics instead of finding out exactly why our pupils are not doing better.

The results in mid-August will show up in the usual Bell curve form and will not show the fundamental weaknesses in the system. The same number of pupils will fail, the same number will pass and the same number will get As, Bs and Cs. I have been informed by a corrector of the leaving certificate honours mathematics paper that in one of the 75 mark questions, based on the robotic arm, the marking system has been changed drastically because the results are so dismal.

I am very worried about the mathematics programme and I will tell the Minister why. An advertisement in The Irish Times on Wednesday last by the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies states:

Due to the recent changes in the Leaving Certificate mathematics curriculum, the amount of calculus taught has been severely reduced. As this subject is essential for preparation to third level courses in Mathematics, Science and Engineering (as well as Economics) and in order to give students with an aptitude for mathematics the opportunity to prepare themselves better for further study, a 10-week course on Mathematical Calculus will be given [in the college].

Sceptics might think this to be a money making ploy, but for that ten-week course a nominal fee of €40 applies.

I have tried to investigate this subject dispassionately, and despite contact from a significant number of students and, indeed, many of my own pass pupils who I know to be bright students and students who worked hard. About 50% of the "good maths", vectors, matrices and transformations, 60% of sequences and series, 40% of differential calculus, 50% integral calculus, and difference equations, have been removed from the mathematical paper. Probability and statistics are now worth 50% of the marks on Paper 2. In comparison with GCE A level, statistics is an optional question. Of note also, this is the first leaving certificate maths exam where there was no choice. Maths students had to complete all nine questions in part 1 and part 2 of the honours and pass papers.

Many of our esteemed maths lecturers have expressed concerns at these radical changes, including Mr. Tony Dorlas in the UCC interim report, in the report from Mr. Ted Hurley and Mr. Stephen O'Brien of NUI Galway and in the report from Ms Cora Stack of IT Tallaght. All of the above maths professionals have expressed the view that Project Maths will have a negative impact on maths education.

Experts from University College, Cork say "exaggerated claims" have been made about the benefits of the new approach to maths teaching. Their criticisms range from the subject matter of the course to inadequately trained teachers. They state that Project Maths was introduced with undue haste, which is hard to deny.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. If the reply I give is not fully complete, I will come back to her in writing subsequently.

Project Maths began as a pilot in 24 schools in 2008 and is being developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. It was mainstreamed from September 2010 when it became available to all schools. The first mainstream examinations were for this year's leaving certificate students and the first group of students presenting for the junior certificate will be next year, 2013.

The introduction of Project Maths has been accompanied by a national programme of professional development for all maths teachers, not just those in the project schools, and this will continue until at least 2013. The Project Maths development team has provided extensive support to teachers. Provision of approximately €2 million has been made available within my Department for the development of a postgraduate course for what are known as "out of field" teachers who are currently teaching maths. This is based on an intake of 390 teachers.

A key objective of Project Maths is to improve attainment levels in maths and to encourage more students to take the subject at higher level. The participation in higher level maths was down from a high of 18.9% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2011. To encourage more students to present at higher level, there will be 25 bonus points available for all candidates who score grade D3 or above for higher level maths in the leaving certificate from this summer. Higher education institutions have collectively agreed to operate this bonus points scheme for higher level maths for a four year trial period from 2012 to 2015 inclusive, with a review in 2014.

Data from the State Examinations Commission highlight that for the 2011 leaving certificate examinations there were 9,950 candidates entered, with 7917 sitting the examination. This year, there has been an increase to 12,510 candidates entered, an increase of approximately 25%. I look forward to finding out how many of these entrants will present and I hope the majority will do so.

Comments and observations regarding the leaving certificate maths exam papers are an intrinsic part of the feedback the State Examinations Commission would normally expect to receive in any year. The well-tried methodology in place to deal with issues that arise in the course of the examination process is the development of the marking scheme by the chief examiner and his college of examiners in light of the circumstances of that year's examination. Following a tendering process, the National Foundation for Educational Research was awarded the contract to conduct research into the impact of Project Maths on student motivation, learning and achievement. Its work is ongoing.

I emphasise that the skills that are promoted through Project Maths are sought after by employers and the introduction of the revised syllabus has been welcomed by Forfás, the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, Engineers Ireland and industry interests.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the Minister for his offer to come back to me with further information. Further claims are being made that inadequate consultation occurred before Project Maths was launched. In particular, it is claimed that the Irish Maths Teachers Association was under-represented on the NCCA board. I ask the Minister to check how many fully qualified and probated teachers were on the NCCA curriculum board.

In its interim report on Project Maths, UCC stated: "There is an immediate need for a supply of textbooks to cover the new material." It recommends that the NCCA, as a matter of urgency, should encourage the production of such textbooks, both in print and in electronic form. The Minister might confirm if this is being prioritised.

From my own observation, I would like to highlight that the paper poses particular difficulties to dyslexic students, and other academics have expressed similar concerns. This year, students were forced to flick back and forth between an answer book and a question book, which were attached together, and many dyslexic students found this most difficult to manage. I ask the Minister to examine this issue for future exams.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. We have many questions to answer and it is not just a matter of a quick response. We need to think about why our children are not succeeding in maths. Just because we are to give 25 extra points does not mean a student who gets a D3 grade in maths and earns 70 CAO points is capable of studying engineering or science subjects. We need to look seriously at this issue.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Deputy once again for providing me with an opportunity to address the many concerns that have been expressed about the content of the Project Maths programme and the way in which it is being taught at present. Project Maths is designed to transform teaching and learning in maths at both junior and senior cycle. It should enable students to develop an understanding of the hows and whys of maths but also the ability to apply their knowledge and skills in familiar and unfamiliar contexts. I recognise this is a considerable shift from the previous position. The new format should also provide students with analytical and creative powers in maths.

As I outlined earlier, there are many positive initiatives in place which aim to encourage more students to have the confidence, understanding and skills to pursue their studies in maths to higher level in the leaving certificate. That was the primary motivation for providing the extra 25 points if a student takes the higher level and does not, on the day of the exam, opt to take the lower level. This was as much as it was trying to do, no more, no less. It is not a solution on its own; it is part of an overall approach to maths. The other approaches include the introduction of the new Project Maths syllabi at both junior and senior cycle and, as I said, the provision of the 25 bonus points by higher education institutions for higher level maths students who succeed in achieving a D3 grade or above. The increase of 25% in the number of entrants for higher level maths in the leaving certificate this year is, I believe, very encouraging, and I hope these entrants have already sat the higher level maths examination.

Some concern has been highlighted in regard to this year's leaving certificate papers, which is normal. As I said, the chief examiner and the college of examiners in the State Examinations Commission look at these matters. The Government is fully aware of the importance of maths and other STEM subjects. We will continue to ensure the initiatives I have outlined are prioritised in order that a quality maths education is available for young people both at junior and senior cycle.

I am aware of the Deputy's professional background in this area and her genuine concern and motivation in raising this matter. With many others, I share the concerns about the quality of teaching in both literacy and numeracy at primary and secondary level up to higher level maths, and in regard to providing graduates from our secondary school system and third level colleges with a range of skills for which there is a market shortage throughout the world. While I am committed to delivering change and improvement, the implementation requires a lot of time and co-operation. I will be more than happy to discuss with the Deputy and other Oireachtas colleagues how best we can achieve this.

Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom in this regard, and I do not claim that I do. However, it is obvious from what has been said in recent years when I was in opposition that we had to address the mathematics issue. Project Maths was an attempt to start to do this. We are not complete in terms of the way it will be implemented and will continue to improve it. I am also aware of the issues concerning the provision of suitable textbooks.

Defence Forces Reorganisation

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this topic. It is important as we move towards the last day of this session that we have an opportunity to have a brief discussion with the Minister. I appreciate his presence to deal with the issue directly because his recent announcement on the further reorganisation of the Defence Forces is of considerable importance.

I acknowledge that we are all living through a period of public service reform. There was talk about reform of the public service for decades, but it is only in the past four or five years that have we seen meaningful reform. Unfortunately, that meaningful reform has been forced on us by economic necessity.

If we consider the Defence Forces and their history, we will see that even during the Celtic tiger period when money was not an issue and Governments were investing substantial amounts of money, in terms of both the pay and conditions of members of the Defence Forces and in providing the modern equipment a modern army embarking on peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions needed, there was a process of reform in the Defence Forces. Barracks numbers were reduced from 34 to 14 and, in fairness, the representative bodies, RACO and PDFORRA, engaged in a constructive and meaningful way with the Government on the reforms they were being asked to undertake. In addition to barracks number reductions, we saw personnel numbers decline from 11,500 to 9,500. I commend the Minister for his commitment in his announcement yesterday to maintain the figure at 9,500. However, what is worrying for people who have an interest in this topic is that the announcement has been made in advance of the Minister's commitment to publish a Green Paper and the value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force. One wonders how the Minister can stand over the taking of that initiative, while at the same time being committed to following a Green Paper process and a value for money review.

It would be remiss of me, not least given that I come from County Kildare where the Defence Forces are at the heart of the community and the economy of the county, not to say there is deep disappointment on the part of the representative bodies, RACO and PDFORRA, that there was no active engagement with them, although the Minister can contradict me on this, before the announcement was made. It is not to say they are a particularly truculent or difficult pair of representative bodies to deal with; they are anything but, rather they are reasonable and would state to the Minister, as they indicated to my party when it was in government, that they were to the fore in the public service in accepting meaningful change and adopting a reform agenda. They are disappointed that this significant announcement has been made without adequate, if any, consultation with them. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about this.

There seems to be a sense among the membership of the Defence Forces that the move from three brigades to two is not necessary and that reform could be achieved within the overall figure of 9,500 members. There will be disappointment in a number of areas, not least in Athlone where it appears that there will be a further reduction in the number serving, with an impact on the local economy. The Minister might indicate whether a cost benefit analysis has been undertaken. Can he assure us there will be no further barrack closures and on the implications for the career path of the officer corps within the Defence Forces in the structures he is trying to put in place?

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter)

I start by wishing the Deputy well in his new position.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I thank the Minister.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I look forward to constructive engagement with the Deputy in the House which I hope will not always be conflictual.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force. As the Deputy knows, in December 2011 I announced a revised ceiling of 9,500 personnel for the Permanent Defence Force and a reorganisation of the Defence Forces, encompassing a move from a three brigade structure to a two brigade structure. The Cabinet agreed to stabilise the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 and recognised that a three brigade structure was no longer viable. This reorganisation is driven by the immediate realities of retaining operational effectiveness within a strength ceiling of 9,500 at a time when financial resources are limited.

I tasked the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of my Department to bring forward proposals for the reorganisation for my consideration. I have accepted their recommendations and yesterday was pleased to announce the details of the reorganisation. I am satisfied that the reorganisation will ensure the Permanent Defence Force will retain the capacity to fulfil the roles assigned to the greatest possible extent within the strength ceiling of 9,500 and the significantly reduced resource envelope resulting from the fiscal difficulties of the State. This was confirmed in the report I had received from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General.

I am continually surprised by the misinformation promulgated in recent weeks, up to this morning's publications in the newspapers, on the reorganisation. There are a number of issues which it is important to clarify. The reorganisation will not result in job losses. It will ensure the units within the Permanent Defence Force are configured appropriately and reflect attainable strength levels. As part of this process, the reorganisation entails the amalgamation of under-strength units into full strength units. Clearly, this does not equate to job losses. It ensures actual jobs are reflected in organisational structures. Continued reference to notional jobs associated with outdated and revoked strength levels is misleading and disingenuous. The reports in newspapers today that 500 jobs will be lost as a consequence of this reorganisation are entirely untrue.

Contrary to recent assertions, my decision to initiate a reorganisation was made following a detailed assessment of the defence and security environment and consideration of associated Defence Forces capability requirements. This was conducted both as part of the comprehensive review of expenditure and during the preparation of the Department of Defence and Defence Forces' strategy statement. Both documents have been published and are available for viewing.

As the Deputy mentioned, a Green Paper on Defence is being prepared. When published at the end of the year, it will inform a broad discussion about Ireland's defence policy. This will culminate in the publication of a new White Paper on Defence at the end of 2013. This White Paper will set out defence policy and encompass a longer timeframe than that of the strategy statement. It will inform long-term capability requirements for implementation over an extended timeframe, typically ten or more years. The reorganisation is driven by the immediate realities of maintaining required operational capabilities within a significantly reduced resource envelope as a consequence of the fiscal difficulties confronting the State.

As the Deputy asked me to say so, I repeat that there will be no further barrack closures as part of this reorganisation, nor will there be further barrack closures within the lifetime of the Government. It seems I have to say this repeatedly every six weeks or so inside and outside the House.

Having clarified these issues, it is important to highlight the positive impact the reorganisation will make in ensuring the continued delivery of Defence Forces operational capabilities and outputs, both at home and overseas. The reorganisation will ensure the Defence Forces remain fit for purpose and continue to deliver value for money. It is an excellent example of the public sector reform agenda in action, to which the Deputy referred. It proactively addresses the challenge of ensuring the continued delivery of operational capabilities and outputs within the current resource constraints.

The Defence Forces have a proud track record in implementing significant changes of this nature, while minimising the impact on personnel to the greatest possible extent. I am aware that, ultimately, it will be the men and women of the Defence Forces who will deliver this reform. The representative associations were informed yesterday about the reorganisation taking place. I look forward to their engagement on the undertaking of the reorganisation process.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I thank the Minister for his words of welcome. I look forward to working with him in this brief and wish him continued success in his role. Am I to take it from his reply that the 2012 budget for the Department of Defence is running behind target? Is that why we are faced with making savings? Will savings accrue from the initiative? Will the Minister clarify whether he engaged in a cost-benefit analysis process? Am I correct in understanding no discussions took place with the representative bodies before the announcement was made? Why was that the case? When one is dealing with representative bodies which are constructive in their approach and can demonstrate goodwill towards the Government, it is a mistake, at the very least, not to engage with them. I urge the Minister to retrospectively rectify the matter.

Deputy Alan Shatter

It is a matter for the Government and me as Minister for Defence in consultation with the Chief of Staff to make decisions on the reorganisation of the Defence Forces. It is not a matter for negotiation with the representative bodies. The correct legal approach was taken to provide for the reorganisation. When the arrangements proposed for it were agreed between the Secretary General of my Department and the Chief of Staff and the Cabinet was so informed, we immediately arranged for the representative bodies to be informed of the nature of the reorganisation. I fully accept that they have played a constructive role during the years and that there is the human element in undertaking the reorganisation and the impact it will have on individual members of the Defence Forces located in various parts of the country. That is a matter that will be discussed constructively and on which there will be engagement with the representative bodies.

On the issues raised by the Deputy, I do not envisage that we will be over budget at the end of the year. This is not about making additional savings; rather it is about living within our budget targets and using our resources in a wise way to ensure operational effectiveness within the Defence Forces.

Unfortunately, many misleading comments have been made. I have no wish to have a disagreeable exchange with the Deputy because they have not been made by him but by members of his party. He did make reference to the economic impact of the reorganisation, for example, in Athlone. He has in his party a Deputy who is running around telling people that there will be a reduction of 400 troops in Custume Barracks. He has led the charge on that issue in public meetings and was even a cheerleader for a protest held outside Leinster House one week ago. There are 1,050 members of the Defence Forces in Custume Barracks and I said all along that there would be approximately 1,000 members in Custume Barracks at the end of the reorganisation. The actual troop number in Custume Barracks as members of the Permanent Defence Force is 971. There are 35 civilians in Custume Barracks. In addition, there are exercising and training activities which impact on the numbers there which frequently will result in the number of members of the Army exceeding 971. No one could suggest in practical terms that a reduction of approximately 70 troops permanently located in Custume Barracks will have a dramatic impact in Athlone and that barracks playing a very important role within the Defence Forces as part of the reorganisation. In fact, Custume Barracks has the second largest number of troops, which is only exceeded by the number at Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin.

This reorganisation is in the interests of the country generally and the Defence Forces in order to maximise its capability. It will ensure we will have full units, with their appropriate specialties. In determining where specialties should be located I am very much informed by the advice of the Chief of Staff and those with the internal expertise to make these judgments. I thank the Deputy for raising what is an important issue and look forward to working with him in the coming months.