Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1991

Vol. 413 No. 9

Adjournment Debate. - Refurbishment of Minister's Office.

Mr. Garland

I would like to thank you for selecting my subject for debate this evening. As the Minister knows, and everyone in this House is only too well aware, the country is facing into an unprecedented budgetary situation which will require the greatest economies in public spending for 1992 and, I suspect, for some years to come. In this extremely difficult financial climate one would expect cuts would begin at the top. Surely it behoves every Minister to lead by example. Unfortunately, this is not what we find with the newly appointed Minister for Defence, Deputy Vincent Brady.

If the extent of the expenditure on his new offices at Coláiste Caoimhín is as high as is reported, that is, in excess of £100,000, it seems that this is where the newly appointed Minister has put his priorities. What makes matters worse is that I have been told a major revamp of the offices was carried out on the instructions of his predecessor, Deputy Daly, just a year ago. The scope of this new work included wallpapering, painting and the installation of a shower and changing room in the ministerial suite.

Another disturbing factor in the refurbishment is that the Minister has ordered that a passageway leading to his office should be sealed off for the Minister's private use only. The effect of this is to force his staff to walk the long way round when moving through the building.

While we would all accept the Minister is entitled to comfortable office accommodation, nevertheless the scope of this refurbishment, including as it does the installation of a shower and changing room for the Minister's sole use, surely cannot be justified. Of course, the sum of £100,000 is very small beer compared with the colossal and outrageous expenditure of £17 million on the Taoiseach's palace at Upper Merrion Street, but it is totally unjustified.

If the Department of Defence has £100,000 or so to spare, there is a number of ways this money could be better spent, such as on the provision of proper blank ammunition to enable military manoeuvres to be carried out in a proper fashion. This ludicrous situation has already been raised in the House and has been admitted by the Minister. Better still, why not use the money saved to make some improvement in the scandalous conditions of many Army barracks throughout the country?

Obviously the Minister gives priority to luxury office accommodation for himself over the basic necessities for our Army. Let there be no doubt about the importance of our Army and its role in securing the safety of this State from outside aggression or internal subversion and the importance of the training they receive before they go on peace-keeping duties. This blatant overspending is another example of the arrogant way in which this Government are operating. I call on the Minister to call a halt immediately to this unnecessary scheme.

Minister for Defence (Mr. V. Brady)

I am delighted to have an opportunity to refute this outrageous allegation. The suggestion made by Deputy Garland is simply not true and I consider that it is grossly irresponsible of him to make such a suggestion. It is typical of the type of nonsense indulged in by the Deputy without any basis in fact. This mistaken idea was first mooted, as far as I am aware, in the Sunday Business Post of last Sunday, 1 December. I was astonished at that report which was a distortion of the correct position. I already issued a public statement of rebuttal yesterday. This rebuttal was given considerable publicity and was repeated on both the “Gay Byrne Show” and the “Pat Kenny Show”. I was, therefore, appalled that the Deputy should resort to this scandalous allegation. A simple check with me by the Deputy could have immediately made clear to him that there is no substance in the suggestion that I even contemplated any works on my private offices at the Department of Defence of the order of £100,000 value.

The factual position is that I raised with the Office of Public Works the possibility of having certain essential repair and maintenance work carried out. This is a very old building and constant maintenance is required. For example in the past week a badly leaking radiator pipe necessitated urgent attention, including the lifting of a watersodden carpet to remedy the situation in one of my offices, an office not occupied by myself but by staff.

For the record I wish to make it clear that I would not under any circumstances countenance the expenditure of a sum of the order mentioned by Deputy Garland or the Sunday Business Post on my private offices, nor is there any question of redoing work undertaken by my predecessor in office.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that Deputy Garland should be ashamed of himself coming into the House here with such a suggestion obviously endeavouring to obtain some cheap publicity.