Dara Calleary
Ceist:42 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence if he intends to proceed with the proposal for Connolly Barracks, Longford; and if so, if he will provide an outline of same. [17595/11]
Priority Questions
Defence Forces Property
Since the mid-1990s, the Department of Defence has been engaged in a programme of disposing of surplus properties and using the proceeds for reinvestment in equipment and infrastructure for the Defence Forces. The former Connolly Barracks is one such property. I have received no proposal in regard to Connolly Barracks. The Midland Regional Authority undertook a feasibility study into the possible use of the former barracks for a range of activities. The acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the Connolly Barracks feasibility study are a matter for the two local authorities that commissioned the study. The Department has no role in this regard.
I understand the local authorities are still considering the report and the challenges in providing funding for the acquisition of the barracks. In that context, Longford County Council has expressed some interest in acquiring the barracks and discussions with the council are at a preliminary stage. In the event of these discussions not reaching a satisfactory outcome, Connolly Barracks will be disposed of, taking account of the market conditions so as to maximise the return to the Defence Forces.
In the meantime, the departmental officials concerned have been in contact with the county council to determine whether a basis exists to bring the discussions to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. These discussions will be advanced once the authorities have completed their consideration of the report.
I am accompanied by Deputy Robert Troy who has been pursuing this issue. I understand Longford County Council is waiting for a response from the Department on its proposal. As the Minister knows, the proposal was quite detailed. It was for the creation of five zones of development in Longford focusing on an education centre and tourism, arts and crafts facilities. Everybody would agree with the concept. The Department has a role in that it owns the property in question. Does the Minister envisage setting a deadline for the negotiations so everybody will know where he stands as soon as possible? Given the proposal's value to the community, can it be pursued in such a way that everybody is going in the one direction?
There is no difficulty in everybody going in one direction. Essentially, this is a property that is available, owned by the Department of Defence and has a commercial value. As I understand it, the feasibility study to which the Deputy referred is being considered by the local authorities and it is for them to take the initiative in the matter. I can say to the Deputy without any difficulty that the officials in my Department will engage in and discuss the matter. The local authorities will be aware that the study recommends the development of five zones within the barracks site for the provision of adult and further education facilities, arts, crafts and food produce initiatives, community and commercial facilities and a river park and play area. There will be substantial costs involved in this development, and the matter is essentially one for Longford town and county councils.
The feasibility study was finalised and presented to the Department at the end of last year. Six months later, there seems to have been a breakdown in communications somewhere. Will the Minister ask his officials to make contact directly with Longford County Council to see whether this can be progressed so the people of Longford know what is going on?
For almost three months of the six months, Deputy Calleary's party was in government and there was a degree of confusion as to who actually was the Minister of Defence because Mr. Killeen resigned and Deputy Ó Cuív was appointed and then we had a general election.
I want to reiterate if constructive proposals can be implemented which are in the public interest, which address the commercial value of the barracks and which are clearly in the interest of Longford, my officials will participate in discussions to bring about such a resolution. However, it is for the Longford authorities to come to terms with the financial implications of any arrangements that might be implemented to meet requirements in this regard. There is no difficulty with the council dealing with matters with officials in the Department of Defence and I encourage that. However, at the end of the day specific proposals must come from the council for the Department to consider.
Defence Forces Equipment
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Ceist:43 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will give details of the contracts, the companies involved and their monetary value between the Defence Forces and suppliers and procurers of military hardware and related services during the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17597/11]
A wide range of goods and services is procured by the Department and the Defence Forces to ensure the Defence Forces can carry out their day-to-day roles at home and overseas.
Procurement for the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces is provided for under various subheads of the Defence Vote. The subheads relate to, inter alia, defensive equipment, mechanical transport, aircraft, Naval Service ships and stores, property, building and engineering, communications and information technology equipment. There are also procurement sections in the Defence Forces with responsibility for the provision of barrack service items, utilities services and a range of food-related items.
In that context I am advised a considerable amount of contracts and orders of variable values is placed for a wide range of goods and services on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis throughout the Department and the Defence Forces. As such, I regret that I am not in a position to provide the information sought by the Deputy in my reply this afternoon.
I have asked the relevant officials in my Department to collate the information required over the five-year period referred to in the question. With the agreement of the Deputy, I propose that the information should relate to substantive contracts relative to defensive equipment acquired for core military functions with a value of €125,000, exclusive of VAT. However, if there is a more specific sector of interest for which the Deputy may require information, perhaps he would let me know. I will ensure the information is sent to the Deputy at the first available opportunity.
I agree to limit the request to the figure mentioned by the Minister; it probably should have been mentioned in the question. What contracts of such a substantial value, if any, have been signed since his coming to office? What major contracts are on hold or due to be signed in the coming months?
Will he take heed of the proposal that there needs to be more ethical purchasing of military hardware or other related goods for the Defence Forces to ensure companies backed by governments in other countries, such as the case of Israel raised in the previous Dáil, and countries using illegal munitions such as cluster bombs and white phosphorus in wars against civilians or any war in which they have been declared illegal are boycotted, or that there is at least a refusal to deal with those companies while the government backing them is engaged in such activities?
I answered the second portion of the Deputy's question on the previous occasion. It is interesting to see he returns to the one subject obsessively in the House.
With regard to the query he raised in respect of contracts signed in recent weeks or which may be signed, in so far as the information is available it will be included in the information forwarded to him in written form.
Defence Forces Contracts
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Ceist:44 Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan asked the Minister for Defence the place from which his Department sources its meat supplies; and if he will confirm that all meat provided to the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps is produced here. [17593/11]
This was a question the answer to which we chewed over.
The current contract for the supply of meat products to the Defence Forces is held by Crossgar Food Services Limited, County Down.
The award of the contract in 2010 followed an open tender competition, which was advertised on the Department of Finance's e-tender website and which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The significant factor in the award of the contract at the time related to cost. The annual value of the contract is in the region of €800,000.
The contract provides for the supply of a wide range of meat products, including beef and bacon, to all major military installations. This current contract will run to 31 December 2011. It is expected that a new open tender competition will be advertised on the e-tenders site later this year with respect to the supply of meat in 2012 and beyond.
I am advised that the meat products supplied by Crossgar Food Services Limited are traceable, fully quality assured and fully certified in all respects meeting all Irish and EU requirements. A very significant proportion of the meat supplied by Crossgar, 90% in total, is sourced on the island of Ireland. Predominantly all of the beef is sourced from farms in the Republic of Ireland. This includes both the rearing of animals and the slaughtering taking place in the Republic of Ireland, with the actual processing taking place in Northern Ireland.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Defence Forces advise that the level of service provided by Crossgar Food Services Limited has been very good with meat products of excellent quality provided under the contract.
The Defence Forces are obliged to carry out the procurement of food products in an open and transparent manner and in line with national and EU public procurement legislation. The Defence Forces have absolutely no discretion in this regard. Adherence to these rules is important, because in general the open market is of benefit to Irish producers as it provides access to markets throughout Europe.
I thank the Minister for the information. I will pass it on to the constituent who wanted me to find out.
I ask the Deputy to thank his constituent for smoking out that response.
Defence Forces Personnel
Dara Calleary
Ceist:45 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the discussions he has held with PDFORRA regarding their calls to set retirement at 31 years of service. [17596/11]
In 1997 agreement was reached with the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years with the option to be extended to a maximum of 12 years. In 2004, PDFORRA submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994.
A set of criteria was agreed to provide longer careers for those who enlisted post-1994 while continuing to address the Government's objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of modern defence forces.
The criteria require that any person re-engaging after 12 years service must be able to continue to operate at their current level both at home and overseas on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specified criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings.
The maximum service period for these personnel is as follows: enlisted personnel in the rank of corporal and equivalent Naval Service rank may not serve beyond 21 years service; enlisted personnel in the rank of sergeant and equivalent Naval Service rank may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 50 years and to the age of 56 in all higher ranks.
The Permanent Defence Force like all sections of the public service is subject to a promotion and recruitment moratorium. In order to maintain operational effectiveness limited promotion and recruitment has been sanctioned in recent times.
Due to the robust nature of many military operations and their attendant physical training regimes, personnel are exposed to a unique range of challenging environments. In these circumstances it is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised.
With regard to the specific question raised by the Deputy, a claim has been received from PDFORRA in relation to personnel who enlisted after 1994. In accordance with normal procedures, the association's claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. As discussions under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential to the parties involved it would not be appropriate for me to presume the manner in which these discussions may develop or to comment on any likely outcome.
Will the Minister report back to the House when the discussions are completed and indicate whether an agreement has been reached on the matter?
I have no doubt the Deputy will ask me a question to ensure the relevant information comes back to the House. There is a specific issue here, namely, to ensure we maintain Defence Forces which have the operational capability to meet all their obligations and have an age profile which makes this possible. Without saying any more that would in any way disrupt the discussions which will take place, this is an important issue to bear in mind, as is the history of previous negotiations and agreements that were concluded and in which PDFORRA was engaged.
The Fianna Fáil Party agrees with the need to ensure the Defence Forces are fit for purpose. The new criteria appear to be the same as the criteria currently in place. Would it not be in everyone's interest to make this the base criterion rather than applying a rule that is no longer in use?
As I stated, discussions will take place and I do not want in any way to prejudice them or impact on their outcome, nor do I want to send out any message in one direction or another. This is an issue of some importance and I appreciate it has been raised by PDFORRA. It is important that I ensure we have an age and operational profile in the Defence Forces which ensures they are fit for purpose and can meet their obligations overseas and at home.
State Visits
Clare Daly
Ceist:46 Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the total costs to his Department of the visits of Queen Elizabeth II and the President of the USA. [17028/11]
Security arrangements for the visits of Queen Elizabeth II and the President of the United States were primarily an operational matter for the Garda Síochána. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence is the provision of aid to the civil power, meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána.
With regard to the two highly successful recent visits, the important role played by the Defence Forces included search, surveillance and security operations on land, at sea and in the air, as requested by and in support of the Garda Síochána. The Defence Forces were also involved in the guarding of vital installations and provision of ceremonial duties as part of Queen Elizabeth's State visit, which duties went extraordinarily well and resulted in a great deal of praise for the Defence Forces.
Prior to the visits, the estimated additional cost of the Defence Forces involvement in the visit of Queen Elizabeth II was €1.18 million, while the estimated cost of President Obama's visit was €630,000. My Department is carrying out an exercise that will confirm the accuracy or otherwise of these estimates. At this point, the indications are that the estimated costs of both visits will not be exceeded. The costs associated with the recent visits will be paid from the existing financial envelope provided in the defence Vote for 2011 and I am satisfied it will not be necessary to seek a Supplementary Estimate arising out of the visits.
The question was tabled because many unsuccessful attempts have been made to obtain accurate information on the overall costs to the State of the two recent State visits. When questions were put to the Taoiseach he could only account for the cost to his Department and indicated that an estimate of the costs involved should be sought from each individual Department. One could be forgiven for concluding that the Government does not want to reveal the true figure. The figures provided by the Minister can now be added to those provided by other Departments.
I would be pleased if some overtime was generated for members of the Defence Forces as it would soften the blow that their pay packets have taken as a result of reductions in public sector pay. The Minister indicated his budget is sufficient to absorb the costs arising from the two unanticipated State visits. From which part of his Department's budget will these resources be taken?
The Minister also indicated that searches and surveillance were carried out at the request of the Garda Síochána. Were searches or surveillance carried out at the request of the United States authorities? If so, will the Minister indicate what was the cost of such activities?
Oh dear. Some of the Members who sit in the top rows in this Chamber can never quite get away from obsessing about countries that are supposed to be the enemy — if it is not Israel, it is the United States. No searches were carried out at the request of the United States. Ireland is a sovereign State and the United States does not request or direct the Defence Forces or Garda Síochána to do anything of any description. Any engagements of the Defence Forces were in the context of their assistance to the civil power and Garda Síochána.
The sad reality is that a substantial amount of public money was spent on two very successful visits as a consequence of the conduct of small groups who engaged in conduct which posed a serious risk to the success of the visits and safety of our visitors. If that had not been a concern, much of the money would have been saved. The Department of Defence and Defence Forces operate in a very careful and efficient manner and the funding that was used in the context of the visit with regard to the Department can be dealt with in the Defence Forces Estimate without any difficulty. It will not result in any cutback in services of any description, as provided by the Department.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. The figures he cited amount to slightly less than €2 million, a sum that cannot be ignored in the context of any Department's budget. The relevant moneys must have been pinpointed for use in another area. Where will the Department make up the deficit?
The Deputy has just added something in the region of €800,000 on to the figure I gave, which was €1.18 million. I do not quite see how €1.18 million comes to €2 million.
I included the Minister's figure of €600,000.
In the context of the provision made available to the Department of Defence and Defence Forces, there is contained within it provision to deal with eventualities that may arise. Such eventualities may result either from the need to address difficulties created by subversive organisations on this island or dealing with visits from persons abroad for which special security arrangements are required. This is part and parcel of what is included in the Defence Forces Estimate. Given that the Defence Forces and Department of Defence operate in a very efficient manner, no difficulty arises for either the Department or Defence Forces out of either visit.
I must correct the Minister. The two figures he provided — €1.18 million and €630,000 — add up to €1.8 million, which is closer to €2 million than €1 million.