Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The proposers of tonight's motion know this. They also know that I cannot exclude barracks from this review. I have said so plainly in reply to questions in this House. I have never resorted to any sort of equivocation on the subject. The Exchequer is under extreme pressure and no amount of bluff and bluster will bridge the yawning gap between the Government's income and current expenditure. Unfortunately, more hard decisions will be needed.

There are few opportunities to trim defence spending without impacting on front-line delivery. It is self-evident that concentrating personnel in fewer locations provides the potential to protect essential collective training and reduce unnecessary overheads in terms of barrack management, administration, maintenance and security. It also affords me, as Minister for Defence, the possibility of maintaining the Defence Forces at their current level of approximately 9,500.

This Government has nothing to apologise for in seeking to effect further efficiencies. To place the glaring inconsistency of the Fianna Fáil motion in perspective, I want to place on the record of the House the previous Government's record in this regard. In July 1998, the then Government announced the closure of six barracks: Ballincollig, Fermoy, Devoy, Magee, Castleblayney and Clancy, with the relocation of 880 personnel. In the context of the 2009 budget, the then Government also announced the closure of four barracks: Monaghan, Lifford, Longford and Rockhill House, Letterkenny, with the relocation of 595 personnel, and also St. Bricin's Hospital in Dublin. The closure of the four barracks has been achieved. The consolidation of St. Bricin's is linked to the provision of modern medical facilities within the existing departmental property portfolio and will take some time to implement.

While the closure of the barracks and the sale of the properties has provided funding for investment, it was never the sole driving factor for the consolidation of defence infrastructure, as the Deputies opposite well know, including the two Deputies who spoke who are former Ministers for Defence. The primary driver for barrack reorganisation and personnel redeployment is the efficient and effective delivery of military capabilities. As I have said in response to many questions in this House, Defence Forces properties are kept under constant review in terms of addressing Defence Forces requirements and ensuring the most appropriate organisation of the Defence Forces, taking account of the operational requirements.

The austerity measures initiated by the previous Government have meant the strength of the Permanent Defence Force has now reduced to 1970s levels and there is an urgent need to maximise efficiency to mitigate the effects of that reduction. Releasing personnel for operational duties requires that the number of barracks be reviewed. If it transpires that significant efficiencies in manpower usage can be gained by reducing the number of barracks, why should this Government use different criteria from its predecessor? The double-think behind this motion verges on the embarrassing. Do the Deputies opposite think the public has developed amnesia so quickly?

See this speech in context