Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Minister for Defence his reasons for closing the Defence Forces barracks in Longford, Monaghan, Rockhill and Lifford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36423/08]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The consolidation of the Defence Forces formations into a smaller number of locations is a key objective of the White Paper on Defence. The dispersal of personnel over an extended number of locations is a major impediment to essential collective training and imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barracks management, administration, maintenance and security. The consolidation process is designed to facilitate higher training standards, while freeing up underutilised resources and personnel for operational duties.

The funding previously realised from the disposal of surplus barracks and properties has, together with pay savings, provided some of the resources required for infrastructure, training area development and equipment procurement. In this regard, the White Paper states: "The thrust of the Government decisions in the White Paper is based on their recognition of the necessity to enhance the equipment and infrastructure available to the Defence Forces". The current phase of barracks closure is another important step in achieving the vision of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper.

While the closure of barracks and sale of the properties has provided funding for investment, it was never the driving factor for the consolidation of defence infrastructure. The White Paper acknowledged that the current spread of barracks gave rise to significant inefficiencies in manning and organisation which needed to be addressed. Moreover, as has been pointed out in many independent reports on the Defence Forces, the primary driver for barracks organisation and personnel deployment is the efficient and effective delivery of military capabilities. As I indicated in response to many questions in the House, Defence Forces properties are kept under constant review in terms of addressing Defence Force requirements and ensuring the most appropriate organisation of the Defence Forces, taking account of the operational requirements.

The development and increased capability of the modern Defence Forces, when taken together with improved security along the Border, has removed the rationale for having seven barracks-posts along the Border and provided the opportunity for consolidation of units in a smaller number of locations. It should be noted that the British Army has closed most of its Border posts.

The current plan has been put together in close consultation and co-operation with the Defence Forces general staff and provides an overall package which will serve the needs of the Defence Forces into the future.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government seems to have got itself into another fine mess and has failed to produce a plan for the managed closure of the four barracks in question. For example, senior personnel are unable to brief the 650 personnel who will be moved as a result of the closures. Last Tuesday, when the budget was being announced, a senior officer in Monaghan barracks had no knowledge that the barracks was to be closed.

What savings will the four closures achieve given the costs associated with maintaining and securing the barracks and the substantial cost of moving Army personnel? Additional costs will arise from providing accommodation for personnel and storage facilities for equipment in other barracks. The Minister does not seem to realise that personnel who will be required to relocate as a result of the closures will face significant transport costs. For example, those based in Donegal town will have to make a daily round trip of approximately 150 miles to Finner. That is not good enough.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I have not received an exact figure, I am advised that substantial cost savings will be achieved through the closures. Payments will reduce in respect of barrack guard duties, storage, utility costs, maintenance, heating and lighting etc. As I indicated, however, the main driver for the decision was that the Army was too widely dispersed over too many barracks, particularly in light of the size of the Defence Forces and the population of the country. A particular problem that arose on the Border due to the situation in Northern Ireland has been resolved. There was no justification for maintaining no less than seven of our 20 Army barracks in the Border area and for that reason the decision was taken to consolidate.

From conversations with members of the general staff and Permanent Defence Force, their view appears to be that this is a good step for the Army as better collective training and less wider dispersal will ensure greater efficiency in the use of Defence Forces resources.

I take account of Deputy Deenihan's comments regarding transport costs. Provision has been made for removal and transport costs to be provided for a certain period. However, even when one takes these factors into account, the previous programme of barracks closures resulted in a much better, more efficient military organisation and delivered cost savings. This outcome will also be achieved with the current programme.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree it is unacceptable to provide a closure date of 31 January 2009? Will he assure the House that the 14 week lead-in period will be extended? Perhaps the Government will make another U-turn on this issue. The Minister stood alongside Deputy Peter Kelly in front of Longford barracks and gave a commitment to the personnel in the barracks and the people of the town that the barracks would not be closed while he was Minister for Defence. This commitment was given on record and a photograph of the Minister and the Deputy is available. The programme should be implemented in a calm, collected, structured fashion, which is not the case. I appeal to the Minister to undertake to postpone the closure of the barracks from 31 January 2009 and extend the lead-in period to between six months and one year.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is advisable, when taking steps of this nature, to set a target date. Clearly if the process is not completed by the target date of 31 January 2009, it will be completed at a later date. However, I am assured by the military that it will be able to meet the date.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no way the completion date will be met.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In so far as doing a U-turn is concerned, I note Deputy Deenihan's initial statement on the matter did not oppose the closure of the barracks. I do not know whether he supports or opposes the decision in principle. I am aware, however, that Deputy Bannon is opposed to the closures as he has tabled a motion requesting that I reverse the decision to close Connolly barracks. On the other hand, in a television interview given on 28 September, Deputy Varadkar stated the Department of Defence had huge numbers and he did not know what it did. The Deputy wants us to further reduce the personnel available to the Department. Which of the three Fine Gael Deputies represents the party's position?

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have heard typical spin from the Minister. Deputy Varadkar did not advocate the closure of Army barracks.