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

Question 66: To ask the Minister for Defence if, with regard to the agreed action plan under the pay agreement and modernisation agenda for the Defence Forces, the specific initiatives and commitments under the heading "organisation and strength", specifically the identification and exploration of the challenges to achieving optimum structures and flexibility, that have taken place within the timeframes laid down in the action plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42868/08]

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

The White Paper on Defence 2000 sets out defence policy and a framework for modernisation and change over the period to end 2010. This framework has provided the overarching modernisation goals for the Defence Forces. Action plans under successive pay agreements have underpinned this ongoing modernisation process.

The commitment to which the Deputy refers is contained in the action plan under the pay agreement and modernisation agenda for the Defence Forces. The action plan was itself derived from the modernisation agenda of March 2007 agreed with the Defence Forces representative associations and both were, in turn, modelled on the Towards 2016 agreement between the social partners.

The commitment referred to in the Deputy's question is one of 17 and is the opening one in the action plan. It is set in the context of the successful reduction in Permanent Defence Force numbers to 10,500 and maintenance of the three-brigade structure in line with the recommendations of the White Paper on Defence 2000. The commitment to continued modernisation and change and to seeking optimal Defence Force structures and flexibility is affirmed in this opening statement.

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. It also imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barrack management, administration, maintenance and security. As the Deputy will be aware, four barrack closures were recently announced in the budget. These closures will facilitate collective training, while also freeing up under-utilised resources and personnel for operational duties.

The action plan goes on to elaborate a wide range of further commitments across the whole spectrum of change and modernisation in the Defence Forces.

The House will be fully aware of the tremendous progress that has been made in the modernisation of the Defence Forces since 2000, which is described in detail in the White Paper on Defence 2000 published by my Department in April 2007. As provided for in the modernisation agenda and pay agreement, a performance verification group, PVG, has monitored performance against the commitments set out in the action plan and has made recommendations as to whether the pay increases set out in the agreement were justified. The Defence Forces representative associations, my Department and the military authorities are represented on the PVG. The group has an independent chairman, Mr. Frank Murray, former Secretary General to the Government. The PVG met on a regular basis to review progress on all elements of the action plan. The most recent meeting was on 30 July 2008.

I am satisfied with the overall progress that has been made to date in implementing the action plan and that the modernisation agenda in defence is continuing to yield significant improvements to the Defence Forces' capabilities.

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

The key issue is that the representative bodies agree that the Minister and the Government make the decision about the closure of barracks but there is a commitment in this pay agreement that where closures were to take place, there would be consultation beforehand with the representative groups. In this instance, that did not happen. That is the main point of contention.

Will the Minister clarify if there is a template for the closure of barracks that would ensure that if barracks were to be closed in the future, a certain procedure would be gone through? I am sure the Minister will agree that the representative bodies should have been consulted in line with this pay agreement. That agreement was signed up with Government and the procedures were not followed. This agreement was voted on by their members but some of those members are now asking, when is a deal not a deal? They are confused about what has happened. Will the Minister confirm that it was part of that pay agreement that consultation should have taken place first? Is there a template for barrack closures? Is this a breach of this pay agreement?

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

I do not believe it is a breach of the pay agreement. My understanding of the pay agreement is that if we were proposing to close barracks in normal circumstances we would consult. As Deputy Deenihan knows, this was a budgetary decision taken by Government in regard to cutting public expenditure generally. This relates to the Department of Defence specifically. It was not a unilateral decision by me to close barracks on which I got the agreement of Government. It was a collective decision of Government in the context of the budget. It was a budgetary measure and we are under no obligation to discuss in advance items that will be in the budget. That is the context of it. If it was being done in the usual way outside the context of a budget, whereby I decided that we needed fewer barracks, I would consult with the representative organisations.

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

The Minister mentioned cost a few times. What is the saving factor when it is factored in that the four barracks due to be vacated will have a huge cost in terms of security, heating and maintenance? If this closure of barracks is all about cost, what saving will result? Is that factored in to the budget? Does the Minister know the exact saving he expects to make from the closures? Can he tell us the saving that is expected?

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

First, it is not all about cost. It is also about collective training. I have been under pressure from the military from the time I took over this Department to consolidate the number of barracks to allow people going into dangerous foreign territory to train together. It is felt to be in the interest of the safety of the troops that they should train together in advance of going into darkest Africa.

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

That is another issue.

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

I can confirm to Deputy Deenihan that I have a good deal of correspondence to back that up.

Second, in regard to cost, the Deputy will be aware there is a later question on cost which we will reach. However, a cost-benefit analysis done by the Department shows that the total cost of this measure over the next three years will be approximately €5.9 million. As against that, recurrent savings will be approximately €2.7 million per annum. On the value of the properties we will get back, the savings will be approximately €30 million. It will be of huge benefit to the Exchequer, therefore, but cost is not the only factor. There is also the question of collective training as we undertake more dangerous missions.