Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Defence if he will reverse his decision to close Kickham Barracks, Clonmel in view of the confirmation by his Department that no feasibility study was carried out prior to the making of the closure decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7011/12]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I have previously outlined to the House, the consolidation of the Defence Forces formations in a smaller number of locations is a key objective of the ongoing defence modernisation programme and has been recommended in many reports in recent years. This was a key consideration of the Government in addressing the issue, as releasing personnel from security and support functions enables the operational capacity of the Defence Forces to be maintained, notwithstanding the fall in strength. I am satisfied that the decision taken by the Government in November 2011 to proceed with a further phase of consolidation is in the best interests of the Defence Forces and there are no plans to change that decision.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not true that the closure of Kickham Barracks will not save the Exchequer money in either the short or long term? It is a very bad decision for the Exchequer, the Defence Forces, the families affected by it and Clonmel town. Is it not a fact that no feasibility study was carried out? The reason is that it would show, beyond doubt, that there were no savings to be made either in the short or long term. The Government is, therefore, taking advantage of the recession to close Kickham Barracks in Clonmel. A proper feasibility study was not carried out for these reasons. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have dealt with this issue on many occasions. The main objective of barracks closures is to release personnel for operational duties. Closures are needed to relieve the Defence Forces of the burden of manning and securing the barracks which are to be closed and maximise the proportion of personnel who can be released for front-line duties. The strength of the Army has been cut to its 1970 level and there is an urgent need to maximise efficiency to mitigate the effects of the reduction.

Releasing personnel for operational duties requires that the number of barracks be minimised. Major efficiencies in manpower usage result. Significant opportunities for increased efficiencies will arise in terms of the elimination of duplication, involving personnel engaged in security duties within the barracks, those working in administrative roles and in providing backup services such as maintenance and catering. The closures will also yield savings in the defence Vote on utilities, security duty allowances and maintenance. Apart from the savings arising from the closure of barracks, the transfer of personnel also gives rise to savings and efficiencies in the receiving barracks.

We are living in a very difficult time financially and the Government is obliged to reduce its expenditure. The Defence Forces are substantially reduced in terms of numbers from a number of years ago. As Minister, I had choices to make. Either we reduced expenditure on barracks that no longer offered any operational benefit and maintained the strength of the Defence Forces at 9,500 or we kept barracks that were not required open and ended up with Defence Forces personnel numbering between 8,000 and 8,500. I chose to maintain the strength of the Defence Forces to ensure Defence Forces personnel would be able to maximise their operational activities. The decision is not only in the interests of the Defence Forces but also in the public interest.

Individuals who have a different view must identify where we can find an additional supply of money. The State is dependent on funding provided by the European Union and the IMF because we are spending €16 billion to €18 billion more per annum than we receive in income. This was the contribution that could be made in the defence area to reduce expenditure in circumstances in which no job would be lost by anybody employed in the Defence Forces.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is clear from the Minister's reply that even in the narrow focus of the expenditure of the Department of Defence there will not be savings now or in the long term. In fact, there will be increased costs in the short term. The Minister refuses to conduct a proper feasibility study that would include matters such as the cost of social welfare payments and medical cards being available to families as a result of this closure.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Deputy ask a question, please?

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister, even at this late stage, prepare and complete a proper feasibility study? He is closing a barracks he has never visited. On the basis of courtesy alone, I ask him to visit Kickham Barracks in Clonmel.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have already responded to the questions raised by the Deputy.