Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 17: To ask the Minister for Defence his views on whether the drop in Defence Forces numbers from 12,750 in 1996 to 10,081 in 2009 leaves little scope for further cuts if he wishes to maintain a credible organisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42193/09]

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 35: To ask the Minister for Defence the numbers serving in the Defence Forces at present and the anticipated number on 1 January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42178/09]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 36: To ask the Minister for Defence his plans to maintain the full strength of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42334/09]

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 42: To ask the Minister for Defence his views on whether the reduction in Defence Forces numbers from 12,750 in 1996 to 10,081 in 2009 leaves little scope for further cuts if he wishes to maintain a credible organisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42170/09]

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 46: To ask the Minister for Defence his views on whether the reduction in the Permanent Defence Forces strength of 500 personnel recommended in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes will be met by December 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42190/09]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 141: To ask the Minister for Defence his plans for the future strength at all levels in the Army; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42480/09]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 142: To ask the Minister for Defence his plans for the future strength at all levels in the Navy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42481/09]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 143: To ask the Minister for Defence his plans for the future strength at all levels in the Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42482/09]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 17, 35, 36, 42, 46, 141, 142 and 143 together.

The White Paper on Defence of February 2000 sets out a figure of 10,500 personnel for the Permanent Defence Force comprising 930 for the Air Corps, 1,144 for the Naval Service and 8,426 for the Army. The recent Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes recommended that the number of personnel in the PDF be reduced by 500 over a two to three year period as "operational requirements allow." The reality is that based on current trends, numbers are already reducing within the Permanent Defence Force. The Defence Forces, as do all military organisations, have an unusually high turnover of people on an ongoing basis in order to maintain the age and fitness profile.

I am advised by the Military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force as at 31 October, 2009 was 10,013, comprising Army 8,175, Air Corps 807 and Naval Service 1,031. I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government at home and overseas. I intend, within the resources available, to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively across all roles while contributing to the necessary public service economies.

Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes and the decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes.