Vol. 450 No. 2
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to consult adequately with the representatives of the Defence Forces on the implications of the EAG report on the relevance of the Defence Forces before decisions are implemented, to consider the economic and social consequences of barrack closures and to reassure members of the Defence Forces that barracks will not close.
I wish to share time with Deputy O'Rourke.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, is here to take the motion because it gives this House an opportunity to discuss, in a non-confrontational way, progress in the Defence Forces over the next number of years.
We must take account of the history, tradition, culture and distinctive nature of the Defence Forces in any review and we must have the Army at heart. When outside consultants consider the resources and potential for change, the Army and its activities are often neglected. We must ensure that does not happen and we must try to gauge the leadership, structures, equipment, training and resources necessary to implement the role of the Defence Forces and satisfy the needs of society and our dependence on them. We must also understand the strain involved in many of these tasks. It is said that no soldier glories in war. They must carry out many tasks on our behalf at a risk to their lives and safety. Everyone in this House wants to pay tribute to their generosity, commitment and service both here and abroad.
Since the end of the Civil War and the establishment of the State, the Defence Forces have eschewed any involvement in politics; there has never been a suggestion of partiality on their part. They are, therefore, entitled to full consideration of their views about changing times and needs and the prospects for enhancement in any new review. I was disappointed to learn of unease in many ranks of the Defence Forces as a result of announcements made by the Minister, although these may not have been intended in the way they were interpreted. It is helpful, therefore, to thrash this matter out in the Dáil and make the Government aware of potential difficulties if consultation about proposed changes does not take place between the representatives of the Defence Forces.
In every democratic country people are proud of the activities of their Defence Forces, the men and women who take many risks for society, and nowhere is that more evident than here. Today it is taken for granted that Irish soldiers should serve alongside soldiers of other nationalities as part of the UN peacekeeping forces. Since Ireland's admission to the UN in 1955, 35,000 troops have contributed to peacekeeping missions throughout the world. A large number of Irish officers have also participated in the UN observer mission since 1958. In this way peacekeeping duties are a significant element in Irish military life and a concrete manifestation of Ireland's commitment to the UN and the maintenance of peace. The involvement of the Defence Forces in peacekeeping activities over the years is now an established tradition which affords many advantages.
The success of the participation of the Defence Forces in peace-keeping to date is evidence that it has a sufficiently high level of discipline and expertise. Further evidence is provided by the manner in which the Defence Forces carry out the many varied roles they are asked to fulfil, whether aiding the civil power or keeping vital State services going during industrial disputes and other emergencies. These soldiers are drawn from all sections of society. The majority live in homes alongside their civilian counterparts and not in barracks or military bases. This has further assisted the integration of the Defence Forces in society as well as helping to foster its democratic ethos.
The involvement of the Defence Forces in UN operations has been considerable. When one considers its small size, the contribution has been enormous. This involvement has been a great incentive for young people to join the Defence Forces. It has boosted morale and created a better public image of the Army. The publicity surrounding the operations of the UN and the involvement of the Defence Forces has been of enormous benefit to the country. Some 34 lives have been lost since 1958 in these activities, which shows how dangerous they are.
Irish troops are accustomed to working without heavy support weapons and it is ironic that this has worked in their favour during peacekeeping operations. Participation in peacekeeping operations has been the most significant development in the Defence Forces since their establishment and is now a substantial part of military life in Ireland and the personnel have made significant contributions to the cause of peace. They have also enhanced the image of the Defence Forces as a disciplined and well integrated military force at home and abroad.
While we must take cognisance of the tasks performed by the Defence Forces and their contribution to political stability and the institutions of State, the review currently being undertaken must ensure the substantial contribution being made to UN operations is not diminished in any way.
Many of us do not take due account of the varied roles thrust upon the Army. It must be capable of meeting immediate and short term requirements, provide a deterrent to would-be aggressors and provide for planned augmentation of the standing force. Few if any countries can afford to maintain adequate forces to meet a worst case scenario and this leads to the requirement to prioritise the roles or tasks in relation to threat assessment. Needless to say this is one of the primary functions the Government faces in setting these priorities.
Ireland has approximately 10 per cent of its Defence Forces officer strength abroad on UN or other peace missions at any one time. Approximately half of these rotate on a six-monthly basis; others on a 12-month or even an 18-month basis. In effect this means approximately 15 per cent of its officer strength is on overseas posting in any one year.
Fishery protection requires a capability to patrol an area of 132,000 square miles, which is 22 per cent of the entire sea fishery of western Europe. Concurrent with the fishery protection operations is the implementation of the basic principle of the law of the sea, which requires that a State must have the means properly to monitor activity by sea and air and assert jurisdiction over the territorial seas and economic zone of the State. The role requires the capability to deal on an ongoing basis with search and rescue; air ambulance services; ministerial air transport service; major disasters, including aircraft, shipping, train, oil or chemical spillage; natural disasters — forest fires, floods, storms and snow; disruption of essential services; and engineering and other technical services. The Defence Forces also deal with drug interdiction.
Experience has shown the Defence Forces have been involved in many disaster relief and maintenance of essential services operations such as fire services, water and sewerage works, refuse, ambulance service, fuel supplies and public transport. While specific training for such operations is not practicable, the capacity to provide a wide range of technical skills, allied with an organised and disciplined approach, has proved of immense value.
Many people — the same may be true of the review — underestimate the wide range of these activities and the public expectation that the Defence Forces should make provision for all these contingencies. Clearly the State does not have the resources to provide specific courses earmarked for the various operations so a highly trained, multi-skilled, versatile force is required, organised, equipped and trained along conventional lines, which can easily adapt to the requirements of different situations. I strongly support that and Fianna Fáil, in the context of the ongoing debate, will support measures leading towards such developments which will have to be achieved on a consultative basis.
In the Dublin area there are 850 troops from infantry, artillery and cavalry. In McKee Barracks and Clancy Barracks there are personnel in signals, engineering, ordnance, military police, supply and transport. Forces must be provided within the city for tasks associated with Dublin Airport and Casement Aerodrome, Dublin port, the Dáil, Government Buildings, Mountjoy Jail, the television station, the Central Bank, embassies, the Special Criminal Court, vital installations, and ceremonial duties. Tasks associated with the above frequently involve the deployment of groups larger than one battalion under the control of the headquarters of the 2nd Infantry Brigade. Permanent guards and patrols must also be provided to vital installations in accordance with the current threat assessment.
Having provided for the Border and Dublin city, the other areas are still left with a variety of tasks — security at Portlaoise and Limerick prisons; the explosives factory at Enfield and the explosives storage magazine at Cork; a military presence at civilian quarries, etc. for explosive blasting operations; Cork, Shannon and Knock international airports; seaports; Mount Gabriel radar station; cash centres; vital installations; and ceremonial duties. There are barracks in Athlone, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Kilkenny. Given the spread of deployment and range of tasks, it is imperative these units are controlled by a brigade headquarters and supported by brigade service support units.
The Defence Forces engage in joint operations with the Garda on searches, checkpoints, roadblocks, patrols, escorts of prisoners, explosives and cash, bomb disposal, crowd and riot control, and other areas. The Garda Síochána and the military are different forces with different philosophies and modus operandi. The requirement for co-operative procedures, including training, cannot be over-emphasised and these can only be achieved by deployment which takes account of the Garda deployment also.
Despite the many and varied tasks outlined, since 1979 defence spending has declined significantly as a percentage of Government spending and gross national product. The growth in defence spending has not kept pace with inflation. For instance, the expenditure on war-like stores over the past decade is as follows: in 1984, £10 million; 1985, £11 million; in 1986, £9.5 million; 1987, £11.8 million; 1988, £8.8 million; 1989, £7.5 million; 1990, £7.6 million; 1991, £5.1 million; 1992, £5 million; 1993, £4.5 million.
We have had no radical reorganisation of structure in the past 25 years. The tasks have increased, the resources have not kept pace with inflation, and the strength of the forces has declined. All parties agree, therefore, that it is time for change and modernisation and to ensure the resources necessary are provided.
Since 1988 the Defence Forces have been under scrutiny from a number of reviews, including those by Brady, and Gleeson and two by the EAG. This process has already had considerable impact on the organisation; it has also identified many of the weaknesses and deficiencies of the Defence Forces and the areas which need immediate attention.
It must however be clear that the pattern of Irish defence spending in the last decade has been such that there are no potential savings to fund the once-off costs of redundancies which will be necessary and the other reorganisation measures. The capacity has been eroded by the reduction in personnel numbers and the decline in expenditure on capital and operational items, as already outlined.
Any solution proposed would have to be broadly accepted by the military authorities if it were to be implemented. If we have a difference with the Minister it is here, at the kernel of the problem. The Minister should not say he has had adequate consultations because he has met representative organisations on one or two occasions to discuss one or two items. The success of the changes — which we all would like to see take place in a modern Ireland — is dependent on the Defence Forces having a belief in and a commitment to ensuring that success.
Will the Minister say whether the Price Waterhouse report was driven more by cost considerations rather than the primary requirement, which is to ensure we have a balanced approach and the proper resources necessary in a successful defence force? Was there too much emphasis on systems bought in from elsewhere, particularly Canada?
The absence of ongoing recruitment to redress in a balanced fashion the decline in personnel has also contributed to the problems being experienced. The problem areas are: the inability to carry out worthwhile collective training; insufficient number of troops on the ground in peak units; the unacceptably high age profile of the Defence Forces and the necessity to rationalise the numbers and strength of units; the need for a comprehensive personnel policy for the recruitment of young soldiers and a system of retirement to correct the age profile; structures to deal with the excessive number of personnel medically unfit for duties; the engagement by the military in activity not required by their assigned roles; the reform of the top structure of the Department of Defence, both military and civil, so that authority is aligned with responsibilities; the wide geographic deployment of the forces; soldiers employed on duties which could more appropriately be carried out by civilian employees; and the multiple layering of command structures.
In implementing proposals to remedy those problems it is vital that the military authorities are comfortable with and have confidence in the approach taken. The consultants' approach — to decide the strength and numbers for the Defence Forces based on a predetermined savings target — is scarcely the way to tackle this fundamental problem. It will and should be necessary to consider the requirements and strength in numbers of the Defence Forces on the basis of the roles assigned to them and on the Government's and national requirements of the day. It is clear when we look at the Price Waterhouse proposals that a reduction of the Permanent Defence Force by 3,000, following the reduction of 2,500 in the past decade, can scarcely be acceptable.
With regard to the closure of 17 barracks, the costs of relocation far outweigh the cost benefits in the short term. The cost of relocating from Collins Barracks to other Dublin barracks is estimated to be £22 million. I have referred previously to Kickham Barracks in Clonmel where over 300 personnel are based. While I do not wish to speak in strictly economic terms, the total salary value of the barracks to that part of Tipperary is £4.5 million per year. It is an important and institutional part of the economic fabric of the area. I could speak about other areas and Deputy O'Rourke will discuss these matters in relation to the midlands.
It is clear that the Price Waterhouse proposals, while containing eminently sensible and practical recommendations which can be implemented after full consultation, also incorporate serious weaknesses which, if implemented, could present a high security risk to the State. The proposals were cost driven and do not take account of the threats, policy and roles. Despite the reduction in numbers of 2,500 since 1981, it is not practical to contemplate a further reduction of 3,000 if one considers the variety of roles which I already outlined and the essential nature of many of those tasks. While we need highly trained and highly motivated people who are always available, we hope it will not be necessary to carry out many of the tasks I have outlined. However, the State has an obligation to provide such security to the public and the public has never been found wanting in making resources available for these important areas. Regardless of deployment and security requirements, the Price Waterhouse proposed closure of 17 barracks is excessive.
The report proposes to reduce FCA numbers by more than 10,000. It proposes two brigade structures which would be inadequate for current commitments at home and overseas and could have major implications for the future operational capacity of the Defence Forces. Everybody accepts that the ratios of personnel to non-personnel spending are out of order. We look forward to proposals to move that ratio nearer to 70:30. However, this will require an injection of funds at the initial stages of implementation. This is necessary to solve the age profile problems and achieve a fully effective defence force. The funding injection should be considered in the context of the sharp decline in defence spending over the last decade.
Price Waterhouse is seriously short of technical specialists in its proposals and that would place restrictions on the numbers available for UN service. The provision of forces for commitments in the Dublin area is inadequate. The proposal for training does not solve the problem of the lack of collective training and adequate resources have not been provided for that. Manpower must be addressed as a matter of urgency. We do not have a manpower policy. Some of the problems that have developed are a result of that. A personnel policy document should be produced to address employee resourcing, employee relations and employee development. Previous studies in this area, including the Gleeson commission report, might be useful. A key area of overall personnel policy will be the proper staffing of personnel support services already instituted on foot of the Gleeson commission recommendation.
The Permanent Defence Force has an establishment of 17,966. The actual strength, however, is 28 per cent below that figure. The establishment of 12,326 which is proposed by the military authorities may not in any sense be interpreted as a notional figure — it is the minimum figure at which the Defence Forces must be maintained. Operational efficiency within this lower establishment is contingent on the satisfactory resolution of personnel issues. Since 1981 the age profile of other ranks has deteriorated to a current average of 34 years with a devastating decrease in the 16 to 25 year age brackets. This arises from low recruitment and low wastage.
Recruits enlisted after January 1994 are offered five years service with limited numbers extended beyond this period. This, together with reduced maximum entry ages, continuous recruitment and other measures would help to counter the imbalance. The new manpower policy must cater for planned intake of recruits, cadets and other apprentices into the Army, Navy and Air Corps to match a controlled wastage pattern. This scheme will require additional funding at the initial stages. The Minister might be in a position to say when this year's recruitment will start and how many will be recruited. We hope the number achieved last year will be achieved later this year. The introduction of a comprehensive manpower policy with implementable discharge schemes will eliminate the problem of excessive medically unfit personnel. The personnel establishment proposed is dependent on all personnel being medically fit.
Price Waterhouse highlighted the serious deficiencies in training, particularly in respect of collective training in the Defence Forces. The cost benefit analysis validated this assessment. However, having identified the problem so clearly, Price Waterhouse failed to address it. The proposal outlined by Price Waterhouse removes the command training cells, closes the command training depots, and the junior command staff school of the military college, creates a national training centre with little or no infrastructure for administration, transport, military police etc., closes the corps school and the Army apprentice school without proposing an effective solution to provide for specialist training. It does not address the collective training requirements at sub-unit and brigade level. To successfully prepare soldiers for combat, a training system must meet all the functional and command needs of the entire fighting entity. Since 1991, the number of personnel in the Defence Forces has fallen by almost 2,652. This decline in numbers, combined with the increase in operational taskings, has undermined the ability of the Defence Forces to provide for any meaningful collective training.
In the context of phasing in part or some of the proposals in the short to medium term all the necessary consultation should take place on the full package and there should be a broad canvas and consensus as to the necessary measures to be introduced. If we do not have a phased in, single measure approach, it will continue to undermine not only the strength of the Defence Forces but all the attitudes which have been carefully built up over a considerable period of time.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Smith, for sharing his time with me. He gave a very comprehensive overall view of this motion tabled by Fianna Fáil and I do not intend to encroach upon those areas. I hope that as well as talking in a local, partisan sense I will also be able to talk about the Army in a national sense.
Like the Minister I come from an Army town. The headquarters of the Western Command is in Athlone and there are barracks in Mullingar and in my previous constituency — and perhaps, if the review has its way, my future constituency — of Longford so I speak with the interests of those three at heart. In general terms, Fianna Fáil has always been strongly committed to the role of the Defence Forces on land and sea and wishes to see them fulfil their rightful role in a modern way.
I do not say this in an antagonistic sense but this debate has been conducted in confusion. One day we read that the Minister means no harm and will not implement the Price Waterhouse report; the next day he told us in an Adjournment Debate that he — with the emphasis on "he"— will not preside over any closures of Army barracks. That is disingenuous because while he may not physically preside over the closures, they do not happen overnight but have a lead-in time.
We wish to ask the Minister his firm intentions on what he plans to do in the Department of Defence. We will not wake up one morning to find that 17 barracks have been closed; that is not how bureaucracy, armies or Government Departments operate. However, the moves to so do may have already been put in train, for all we know, because we are in the dark about the Government's plans. The Minister is the spokesperson but it is a collective Government decision. While he may be correct and straightforward in saying to us that he will not preside personally over any closure, that is not good enough. I am strongly convinced that the Government will do irreparable damage to the Defence Forces by wholesale acceptance of the Price Waterhouse report. Price Waterhouse is a firm of accountants which works to a business agenda, in the main, and its report is based on business practices and techniques. We do not think that is how matters of the Defence Forces have been or should be handled. They should be modern, streamlined and in keeping with this century. However, at the same time, they play a very strong, pivotal, economic, custodial and social role in the towns in which they are situated. The ramifications of the activities of the Defence Forces as a whole are hugely important to small communities.
The Government is implementing a policy of persistent and insidious undermining of the Defence Forces. I may be accused of being melodramatic for saying that it seems like death by one thousand cuts but that is exactly what is happening. Not enough is given for stores for central buying for a particular Army barracks or to allow for essential or emergency maintenance and the barracks become run down. Many of these barracks are beautiful buildings from the last century, earlier in some cases, which require maintenance and preservation which costs money. Lack of recruitment means that the forces become run down and lack of progressive promotion destroys morale. Those cuts can be insidiously implemented and collectively, over a period of time, would lead to the situation which I have described.
Previous Fianna Fáil Ministers for Defence — with whom I have had constant contact in my political life as I come from a constituency with strong Army links — in very difficult economic circumstances managed to maintain optimism, hope and activity within the Defence Forces. However, I fear that the present Government has clearly decided to systematically scale down the Army.
Where is the promised Army recruitment and the anticipated early retirement package? Why is uncertainty allowed to grow over the future of certain Army barracks? If there is no intention to close them in the foreseeable future why not say so openly and directly? How will the Defence Forces play a modern role in a modern Ireland, a modern Europe and a modern world? These are genuine questions which I know that the Minister will wish to address. He was a success in his chosen career outside politics and I hope that he will be a success in this Department. He will by our lights, if he keeps morale, activity and hope high within the Army.
There is a clear need for a proper career path for Defence Forces recruits. Of course, there is one in place for officers, as is always the case. They know when they enter the Defence Forces when they will get to the next rung of the ladder, what their title and privileges will be, what their final rank will be and with what glory they will finally leave. That is fine and I understand that an Army must have a proper hierarchical structure if there are to be those who give orders and those who obey. However, in modern management terms all entrants to a workforce should know that there is a path of progression open to them to which they can aspire.
At present, there is a sense of stagnation, futility and low motivation within the ranks. I know about this as I have spoken to young, and not so young, men and some women in the Army who have been waiting for years and years for promotion from private to the next rank because of the bottleneck in promotions. There is not a bottleneck in the officers' ranks but there is one within the enlisted ranks which is leading to a great sense of futility and stagnation.
As the Minister knows, young women and men are entering the Army with good leaving certificates, they will not be content with the situation which existed for previous entrants to the Defence Forces. They will not be willing to be shunted off as a private forever and why should they? They have hopes and aspirations and want to go forward in their career. There should be proper, certifiable training. At present, there are only limited army apprenticeships which provide very limited skills. Army recruits should know they can progress, after a stated period, if they prove acceptable.
I look forward to the Minister's reply and I wish him luck in his mission. The Army and the Defence Forces generally are not safe in the Government's hands.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann
— accepts the need to modernise the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces;
— commends the Government for maintaining the impetus for the reform of the Defence Forces,
— notes that the Minister for Defence is consulting widely with all interested parties, and
— supports the co-ordinated approach outlined recently by the Minister for Defence, including the formulation of a phased implementation programme to be drawn up when the Government has considered the report of the Efficiency Audit Group."
I thank the House for providing me with an opportunity to deal with some misapprehensions about the review of the Defence Forces conducted by the Efficiency Audit Group for the Department of the Taoiseach. The motion tabled by Deputies Smith and Power in effect calls on the Government to undertake a course of action which has already been initiated. When I answered Dáil questions on 22 February, I said I would meet the military representative associations to listen to their concerns. I met representatives of RACO and PDFORRA on the same date. A follow up meeting took place between the associations and officials of my Department yesterday morning and I will meet the associations again next Thursday. I will also meet the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association this week. I hope it is clear that there has never been any question of this Government failing to consult Defence Forces' representative associations. The right of the associations to represent the legitimate interests of their members is protected by legislation and Defence Force Regulations. I assure the House this Government will operate the agreed system of representation in a spirit of goodwill. During our initial meetings, both associations adopted a constructive approach and I am fully committed to this process of consultation.
The Government wishes to consider fully the consequences of any proposed programme of reform before reaching its decisions. As Minister for Defence, I am anxious to consult and to obtain the widest range of advice. Since taking office a few months ago, in addition to meeting the representative associations, I met members of Price Waterhouse who conducted the review and the chairman of the Efficiency Audit Group. As well as having detailed discussions with the military authorities on more than one occasion. I met a group of retired senior military officers on the reform process and tommorrow I will meet a group of retired commissioned officers as well as UN army veterans. Nobody can assert that this Minister has not consulted and has not listened.
There is widespread agreement on the need to modernise the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces. The basic underlying structure of the Defence Forces has remained virtually unchanged for decades. The review of the Defence Forces initiated by the previous Government, which has been undertaken by the Efficiency Audit Group, provides a welcome opportunity to address many issues in the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps crying out for attention. A number of these issues have been the subject of public debate for a considerable time. A factor which led the previous Government to commission the EAG review of the Defence Forces was the report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces, the Gleeson report which highlighted a number of major shortcomings in the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces, with excessive numbers employed in non-operational tasks. Similar structural problems were again highlighted by a subsequent review of military administration by the Efficiency Audit Group. Arising from the changed international environment, the Fianna Fáil-led Government, in September 1993, adopted a revised statement of roles for the Defence Forces which placed greater emphasis on current operational roles as opposed to defence of the State against external aggression, which was formerly stated to be the primary role of the Defence Forces. It has been apparent for some years that the rising age profile of the Defence Forces will cause problems if not addressed in a co-ordinated manner. A general acceptance that reform of the military was necessary, combined with the change in the overall role of the Defence Forces, led to the decision by the previous Government to ask the Efficiency Audit Group to conduct a review of the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces.
Regrettably, since the leaking of a confidential report prepared by management consultants Price Waterhouse for the EAG, there has been widespread speculation about what the future holds for the Defence Forces. It is unfortunate that a change of Government occurred in the middle of this process. Of all the issues which have featured publicly, the issue of barrack closures has assumed an importance quite out of proportion to its place in the range of measures under consideration. A process of review, undertaken to prepare the Defence Forces to enter the next century properly organised, structured, staffed and equipped to meet the important roles assigned to it by Government has been distorted into some type of cost cutting exercise. Nothing could be further from the truth. The terms of reference given to the Efficiency Audit Group when the review was initiated by the previous Government are as follows:
To develop feasible options for the overhaul of the Defence Forces structures and systems having regard to the statement of roles as approved [by the Government] on 21 September 1993 with the aim of achieving:
1. the most efficient and effective procurement, deployment and use of resources, recognising resource constraints and with particular reference to geographical location;
2. the optimum command, grading and management structures and systems (including arrangements in respect of the interaction between the Defence Forces and the civil side of the Department of Defence); and,
3. the appropriate level and composition of administrative and operational strength and equipment.
External consultants were engaged by the Efficiency Audit Group to conduct the detailed work of the review. To ensure that the consultants had the necessary expertise, senior officers of our Defence Forces were involved at every stage of the selection process. The selected firm. Price Waterhouse — whom Deputy O'Rourke referred to merely as accountants, which is not an accurate description of management consultants — provided a team which included Major-General Lewis Makenzie, the ex-UN commander in the former Yugoslavia, and other Canadian military experts. The Canadian military team was accepted by the Irish military authorities as having the necessary and appropriate military competence to conduct the review. Furthermore, the Efficiency Audit Group appointed its separate military adviser, a recently retired New Zealand Air Vice-Marshal of international repute.
Attempts to characterise the review as a mere cost-cutting exercise are very wide of the mark. The Efficiency Audit Group was not asked to review the Defence Forces in order to produce a programme of cut-backs and closures. Key words which appear in the terms of reference are "feasible", "efficient", "effective", "optimum" and "appropriate". Optimum implies best for the achievement of the desired result. This is precisely what the Government wants for the Defence Forces; an organisation that is best suited for the discharge of its assigned roles. A key objective is to release more personnel for operational duties. I know that this is also what military personnel want. It is an objective that all parties can support and there is no need for a divisive debate over the major issues related to this review.
In that context, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following extract from an address to the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers by Deputy David Andrews, the then Minister for Defence, and my predecessor, on 14 November 1994:
While an open debate on the role of the Defence Forces is something which is long overdue, I believe that such a debate should be concerned with Government proposals based on the final recommendations of the EAG and not based on speculation.
I agree broadly with those words.
In deciding the future of the Defence Forces, the Government is fully conscious that any decisions reached will have far-reaching consequences. The Defence Forces are called upon to discharge a variety of important roles. Every hour of the day Army, Naval Service and Air Corps personnel are engaged in important tasks. At home these include Border patrolling, explosive ordnance disposal, the guarding of vital installations and other tasks in aid of the civil power. Both the Naval Service and the Air Corps are engaged in the surveillance of our maritime resources and the protection of our sea fisheries, and also with the saving of life in the role of search and rescue. Overseas, Irish personnel have a long and distinguished record as international peacekeepers.
In order to ensure that these roles continue to be carried out effectively it is necessary to examine critically from time to time the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces. The review carried out by the Efficiency Audit Group is part of a process aimed at doing just that. The objective of such an examination must be to enhance efficiency and effectiveness and ensure that in the years ahead the public continue to be served by professional, disciplined, well trained and appropriately organised personnel who have a high level of morale.
A case worth dwelling on is the role of peacekeeping because it is in this that the professionalism of members of the Defence Forces comes to the fore and can be compared so favourably on an international stage, Irish soldiers have built up an enviable reputation as peace-keepers. Service with the United National demands a wide range of skills and personal qualities. Frequently, patience and diplomacy may be as necessary as the conventional military skills of the soldier. Decades of experience has shown that Irish soldiers have these qualities in abundance and the number of requests the Government receives from the United Nations confirms the high regard in which Irish soldiers are held. The contribution made to peacekeeping operations has enhanced the prestige of this country and has been a source of pride to all Irish people.
Since Ireland first contributed troops to the UN in 1958, Irish soldiers have participated in more than 35 individual missions. More than 9,000 of the 13,000 personnel who currently serve in the Defence Forces have completed a tour of duty in an overseas mission. This proud record is built on voluntary service. It says something about the character of our Defence Forces that, whenever new and sometimes dangerous missions arise, the number of volunteers invariably exceeds the number of available places.
Our single biggest contribution to the United Nations in terms of personnel continues to be the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. I am looking forward to paying my first visit for St. Patrick's Day as Minister for Defence to our troops serving there. For many years it seemed that there was no hope of an end to that awful conflict which engulfed Lebanon. However, peace is now beginning to take a fragile hold. In Beirut life is beginning to return to normal after years of strife and although the city still bears the scars of war, reconstruction has commenced. With the return of confidence the foundations are being laid for a lasting peace and a return to economic prosperity. UNIFIL has played no small part in all of that and our troops have been in the forefront of that important and sometimes dangerous work.
Over the past 20 years a growing appreciation of the value of our marine resources has coincided with a period of growth and development for the Naval Service and Air Corps. In particular, the extension of our exclusive fishery limit to 200 miles offshore marked a turning point in our appreciation of the importance of the sea as an economic asset. As a result the Naval Service, and more recently the Air Corps, has seen considerable growth and development.
The Naval Service fulfils a vital role in the protection of Ireland's fishing industry. Naval vessels from our fleet of seven modern ships constantly patrol our economic exclusion zone and personnel are trained to work in a very challenging environment. Their work goes on 24 hours a day, all year round and in all weather conditions. From my experience of the Marine portfolio, I am well aware of the task that is faced daily in enforcing the fisheries laws, a task which is, and will continue to be, more important in the protection of our resources. The role played is at times difficult and dangerous. Because the duties of the Naval Service are performed at sea — out of sight of the general public — they may not, in the past, have always received the public recognition which they deserve. However, their continuing success in fishery protection, in search and rescue, and their important role in dealing with potential pollution threats and the illegal importation of drugs have resulted in a much more widespread appreciation of the outstanding dedication of our Naval Service.
While the Air Corps is heavily involved in the fishery protection role by virtue of its operation of the Dauphin Naval variant helicopter and the new CASA CN 235, it also carries out many other diverse tasks. The Air Corps performs vitally important functions in search and rescue, air ambulance, security operations and, from time to time, assist in non-military operations such as the relief of distress in emergency situations arising from natural disasters. A current example is the ongoing operation in the flooded area near Gort, in South Galway, to provide essential food and supplies for marooned families and fodder for the livestock and in support of the local farming community.
Both the Naval Service and Air Corps have in recent times been effective in aiding the civil power in combating illegal importation of drugs and I anticipate that their role in this vital national work will expand and grow in the future. I would like to compliment the various components of the Defence Forces — Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps — and to express my own appreciation and that of the Government for the important contribution which they make to the well-being and security of our country.
Any vibrant organisation which has to adapt to changing roles and circumstances has to be amenable to change and to reform. The Defence Forces organisation and structure are no exception. There are many positive features of the Army, Navy and Air Corps, some of which I have already referred to, which provide an excellent platform on which to build for a changing future. Wherever military personnel serve, they apply themselves to the task in hand with commitment and professionalism. The introduction of a balanced programme of reform will prove a positive experience for the Defence Forces.
Since the leaking of the Price Waterhouse report last July, the positive nature of the reform process in the Defence Forces has become obscured. For that reason, it is necessary to state some basic facts. There are problems in the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces. These problems have grown up over time. Solving them will equally take a significant period of time. What is envisaged by this Government is an integrated programme of change, introduced at a realistic pace and as a first step, there will be a three year plan detailing the initial reforms to be undertaken. I anticipate that after the Government makes a decision on the EAG it will take about three months to prepare a three year plan for the first phase.
There is wide agreement about the need for change. However, if anyone feels that change is undesirable, I would invite them to contemplate the consequences of doing nothing. The one conclusion which everyone can share is that there is not a "do nothing" option. I think it is fair to say that the contributions of Opposition Deputies have reflected this. There is a consensus about the need to take action. In the long term, the present arrangements are not sustainable. The excessive numbers in administration, the excessive number of layers in the military command structure, the rising age profile and the imbalance between expenditure on pay and expenditure on equipment are all sapping operational capability and will continue to do so if not reversed. The purpose of the review is to reverse this process in a positive and progressive manner. While there is ample scope for debate about the detail of the solutions to be adopted, the need for real change is beyond dispute.
It is facile to pretend that worth-while change can be introduced without facing up to difficult issues and decisions. However, the implementation of any decisions arising from the EAG review will be a process which will extend over a number of years. While it will be necessary to ensure that momentum is maintained, there is an equal need to introduce change at a realistic pace which the organisation can accommodate. Ill-informed speculation may have created an impression that decisions would be introduced overnight. That is not the case and I would like to dispose of this mistaken impression. The Government has yet to reach any decisions concerning the EAG recommendations. As I have already said, the process of consultation preceding the Government's decisions has been thorough and wide ranging. I would also like to emphasise that the Defence Forces were themselves intimately involved in the review process. When a decision in principle was taken to engage management consultants, senior military officers were involved directly in the selection process. Much of the detailed research in the actual review was carried out by officers assigned to assist the consultants. The Army themselves participated in this work. The representative associations representing officers, enlisted personnel and the members of the Reserve Defence Forces were informed of the review and provided with its terms of reference at the outset. They were subsequently provided with the opportunity to make written and oral presentations to the consultants, an opportunity which they availed of. I am also consulting with them on a regular basis.
One of the more disappointing features of the welter of speculation surrounding the Efficiency Audit Group review is that the modernisation of the Defence Forces is being discussed as if it is were a code word for the closure of barracks and nothing else. I have already made it clear that this is a serious distortion of the facts. The Efficiency Audit Group dealt with accommodation requirements only in the most general way. Not one single barracks was named for closure and a future study of this issue was recommended and will be undertaken. That study will take into account the wider social and economic considerations as well as military operational requirements. The process of reform will include many positive features. The Government's objective is to have Defence Forces which are well trained, well equipped and accommodated and well motivated to fulfil the roles assigned to them. The programme of change which lies ahead will be more effective if people take a positive view. People who are concerned for the future of the Defence Forces, including many Opposition Deputies and members of the Defence Forces themselves, accept that change is essential and that it will be beneficial for the Defence Forces and for the country.
In all organisations, whether public or private, when reforms are proposed there will always be someone who feels threatened. That is only natural, but there is no need to view the present review process with fear and apprehension. The focus is not on making short term economies. On the contrary it is clearly aimed at enhancing the long term effectiveness of our Defence Forces. Surely that is what everyone needs and wants.
I wish to share time with Deputy Dempsey.
That is quite satisfactory.
The Minister has spoken about the Defence Forces being well trained, well equipped, with resources being made available and has stated that within those parameters realistic change can be brought about. How can the Minister say that and at the same time claim that the report did not mention closure of barracks? The only thing I gleaned from the Minister's speech was that the Defence Forces were top-heavy in administration and that, perhaps, finances and available resources were not being used properly. Many would agree to the extent that there are problems within the organisation and some re-organisation is necessary.
Perhaps the resources available to the army are not being used as effectively and efficiently as possible. However, the Minister must consider where he is coming from and what has been said to date. Up to recently we were reading in the newspapers, as a result of leaks, that 17 of the 34 barracks would be closed and that the Army would be stripped of in excess of 1,300 personnel.
Army personnel are embarrassed and annoyed that they do not know exactly what is happening because there is no clear cut agenda. It does not help their morale when the Minister tells the House that no decisions have been made and will be only be made after a thorough review and investigation. They are quite worried about their position. For example, people are asking where they should send their children to school in the next three years. They want to know if they should continue to send them to school in Ballincollig. Fermoy and other places. People all over the country are asking if their barracks will be retained.
Does the Minister agree that the procrastination with regard to the long term prospects of many people running those barracks lowers morale among Army personnel? Does the Minister agree that officers involved in the barracks in question are also asking whether their barracks will be closed in three years? What about strategic planning for the future? Army personnel want to know if they have a future. It is fair to point out that there is a dilemma facing them because effectively they do not know whether they are coming or going. They do not know whether they will be in Ballincollig, Fermoy or Clonmel and the Minister is not telling them.
This matter is theoretical. It is under investigation and the only guarantee Army personnel have is that they will not be affected and that barracks will not be closed in the next three years. However, the scenario is that they will be starved of resources over the three years. They will have to consider moving, whether they have a future in the Army and whether they should try to get out now before it is too late. The Minister probably added to the hype surrounding this matter by making a statement one day and rowing back on it the next, while leaving the issue up in the air. I have spoken to many personnel, particularly those in Ballincollig barracks in my constituency. I hope the Minister does not think it unfair of me to ask — because we share a constituency and the hope that this barracks will ultimately survive — if they will be starved of personnel over the next number of years. They fear that new personnel will not be introduced and that the writing will be on the wall for the future of the barracks. There is no doubt that this is even more emphasised in Fermoy. Given that there is a Minister from Cork in office, people in the county are beginning to wonder why two of the three barracks in Cork would be singled out for closure?
The Deputy is singling them out.
I am not. The Minister added to this in his statement on "Morning Ireland" when he indicated this would happen. He heightened tension and then rowed back the following day.
I wish to make a case for Ballincollig and the Minister will share my interest. Fifty per cent of Ireland's power supply comes from the Kinsale gasfield, where we have the national grid, and the Aghady, Marina and Iniscarra power-stations. The Telecom Éireann satellite communications centre is based in Midleton and we have the Whitegate oil refinery, the fertiliser plant in Cobh, the industrial complex in Little Island, the deep water port and a complex of health care companies in the Ringaskiddy area and the airport. If the barracks in Ballincollig is closed, all of these operations would have to be covered by one barracks in the city centre. Military personnel tell me that this barracks could easily be cut off by a limited number of people.
It is worth remembering that barracks were established in strategic positions for a reason. The Ballincollig barracks was strategically placed. The Minister will agree that the south-west coast is an increasingly important feature for us. The barracks obviously plays an important role. Given Ireland's membership of the European Union, it is also important that military personnel be based in Ballincollig, or will we give up on our duty and responsibility to Europe? In terms of the defence of the EU and our relationship with the US, the strategic positioning of barracks and the protection of the south-west coast is of paramount importance.
We must also take into account that much of the illegal importation of drugs is centred on the south-west coast. We should examine the strategic role the Army could play in such areas if there was proper co-ordination between the activities of customs officials, the Garda and the Army. Will the Minister consider if there is a meaningful role for the Army because in approximately 200 inlets on the Cork and Kerry coast drugs are being landed. We cannot establish how many tonnes of drugs are coming in but there is a view that this is the main point of importation for drugs for distribution to the UK and Europe.
The 1st Field Artillery Regiment is based in Ballincollig. It is important to point out that there is a difference between a Government and a rebel force. This regiment is accepted as being a crack force. From the point of view of the people in Ballincollig in terms of integration, the barracks is part of what we are; the town grew up around that focal point which is a centre of community activity and integration. The various clubs, societies and teams provide a good example of how Army personnel in Ballincollig integrate. Last year, for instance, we won the intermediate county football championship and one of the Army personnel was the trainer of that team. Army personnel who head up the rugby club as well as the basketball and pitch and putt clubs are part and parcel of the life of Ballincollig. They add enormously to the culture of the area, quite apart from the economic input involved, and we should not underplay their role.
At the moment we are exporting one and a half million tons of stone per year from Adrigole and the control of industrial explosives for the quarry is based in Ballincollig. The Minister knows the importance attached by the Garda to the proper regulation and control of the specialist industrial explosives which are stored in Ballincollig. This munitions dump is important to the total infrastructure of the county in helping to generate economic activity. In terms of road infrastructure, the stone exports play a major role in the economy of Cork and Kerry.
The Minister and I know the importance of the military barracks in Ballincollig. On behalf of the Army personnel there I am asking the Minister, who shares the same constituency as myself, to keep the barracks open. It would not be remiss of him as Minister for Defence to say to the people in Ballincollig that, whatever about any other barracks, he is going to keep this one open.
That is very selfish. Talk about parochialism.
The Minister should keep Ballincollig barracks open because of its importance and strategic positioning. That would not do the Minister, or myself, any harm in the next general election.
I am not going to make a plea for any local barracks but I believe Deputies Ahearn and Ferris might be making particular pleas. As this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to do so. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.
Thank you.
I hope that he will be as happy and fulfilled in his task in Defence as I was as Minister of State. I enjoyed the three years I spent in the Department of Defence dealing with both Defence Forces personnel and officials of the Department, and I am sure the Minister will also. I wish him bon voyage on his first trip to the Lebanon.
Thank you.
I am sure the Minister will be very impressed, as I was, by the standards of professionalism and dedication of the Irish Defence Forces in the Lebanon and other parts in the Middle East. I am not sure whether he is also going to Cyprus, Israel and Damascus but visiting our troops abroad on their various United Nations missions made me proud of being an Irishman. I made such trips on a number of occasions but the most memorable one — for the wrong reasons in some respects — was shortly after Operation Accountability in August 1993 when the Irish area in the Lebanon had been bombarded constantly for a week. Any Irish person would have been proud to see the morale of the Irish Defence Forces personnel, the way they responded and the regard in which they were held by local people.
The professionalism and dedication of the Defence Forces also came home to me when I visited Cyprus and met people from both the Turkish and Greek Cyriot sides who were lavish in their praise of the Irish troops. It is a huge tribute to any nation that both sides felt they got fair play.
I welcome this and hope that we will have a few more between now and 1996. For too long the issue of defence and our Defence Forces was low down on the agenda, and therefore anything that raises these matters is useful. We have to make some very serious decisions between now and 1996.
The Minister said everybody is agreed that there is a need for change, and I made the same comment in the past when I sat on the Government side of the House. Over a long time, I spoke on both an official and casual basis with military personnel and officials of the Department in the lead up to the EAG report. There was general agreement that changes had to come about and the Minister is right about that. However, I am slightly disturbed by the fact that, having brought things this far, we are now once again putting them on the back burner.
Knowing the operations of other Departments, my fear is that if the initial reforms, which the Minister said would be implemented over the next three years — though I realise that some of them must take place over a more prolonged period — are delayed for too long then the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence are going to be strangled for resources. I fear that every time the Minister seeks resources, whether it is for badly needed communications equipment or APCs, he is going to be met with a blank "no" from the Department of Finance which will say that this will all have to be looked at in the context of the EAG proposals. Because of this the Minister should consult, as we ask in the proposal, but should implement the agreed proposals as quickly as possible, otherwise Defence will revert to being the Cinderella of all Government Departments. I do not want to see that happening. If the Minister undertakes the process of reform as he has outlined, we will be so far back in three years time that we will have to go through the whole process once again. I would ask the Minister to consider that very carefully.
The motion mentions consultation, and the Minister says he is already speaking to PDFORRA, RACO and other organisations. What is the Minister consulting them about? I understand from the Minister's speech that the Government has not made any decisions on the EAG proposals. Some decisions need to be made in principle——
They will be made shortly, Deputy.
