Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 May 1996

Vol. 465 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Defence Forces Reform: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for:

—its failure to articulate a vision and a strategic plan for the Defence Forces, to disclose its intention to close certain Army barracks, for its lack of transparency concerning proposed barrack closures and to provide adequate personnel for the Air Corps and the Naval forces;

—creating uncertainty about future retirements;

—downgrading of the FCA and Slua Muirí; and,

—its reluctance to enter into meaningful consultations with representatives of the Defence Forces.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Killeen, if the House agrees.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I am very concerned at a number of developments arising from the first phase of the implementation plan of the review of the Defence Forces. I am asking the House to consider carefully the issues involved so that a more satisfactory and comprehensive set of solutions can be found to meet these difficulties.

Armies are looked at in a different light during peacetime. Members of the public often believe that the peace they enjoy is of a permanent nature. They can be lulled into a false sense of security which history, time after time, has shown can come home to haunt. Peace is often fragile and delicate. Ugly conflicts can arise in the most unexpected quarters. None of us can be sure whether such conflict will be internal or external.

The task of a defence force is to be always in a state of readiness in terms of numbers, morale, equipment, training and education to deal effectively with any contingency. No one doubts that this is a difficult task, one on which there is unanimity neither in the Oireachtas nor among the public generally as to the amount of financial resources, strategies and plans that should be permanently in place to provide maximum security at a reasonable cost.

The Irish people are immensely proud of their Defence Forces. Their involvement in peacekeeping missions with the United Nations has not only boosted morale in the Defence Forces but has instilled immense pride in the people of the country as a whole. The Defence Forces perform many other functions in aid of the civil power. One of their primary functions is to defend the State against armed aggression, and it is in this area that further debate is required so that when the reform process is completed the Defence Forces will be in a position to defend and protect our interests. The face of aggression may have changed but it is still very real, and no Government can afford to ignore it. It is not, therefore, viable to contemplate a reduction in manpower in the Defence Forces, and it is certainly not viable to proceed without a strategic plan, as the Government is bent on doing.

While I welcome the review of the Defence Forces in so far as it recognises some of the problems affecting the ability of the forces to meet their commitments, I cannot agree with the thrust of what is going on. No one disagrees that it is high time for change. However, for change to be effective it must embrace all the vital elements, fit into a strategic plan which is out in the open, transparent and capable of being understood and managed by members of the Defence Forces, covering the full period of the reform programme. Structures, personnel, equipment and infrastructure are the vital components, and a true sketch of changes proposed and their impact must be charted immediately. There can be no hidden agenda.

This Government is obviously not adopting an open approach. There is clearly no detailed planning in the area of organisational structures and personnel models, even though these have to be married successfully to current realities if the reform process is to succeed.

I accept that many of the underlying problems we face today did not grow up overnight. Here I cite an extract from "Defence '96" prepared by a group of retired military officers:

The failure of successive Governments to tackle the problem of defence in any meaningful way has led to many of the current problems in the Defence Forces. These problems were caused by piecemeal decisions at Government or departmental level, for example, the cancellation of recruiting, reduction in strength of 30 per cent of establishment. These decisions in turn have had a knock on effect leading to the average age of soldiers being too high, soldiers on security duties working very long hours, inability to undertake sub-unit and unit collective training, lack of sufficient up-to-date equipment, the imbalance of 80:20 between pay and resources.

Successive Governments stand indicted on the non-implementation of a constant recruitment drive. This starvation has been disastrous for the Army in terms of age profile, career development, promotional opportunity, etc. In fairness to the military personnel, many of the current problems were outlined by them but ignored by the Oireachtas. Fundamental problems such as age profile which is too high, organisational duplication, inadequate equipment and the imbalance between pay and non-pay at 80:20 which is far too high are undoubtedly all there. Many of the matters which have been highlighted in the Price Waterhouse review were well known and documented by military commanders, but they had not the power to institute change when the requirement was first identified. The old saying "a stitch in time saves nine" was not heeded. The problems are now compounded, will take longer to resolve and may well cost more money.

Some of the pressures would be eased if, in the first instance, the implementation group would clarify the type and nature of the force they believe is required for the future. There is general agreement that the force should be a conventional all-arms one with a light infantry-based element and that it should have a high degree of mobility and a capacity for rapid deployment. However, huge questions remain to be answered as to what is actually involved in these terms. Detailed information on these aspects is essential so that the working groups can do their work effectively. We must know at the outset the type and nature of the force in order to design a logistics system. Equally, the team dealing with personnel needs to know the mix of unit types the force will have before it can determine proper personnel arrangements, the ranks and the skills required.

Here we are in the first phase of implementation and a fleshed-out concept of the type of force which is intended has not been articulated. There is no plan, no mission, just a hotchpotch of stop-go measures which are the hallmark of past mistakes. We have had leaks, statements, counter-statements, denials. This House is entitled, and members of the Defence Forces have the right, to know the details of what is envisaged for them in the future. For any review to be successful, it is vital that the Defence Forces take ownership of the change process and be fully committed to its success. We live in an age where consensus is the order of the day — great minds think alike. Participation by those who must plan and implement decisions is vital. Not nearly enough is happening in this area, and this can lead to endless frustration.

This is not only my view, it is the view of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers. To prove my point let me quote from their presentation to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security on 30 April last:

The manner in which the Implementation Group carried out its work had an extremely negative effect on officers. In the aftermath of the Goverment decision the previous July, officers had been optimistic and confident regarding the future of the Defence Forces and eager to participate in shaping the organisation of the future. However, they now felt that the Implementation Group had excluded them from real involvement in the process and this had a major negative impact on the professional self-esteem of all officers. To them it reflected a low evaluation by their military and civilian superiors of their professionalism, skills and commitment to Defence Forces. The damage which this did to the morale of the Officer Corps should not be under estimated.

This lack of communication and involvement was compounded by the continuous leaks to the media concerning elements of the review, which led to a great degree of uncertainty among the members of the Forces and had a serious negative effect upon their morale. This resulted in a situation where officers became extremely suspicious of the motivation behind the process and where they began to view it as "something which is being done to them", rather than something which is positive and with which they are intimately and vitally involved. In short, the Implementation Group failed to achieve the single most important ingredient for successful change — i.e. ownership of the process by those who must implement it.

The failure to produce an Overall Strategic Plan added greatly to the uncertainty felt by officers regarding the future of the Defence Forces. The plan concentrates on the area of structure/personnel which will, in the main, impact negatively on members of the Forces and includes only brief references to the positive areas (for officers as professionals) of equipment and infrastructure/facilities. Officers consider that it will be difficult to maintain the momentum for charge beyond the first phase, particularly when the matters to be dealt with in the later phases involve additional expenditure, rather than overall savings as in phase one. The experience of the period during which the Implementation Group was preparing its plan led to a high degree of scepticism among the members of the Officer Corps regarding the level of commitment to positive reform of the Defence Forces which exists outside the Forces and regarding what is the "real agenda" of the process. The belief that the process had been hijacked by those who see it solely as an opportunity to achieve financial cuts and savings in the short-term and who have no interest in the long-term well being of the Defence Forces became widespread among officers.

On the closure of barracks and lack of transparency in the Government in dealing with this vital issue. I do not have time this evening to go into the importance of Army barracks, particularly in small towns, where householders have had an opportunity to integrate with local communities and become involved in their cultural, sporting and other activities. Since it appears the Minister is under the impression that, whenever we raise this issue, we are endeavouring to cause problems and annoyance without any justification I will quote a further extract from the position paper of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security at its meeting held on 30 April last, page 16 under the heading "Logistical Support — Existing Barracks/Facilities". It reads:

It is implicit in the Government's statement of 3 July 1995 on the matter of facilities that the Implementaton Group was required to ensure that the Plan put forward provided for the maintaining of all current facilities pending an eventual decision on the matter by Government. However, RACO's analysis of the Implementation Group's plan for Phase 1 clearly indicates that it is based on the assumption that approximately eight of our existing barracks/posts will close.

The logistics structures proposed by the Group are, we understand, designed to allow the operational units to operate independently in the field and to provide a barrack housekeeping structure which does not impair this ability. The Group proposes a "Camp Staff" section in the Logistics Battalion of each Brigade to provide this structure. This staff would provide personnel to support barracks and units in a number of areas including fuel, energy and utilities, clothing the soft ordnance, building maintenance and furnishings, and rations, cooking and dining. However, it is clear that this Camp Staff element is insufficient to meet the needs of all existing barracks/posts. Indeed, during a briefing by the Co-ordinating Committee of the Working Groups in December 1995, RACO was informed that this staff was designed to maintain only five barracks per Brigade, thus confirming the results of the Association's own analysis in this area.

The association fully accepts that there is no mention of the closure of facilities in the Group's report. Equally we fully accept the assurances the Minister for Defence has personally given in this regard. However, the Association is absolutely satisfied that the Group's proposals in respect of "Camp Staffs" will, if implemented, mean that the review of facilities when it takes place will inevitably conclude that up to eight barracks cannot be supported. This, of course would provide a strong argument for their closure.

I want the Minister to clarify these matters this evening because it is not good enough to say closures will not take place during the first phase of the implementation plan. I have said time and time again that such decisions are being put off in the hope of a future Government having to take them.

This is a time for consensus, for being open and frank about what is proposed for the future of the Defence Forces. There is much cynicism about politicians, including Ministers, to which we add when we do not face up to realities. For example, the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, said in an interview on "Morning Ireland" that there will be closures and 24 hours later he said the opposite, that there would not be closures during the implementation of the first phase.

It is now time to call a spade a spade, to say exactly what will happen in the term of the plan, thus letting communities know whether barracks located in their areas will close. It is clear from what commissioned officers have said — and they accept the Minister's word that nothing will happen during the first phase — that it will be impossible, on the basis of the staffing levels proposed, to maintain present numbers.

There is no career structure for enlisted personnel in the Defence Forces. It is crucial for the morale of the force that their terms of pay, conditions of service, career development and social needs be protected and developed. Under the proposed manpower policy career development must be realistic, rewarding and capable of fulfilling the individual career aspirations of our soldiers.

The criteria for promotion and extension of service have not been dealt with adequately either by the Gleeson report or in the implementation plan. Because of the uncertainty it is very important that we deal with these issues now.

Chapter Seven of the submission document of PDFORRA to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security dated 16 April 1996 under the heading "Manpower Policy" reads as follows:

PDFORRA considers that the Government's position that the age profile of all ranks of the Defence Forces is the overriding problem needing to be addressed under proposed manpower models is flawed and that it does not stand the test of in-depth analysis.

Lack of proper performance appraisal particularly for the private soldier, a job description, physical, military and general education criteria for promotion and extension of service are more contributory to the perceived shortcomings of members of the Defence Forces than a rising age profile.

To suggest that a soldier who does not reach the rank of corporal within 5 years or a sergeant within 12 years should be discontinued in service even though he has proved an excellent soldier is contradictory. The emphasis on addressing the age profile has more relevance in the manpower models for enlisted infantry soldiers than for enlisted technicians and for commissioned officers. The retention in service for longer periods of the latter two categories is based on a return for investment but is inconsistent and contradicts the stated necessity of letting infantry Privates go after five years and infantry Corporals after 12 years to avail of a recurrence of increasing the ageprofile. An officer it appears can serve in all cases to over 50 years of age while enlisted personnel who are technicians from Private up to Sergeant rank can serve for 21 years.

PDFORRA's position is that once an individual can function satisfactorily based on a job description, age becomes secondary.

Present members of the Defence Forces have served loyally and with distinction particularly whilst undergoing United Nations missions

The criteria for promotion and continuance in service under which they enlisted has been met otherwise they would not be serving.

The capping of service in the rank on future promotion for existing enlisted personnel is also a change in conditions of service and inconsistent with the Voluntary Early Retirement offer.

Serving personnel should they not be selected or avail of VER may at a future date be faced with redundancy under these proposals. PDFORRA has never been at any time consulted on this proposition prior to the release of the Government Implementation Plan.

The so-called 1994 intake of contract soldiers who are three years into their term do not yet have a proper performance appraisal or criteria and will be interviewed before a board for selection for continuance in service. It will be very difficult for such a board to be objective. Under the present restrictions on promotion in an army undergoing troop cuts and reorganisation they do not have a reasonable expectation to be promoted in fair competition.

Female infantry soldiers in operational units have their opportunities for promotions severely curtailed as they are prevented by a decision of the military authorities from serving below company HQ level whilst on service with the United Nations in South Lebanon. A good overseas performance appraisal rating is essential for promotion.

The Minister and I, as members of the Select Committee on Security and Legislation, have had a good opportunity to touch briefly on the five year contract. While most people agree the contract is a good arrangement, it is presenting problems that need to be overcome. It is very important that it is indicated at this stage what changes are possible in the five year contract. It was argued in committee discussions that it takes up to three years to train a soldier and, whether it takes three years and six months or more, it is very important that the country has access to the most highly qualified and active soldiers in the Department of Defence. For that reason I propose the following options; to indicate that it will be possible to increase the length of the planned period of contract or that significant numbers will be offered a second contract.

Where the State has made an investment in the skills and training of highly motivated people who have served with the United Nations, it is important that they have better career opportunities than the proposed five year contract gives them. No one wants to return to a situation where age profile difficulties will arise, however no one wants to frustrate the career opportunities for highly trained and motivated soldiers. Fianna Fáil on its return to office intends to do something positive about this and will ensure that significantly greater numbers of those who have satisfactorily completed their contracts will have an opportunity to accept another contract.

The Minister is providing for an in-depth study of the Naval Service, the Air Corps, the Reserve Defence Forces, civilianisation, equipment and military accommodation. Does he believe it is possible to implement the first phase of this plan successfully without knowing what the studies will throw up? Does he intend to have these studies completed very quickly? Will the plan be put in abeyance in some instances until the studies produce information which will enable him to proceed? It is crucial that one or other of those options is taken.

The Naval Service requires very special attention. I suggest that the implementation plan for the Naval Service should be put in abeyance until the study has been completed. It is important that the study must not be conditioned by the process that has developed so far. The Naval Service was not represented on the study group and hence many of its special requirements were not even adverted to. The Naval Service has no fear that an honest assessment of its special circumstances will not bring forward recommendations for increased personnel and equipment.

It is absolutely crucial that the implementation group in its endeavours to reduce numbers in the Defence Forces gives special consideration to the Naval Service. It is clear that the defence role of the Naval Service should be enhanced and that better equipment should be available to it to discharge these functions.

It is clear that its non military role creates the greater problems for the Naval Service. As a maritime nation with a massive coastline to protect, including fishery protection, enforcement of maritime law, drug interdiction and rescue, the Naval Service is not equipped in terms of facilities or personnel to discharge these responsibilities and can only provide a fire brigade service for the area of 132,000 square miles. It is unspeakable to think that the implementation group would further reduce these hopelessly inadequate resources.

The Departments of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Finance are also involved in the context of the growing demands on the Naval Service in a number of vital areas. An essential part of its work is combating and intercepting drug barons and intermediaries on their way to this country. The resources are not adequate to do this job properly. It is clear that the Naval Service will require much greater autonomy in these areas which have a token defence element in the traditional meaning of the word. Fianna Fáil will see to it that substantial changes are made with greater autonomy in management and more dedicated resources to meet those tasks. Recruitment and proper career development is vital to ensure that this capacity is developed. Why are staff in the Naval Service leaving it faster than any other arm of the Defence Forces? Clearly because they are understaffed and badly equipped.

It is estimated that up to two billion fish are raked from our seas each year as the Spanish and other fleets continue vacuuming our coastal waters because of inadequate supervision of logging. It is clear that resources have to be provided in this area. The introduction of the Casa aircraft, welcome as it is, is only throwing up how inadequate the Naval Service is to meet those demands. It is estimated that more than 20 per cent of the trawlers that are boarded are logging the fish species incorrectly and are driving a coach and four through EU fishery laws. I am told that it can take up to two hours for the Naval Service to board and inspect a ship which means that it is not possible to board any more than two or three ships each day. All of the surveillance and intelligence indicates that ships from other countries are raking the Irish box. Surely it is crucial in the context of the implementation of the first phase of this plan that we do not go down the road of reducing still further its capacity in the light of the problems in that area.

The FCA has been virtually rubbished in the Price Waterhouse report which proposes to reduce the numbers from 16,000 to a little more than 7,000. The FCA reserves need to have meaningful involvement with the Minister and his Department on what will happen to them in the future. Surely it is possible for the Minister to indicate to the FCA during its jubilee celebrations that he will not accept its virtual rubbishing. The reserves have been available to ensure an immediate supply of voluntary service throughout the country. The FCA has been able to continue to recruit young girls and boys in spite of all the difficulties they have had to overcome in recent times. They have perpetuated the Force in remarkable circumstances. It is critical that Fianna Fáil is in a position to say that it does not have any intention of accepting the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report to massively reduce the numbers in the Force, which is unacceptable and unnecessary. I do not know if anybody has quantified in terms of financial resources the meagre amount provided for first and second line reserves over a long time against the benefits to the community gained from the voluntary service of young people who risk their health and take other risks to provide that service. It is time we recognised that service and rejected the proposals in the Price Waterhouse report.

We have heard welcome proposals about the Army Band and the Army Equitation School. In the limited time available I want to deal briefly with some of the more pertinent problems concerning the five year contract, career development and the lack of promotional opportunities. Fianna Fáil will produce a White Paper on Defence in the first year it is next in office. This paper will charter a course for the Defence Forces well into the next century. It will be open and transparent. It will focus on what a real army should be doing, training, education, equipment, infrastructure and the resources necessary to implement such a charter. Fianna Fáil will indicate that any savings made as a result of the proposed changes will be ploughed back into the Department of Defence and into facilities and equipment for Defence Forces personnel. We will review the five year contract with a view to ensuring that greater numbers can avail of an extended contract. I hope that the patriotic public service, loyalty and discipline which the State has enjoyed from the Defence Forces, on which it could depend in every crisis, will be recognised, that we will respond to their needs by solving some of the present problems and that we will not take that loyalty for granted at any stage in the future.

As Deputy Smith said, the review of the role and operation of the Defence Forces is vital and is to be welcomed. The recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report are excessive and have created many problems. The key question ultimately is one of credibility and trust between the Minister and the Army. Anybody who has taken an interest in this issue will be aware that the present position has a negative effect on Army morale and is a cause for concern.

I am pleased Deputy Smith has given an undertaking of what Fianna Fáil intends to do concerning the Defence Forces when it is next in Government. The White Paper will be helpful, will set out clearly what is intended and will give the Defence Forces a status they deserve but frequently do not receive.

We must be aware that Army personnel, their wives and families are greatly concerned about the present position. Given the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report, they are concerned about whether there is a hidden agenda. Anyone who heard them being interviewed on the radio today or on other occasions would be aware their concern is real. They appear to be seeking fairly minimal undertakings which are not forthcoming. That leads them to believe that there must be something more sinister afoot. They are particularly concerned about the position of personnel who have health-related problems, the location and continued existence of barracks and a number of personnel have requested written confirmation that they have a future in the Army. There would not seem to be any major difficulties concerning those requests but difficulties arise in that they have not been granted.

It is virtually impossible to ascertain the Government's intention concerning the location, closure and upgrading of barracks. That is a cause of extreme concern among Defence Forces personnel. The representative bodies, PDFORRA and RACO were born out of unrest in the Defence Forces over a long period. Some of that unrest came to light before the Minister came to office, but his handling of the matter, particularly in recent days, has been most unhelpful. These bodies have a role to play and should be properly consulted. It is shocking that developments have taken place in recent weeks without consulting those bodies which have a mandate to represent their members. The refusal to give them access to what the Government has approved is a recipe for disaster. Deputy Smith made a constructive contribution in that regard. He outlined a large number of problems, some major but many of them relatively minor, which could be addressed to the satisfaction of the Department and Army personnel concerned.

There is a misunderstanding and lack of appreciation among the public of the pride soldiers take in serving their country. That is understandable in times of peace but there are times when their service is required and their role is more obvious. I am sure we all hope we will never see those times again. Nevertheless, account must be taken of their role. We have become very sceptical and have a jaundiced view of virtually every other profession, and probably politicians suffer most. Journalists, lawyers, teachers, farmers and others are misunderstood by every other group and soldiers are no different in that respect. They have served the country exceptionally well. At every level there is pride in the role played by Irish UN peacekeepers in various locations. They deserve recognition inside and outside this House. Recognition of their contribution outside the House is commendable and is deserved, but it must also be recognised in their terms and conditions of service, rates of pay and the manner in which they are treated under this review.

The numbers opting for early retirement are more than double the number required. We must question that message. Does it reflect the morale in the Defence Forces? This gives rise to a practical question of whether all those persons will be accommodated. Financial provision is available to accommodate 500 people, but many more want to leave the Defence Forces. They may wish to leave for constructive reasons, but I cannot help suspecting that they have taken a long-term view of the Government's attitude to the Defence Forces, decided there is not a role for them, that the career they entered, most likely for life, does not exist and the best option is to avail of what is on offer in the short-term and seek to make a living in a different milieu.

If members of the representative bodies of the Defence Forces were to consider the manner in which the Government has handled the contract for the executive jet for the duration of the EU Presidency they would be concerned about a lack of transparency in the Department of Defence. They would be extremely worried about the way this affair was handled. If they were to judge from the experience of Westair, they would have every reason to be worried. When I gave the Minister of State an opportunity on a recent Adjournment Debate to answer specific questions, he gave a treatise on Ireland's role in the EU Presidency and particularly avoided the difficult questions about the shabby treatment of an Irish company and the handling of Government contracts.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "that" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann,

—commends the Government for its continuing support for the process of reforming the Defence Forces;

—supports the Government's policy of implementing the recommendations of the Efficiency Audit Group in a planned and phased manner; and

—approves the approach adopted by the Minister for Defence in drawing up the implementation plan for the first three year phase of the reform programme."

This debate enables me to deal once again with some of the issues which have given rise to misconceptions and worries surrounding the Efficiency Audit Group process in so far as it affects the Defence Forces. The Government has embarked on a major reform of the Defence Forces, aimed at increasing its efficiency and effectiveness and streamlining its structures and organisation. Before dealing with the reform process which is now taking place, it is important to look at the need for the present review of the Defence Forces. The report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces, the Gleeson report, highlighted a number of shortcomings in the organisation and structure 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 a changed international environment, the then 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, hitherto the primary role. Furthermore, it had been apparent for some time to all concerned that the rising age profile of the Defence Forces would cause problems if it was not addressed in a co-ordinated and meaningful manner.

Against a background of general acceptance, not least by the Defence Forces, that reform of the military organisation was necessary, it was decided to ask the Efficiency Audit Group to conduct a review of the structure and organisation. 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 military expertise, senior officers of the Defence Forces were involved at every stage of the selection process. The selected firm, Price Waterhouse, provided a team which included Major-General Lewis Makenzie, retired, 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 competance to conduct the review. It is very important to emphasise that the review was not just carried out by management consultants but by a team of consultants which included vastly experienced military personnel who were regarded by our Defence Forces has having the expertise necessary to carry out the review.

Last year the Government announced its response to the report of the Efficiency Audit Group and published a document detailing the EAG report and setting out the Government's approach to the reorganisation. The Government established an implementation group to draw up a fully costed development plan for the Defence Forces setting out the measures to be undertaken during the first three years of the reform process. I expect the entire reform process to take about ten years to complete.

The plan, with which the military authorities are in full agreement, was approved by the Government last March. This plan is essentially strategic in nature and sets out the parameters and objectives within which the reform of the Defence Forces will take place. It does not go into the fine detail of the new organisation or structure, nor would it be appropriate to do so at this stage.

At all stages throughout this process of reform I have been at pains to ensure that the representative associations and the personnel whom they represent are kept fully informed of all developments as they happen. I have met representatives of both the Representative Association for Commissioned Officers, RACO, and the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks' Representative Association PDFORRA, on six separate occasions in the last year, to hear their opinions and discuss with them my own views and those of the Government. I took the unusual step, on 3 July 1995, of coming straight from the Cabinet Room and meeting representatives of both associations to brief them on the specifics of the Government decision which had just been taken concerning the reorganisation of the Defence Forces.

Nobody denies the need for urgent and real reform of the Defence Forces. The problems highlighted by the Efficiency Audit Group did not come as a surprise. With the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission being implemented following its report in 1990, many thought then that the Defence Forces were going through their period of greatest change. Now, with the implementation of the Efficiency Audit Group's recommendations, a period of even greater change is taking place. While I have every confidence that the adaptability displayed by all personnel of the Permanent Defence Force to the initiatives of the Gleeson Commission will be continued in the way the organisation as a whole addresses and responds to the challenges of the new Efficiency Audit Group reforms, it is of great importance that the representative associations and personnel of the Defence Forces should take ownership of this process of reform rather than regard it as something which has been imposed on them. Participation in the process of change by the representative associations, which represent the vast majority of personnel of the Defence Force, will guarantee its successful implementation.

The representative associations have been repeatedly promised consultation on all aspects of the implementation plan. Consultation and discussions have taken place under the auspices of the Defence Forces Conciliation Council, the most appropriate forum in which to deal with any issues which either side may wish to raise. I have told the associations on a number of occasions that there is a certain degree of flexibility in the way the plan will be implemented, and I stand by this statement. I have received position papers from the associations in which their views are clearly set out and these opinions are being given detailed consideration in my Department at present.

While it would, of course, be preferable to reach agreement with the associations on every issue which is in contention at present, I am realistic enough to realise that such a scenario is unlikely. It would be disingenuous of me, therefore, to pretend, both sides having discussed an issue from every conceivable angle and been unable to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, that I can abdicate my responsibility to carry out plans and decisions made by Government that are in the national interest. There are hard decisions to be made and I will not shirk from my responsibilities where they are concerned. That said, I am convinced that it will be possible to reach an accommodation with the representative associations on a wide range of issues.

The seriously unbalanced age-rank profile of the PDF identified by the Gleeson Commission and, more recently, the subject of severe criticism by Price Waterhouse, the consultants engaged by the Efficiency Audit Group to carry out the detailed review of the Defence Forces, has also been of serious concern to the military authorities for a number of years. In an effort to improve the situation, the previous Fianna Fáilled Government decided in 1993 to enlist personnel on a five year contract basis. Full implementation of the five year contract policy is central to the Government's plans for the Defence Forces.

The Minister was very critical of that at the time.

I want to make it clear that the Defence Forces exist to carry out specific tasks assigned by Government in a professional military manner. In turn, the Government will implement best practice procedures in relation to its manpower policy and act reasonably in the interests of those it employs while at the same time getting a square deal for the taxpayer.

In deciding to enlist personnel on a five year contract basis, careful consideration was given to the position of those personnel as well as to the requirements of the force. The Permanent Defence Force requires a high turnover in the rank of private, particularly in infantry and other operational units. Soldiering is, I am sure Deputies will accept, primarily a young persons' activity. All who are taken in cannot expect to have a lifetime career and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

I consider it infinitely preferable for non-career personnel to be enlisted for a fixed period of five years in the knowledge that they will return to the job market at a time when they are still young and in a position to benefit from the skills, self-discipline and character formation associated with service in the Defence Forces than for them to eventually fail to meet fitness or job suitability criteria and be returned to the employment market at a time later in life, when they probably will have serious financial commitments, a family to support and they are less employable. I also intend to introduce short service commissions for some officers to prevent a recurrence of the current situation where there are too many senior and not enough junior officers.

To facilitate turnover in the ranks and to open the possibility of recruitment to address the age profile, while at the same time catering for the need, following the Government decision, to reduce the size of the Defence Forces, a voluntary early retirement scheme has been introduced. The scheme opened last month and can be regarded as an outstanding success as it is considerably oversubscribed already. This scheme will allow the retirement of 2,300 Permanent Defence Force personnel over the next three years. It is entirely voluntary and there is no obligation on anyone to either apply for or accept early retirement. In the context of the superannuation arrangements which apply in the Permanent Defence Force, such as entitlement to pension and gratuity at a relatively young age, the terms of the scheme are commensurate with those offered in other areas of the public sector. Personnel who avail of the scheme will receive a pension and gratuity, if they are qualified to do so by the length of service, and will also receive a tax free severance gratuity.

A comprehensive support system has been put in place for those considering voluntary early retirement to facilitate an easy transition to civilian life, whether in further employment or retirement. Those who wish to take up further employment will be provided with assistance in identifying and marketing their skills in the labour market and helping them search for employment, if that is what they wish to do. A firm of outside consultants, which specialises in this area, has been engaged by my Department to assist in the provision of these services. This is another area where there were comprehensive consultations with the associations and where it proved possible to take some of their proposals on board.

There has been a great deal of worry in the Defence Forces that if personnel do not take voluntary early retirement they will be made redundant. I cannot over-emphasise that no serving member of the Permanent Defence Force will be made redundant by reason of manpower policy or a necessity to reduce numbers. I repeat that the scheme is entirely voluntary. There is no intention to change the manner of implementation of Defence Force regulations where continuance in service is concerned and paragraph 5.20 of the implementation plan will not be given effect as a means of reducing the manpower levels of the Permanent Defence Force at some future date. I gave a commitment to both associations to this effect and I will adhere to it.

I wish to address another manpower issue, capping service in the ranks. The implementation plan contains a proposal that personnel should not be allowed serve longer than a particular fixed period in any one rank. This is an important proposal which has implications for movement in the ranks and for reducing the age profile of all ranks. However, I understand the proposal is causing concern to certain personnel who see it as a diminution of their conditions of service. Personnel serving in a particular rank at present will not suddenly be forced to retire earlier than they had anticipated because of the implementation of this proposal. They will retain their posts in their present ranks and can serve to the retirement ages laid down now, subject to their meeting the normal criteria regarding health and conduct.

In so far as serving personnel are concerned the proposal will only have an effect if they are offered and accept promotion with the concomitant increase in remuneration. The specifics of these proposals have not yet been decided and the representative associations have been told they will be negotiated with them, with a view to reaching agreement, before a decision is taken.

There has been an inordinate amount of speculation regarding the closure of barracks. I reiterate that the Government has not decided to close any barracks and the subject is not on the Government agenda. As well as having regard to the needs of the Defence Forces, the Government is conscious of the social and economic implications which the closure of a barracks would have for any area. The redesigned structures will minimise the amount of administrative and housekeeping work to be done by the Permanent Defence Force and maximise the force's ability to carry out its operational tasks.

The Naval Service and the Air Corps perform some of the tasks which are central to the redefined roles of the Defence Forces. I have already given a firm commitment that I will not leave the Naval Service or the Air Corps in a position in which they would not have adequate manpower for the running and maintenance of ships and aircraft.

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 the Air Corps have seen considerable growth and development. With the new arrangements on fishery control measures introduced this year, the workload of the Naval Service and the Air Corps is increasing. Some time ago we reached agreement on the new EU fisheries surveillance package which, for the first time, includes an element of funding for operational costs for Ireland.

The continuing success of the Naval Service in fishery protection, in search and rescue and its important role in dealing with pollution threats and the illegal importation of drugs has resulted in a much more widespread appreciation of the outstanding work it performs. The Air Corps performs vitally important functions in search and rescue, air ambulance, security operations and, from time to time, it assists in nonmilitary operations, such as the relief of distress in emergencies arising from natural disasters.

Recognising the diversity of tasks performed by the Naval Service and the Air Corps, the Government, on my recommendation, decided that, as an integral part of the process of implementing the recommendations of the efficiency audit group, separate in-depth studies should be carried out on their structure and organisation. These studies will be undertaken by the efficiency audit group and I understand the group hopes to place a contract with consultants to carry out the detailed work within the next two weeks. The consultants will be required to have experts in the maritime and aviation fields as part of their team.

I wish to make special mention of the valuable role that the FCÁ and An Slua Muirí play in the life of the community. Their members are part of what are, in effect, voluntary organisations. They must possess high levels of motivation and commitment as they pursue other careers while devoting their spare time at evenings and weekends to training. The contribution these personnel make to the life of our communities is considerable. It is recognised and valued throughout the country and by the Government.

The Reserve Defence Forces will be subjected to examination by the efficiency audit group, but phase 1 of the implementation process is concentrating on the structure and organisation of the Permanent Defence Force. The Reserve will be looked at in a later phase. It would be incongruous to start looking at the organisation of the Reserve without first addressing the Permanent Defence Force structure which is inextricably linked to it. Deputy Killeen raised the question of reducing the strength of the FCÁ or Reserve to 7,000 as recommended in the Price Waterhouse report. Lest there be any misunderstanding, it is important to make the point that this recommendation has not been accepted by the Government or the implementation group.

I have already met members of the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association and discussed aspects of the efficiency audit group's review with them. As we progress in a later stage to a more detailed examination of the Reserve, there will be full consultation with the representative body, as has happened in the case of the associations representing members of the Permanent Defence Force.

This review is not a cost cutting exercise. It is not being carried out in order to produce a programme of cut-backs and closures. What I and the Government want at the end of this whole process is to have an organisation that is best suited for the discharge of the roles assigned to it. A key objective in the exercise is to release more personnel for operational duties. I know that this is what the military personnel themselves want.

The military authorities have taken possession of this plan and are running with it. They have seized the opportunity which has been presented to them to modernise and shape their own structure and organisation for the future. What will be achieved at the end of the exercise is a modern, efficient organisation, staffed, accommodated and equipped to fulfil the roles assigned to them by Government in a manner which will provide value for money. This objective is in the national interest; it is in the interest of the Defence Forces themselves and it is an objective which I am confident is supported by all sides of the House.

I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. In the limited time available I wish to highlight a number of points about which I feel very strongly as a former member of the Defence Forces in which I served at every rank for over 29 years. Although everything may not be hunky-dory and there will always be problems in many barracks which have been neglected for over a decade, one can see the transformation which has taken place in the Defence Forces. These changes were initiated by Paddy Donegan while I was a serving member at Dundalk Aiken Barracks at a time when the Defence Forces were in a far worse condition. He provided more resources for the Defence Forces than any of his predecessors. The Minister is following in his footsteps. I have no problem in saying that or supporting him.

I hope he does not take the same direction.

I am horrified at the manner in which the negotiations are being conducted on this important and serious matter. They are being conducted through the national media by leaks, innuendo and insults. Serving members have insulted the Minister, the man responsible for the reorganisation of the Defence Forces. This is due to a lack of knowledge, experience and negotiating skills at national level.

A national trade union official — I had that honour — would not insult his boss before entering negotiations with him. On the contrary, he would wait until a deal had been negotiated before saying anything to his members or the media. It seems the horse is being put before the cart every time. I ask the representative bodies, PDFORRA in particular, to desist. I do not think any Minister could sit back and consistently take the insults. The Minister has been called on to resign in the middle of negotiations on a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces.

As the Minister said, no one is being forced to accept the early retirement package. All serving members of the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps can continue until they reach retirement age; they will not be forced out. This is not an option open to most workers. During the week over 300 people in Dundalk were told overnight that they were to lose their jobs without any chance to negotiate. They will not be offered a package similar to the one on offer to members of the Defence Forces. They will be lucky if they receive a pittance and certainly will not have a substantial pension.

Most workers who are made redundant cannot avail of a pension scheme and will be lucky if they receive their statutory redundancy payments. I have dealt with thousands of workers who had to claim these payments from the redundancy fund. We should, therefore, call a halt and take a long hard look at what is happening. Every worker should have the opportunity to decide whether to stay on whenever a redundancy or early retirement package is announced in the industrial and services sectors but the majority are not given that opportunity.

This process was not initiated by the Minister or the Government but by Deputy Andrews who was followed by Brendan Daly, now a Senator, with whom I had many discussions as my party's spokesperson at the time, as I had with the late Brian Lenihan who pioneered the Bill through the Dáil. A good job was done both by him and the Opposition. This Minister did not dream it up.

There is a most important point which seems to have been forgotten and ignored time and again by spokespersons of the Defence Forces. The Price Waterhouse report set down three options. Since the Minister has gone for the preferred option of the military, I do not know what people are talking about. It is almost as if somebody in the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and Democratic Left plucked this out of the sky. However, it was carefully negotiated and submitted following consultation at every stage of the process on behalf of all members of the Defence Forces, including the Air Corps and the Naval Service.

The people involved, the officers and senior ranks, did a good job because they recognise, like every section of the Defence Forces, the need for reorganisation. At some stage every organisation has to be reorganised and this presents problems. It is for the people involved to negotiate with skill, patience and knowledge to resolve them.

The Minister is flexible. When a sub-committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party under my chairmanship made it clear to him that it would not be a party to barrack closures he had no hesitation in giving us that guarantee.

The Minister or his predecessor?

The Minister. I issued a statement and notified every unit of the Defence Forces to this effect. There will be no barrack closures during the term of office of this Government.

May I share my time with Deputy O'Hanlon?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It gives me and my colleague, Deputy Michael Smith, great pleasure to put down this motion. The Defence Forces have been under great scrutiny during the past few years. While some changes have taken place, greater change has yet to come. We have not given defence matters the priority they deserve. Even at Question Time we must divide time between the Marine and Defence which leaves little time to discuss the serious issues.

I was born and reared in County Kildare, a county which has benefited enormously from the Army. For many years members of the Defence Forces have played an important part in the social, cultural and sporting life of the county. Their presence has also been of enormous benefit to the economy of County Kildare. However, it is not the only county to have had this honour and privilege. Many towns fortunate enough to have had an Army presence have also enjoyed these socio-economic benefits. This has helped to create an appreciation for the members of our Defence Forces. I have always had the greatest respect for the Army; it could be depended on when the chips were down. There could never be any doubt about its commitment, dedication and, above all, loyalty.

Unfortunately, this loyalty was taken for granted. Looking back to the late 1980s when there was a serious crisis in the Defence Forces, the Government did not realise there was a problem until the Army wives took to the streets in protest. It took the participation of candidates in the general election at that time before the grievances were understood. It does not give me any pleasure to make this point, but it is the truth.

Much progress has been made since. The setting up of the representative associations for members of the Defence Forces was a welcome move. For the first time members had a say in planning their futures. I would like to pay tribute to the late Brian Lenihan for his enormous contribution to our Defence Forces. He took over at a time when morale was low and he succeeded in providing major improvements in remuneration and conditions for members of the Defence Forces. He also restored morale and gave members a new pride in their work. We can all be grateful to Brian for his ingenuity in diffusing what was at that time a delicate situation.

Since 1989 the Defence Forces have been scrutinised from every angle. Great keenness was shown in the Gleeson report because for many it was seen as providing the answers to the problems which existed at that time. The review of the Defence Forces undertaken by the efficiency audit group has proved to be very different. While nobody can doubt the widespread agreement on the need to restructure our Defence Forces, there is a fear in the forces that this process will become a cost cutting exercise. That fear has been well founded.

The review presented the Government with a wonderful opportunity to address many issues in the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps but that opportunity is being squandered. The redefinition of roles was necessary and reflected the changes not only on the international scene but on the home front. I supported the review of the Defence Forces because it was necessary. In any business, it is always important to review operations and to look back to see where changes can be made. I felt that a plan properly implemented and supported by the representative organisations would solve some of the problems which exist in the forces, namely, equipment, infrastructure, rising age profile, etc.

The efficiency audit group engaged Price Waterhouse which drew up a plan for the Defence Forces with the help of military expertise. This in turn led to the publication by the Government of the report of the implementation group. From the word go, this Government has not been honest about its real plans. If we look back to one of the first interviews given by the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, it is easy to understand why members have become so sceptical of the process. The former Minister was forced to go on air following the leaking of the Price Waterhouse report. As other Deputies said, these leaks resulted in an unhealthy atmosphere and created a lot of the problems. During that interview the former Minister stated clearly that barracks would close. Predictably, there was an outcry about the possibility of barrack closures. Within 24 hours his mind was changed and he issued a statement insisting that there would be no closure during the first three years of the reform process. One thing which annoys me about politicians is their inability to give bad news. Any Minister will accept that for every bit of good news they give, they must also give bad news. The emphasis is now on public relations, perception has become more important than reality.

Anyone who took the trouble to read the review of our Defence Forces will have recognised that the biggest political decision facing any Minister for Defence is the closure of barracks. I wish to refer to the Minister's contribution to the Defence Estimates debate last week. He said the efficiency audit group review was part of a process aimed at doing just that and that the objective of such an examination must be to enhance efficiency and effectiveness to ensure that in the years ahead the public continue to be served by professional, disciplined, well trained and appropriately organised and effective personnel. Can this be achieved by keeping all barracks open?

Does the Deputy want to close them?

The Minister has dodged that question, although he said earlier he would not shirk responsibility. He has refused to answer the biggest political question.

I have answered it.

Although the previous Minister was only in office for about 24 hours, he was honest enough to tell us that there would be barrack closures.

How many times do I have to tell the Deputy there will be no barrack closures?

The Minister said there will be no barrack closures for three years.

A Government decision does not allow for any barrack closures.

The implementation plan will take ten years. A Minister said one day there would be closures but the next day he said there would be none.

The Deputy would like a few closures.

The lack of a long-term strategy has caused great uncertainty among members and their families. There is a serious morale problem in the Forces.

The Deputy is trying to create it.

Last week the Chief of Staff wrote to members. He admitted that he is trying to defuse the morale problem in the Defence Forces.

During last week's debate on the Estimates the Minister said:

The plan is essentially strategic in nature and sets out the parameters and objectives within which the reform of the Defence Forces will take place. It does not attempt to go into the fine detail. This will be worked out at a later stage when all current relevant factors can be taken into account.

Surely there has been enough assessment of the Defence Forces to work out the fine detail or is it another case of paralysis from analysis? Why must we wait for a later stage? If the plan for the future of our Defence Forces is to be successfully implemented, it will require the support of all concerned. How can we expect any of the representative bodies to support a plan when they are not sure what it contains?

The accusation has been made from different quarters about the Army's reluctance to accept change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Changes can only be made following negotiations with the representatives of the Defence Forces. It is not good enough for the Minister to come into the House and to tell us about the number of meetings he and his officials have had with RACO, PDFORRA or anyone else if they are not prepared to listen. These representative bodies were set up to give advice to their members and they should be listened to. If that had been done the Minister would not be faced with the widespread anger and concern that exists in our Defence Forces today.

I meet members of PDFORRA regularly and they are concerned about whether they have negotiating power and if their meetings with the Minister are simply a public relations exercise. There is no point in the Minister meeting these bodies if he will not listen to them. It is important that they are consulted in a meaningful way.

An information meeting was organised in Kildare to which members of the Defence Forces were invited, as was the Minister's colleague, Deputy Dukes. The general secretary of PDFORRA was, however, instructed not to attend the meeting because it would constitute public agitation. In the interests of good relations, the Minister should consider that matter.

The Deputy is whipping it up.

Deputy Flanagan's colleague was invited to that meeting, which was constructive. Another meeting was held in the Keadeen Hotel shortly after Easter to which the spouses and families of members of the Defence Forces were invited. An attempt was made at that meeting to explain implications of the implementation plan.

From the Deputy's point of view. He tried to make political capital out of it.

Let us have an orderly debate.

The Minister is very small minded to take that attitude. If he had the courage of his convictions and was sure of the plan he is putting forward he would have no fears.

Legislation introduced by the Deputy's party prevented the general secretary from attending the meeting.

Deputy Power should be allowed continue without further interruption.

The Deputy lit a fire and he is trying to do so again tonight.

The Member in possession is entitled to the same courtesy that prevailed for other speakers.

The changes that were made relate solely to personnel. Changes are badly needed in infrastructure and equipment. The Minister will be very happy with the voluntary early retirement scheme, which is very much a self-financing scheme that will see a return for its money in a matter of four years. There is no guarantee from the Minister that the savings will be reinvested in new and badly needed equipment or accommodation for the Defence Forces.

Deputy Smith referred to the FCA. From a small investment in this area we got tremendous value. The FCA, which provides a voluntary service, plays a very important role in villages and towns, but it receives little recognition. I appeal to the Minister to be as generous as possible with the FCA.

I acknowledge the Minister's positive attitude to the Equitation School and particularly the Army bands. I congratulate him on his recent visit to Lebanon. The members serving overseas sometimes have a difficult job and the Minister's visit was very helpful and much appreciated. I pay tribute to all the members of the Defence Forces for their wonderful service and loyalty. I appeal to the Minister to restore the pride and morale that previously existed in our Defence Forces. He should ensure that the restructuring of the Defence Forces will be carried out after meaningful consultation with the representative bodies.

I thank Deputy Power for sharing his time. As a Deputy who represents a Border constituency, I pay tribute to the Army for its work at home and abroad, particularly in the last 25 years when it made a major contribution to the security of the State. Its members worked very long hours in extremely difficult conditions. They did an excellent job, working alongside the Garda whose conditions were better than those in the Army.

Deputy Smith dealt at length with structures, personnel, equipment and infrastructure and because of time constraints, I will not go into those matters in detail. I would ask the Minister to ensure there is sufficient manpower in the Defence Forces so that nobody is required to work anti-social hours, as happens from time to time, particularly in the Border area.

I support Deputy Smith's views on the five year contract. That is a matter that should be considered. The conditions of Army personnel need to be addressed. Officers who joined the Army before 1994 are entitled to serve their working career in the Army whereas under the five year contract if they do not get promotion they must leave after five years and if they get promotion they sign a further contract for seven years. In many instances promotion is not available because of the embargo. That is an unsatisfactory system. Will the Minister outline the rate of promotion in barracks throughout the country and say how the embargo affects promotions?

I endorse the comments of Deputies Power and Smith on the need for consultation. It is unfair of the Minister and Deputy Flanagan to suggest that Deputy Power is "whipping it up". There were calls for the Minister's resignation at the special delegate conference last week and Deputy Power had nothing to do with that.

I wish to refer briefly to the issues of barracks closures. There is concern in every town in which there is an Army barracks about the statement that there would be no closures in the first phase. We are all aware of the social and economic implications of closures. The needs of the Defence Forces can be equally well served in smaller as in larger towns. Successive Governments have had a policy of decentralisation, and the tendency at county level is to centralise services in the county town: this is undesirable. For example, in my constituency there was a very good Army barracks in Cootehill but that was closed and a new barracks built in Cavan town. If only one barracks is necessary in County Cavan, the barracks in Cootehill should have been maintained. The Minister should ensure that barracks are maintained and upgraded and proper facilities provided. I would ask him to continue the building programme at Castleblayney barracks, where there is a very fine modern building. Those actions would speak louder than words and would be a good way to show the people of the area and the officers and men in the barracks that the barracks will not be closed.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share