I wish to share time with Deputy Sargent.
Private Members' Business. - Defence Forces: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Michael Smith on 21 May 1996:
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 FCÁ and Slua Muirí; and,
—its reluctance to enter into meaningful consultations with representatives of the Defence Forces.
Debate resumed on 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."
—(Minister for Defence).
That is satisfactory.
I support the motion tabled by Deputies Smith and Power. This has been a dreadful day in the House, but it was not of our making.
We have become experts on talks, talks about locations, talks about representations and talks about elections to elect talkers. However, the Minister persistently refuses to enter into meaningful negotiations with representatives of the Defence Forces. Why can he not do what everyone else does? Surely he does not want to wait until the Defence Forces elect their own Deputies. The days of not talking to the people ended more than 70 years ago when Dáil Éireann was constituted. We do not want "Trimble style" negotiations, but proper 20th century sensible discussions with sensible people. The Minister probably does not know what to say because, as Deputy Smith stated, he should have a plan, even in draft form, so that we could help him avoid the embarrassment of being in charge of an Army and Naval Service without a strategy. The Barrett brigade could do with a more energetic daddy, but not a dad's army.
The Naval Service, the headquarters of which is located in my constituency, carries out vital Irish and European fishery protection duties and it must be given the necessary sophisticated equipment and resources. Our sailors depend on the Minister to get funding from Brussels and Merrion Street. Co-operation and liaison between the Naval Service, Customs and the Garda must be expanded and improved and the Minister in charge should lead the way. Those services play a vital role in dealing with the drugs problem.
The Fitzgerald Camp in Fermoy is in decay and has not undergone maintenance work for a number of years. In the past there were 14 civilian employees in that camp, but I understand the number has now been halved, although we were glibly told its structure or status would not be changed. Billets are in bad repair and some have been knocked down. I understand some upgrading has taken place at Kilworth camp, which is on the Dublin-Cork road between Mitchelstown and Fermoy. Apart from the Curragh Camp, Kilworth Camp is the most influential in the country. What are the Minister's plans for it? Does he propose to further downgrade the Fitzgerald Camp and transfer services to the Kilworth camp, better known as the Liam Lynch camp?
There has been talk of promotion and capping. If a corporal has not reached the grade of sergeant by the age of 50 he will have to leave the Army, but a sergeant can continue to work until the age of 60. This will mean corporals will refuse to take stripes. Government promises are misleading members of the Defence Forces. We will have a five year soldier cycle, similar to the British system who have a much different structure and population from us. Fermoy is an old soldiering town with status and dignity, but there is great uncertainty there at present which I want the Minister to address. If I cannot be given a decision on the matter I hope the Member from the Cobh area is informed. He is a good messenger boy for the constituency. He is much more effective than a carrier pigeon. A package of £13 million was agreed in the budget for the Defence Forces, but that has been frozen. When a package is put in place it usually means redundancies. I know soldiers who, through illness or otherwise, were made redundant from the Defence Forces after the package was announced, but they did not get their rightful payments. This would not happen in any other walk of life.
That is rubbish.
I will ensure that the soldiers who have been debarred from the benefits of that package will get a fair hearing and receive their rightful redundancy payments. I can give the names and status of the persons involved. I have made representations on their behalf, but the matter may have to be pursued in another way.
We hear every day about the generosity of the Government side, but that is all cosmetics and euphemism. Members opposite promise to hand out everything, but there is nothing to hand out. I am talking about people who have been pushed out of the Army without their rightful redundancy payments and they are not getting any sympathy from the Government. I am not aware of any other organisation or business in the private sector that would tolerate not receiving its rightful payment; no doubt they would be on strike, placing pickets and the like. This has been happening and I want it ended.
Be mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Ned O'Keeffe as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt liom agus a rá chomh maith go bhfuilim ag tacú leis an rún seo atá molta ag Fianna Fáil. Tá sé an-thábhachtach agus tuigim féin an tábhacht leis mar go bhfuil Campa Rinn Mhic Ghormáin cóngarach don áit in a bhfuil comhnaí orm féin.
I fully understand the degree of dependency of a community in any area where an Army barracks has been located for many years. Having said that, a great deal needs to be done to improve the level of representation and consultative structures available to members of the Defence Forces, without which they have very little option but to put their case to Members of this House in a fairly clandestine fashion. Deputies, with a few exceptions will have had very little first-hand experience of the Defence Forces and must pass on second-hand information without any in-depth understanding of the matter. I speak with knowledge of experiences of certain members of the Defence Forces in my constituency who have returned from the Lebanon, having served this country abroad at great personal risk. Not alone do they not receive the requisite attention on their return but, having left the forces for whatever reason, they have no help or counselling made available to them. The case I have in mind is that of a member of the Defence Forces who sustained quite a serious injury. It is crucial that help be made available. It is very shortsighted, unfair and does not indicate a very caring attitude on the part of Government or the Defence Forces if, once a member leaves, he or she is forgotten and their experiences are no longer considered to be of any consequence. For obvious reasons, I am reluctant to mention names but it is important that the principle of what I say be taken on board.
I make these comments fully recognising that military operations in the Lebanon or elsewhere are subject to a degree of confidentiality. Even though at times it must have been very difficult for members of the Defence Forces to restrain themselves, I have always found they respected such secrecy.
Help and counselling are the least we should provide for members of the Defence Forces who have served our country well, at great personal risk, often incurring serious injury in the course of their duties.
Ba chóir cothrom na Féinne a thabhairt do gach éinne sna Fórsaí Cosanta. Tá coinníollacha níos fearr ag na hoifigigh ná mar atá ag an gnáth shaighdiúir. Níl sé cothrom ná ceart go mbeadh liúntaisí i bhfad níos fearr ag na hoifigigh ná mar atá ag an gnáth dhuine.
Iarraim ar an Aire féachaint ar an gceist sin arís.
I seek the permission of the House to share my time with Deputies Mulvihill, Kemmy and Ferris.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed. I gather the Deputy wishes also to share time with Deputy Kathleen Lynch whom I see arriving.
Yes, in the interests of three-party harmony, the bedrock of this Government.
While it is appropriate that we should have an opportunity to debate this matter, I have to say that the motion before us is politically inspired. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the Minister for Defence.
In recent weeks members of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security had a wide-ranging, historic exchange of views with representatives of the Defence Forces—PDFORRA, RACO and REDFORRA. It was the first time in the history of the State such an opportunity was afforded members of the Defence Forces and their representatives to appear before a committee of this House and exchange views with its members. I venture to say this was not something intended in the letter or spirit of the defence legislation enacted in the 1990s. I know that Deputy Michael Smith and others opposite also benefited from the valuable position papers furnished.
Within the context of the Government's commitment to reform and overall plan for our Defence Forces difficult decisions must not be shirked. Having listened to Deputies opposite one would think that unlimited resources were available from the public purse for allocation to the Department of Defence. Last week the Minister for Defence presented his departmental Estimates, involving a gross sum of £393 million, to that same Select Committee on Legislation and Security. I happened to mention that sum to a large gathering of people in my constituency who were shocked that our annual defence spending was of that order, a huge sum in any language.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe talks about barracks and billets and others talk about additional spending. Perhaps they would indicate from what other budgetary allocations they wish to funnel such funding into the Department of Defence. This plan is not about cutbacks or about barrack closures but rather about a fundamental reappraisal of our Defence Forces which all Members must admit has been ignored for generations. This reform is long overdue. If our armed forces are to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond in an efficient, effective and economic manner, this fundamental review must take place.
The unchanged structure and organisation of our Defence Forces have given rise to present problems. The Government's ten-year proposals represent a major programme of change, introduced on a phased basis, at a realistic pace.
Those who resist such change, a policy I heard enunciated by Members last evening and again tonight, must ask themselves what are the consequences of maintaining the status quo.
Nobody resisted the change. The Deputy should not make up the story as he goes along.
It is both unacceptable and intolerable that, of the huge budget of £393 million, 80 per cent is absorbed by pay alone. That 80:20 ratio denies the armed forces the type of funding Deputy Ned O'Keeffe and others might like. In certain circumstances it denies them the most modern, efficient automated equipment, of the highest technological advances, even the type of updated accommodation Deputy Ned O'Keeffe and others would like. This hinders the provision of the vital tools of their trade. Great improvements can be carried out if that ratio is reduced to 70:30 or even beyond and the military authorities recognise the importance of tackling change and dealing with the problems. There has been a great deal of talk about the age profile and the age imbalance. Scare mongering about hidden agendas, sinister activities, secret deals and withholding information add little to the serious programme of reform that is under way.
This plan represents a positive development on public service reform and combines a reduction in the overall manpower of the Defence Forces with a more streamlined organisation, having increased operational capabilities. What will the result be? As the Minister said on numerous occasions the result will be that more troops will be available for operational duties and fewer administrative layers, with fewer personnel tied up in the administrative tasks they are engaged in. This plan tackles the problem of the age profile which has been long identified as requiring immediate attention.
The age profile is a serious problem and should be treated as such. Physical fitness is a fundamental requirement in every army. Those of us who are growing older may not wish to admit that physical fitness and age are inseparable and that age in therefore crucial to the operation of a top class defence force. In Ireland the average age of a private is 33, which is much higher than the European or US average. The Government is operating a two-pronged approach to the age problem in an effort to make the necessary overall adjustment. A voluntary early retirement scheme has been introduced together with a programme of planned recruitment of younger personnel during the period of the plan. That point must be emphasised again in spite of the fact that Opposition Members call for no compulsory redundancies or forced retirement of any kind. I see no other point in the Deputies opposite making this point other than for cheap political gain and misrepresentation of a type we will hear again between now and 8.30 p.m. Unless the age hump is addressed, morale throughout the Defence Forces will be totally and utterly shattered.
The impression has been conveyed that this entire approach is taking place behind closed doors and nothing could be further from the truth; witness the historic meeting of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security with members of the representative association for a three day period. The implementation of any changes in the structure and organisation of the force will only be carried out after a process of consultation with the representative bodies. The Minister placed this on record last night. How many times does he have to do that in order to convince Members?
I hesitate to intervene merely to advise the Member of his desire to share time with four others.
It is the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
The prime objective of the exercise is to make more personnel available for operational tasks. I do not think anybody in the armed forces or outside it can deny that that fundamental objective can only be achieved by way of the type of plan that is being proposed.
I am sorry that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, who spoke a great deal of rubbish, has left the Chamber. Last Christmas Deputy Ned O'Keeffe advised people not to attend the film "Babe", but the name stuck to him. I think, however, he is more like a cuckoo, he likes to put an egg in everybody's nest.
Appendages of that kind should not be applied to Members of this House.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Due to the time limitation I will confine most of my remarks to the Naval Service where I served in the past. I support the overall thrust of the Government's approach to the Defence Forces. Our role and commitment to international affairs is expanding and in the light of the recently published White Paper on Foreign Policy, it will continue to do so. It is correct that the Government and the Minister review the capacity of the Defence Forces to fulfil the role required of them by Government to meet our international obligations. I welcome the Minister's commitment to a plan that is not simply a cost cutting exercise. There is no question of barracks closures. While the expanded role of the Army is likely to come from our increasing international commitments, almost the opposite applies to the Naval Service. The extension of our exclusive fishery limits to 200 miles requires the Naval Service to expand to protect this important zone. Despite additional EU support, the obligations on us are increasing. Similarly the fight against the importation of drugs has had implications for the Naval Service. It has always been my belief that the Naval Service has a significant role to play in this regard. The importation and use of drugs, particularly in our major cities is one of the biggest scourages facing society and requires to be tackled urgently.
I welcome the Government's commitment to commissioning extra reports in addition to the efficiency audit group (EAG) commissioned to deal separately with the Naval Service and the Air Corps. I am confident that the Government's response to these reports will be considered as their response to the EAG report. While I recognise improvements have been made in the Naval Service in recent years, there is a need for more progress. Immense credit is due to the Naval Service for the way they responded to the increase in duties allocated to them. There is still considerable scope for further improvements to the Naval Service fleet. We must always ensure that the Naval Service is properly equipped to carry out its duties in the extended fishing zone.
Conditions for members of the Naval Service have not kept pace with other developments. I am aware that the dining facilities are still the same as when I was there more than 20 years ago. The rating dining room was designed to accommodate the then 300 members of the Naval Service but there are now more than 1,000. Accommodation on the Haulbowline Island Naval base is in need of refurbishment.
I reject the suggestion in the Opposition motion that the Government intends downgrading the FCÁ and An Slua Muirí, both of which are a valuable support to the Defence Forces and their contribution is widely appreciated by the Government and community at large. I would like them to be given a greater role, for instance I would like to see An Slua Muirí being given responsibilty for the protection of the Lusitania, the subject of a recent heritage order, which is close to my constituency.
I support the amendment to the motion. The Government is seeking to modernise the Defence Forces. The voluntary retirement scheme is proving popular with members and should go some way to alleviate the age profile difficulties. I call on the Minister to continue contact with the representative association to ensure the implementation of this package to the benefit of the public at large and all involved.
I too very much regret that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe has left the Chamber. This is not the first time he has used hit and run tactics in the House. His contribution was mischievous as he made no useful suggestions to resolve the problem. It is a scandal that this motion was tabled because we should have consensus on all sides of the House on what should be done in the Defence Forces. As Deputy Flanagan said there is no hidden agenda as far as the Government is concerned. There is nothing sinister or ulterior in trying to reorganise the Defence Forces. The Minister would be lacking in his duty if he did not tackle the problem. Coming here with a Bismarckian attitude encouraging gunboat diplomacy in industrial relations in the Defence Forces is no good. The ongoing megaphone diplomacy between the Minister and PDFORRA is not conducive to good relations in the Army. Let us endeavour to work out a logical approach to the Defence Forces. My party and I appreciate very much the contribution of the three strands of the Defence Forces, the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service to the integrity of the State and to defending our State in the past 27 years. We have had some fragile moments because of some paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland spilling over into the South.
My party appreciates the contribution of the three strands of our Defence Forces—the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps—to the integrity and defence of our State. There have been some fragile times with paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland spilling into the South. We appreciate all ranks in the Defence Forces and we will defend them to the bitter end. We are not here to engage in snide, sly remarks about anybody but to make a positive contribution to helping the Minister to reorganise the Army in a practical, efficient way and to equip our Defence Forces for the future.
There is an imbalance in the age structure of the Defence Forces. That is not a condemnation or criticism of anybody; it is a statement of fact. Our country was garrisoned by the British through many centuries and for 800 years in the case of Limerick. Just because something happened 800 years ago does not mean that one must ignore it and not address the problem in today's circumstances. We now live in a different world. We are part of the European Union and our troops have contributed bravely to UN forces. To do that they must be efficient and well equipped. They have been that way in the past and we are proud of them, but we cannot live on past glories.
The Minister must forge a practical solution to the problem that confronts him and he is attempting to do that. Nobody is being forced out of the Defence Forces. Listening to Deputy O'Keeffe one would think a gun was being put to people's heads to force them to go. On the contrary, I am sad that so many good members of our Defence Forces will leave. It is a shame because they had good careers ahead of them and I am sorry we cannot avail of their talents in the Forces for the benefit of our country.
Change should not just apply to the role of our Defence Forces abroad and with UN forces. We must also remove the high walls around many of the barracks throughout the country. The Army and the other forces must play more of a community role in our society. It is not good enough to have our Army simply guarding and moving money. There must also be a community orientation in the projects in which the Army is involved. Its personnel have great talents and skills and they should be utilised more widely than is the case at present. Let us not have a too inflexible approach to the role of the Defence Forces. There is much talent in all ranks which is not being used properly to benefit society.
The Minister need not stop with the present changes. They are not radical enough as far as I am concerned. The Minister should go further and encourage the Army to have a community role and help in breaking down other barriers in society. The Minister will have the full support of my party in that regard. I wish to share my time with Deputy Ferris.
I understand Deputy Kathleen Lynch is also sharing that time.
That is correct. I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. I have a vested interest in this subject in that my late older brother was a full-time soldier and lost his life while serving in the Army after contracting a disease. I have had an interest in the Army since my childhood. I also have a vested interest in this subject because one of the top barracks, Kickham Barracks, is located in Clonmel in my constituency. Every Oireachtas Member who has served the South Tipperary constituency, including the Ceann Comhairle, has admired the role played by the Army barracks and its personnel in the town, and particularly the economic benefit which the barracks has brought to it.
In all the meetings I had with the Minister, Deputy Barrett, the question of the closure of Clonmel or any other barracks was not raised by him. It was raised by Members of the Oireachtas because it was a cause of concern and we were reassured on many occasions that the closure of barracks was not on the Minister's agenda. I had no problem when the former Taoiseach decided to conduct the efficiency audit. I also have no problem with the main Opposition party politicising this debate because that is its job. However, I object to the spokesperson of PDFORRA politicising this debate. It has been demoralising for serving members of the Defence Forces.
This is a voluntary early retirement scheme. Nobody who does not want to retire will be forced to do so. If retirement only was envisaged one could claim that the number of troops will be reduced. However, the Government has also implemented a recruitment scheme which will benefit the Army and address the problem of its age profile. Many more people have opted for retirement than will be able to benefit from it this year and criticism of the scheme is invalidated by the number of soldiers who have opted for it.
Over this period of revamping the Army—which the Army wants as much as we do—the question of equipping the Army properly will also be dealt with to allow the Army to take up its new role as peacekeepers, particularly if it participates as peacekeepers in the European Union. Colleagues such as Deputy Penrose, Senator Jack Wall and Deputy Bell have confirmed our party's commitment to the programme of modernisation. The Minister will have our full support. He is trying to meet all the organisations involved and we commend him for that. I also commend the Minister for publishing the booklet which sets out clearly, for every serving member of the Army regardless of rank, what is available, why it should be availed of and what benefits, if any, will result from availing of it. That is the way to deal with our Defence Forces, of whom we are immensely proud. The Minister's amendment to this motion will have the support of the majority of Members.
I am glad to have received three minutes of the ten minutes allocated to me. It appears to be a regular occurrence.
The Deputy is in the Army now.
It will not happen again. I was glad the Labour Party does not have more TDs because it appeared that Deputy Ferris would name all of them in defence of the Defence Forces.
I support the Minister's amendment to the motion. Members of the Defence Forces rely on the forces for their livelihoods and entire towns rely on barracks because of the economic development and social life that has grown around them. The Defence Forces have never operated in an aggressive capacity outside the State; they have always operated as peacekeepers. War has become extremely advanced technologically so we need an Army capable of the same type of response to fulfil its peacekeeping duties. The review taking place should secure that capacity.
The Department has informed me that 1,032 members of the Defence Forces have applied for redundancy but that only 450 to 500 can be accommodated. Personnel in the Army obviously recognise that there are people within the Defence Forces who are no longer able for that employment or who see opportunities outside the forces which they can avail of with their redundancy pay. I wish them well in that regard. The Minister must take some other issues on board. The recommendations of PDFORRA about the structure of promotion would be enormously helpful and make the matter clearer for everybody. There are issues regarding severance pay and redundancy packages which also must be taken on board. That will involve negotiation.
This process is a partnership we cannot ignore and it will have many participants. I believe the Government and the Minister will take on board the issues being raised not only by Members of this House but also by PDFORRA.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important motion tabled by Deputies Michael Smith and Sean Power. It embraces all of the issues of concern to members of the Defence Forces and articulates a vision for their future. The commitment by Deputy Smith that on its return to Government Fianna Fáil would bring forward at an early date a White Paper on defence policy is welcome and important. A Government statement outlining a long-term strategic plan for the Defence Forces is long overdue. The key role of the Defence Forces has been underestimated for many years. Their duties cover a wide range of activities from service abroad to mercy missions at home. All too often the diversity and importance of those activities is not fully appreciated by the public at large.
There is a sound Army tradition in my constituency, as can be seen from the generations of families in County Cavan who have given, and continue to give loyal and dedicated service to the State. Recently I spoke to young soldiers who had served in the Lebanon. The difficulties they encountered abroad did not weaken their commitment to their duties at home or lessen their desire to travel abroad again on peacekeeping duties should the opportunity arise.
As a Deputy who represents a Border constituency with two major barracks, Dún Ui Neill and Monaghan barracks, I appreciate the work done by Army personnel. I am speaking for my constituents when I emphasise that their work, particularly since 1969, has been much appreciated and was most beneficial in dealing with the difficulties in my area. Many of my young constituents actively seek enlistment in the Permanent Defence Force which has a high standing within the community. Young people who have spoken to me about their desire to join the Army regard it as a challenging career. The quality of these young people from a character and academic point of view is very high.
We are not only proud of the work done by the Defence Forces at home but we are also conscious of the great service they have given abroad on many United Nations missions. The work done abroad by soldiers is not always given the recognition it deserves and generally speaking people do not know the number of soldiers who serve abroad or the extent of missions. A better presentation of that element of the work of the Defence Forces would be worthwhile.
Our Army's participation in peacekeeping duties demonstrates our commitment to the United Nations and to the establishment and maintenance of peace throughout the world. At home, the Defence Forces have wide ranging duties such as the provision of assistance in emergencies and industrial disputes, fishery protection and life saving missions. No doubt this work will continue. There must be an ongoing campaign of recruitment to the Defence Forces to ensure that its age profile is not too high. Constant recruitment and a proper retirement system would help mobility and promotional outlets. Indeed, the very nature of the work requires the constant recruitment of personnel.
Fianna Fáil in Government in 1988 made the very wise decision to place the contract for the construction of a new Army barracks in Cavan town which was later named Dún Ui Neill after Eoghan Rua O Neill, one of the dominant figures in our history. The up-to-date and proper facilities provided in this new barracks have been of tremendous assistance to the Defence Forces in fulfilling their duties in the Border area. It is also an excellent headquarters for the 29th Battalion. The construction of the barracks was a positive development as it replaced the old military barracks which dated from the 17th century. That investment clearly demonstrated Fianna Fáil's commitment to the provision of proper facilities for Army personnel.
Proper and continuous communications between the Minister, the Department and senior management of the Defence Forces must be an integral part of the decision-making process. There is an onus on the Minister to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with the representatives of the Defence Forces. Between 1969 and the autumn of 1994 members of the Defence Forces on Border duty worked long and difficult hours to prevent injury to persons and damage to property. The cessation of violence in the North in August 1994 brought an end to the need for such patrols, which hopefully will not be required to work on Border duty again.
The presence of the Defence Forces is of enormous, social and economic value to those towns in which they are located. The barracks in the towns of Cavan and Monaghan are of crucial importance. They play a positive role in the local communities and I look forward to their continued presence in those centres.
I was interested to hear the Minister say the Government does not intend to close Army barracks. I accept this statement. It would be politically unwise for any Minister to close Army barracks in the run-up to a general election given the social and electoral ramifications of such a decision. However, the Minister must accept that barracks will have to be closed if 1,000 jobs are shed. By shedding the jobs, the onus for closing the barracks is taken away from the Minister and the Government and given back to the Army High Command, thereby distancing the Minister and the Government from the decision and laying the blame fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the officers concerned. If the Minister can get away with that, it is a nice one. I have no doubt but that the Minister and his Department have pinpointed the barracks they believe should be closed. The shedding of 1,000 jobs will inevitably lead to the closure of barracks.
The Deputy is trying hard.
Unfortunately people are being conned.
There are now 12,000 people working in the Defence Forces and we had the same number of barracks when the figure was 8,000. The Deputy's argument does not stand up.
Deputy O'Keeffe without interruption, please.
The Minister is keeping these people on a string and they do not know their status or how much time they have left in the Army. He is being very unfair to them. The Army personnel and their families know the Government's policy is to close barracks by stealth. I am afraid this is what will happen to the Leo Murphy barracks in Ballincollig. This barracks, which employs 180 people, is the largest employer in my town and there is tremendous interaction between the personnel working in it and the local community. We are proud of these Army personnel, many of whom have excelled in military duties at home and abroad. If this barracks is closed an integral part of the community will be taken away.
On the cap on promotions, previously members could continue their service in the Defence Forces but in future this will be dependent on manpower service. The Minister and his Department are the only ones who know what this means. However, I am glad the Minister seems to be willing to negotiate on that issue.
On the issue of the five year contract soldier, we seem to be at cross purposes on the meaning of consultation and negotiation.
The Deputy's party introduced it.
The Minister has introduced negotiations on the capping of promotions.
I have not changed anything introduced by Fianna Fáil.
The Minister has concentrated on the consultation board. He says he will consult them, but what does that mean? It means personnel coming to talk to the Minister and having a cup of coffee at the table with him, but the Minister doing exactly as he intended. Regarding the five-year contract soldiers, the Minister should move away from consultation and towards the negotiation process.
Regarding voluntary retirement and category C, people who have developed disabilities, medical and otherwise, are being told they have no likelihood of continuing in the Army. A humane approach was taken in the past and a certain percentage of people, who were not fit for active Army duty, were used in other ways. In the public sector, it is accepted that 3 per cent of employment opportunities should be available to disabled people. Yet the Minister's policy appears to move away from the aspiration which pertains in the rest of the public sector. It does not apply to people with disabilities in the Army.
That is not the case.
The Minister should reconsider this aspect and ensure there is no contradiction between his proposals and public sector policy.
I am pleased to contribute to this debate and I compliment the Minister's action with regard to the Army in general. He is going in the right direction.
Well done.
It is difficult to comment on the subject of defence expenditure in the Irish context because there is not a clearly stated defence policy in the normal sense. Our defence policy was originally defined as the defence of the State against external aggression. This wording was changed in 1993 to read: "... to defend the State against armed aggression. This being a contingency plan, preparations for its implementation will depend on ongoing Government assessment of threats".
The substitution of the word "armed" for "external" appears to indicate that the main function envisaged for the Defence Forces is dealing with civil war. In general, our stated defence policy lacks clarity and precision. For example, there is no clearly identifiable armed aggressor against whom we might need to defend ourselves and, accordingly, it is difficult to assess the capability of the Defence Forces to repel any external attack.
Ireland is militarily neutral. For most countries neutrality is an expensive policy option. Without access to the economies of scale and the benefits of co-operation that membership of an alliance brings, neutral states must invest heavily in their defence structures. This is why countries such as Sweden and Switzerland are heavy spenders on defence and have also built up substantial military industrial bases.
As a landlocked state, Switzerland has invested heavily in tanks and other mechanised equipment. One of the primary aims of its defence policy is to repel any land-borne invasion of its national territory from whatever quarter. In practice, the Swiss operate a policy of deterrence. Any intending aggressor knows that trespassing on Swiss territory would be so costly in military terms that it would not be worth the candle.
In contrast, our defence budget is small. We spent a little over 1 per cent of gross domestic product on defence; the amount will be approximately £450 million in 1996. As an island nation, it might be expected that if the Swiss have tanks, we have ships. Yet the Naval Service is small and amounts to no more than a coastguard operation primary concerned with drug interdiction, fisheries protection and sea rescue. I doubt the capacity of the Naval Service to repel a sea-borne invasion.
We owe our naval capacity, such as it is, in large measure to the European Union, which has funded much of our fisheries protection fleet. We have had no military ship building capability since the 1970s when the last vessel was launched from the Cork dockyard. In contrast, the Swedes are world leaders in naval technology, building their own submarines and warships. They are at the cutting edge of naval military technology and have developed ships which, in common with the US stealth bomber, are invisible to radar.
The Army is small and about to get smaller. The Naval Service lacks military punch and our military air capability is modest. Outside observers would conclude that we do not take our defence responsibilities seriously. At the very least it is apparent that we do not devote anything like the same resources to defence as other small European neutrals. It is fair to point out that our defence policy has been based on the presumption that there are virtually no circumstances in which Ireland would ever be singled out for individual attack. If aggression occurred, it would most likely be directed against the West in general or the European Union. In either case Ireland would be able to shelter under somebody else's security umbrella, but without explicitly committing itself to any military alliance. The issue of the lack of a clearly defined role for the Defence Forces must be confronted before the current review is implemented.
We cannot redesign and restructure the Defence Forces unless we know precisely what is expected of them. If their major role is assisting the civil power, effectively preventing civil war, we need a type of lightly armed paramilitary police force which does not require a great deal of heavy equipment. However, if their major role is defending the country against external aggression, an entirely different structure for the Defence Forces is appropriate, with much heavier spending on equipment and munitions. Equally, if it is envisaged that Ireland will participate, either partially or fully, in some type of international military alliance, an entirely different approach to the management of the Defence Forces is required.
A proper public debate on this issue is necessary. Unless we have a clear policy on defence, we cannot have a clear policy on the Defence Forces. It is vital to have a clear mission statement for all branches of the Defence Forces. Without clarification in this area it is difficult to make proper judgments on the proposals set out in the Defence Forces review. For example, questions have been raised as to whether the reduced strength of the forces envisaged in the review would be sufficient to defend the country against external aggression or capable of enforcing our policy of military neutrality. Further questions have been raised as to whether sufficient attention has been paid in the review to the need for armoured vehicles and similar equipment in the forces.
There has never been a comprehensive debate about defence in this country. It is timely to hold such a discussion before embarking on such a major restructuring of the Defence Forces. I wish to share my time with Deputy Davern.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Lenihan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am sorry the Minister has left the House because I wish to make a point of particular relevance to him. I hope the Equitation School will not be affected by these cutbacks.
There are no cutbacks.
Some people in the Departments of Defence and Finance have made several attempts over the years to impose cutbacks in or abolish the Equitation School. The school has done a marvellous job not just for the Army but for the country. I make this point to the Minister, Deputy Barrett, because his late father in law broke his back at Clonakilty show many years ago and he and his family have a deep interest in show jumping and equitation. I ask the Minister of State to note that the country is proud of the school. It has been a great standard bearer for Irish horses over the years.
I served in the FCÁ for many years but the first time I appreciated the importance of the Army to the defence of the Constitution was in the early 1970s when the House was besieged by up to 12,000 protesters during the internment of a certain individual in the Mater Hospital who was on hunger strike. This necessitated the placing of armed members of the Defence Forces in full battle dress on guard duty in the precincts of the House. I was frightened for democracy that night.
It is grossly dishonest to suggest there is no intention of closing any barracks. Nobody should be fooled by this. No one in this House should tell my constituents that the Minister says he has no such intention. He will not close any barracks, but if personnel at Kickham Barracks, Clonmel who form part of the Twelfth Battalion — I am thinking in particular of younger and middle-aged personnel — decide not avail of the redundancy package on special offer, will they have to uproot their families to move to Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick or will they be allowed remain on as part of a skeleton staff due to the lack of recruitment? This will result in its closure.
How does the Deputy know?
Because I know the military personnel in Clonmel. The Deputy should listen to them more attentively.
I am listening. It is obvious the Deputy does not want to hear about recruitment.
Smaller numbers will be recruited to the bigger rather than outlying centres. No one should try to tell me that we can afford to keep open Kickham Barracks, Kilkenny Barracks, Kilworth Barracks, Fermoy Barracks, Collins Barracks or the barracks in Cork city. They will not be allowed remain open with a skeleton staff. That is unrealistic.
Does the Deputy want to close them?
The Deputy got a lucky break this morning when the Ceann Comhairle said he might retire and walk out. All his birthdays came together, but he has not spoken to the men, or their wives, who are upset that they may have to transfer.
The Deputy thinks he is the only person who has spoken to them.
I have been aware of their concerns for a long time. The lord mayor and I recently met their families. They are genuinely worried that if they decide not to avail of the package on offer, they will have to uproot their families and move to Limerick city. For many this will prove expensive.
Does the Deputy disagree with the package?
Not entirely.
How would the Deputy change it?
Does the Deputy want to play ping pong? Everyone recognises the need to carry out a review of the Army, but I am talking about a town in which there has been a military presence since 1650 and where Cromwell was held back.
That will remain the position.
Can the Deputy give me a guarantee that Kickham Barracks will not be closed? The Minister can give that guarantee because he knows that before long there will be a change of Ministers and——
If there is a change of Ministers, will the Deputy then give that guarantee?
The Deputy could not give a guarantee that a Minister would call to the local high school last week.
She would not be bullied by the Deputy.
I never failed to get a Minister to address a problem in my constituency when on the opposite side of the House. I was never refused or bypassed in that fashion. I am talking about a sum of £4 million——
I will not be bullied by the Deputy.
The Deputy is like a Jack Russel barking at my heels. Will he please stop before I kick back? I want to ensure that there will be a military presence in Clonmel long after the Government has left office. It has given false promises in respect of every barracks in the country. If there is a review, there will have to be barrack closures. The members of the Defence Forces deserve to know which barracks will be closed. Where they may have to live will have a bearing on their decision either to leave or remain in the Army.
It is clear from the Minister's statement that there are two phases in the implementation of the Efficiency Audit Group's recommendations. Phase one comprises mainly the non-contentious proposals, although there are some contentious ones. We do not yet know what will happen in phase two so far as barrack closures and the policy on the Reserve are concerned. I do not want to go over ground which has been trodden already. I would prefer to concentrate on two specific elements of the motion, the failure to provide adequate personnel for the Naval Service and the downgrading of the FCÁ and An Slua Mhuirí.
It has often been said that we have never had a White Paper on defence policy. One of the problems with the programme of the Efficiency Audit Group is that it is a sort of White Paper commissioned by a private consultancy arrangement. There is no great sense in crying over spilled milk, but the fact remains that a clear statement of principles would be a good point of departure for a thoroughgoing reform of the Defence Forces. I agree with what Deputy Clohessy had to say in that regard. In the absence of a White Paper we have to proceed with the recommendations of the Efficiency Audit Group as they stand.
In most small European states reserve forces have a large part to play. In this State, however, they are the Cinderella of the Defence Forces. This is clear from the Minister's statement in which he indicated that the question of the future of the FCÁ and An Slua Murí will be considered as part of the second phase. Real economies and savings could be effected through a proper development of the Reserve. Given the vast expenditure of public resources on FÁS, I see no harm in devoting public resources, albeit on a relatively modest scale, to the FCÁ and An Slua Muirí which inculcate basic military, civil and maritime values in the younger population.
Morale among members of the FCÁ is low because of the lack of adequate training facilities and the amount of time devoted to training. One cannot develop a reserve force on the basis of one or two weeks annual training. It takes a number of months to complete even the most elementary FÁS course nowadays. It would better to have a smaller Reserve if its members were properly trained. Within the framework of the Defence Forces there is adequate scope for the development of the Reserve both on the combat side, in terms of providing Reserve units which can be called up for guard and security duty in an emergency, and on the logistical side, in terms of having trained service units capable of being mobilised in an emergency.
It is extraordinary that An Slua Muirí has remained undisturbed without a vessel since the ending of the Emergency in 1945. This branch of the Defence Forces is in need of attention. That leads me to the question of adequate personnel for the Naval Service. While the CASA aircraft have harvested a vast range of intelligence information about activities off our coast, the resources available to the Naval Service, in terms of personnel and equipment, are inadequate to enable it discharge its many responsibilities arising from this operation.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the question of the recorganisation of the Defence Forces. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the many positive and helpful contributions made to the debate by Opposition Deputies so far. The future of the Defence Forces is an important issue and one which may not have always received the attention which it deserves.
We all share a common objective. Significantly, the record of this debate will show that all Deputies in their contributions recognise the need for change. There is a consensus about the range of problems facing us in dealing with the reorganisation of the Defence Forces. We wish to see these problems dealt with in a positive way so that the Defence Forces can develop to meet the challenges which its redefined set of roles and functions present.
Where we differ with Members of the Opposition is in their contention that the Government is not following a strategic plan in its approach to the reorganisation process. This is the most comprehensive and structured approach to a process of reorganisation that has ever been undertaken by a Government in relation to the Defence Forces. The implementation plan was drawn up following the most extensive process of consultation which ever took place in the Defence Forces. It is the outcome of a comprehensive examination by the efficiency audit group of the organisation, and the functions it has to fulfil. In doing this the efficiency audit group were fully involved with the selection of these military experts and worked closely with them in the formulation of the report.
This is the first phase of a plan with a crystal clear strategy set out for the reform of the Defence Forces. The eventual shape and make-up of the organisation will take approximately ten years to achieve. The Government has made the process clear and transparent by the manner in which it made these reports widely available to all interested parties on their completion. It is disingenuous of the Opposition to suggest that the strategy of our approach lacks vision just because it is based on a strategy with which they may not necessarily agree.
The Opposition knows full well that the problems which now face the Defence Forces did not materialise out of thin air in the past year. The difficulties facing the Defence Forces, which all sides of the House have recognised and alluded to in this debate up to now, such as the rising age profile, the multi-layer system of administration, the imbalance between pay and non-pay spending and so forth, have all grown over a long period. During much of that period the Deputies opposite were in Government.
The suggestion has been made repeatedly in the course of this debate that the plans for the reorganisation of the Defence Forces are merely a tool for the pruning of Defence expenditure by this Government and that the voluntary early retirement scheme is a vehicle by which we will dramatically reduce numbers and push members of the Defence Forces out of the organisation. This is untrue and mischievous.
The voluntary early retirement scheme is part of a carefully structured plan to address the age profile problem which all Deputies who have contributed to this debate acknowledge is one of the priority areas which needs urgent attention. The Minister for Defence, in his address to the Select Committee on Security and Legislation on the 1996 Defence Estimates, clearly signalled his intention to balance the approach to the age profile question. We will do this by embarking on the first round of the general service recruitment part of the reorganisation plan towards the end of this year. The favourable response to the early retirement scheme is a firm indication that the Government has got the figures right.
Attempts to denigrate the reform process by reference to the review of the Defence Forces as a cost-cutting exercise are unhelpful in the extreme. It has already been made clear that what is envisaged is a refocusing of resources and not an economy drive. There appears to be no disagreement about the need to adjust the ratio of pay to non-pay expenditure in the Defence Vote. The aim is for something closer to a 70-30 split rather than the current 80-20. The present imbalance did not occur today or yesterday and it will take the full lifespan of the process for us to achieve our objective.
The Minister's time is all but exhausted.
The consultation process with PDFORRA and RACO could not have been more intense or hands on. They were involved at all stages of the process. As I said, this has been the most intensive consultation process ever. The complaint by RACO that it could not attend a particular session had nothing to do with the Minister; it was part and parcel of the regime which was agreed and the structures and regulations which bind members of the Defence Forces. No decision has been made by this Government to close Army barracks, to do anything other than enhance the Army School of Equitation or to tamper with the Army bands of which we are proud.
I wish to share my time with Deputies O'Rourke and Power.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Smith, for sharing his time with me. On behalf of our party, he put forward a very cogent case which we all appreciate. I wish to speak on a purely local issue and I make no apologies for doing so. I come from a constituency which has a long and proud record of looking after the needs of Army members and their families. What this Government is doing is like playing a game of chess. It is cynical and manipulative in the way it views the forces and the barracks; soldiers are not pawns but are being treated as such. Each day we read in the newspapers about threatened closures of barracks and about the transfer of personnel. I remind the House, the Ministers responsible for the Defence Forces and Defence chiefs that people should not be treated in this fashion. This is a cynical exercise. A report in a newspaper a week or ten days ago stated that there was a clear recognition that the Western Command would be moved from Athlone. I would like to give notice to the Army and the Government that the day they try to do so will be a sorry one for them. The defence put up by Custume in 1691 will be nothing compared to what the people of Athlone will do if the Government decides to move from the town. However, it will not do so and that is cowardice at its worst. The Government will say it is the next stage of the plan, but beneath the surface, like piranha fish, lie the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report. The Government wants to put flesh on the bones of the recommendations, which means the closure of barracks, the decimation of brigades and the rationalisation of many of the institutions connected to the Army.
I also speak for Mullingar, which has a proud record in the Defence Forces, and for Longford, which is no longer in my constituency. I have close friends in that county. If the Minister, the Government or Defence chiefs believe the midlands will be a pushover, they have much to consider.
We all bask in the adulation and praise which the Army receives when it acts as a peacekeeping force in many countries. We are also proud of the socio-economic contribution made by Army barracks and personnel and the life they bring to many towns and counties. Yet behind the scenes the Government intends to act without any in-depth consultation with the forces. The climate of 1989 will be replicated in every Army town when we go to the polls in 1997. On behalf of my constituents, I would say to the Minister, hands off the midlands as regards the Defence Forces.
In the short time available to me I would like to thank Deputies who contributed, particularly Deputies in my party and the Progressive Democrats, in support of this motion.
I want to take to task some Deputies on the Government benches who accused us of being politically motivated in putting forward this motion. Debate on the Defence Forces has probably taken up less time in this House than debate on any other group in society, despite the fact that they engender in us a sense of pride since their performance is unequalled and unmatched.
Deputy Flanagan alluded to a group of people in Laois who were shocked at the cost of the Defence Forces, but did he tell them about Border duties and peace-keeping activities in various parts of the world such as southern Lebanon, the Congo and the United Nations, which raise morale in this country? Did he tell them about Defence Forces work in fisheries surveillance and drug interdiction, their security operations and aid to the Garda and the many other emergency services they provide? I am sure he did not. In a simple cost cutting exercise, he referred, to the total costs, shocked the community and embraced the policy of making cutbacks.
If the Minister is not engaged in a cost-cutting exercise he should tell the House at an early stage that any savings made will be ploughed back into the Defence Vote to deal with the accommodation, infrastructure and equipment that is desperately needed. That would be one way of ensuring credibility. A great number of people, including some Deputies on the Government side, have indicated their lack of interest in the Defence Forces.
There is little point in talking about dealing with the age profile in the Army unless there is constant recruitment. Last year the former Minister for Defence told the House in reply to parliamentary questions that a number of people would be recruited to the Army in the latter half of 1995, but that did not happen. It was further indicated that there would be recruitment this year, and now we are told that as few as 200 people will be recruited, for whom no provision is made in the Estimate. The likelihood is that those people will not be recruited until 1997. Can this House treat seriously a Government that tells us it is anxious to deal with the age profile in the Army when it did not fulfil the promise it made to the House last year? On return to office Fianna Fáil will have a recruitment drive every year. We will consign to the past the stop-go policies which were part and parcel of recruitment heretofore and which led to the present age profile difficulties.
On barracks closures, last night I indicated it would be far better if an overall strategic plan was introduced. In our first year in office Fianna Fáil is determined to introduce a White Paper which will spell out what we expect the Defence Forces to do into the next century. It is not good enough to say there will not be closure of Army barracks in the first phase of the implementation plan, when the dogs in the streets know the staffing arrangements for the future as planned in the restructuring programme, will make it impossible from a practical point of view to maintain the existing number of barracks.
The Defence Forces are entitled to be told the truth about their future. It is impossible to maintain morale among people who live in uncertainty. The Defence Forces are highly trained and motivated to do tasks which in some cases they may not be asked to perform for some time, but they must be in a state of readiness at all times. It is unacceptable that their domestic circumstances and the educational provision for their families depend on a plan such as that proposed. We want to see a much more focused and targeted plan.
One of the areas that will have to be dealt with much more efficiently is career development. In negotiations with the representatives more emphasis must be placed on career development and opportunities for promotion. I welcome the Minister's statement on short-term commissions for officers, but similar problems arise with enlisted personnel and they will have to be dealt with.
Greater resources must be provided for the Naval Service. There is much greater appreciation not only by coastal communities but by the public as a whole, of our maritime resources. We are plagued with the problem of raking of the seas. As Deputy Lenihan said, intelligence is much greater now and we are aware of the extent of the problem. We must provide additional resources for the Naval Service to protect our fisheries resource which is so necessary for coastal communities. We should not allow the ranking of billions of pounds worth of fish each year. That money is desperately needed here to support communities. On our return to office we will ensure that the necessary resources are provided, and we will not shock local communities by outlining why we want to do that. Everybody is aware that the potential of the Naval Service can be developed only by providing adequate resources. We are not interested in politicising this matter.
The Deputy must be joking. He should be honest for once in his life.
There were many opportunities for us in the past to politicise this issue.
The Deputy is playing politics with the Army to get votes. It is a disgrace.
Does the Minister remember what happened in 1989?
We are concerned to ensure that meaningful negotiations take place with the representatives and that the Minister sets out exactly what he is planning.
When the Deputy's party was in Government up to 1994 it did nothing about the matter.
The Member in possession is entitled to order.
We make no apologies to this House for introducing a motion——
The Deputy is playing politics with the Defence Forces.
——which is very necessary to ensure the negotiations are brought to finality in an open and transparent way.
The Deputy is scaring people.
Earlier today we heard that events in a court in the middle of April could not have been communicated to the Taoiseach or the Attorney General. We listened to comments about casual, once-off conversations which nobody can remember. We had to put up with that, but here we want absolute transparency and openness, and if the Minister proceeds along those lines he will have our support. It is because he failed in that regard up to now that this motion is before us this evening.
Amendment put. The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 54.
Tá
|
Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Bhamjee, Moosajee.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Bhreathnach, Niamh.Bree, Declan.Broughan, Tommy.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burton, Joan.Byrne, Eric.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Connor, John.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Hugh.Creed, Michael.Crowley, Frank.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Doyle, Avril.Durkan, Bernard J.Ferris, Michael.Fitzgerald, Brian.Fitzgerald, Eithne.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flaherty, Mary.Flanagan, Charles.Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).Gilmore, Eamon. |
Harte, Paddy.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kavanagh, Liam.Kemmy, Jim.Kenny, Seán.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Michael.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Jim.Mulvihill, John.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Pattison, Séamus.Penrose, William.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, John.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, P.J.Shortall, Róisín.Taylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Upton, Pat.Walsh, Eamon.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Clohessy, Peadar.Connolly, Ger.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fitzgerald, Liam.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Foxe, Tom. O'Leary, John.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Quill, Máirín.Ryan, Eoin. |
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Hilliard, Colm M.Hughes, Séamus.Keaveney, Cecilia.Keogh, Helen.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.McCreevy, Charlie.McDowell, Michael.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P.J.Moynihan, Donal.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned. Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.