Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
Private Members' Business. - Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, paragraph (c), to delete lines 34 to 37 and substitute the following:
"(b) An appointment to the office of Deputy Chief of Staff shall be made by the President.".
It became clear in the course of the debate last night that comprehensive legislation is needed if reform of the Defence Forces is to proceed at the required pace given the challenges facing the forces. This legislation, although part of that reform, is not comprehensive.
This section provides for the amendment of section 12 of the 1954 Act to abolish the offices of Adjutant General and Quartermaster General and to replace them with two new appointments of Deputy Chief of Staff Operations and Deputy Chief of Staff Support. It provides that the Chief of Staff shall remain an office holder appointed by the President and that he or she shall hold the office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment but that he or she shall be eligible for reappointment.
In the case of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, however, it is proposed that they no longer be office holders appointed by the President but that they be appointment holders appointed by the Government. It is proposed that the holder of either of these appointments shall be appointed for a period not exceeding five years to be specified in the instrument of appointment and that he or she shall be eligible for reappointment on the expiration of that term.
A number of issues arise from the proposed changes. It is proposed that the Deputy Chiefs of Staff shall be appointment holders appointed by the Government whereas the Adjutant General and Quartermaster General were, like the Chief of Staff, office holders appointed by the President as supreme commander of the Defence Forces. There is concern within the Defence Forces that this marks a reduction in status of the two officers and that the unique relationship between the Defence Forces and the President is being diminished. From a legal perspective, it may be the case that office holders enjoy different protections in employment than appointment holders.
I appreciate fully that the intention of the legislation is to have better and more streamlined decision-making procedures and to make the position of Chief of Staff an executive one with more wide ranging powers which are clarified by the legislation so that he is seen to be the single military chief of the Defence Forces. Some outstanding issues remain but the question could be asked whether the changes proposed could be achieved if the Deputy Chiefs of Staff were office holders appointed by the President. Given the reduction in status and position it is appropriate that the Deputy Chiefs of Staff should continue to be appointed by the President. Will the Minister outline the rationale for the change and what is to be gained from it?
I was slightly surprised when the Minister misinterpreted my comment last night about bringing the offices into the political arena. When an officer takes a commission he takes an oath under the Constitution of which the President is guardian. It was a powerful symbol that the three offices were appointed by the President. The Minister has changed the status of all three but I cannot see the need for this.
Section 12 is one of the main sections of the Defence Act, 1954 requiring amendment arising from the reorganisation of the top level management structure of the Defence Forces. The principal amendments to this section involve substituting the two new appointments of Deputy Chief of Staff for the appointments of Adjutant General and Quartermaster General and prescribing that appointments to these posts will be made by Government as against the present position where appointments to the posts of Adjutant General and Quartermaster General are made by the President.
The fundamental difference between the new arrangements and the current situation is that under the new arrangements holders of the appointments of Deputy Chief of Staff shall report to the Chief of Staff whereas at present the Adjutant General and Quartermaster General report independently of each other and of the Chief of Staff to the Minister. Under the new structure the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, as the title implies, will be subordinate to the Chief of Staff. They will be his deputies. It is for this reason that it would be most inappropriate to prescribe in legislation that they should be appointed by the President.
Appointments by the President are normally reserved for positions which are independent of the Government, for example, members of the Judiciary, the Ombudsman and the Governor of the Central Bank. Secretaries general of Departments and the Garda Commissioner are appointed by the Government, not by the President. It is, therefore, appropriate that appointments to Deputy Chief of Staff be made by the Government. It could be reasonably argued that the Chief of Staff should also be appointed by the Government. However, given the relationship between the Defence Forces and the President set down in the Constitution it is felt that, on balance, there is some merit in his appointment being made by the President.
In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Defence Act, 1954, the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General are appointed to the principal military offices of Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General. Under the Bill, the Deputy Chiefs of Staff will be appointed by Government. They will not be appointed to the offices of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff because, under the new arrangement, all of their duties, functions and responsibilities will derive from the office of the Chief of Staff and as such they will not have independent functions. It should be noted that in the strict legal sense members of the Defence Forces from lieutenant generals down to new recruits are officeholders.
As I have explained, in the context of reorganisation, the provisions of the Bill are significantly different to those in the 1954 Act. There will be a single office, as distinct from three separate offices, of which the Deputy Chiefs of Staff will be part. It would be entirely inappropriate that these appointments should be made by the President.
There has been considerable dialogue on the production of the legislation. Perhaps one of the reasons for the delay in introducing the Bill lies in its technical and legal nature. This gave rise to a need for exhaustive dialogue with the Office of the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman to ensure that safe and sound legislation was produced which takes account not only of the legal requirements but also of the cultural change its introduction would institute.
With regard to the position of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, their rank — major general — will remain the same, they will be officeholders and they will be appointed by the Government. Taking account of these factors, it seems the proper course of action has been pursued. Since there is no ready precedent of which I am aware requiring the President to make appointments to positions other than those involving officers of the highest rank, I ask the House to accept that the safest, preferred legal and best way of demonstrating the changes we are about to put in place is to accept the Bill as it stands. For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. There is no legal reason to prevent the President from continuing to appoint Deputy Chiefs of Staff. The Minister referred to other areas where the President does not appoint deputy officeholders. However, in this area we are concerned with precedent, tradition and the unique role of the Defence Forces. For that reason appointments should continue to be made by the President. This matter involves reflecting the status, unique role and tradition of the Defence Forces. It has meant a great deal to some that those appointments were made by the President in the past. That is the reason I tabled the amendment.
At a time when the morale of the Defence Forces has been shattered by the issue of hearing impairment claims and when the Chief of Staff has called for reform and stated that such reform is happening at too slow a pace, it is critical that we, as legislators, take this opportunity to recognise the special and unique role of the Defence Forces. That should be reflected by the fact that the President should continue to appoint Deputy Chiefs of Staff. These are good reasons to continue with established precedent.
We do not disagree with the Minister in respect of the Bill's legal soundness. However, that is not the issue under discussion. The Minister compared the Defence Forces with the Garda Síochána but he was somewhat disingenuous in that regard because they are completely different. In fairness, since taking office the Minister has shown great interest in his portfolio and has tried to advance the cause of the Defence Forces. However, on this occasion, he has missed the boat. He does not realise the seriousness of this issue and a time will come when he will recognise his mistake. I reiterate my dissatisfaction with the approach he has taken. The Minister stated that he cannot accept the amendment but in the future he will realise that he went down the wrong road.
There is perhaps no one in this House who appreciates more than I many of the traditions established in the context of the development of the Defence Forces. I and the people of Ireland are immensely proud of the style, discipline and professionalism they have displayed in their United Nations peacekeeping duties, humanitarian activities and provision of aid to the civil power.
The Deputies are correct to state that we are discussing a critical period of change. There is also a certain amount of pain associated with change. I know Members have read the Price Waterhouse report which was quite damning in many respects about the way many of traditions — not those we are honouring or praising — in the Defence Forces developed. It is a pity that the reorganisation process was so long delayed. There is no point in blaming a particular Administration and I have never dwelt on the historical aspects of this issue. However, we must accept that the age profile, the lack of recruits and many of the tedious regulations which developed over a period were detrimental to the introduction of modern management practices in the Defence Forces in a changed international environment. I have been extremely anxious to encourage progress in this area.
As I indicated on Second Stage, we have moved into the third phase of the voluntary early retirement scheme and have reduced Defence Force personnel to 11,500 — a figure agreed by the then Government in 1996. I was the first Minister for Defence to state that a White Paper would be necessary to provide a medium and long-term framework for the development of the Defence Forces. No other political party made such a suggestion. During the election campaign, Fianna Fáil made a commitment to introduce a White Paper and, in the interim, a considerable amount of work has been carried out in that regard. We will invite submissions from the representatives in the near future.
In terms of recruitment, refurbishment, the White Paper, advancing the final stages of the VER scheme and dealing with the major problems associated with deafness, we have advanced on all fronts. There is no way this indicates anything other than the best possible support the Government can give to the Defence Forces. At a time when considerable costs were associated with hearing impairment claims, we have ensured that the main thrust of developmental activities continued to proceed. Those developments have not been impeded.
There is nothing in the Bill which undermines the position of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff. The significant difference which was pointed out in the Price Waterhouse report and which has been honoured by two successive Governments was the need for change in the Defence Forces headquarters, the need to have a single-minded leadership role for the Chief of Staff with two deputies. That is a significant change in operations which is reflected in the legislation. However, it does not take away from the rank or the importance of the men or women who take up the posts of Deputy Chief of Staff.
There is nothing wrong with a nomination by a democratically elected Government. There are many who would like to have their posts decided in such a way. There are not too many——
We appear to have wandered somewhat from the amendments.
It is not unusual to do that in the House. It is no harm to give the Leader of the Opposition an indication of the positive business taking place because he seemed unaware of it this morning.
I am surprised the Minister has decided to give a lengthy recitation of his view of himself. The tenor of the debate did not question his good faith, yet he felt it necessary to tell us about the wonderful actions he has taken. It betrays certain defensiveness on his part which may suggest the amendments should be pursued further.
The review of the Defence Forces was undertaken at my initiative when I was Taoiseach. I commissioned the Price Waterhouse inquiry. It was an overdue exercise and I am glad it is taking place. I am not convinced the Minister's initiative to have a White Paper on the matter is a positive step. It may prove to be no more than a delaying tactic, although perhaps not deliberately so. I have had the experience of having promised to produce White Papers and living to regret the promise. I committed myself to produce a White Paper on Industrial Policy and it took far longer than had been envisaged. The Minister may have made a mistake committing himself to a White Paper. He would have been better to take the decisions needed on the basis of the Price Waterhouse report and gone on with the job. He should not have become involved in the process of producing a White Paper.
Having agreed with the Chair for intervening to bring the Minister back to the amendments, I ask the Deputy to confine his remarks to them.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his timely intervention. I had completed the point in response to what the Minister said.
I do not accept the Minister's argument that it is necessary that the President should only appoint the Chief of Staff to establish the hierarchical nature of command within the Defence Forces. There is a hierarchy in the courts between the Supreme Court and the High Court. The President appoints the Judiciary, yet there is a hierarchy between the courts. There is no need to dispense with the appointment by the President for other officers to establish that there is a hierarchy between the Chief of Staff and the generals in charge of the various commands. There is no legal basis for that arrangement.
The Judiciary and the Army are fundamental to the existence of the State. If a situation is allowed to develop whereby in the case of the Judiciary the President is involved in many appointments but in the case of the Army the President is involved in only one appointment, it would suggest in an indirect sense that the Judiciary is more important than the Army. That is an invidious comparison to make. It ought not to be made nor should it be capable of being made.
The arrangements which have existed to date have worked well. On the basis of the presidential appointment of those ranks which will no longer be so appointed, nobody questioned their subordination to the Chief of Staff in important operational matters. Why change the arrangements? There is a cliché which, like many clichés, contains a deal of truth which tells us "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". What is the Minister trying to fix?
Part of the value of a discussion such as this is that it should influence the Minister and he should be more open to influence on this matter. There is nothing wrong with accepting an amendment at this point. The Minister has not advanced persuasive arguments for the change he proposes to make. The proposed change will not necessarily improve the relationship between the Department and the Defence Forces — it may do the opposite. This is not a huge issue but it is an irritant for which there is no need. It is little more than a gratuitous irritant.
It is not usual for former Taoisigh to intervene in debates on defence matters. I have been in political life for a long time. I have not intervened in debates of this nature on line Department responsibilities since I ceased to be Taoiseach. I hope the Minister and his advisers will take my intervention seriously. The Minister is making a mistake and he should change his mind. As Leader of the Opposition and a former Taoiseach, who has the greatest admiration for the Defence Forces and who served in a minor capacity in them, I ask him to change his mind on this matter. Deputies Fitzgerald, Timmins and Wall have made valid contributions urging the Minister to change his mind and I join them in doing so. It will not cost him anything to do so, except perhaps a modicum of pride. He is not a proud man and I am sure he is not influenced by such considerations. A change would be wise.
Deputy Bruton was right to accuse me of being defensive when I outlined some of the positive steps we are taking. I return the compliment to him because he started by telling us he was responsible for the review of the Defence Forces.
We cannot debate that issue now. We must stay with the amendments.
I do not mind being accused of being defensive but it seems inappropriate that the Deputy would suggest that he instituted the Price Waterhouse report. It did not take place during his term of Government. He was in Government when the implementation plan was produced and his Government progressed it effectively. It was a Fianna Fáil Administration which established the review.
I have little to add to what I said. This is not a question of pride or a gratuitous irritant for the Defence Forces. I would go out of my way to remove any such irritant where it was possible for me to do so. I do not believe there is widespread concern in the Defence Forces about this matter, but it is important to realise that we are facing a period of significant change. We have moved ahead with many of the instruments in the implementation plan. I would like to see the plan moving faster. Management in the Defence Forces has been seeking this legislation for some time. There was considerable dialogue on every element of it, and a great number of meetings were held between the military, civil servants and the Office of the Attorney General to produce the best possible legislation. All the advice from the drafts people was strongly in favour of making the change we are proposing. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
I have little patience with Ministers who justify their position on the basis of "advice". Ministers are there to make decisions, advisers are there to advise. Drafts people should not be cited as the source of arguments for any policy proposition being advanced in this House. Drafts people are there to draft; politicians are there to set policy. The Minister has given very poor arguments in response to what I said, for adopting this course of action. Relying on his drafts people, people who probably never stood on a parade ground in their lives, as the basis for this course of action is not impressive.
Obviously change is needed in the Defence Forces. There is no doubt about that. The Chief of Staff was calling for it yesterday and urging that the pace of reform should be hastened. The Defence Forces themselves are keen to see changes put in place, both administratively and within their own structures. They very much welcome the changes in this Bill, section 5 in particular relating to devolution of power. It is also necessary that budget responsibility should go down the line much more than it does at present. There is huge concern about the centralisation of decision making within the Defence Forces and in the relationship with the Department. It is accepted by all that there is need for change in this.
The nomination of the two Deputy Chiefs of Staff is not the issue on which to pin change or to use as a symbol of change. It was important for the Defence Forces that the Quartermaster and the Adjutant General were appointed by the President. It is not necessary to change that in the new structure. It does nothing symbolically to impress or support the need for change. Politically it would be right to continue to allow these appointments to be made by the President. From the point of view of the status of the Army, from the point of view of the status of the appointments, they should remain where they are. The pace of change will not be driven, one way or another, by this decision. In terms of its importance, it is a shame to change it at this moment when the Defence Forces are vulnerable following the very bad publicity and the severe pressures on everybody concerned in regard to deafness compensation.
I am sorry Deputy Bruton has gone because, not for the first time in this House, if he has not cast reflections, neither has he taken into account the technical and very hard work done in the Office of the Attorney General in the preparation and drafting of Bills. I would not like to describe those individuals who work as hard as they do, long and late, as people who are not really concerned about producing the best possible legislation.
I accept there are political decisions to be taken about a range of matters, and I have no hesitation in taking those, but I will base them on the best possible legal advice I can get. I am sure that is exactly what Deputy Bruton would do in the same circumstances. Here we are concerned not just with technical legal advice but with a culture of change which does not undermine the personnel in these positions or who will subsequently take up these positions. They will still be nominated by the Government. They will be officeholders whose sphere of duties and responsibilities will remain in one office under the new Chief of Staff.
Is the Minister saying that legally it is not feasible within the terms of this Bill to continue to have these appointments made by the President?
The Bill has been drafted on the best possible legal and technical advice, having regard to the changes taking place in the context of the Price Waterhouse review and the implementation plan. The question of whether it would be possible legally to do it has been exhaustively examined. My advice is that this is the proper course of action in this legislation at present.
My own belief is that there is no legal impediment to these officeholders continuing to be appointed by the President.
The Minister completely misrepresented Deputy Bruton's contribution with respect to his comment about the personnel who assisted in the framing of the Bill. Deputy Bruton's point was that they should not be used as an excuse to formulate a certain Government policy.
They are not being used as an excuse.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 to 10 and substitute the following:
"(2) The Chief of Staff shall have responsibility for delivering the military outputs of the Defence Forces as determined by the Minister for Defence.".
This section provides for the replacement of the three military branches of the Department of Defence with a single military element to be known as "Defence Forces Headquarters", the head of which will be the Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff will be responsible directly to the Minister for such duties in connection with the business of the Department of the Defence as the Minister may determine. It also provides that the Minister may authorise the Chief of Staff to delegate to the Deputy Chiefs of Staff such duties as the Minister may determine.
The duties of the Chief of Staff as outlined in the Bill are similar to those in the existing l954 Act, i.e., such duties in connection with the business of the Department of Defence as the Minister may determine. These duties are specified in the sealed orders of the Chief of Staff. However, the introduction of other legislation, notably, the Public Service Management Act, has led to concerns that there is considerable ambiguity about the respective roles of the Secretary General of the Department of Defence and the Chief of Staff. That Act defines the Department of Defence for the purpose of the Act as including the principal military branches and charges the Secretary General with responsibility "for delivering outputs as determined with the Minister or the Government having charge of the Department".
I understand it is the intention that the Chief of Staff would be responsible for delivering the military output of the Defence Forces but I tabled this amendment because it may be necessary for that to be explicitly stated in this legislation. I would welcome the Minister's views in that regard.
The Minister referred to the Price Waterhouse report on several occasions. When examining the various options in this respect the report stated that the optimum route to take was to appoint a Chief of Staff as military commander of the Army. Many people are unaware of the structures of command in the Army. Will the Minister clarify the position on that? Is any military person overall commander of the Army?
This is the last opportunity we will have to discuss Defence matters before the summer recess. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs this evening the Swiss, Finnish, Austrian and Swedish Ambassadors made submissions on Partnership for Peace and outlined how it had been beneficial for their countries. I would like to ask the Minister, particularly in light of the comments——
The Deputy must speak to the amendment.
I will conclude now. In light of the comments of the Chief of Staff last night that there should be a more open view of peacekeeping, and in light of the Minister's own comments last night——
I remind the Deputy we are dealing with amendment No. 4.
I want to refer to the Minister's speech last night——
We are not discussing the Minister's speech last night. The Deputy must address his remarks to amendment No. 4.
I ask the Minister to take on board the points made by the Chief of Staff with regard to Partnership for Peace in his discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Section 13 of the Defence Act is the second of the two main sections of the 1954 Act needing amendment arising from the reorganisation of the top level structure of the Defence Forces. Section 4 of the Bill, therefore, provides for the replacement in its entirety of section 13 of the Defence Act.
The existing section of the Act establishes in the Department of Defence three principal military branches, the heads of which are the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General. Under the terms of the Act the Minister has assigned to each of them specified duties relating to the business of the Department of Defence and each is directly responsible for and reports to the Minister on the performance of those duties. In addition, a co-ordinating role in relation to the business of the principal military branches of the Department has been delegated to the Chief of Staff.
Subsection (1) of this section provides that, in future, there will be a single military element in the Department of Defence, which will be known and referred to as Defence Forces Headquarters, and that the Chief of Staff will be the head of the military element of the Department.
Subsection (2) of this section provides that there shall be assigned to the Chief of Staff responsibility for such duties in connection with the business of the Department as the Minister for Defence may from time to time decide.
Subsection (3) provides that the Chief of Staff will be directly responsible to the Minister for the performance of such duties as may be assigned to him. Subsection (4) provides that the Chief of Staff may, with the approval of the Minister, delegate to the Deputy Chiefs of Staff duties that have been assigned to him. Accordingly, the Deputy Chiefs of Staff will be responsible for and report to the Chief of Staff on the performance of such duties as may be delegated to them.
I must emphasise again that the legislation before the House has been drafted in accordance with legal advice and that great care has been taken to ensure its technical accuracy. In the drafting process, many alternatives have been considered and in drafting the Bill full regard has been had to the possible implications of other legislation. In common with the other amendments proposed, the question of including "outputs" in the Defence (Amendment) Bill was considered at an early stage of the process, and during the term of the previous Government.
As I indicated last night, this issue seems to have its origins in a misunderstanding. The term "outputs" is used in the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and, in relation to a Government Department or Office, means the goods and services, including standards of service, that are a consequence of the activities of a Department or Office. The Public Service Management Act prescribes that the Secretary General of a Department or the Head of an Office will have the authority, responsibility and accountability for, inter alia, delivering outputs as determined by the Minister in charge of that Department or Office.
There seems to be some confusion about the nature and impact of this reference in the Public Service Management Act. The position of the Chief of Staff relative to the Minister is completely unaffected by the Public Service Management Act and any changes which may be introduced in relation to Secretaries General.
In any event, section 4 enables the Minister for Defence to assign to the Chief of Staff such duties in connection with the business of the Department of Defence as the Minister may from time to time determine. There is, therefore, sufficient flexibility for the Minister to assign responsibility in a manner which takes account of future developments in the area of public service reform.
Over recent years considerable effort has been put into ensuring that the Chief of Staff and the military authorities have greater autonomy. More than 60 per cent of the non-pay element in the Defence Forces budget is now under the absolute control of the military. Much work has been done to ensure greater efficiencies in this way and it is obvious that the ground work is being done to move towards giving as much local autonomy as possible to the military authorities in the non-pay area. Deputies can be assured that will continue.
Some areas remain on which considerable work must be done to create the efficiencies necessary in the times in which we live. That work will continue between the civil servants in my Department and the military in a cohesive way. We are not talking about two areas of responsibility where there is divisiveness. The aim is to create the greatest possible cohesion so that we can be more efficient, make savings and gradually eradicate some of the expensive regimes that have grown up around the Defence Forces in the past. That must be done in concert with the representative associations and with the granting of greater autonomy as we proceed down the road of better efficiency. It is important to emphasise that over 60 per cent of the non-pay area is totally in the hands of the administration of the military authorities.
I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is important because there was some concern about the reference in the report to delivering outputs. The more clarity in relation to that, the better. Is the Minister saying it is the intention that the Chief of Staff should be responsible for delivering the military output of the Defence Forces?
The question of demand was considered by Government in the context of the EAG report and the implementation plan. The Government decided as a matter of policy to reject the proposal to make a single military officer overall commander in place of the Minister. This position was accepted by the Deputies opposite during the term of the previous Government and nothing has happened in the meantime to warrant such a change. The fact that command is delegated directly to GOCs from the Minister has no impact in practice. The purpose of the Bill is to try to strike a sensible balance between political control and administrative efficiency. I am sure when Deputy Fitzgerald is sitting in this seat and I am on the opposite side of the House, she will give the same explanation.
I thank the Minister for the vote of confidence.
I just do not want the Deputy to be in any rush.
There is some contradiction in what the Minister has just outlined in relation to his earlier point about moving towards delegation and a clear leader in relation to the Defence Forces. The Price Waterhouse report, in recommending moving towards the single military commander, was developing the principle of devolution. I accept the Minister's point that a political decision has not been made to move in that direction but I assume he is confirming that the Chief of Staff is responsible for delivering the military output via the Minister. I tabled the amendment to get further clarity on this matter and I will not press it.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the position of the overall commander. In regard to the non-pay budget, the Chief of Staff is probably responsible for in the region of 15 to 16 per cent of the total budget of the Defence Forces. The Price Waterhouse report refers to training in management and accounting skills. The Minister should take that into consideration. Many military personnel are well trained and undertake command and staff courses, but there is need for training in accounting and devolved budgets. Generally the military personnel are tasked only with control measures and are not responsible for budgets. Barrack commanders who are given £2 million or £3 million should be able to operate within that amount. Like officials in all Government Departments, military personnel do not turn off lights and water and leave cars running. Individuals on the ground should be responsible for those matters.
There is much sense in the overall decision taken by the Government on the amount of money to be spent on the Defence Forces. In so far as possible, military personnel should play an autonomous role in dispersing funds and we are working towards improving matters in that area. It takes time to acquire skills and ensure greater efficiency. It is unfair to say the chief of staff has responsibility for about 15 per cent of the total budget. The Deputy is playing with figures and is excluding pay. Each individual has responsibility for receiving the weekly cheque.
If for some reason the chief of staff is not in a position to carry out his duties because of illness or otherwise, would one of the two deputy chiefs of staff automatically replace him or would that matter be determined by the Government?
I am concerned about improving the health of the Defence Forces generally so that it will be fit, mobile, active, responsible and able to manage its own budget, with no absenteeism. The person who will display that character more than anyone else is the chief of staff. I hope the present chief of staff, notwithstanding anything he might say late at night, on which I will not comment, will not become ill. From time to time the chief of staff may be unavailable and he will appoint one of the deputy chiefs of staff to take over his responsibilities. We are not, however, preparing for that eventuality in this legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the House, particularly the Front Bench spokespersons and others who contributed to the debate. I had the opportunity yesterday to thank my colleagues for agreeing to take this Bill late on both nights. I thank the staff of the House who had to work late, my officials for their work in drafting the legislation, the officials in the Attorney General's office and the military authorities who worked closely with us in developing the legislation.
I am glad this is the second Bill dealing with the Defence Forces to be introduced this year. I am glad consensus was reached on the greater part of it and that there was no division on it in the House. I welcome broad consensus on security matters and the Defence Forces generally.
Whenever I can meet the wishes of my colleagues on the Opposition, I will be happy to do so. Unfortunately, on this occasion there was one area in which we were unable to reach full agreement, but nonetheless there was no division on the matter. I thank Deputies for that decision which facilitated not only me but some of our colleagues who may have left the premises.
I thank the staff of the Department. This has been a very demanding year for them, given the huge pressures in dealing with deafness compensation cases. It is important to have another Bill on reform of the Defence Forces, but we need to speed up the pace of reform. There are a number of key decisions to be made and I hope the Minister will make them quickly. I also hope he will publish the Price Waterhouse report before the end of July so that the future of the Air Corps and the Naval Service as well as the Army can be discussed. If we are to continue to be involved in effective peacekeeping, decisions will have to be taken by the Government on further participation by our forces and I would ask the Minister to have discussions on that matter also.
As we approach the new millennium there is ambivalence in regard to the Defence Forces. We need to disseminate information on the work of the Defence Forces. Progress has been made in that regard this year, even though that was difficult given the problems that arose. More debate is needed on the role of the Defence Forces in the momentously changing security landscape internationally. There are key tasks to be carried out by the Defence Forces in the years ahead. We discussed that matter last night and I do not need to refer to it again tonight. I regret the Minister did not agree to the amendment we tabled relating to the Deputy Chiefs of Staff. I thank the staff of the House for their support during this sitting.
I thank the Minister, his staff and, especially, Brian Spain in the Department for his briefing on the Bill. I am concerned about statements in today's newspapers by the Chief of Staff. I know from press reports that the statement was made at a private meeting but newspapers openly reported what was said.
The Deputy may only discuss the contents of the Bill.
I thank the Minister for the legislation which will help in the further development of the Defence Forces. I hope, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, that further efforts to increase morale in the Defence Forces will be made soon because it is low currently. There is a need for the Minister, the Department and Opposition spokespersons to do everything possible to try to alleviate that problem and give direction and impetus to the development of the Defence Forces.
Question put and agreed to.