May I share my time with Deputy Power?
Adjournment Debate. - Defence Forces Cutbacks.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Minister for Defence for taking this matter tonight. I, in common with thousands of other people who have a deep appreciation of the role the Defence Forces play in this State, was shocked to read the front page story in a newspaper yesterday regarding the Department of Finance submission to the White Paper on Defence.
The Department of Finance memorandum was obviously drawn up by someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It proposed the axing of more than 3,500 jobs in the Defence Forces, the reduction in the number of brigades from the current three to one and the amalgamation of the Air Corps and the Naval Service. This proposal is nothing short of an attack on the integrity and standing of the Defence Forces. Not only am I appalled at the reported content of the memorandum, I am appalled such a document could be leaked to the press. Now that the Department of Finance proposals are in the public domain, there is an urgent need for the Minister for Defence to make a statement on the status of the memorandum and to give a clear indication of his views on its contents. That is why I sought this Adjournment debate this evening.
The past 18 months have been an extremely turbulent time for our Defence Forces. The Minister's handling of Army deafness claims, the delay in the publication of a White Paper on Defence and the closure of Army barracks have all combined to undermine morale in the Defence Force. Now we have a leaked memorandum from the Department of Finance which proposes savage cutbacks in terms of both the structure and the numbers serving in the Defence Forces. These proposals must be rejected by the Minister for Defence and he should do so publicly before the House this evening. As Minister for Defence, he has a duty to protect and support the members of the Defence Forces who have served the State so proudly. He cannot stand idly by and allow this destructive proposal to gain currency.
I am in favour of reform of the Defence Forces. We are entering an exciting phase in the development and transformation of the Defence Forces. For instance, the ongoing debate regarding our role in the developing common foreign and security policy of the European Union and the important task facing our Naval Service in tackling drug importation are two examples of the challenges that face us in this House as framers of defence policy. Meeting these challenges will require innovation and imagination and I look forward to seeing how the White Paper addresses these issues. However, I am sure slashing the numbers serving in the Defence Forces by roughly one third and amalgamating the Air Corps and the Naval Service has no role in meeting the future challenges. I hope the Minister will concur with my sentiments this evening.
As I stated before, morale in the Defence Forces, the Army in particular, has been severely undermined in recent times. In the past 24 hours I have spoken with a number of serving members of the Defence Forces who believe that the Department of Finance is using the current controversy regarding Army deafness to drum up support for a radical downsizing of the Defence Forces. The lone voice holding out against these developments is the Minister and I urge him to consider his position. The Army deafness saga continues to gnaw away at the integrity and morale of the Defence Forces. It is time the Minister realised his strategy to date has failed. He needs to examine new methods of resolving the issue to the satisfaction of all sides. If the Minister fails to accept this argument, he will leave the Defence Forces exposed to the penny-pinching proposals such as those put forward by the Department of Finance.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Wall, for sharing his time and support what he said. Not so long ago we asked Price Waterhouse to undertake a major study of the Defence Forces and its requirements. It presented a report to the Government which it more or less accepted. No one more than members of the Defence Forces realises the necessity to reorganise and bring about a more efficient force, one which is more in touch and in keeping with modern Ireland.
Over the past two years we have seen major changes take place with the closure of barracks and reorganisation. We all accept that could not happen without causing pain. That has been evident in Kildare, particularly the Curragh, more so than anywhere else. Although the closure of barracks was necessary, it brought with it certain difficulties for a number of members, particularly in the Curragh. The soldiers who I meet are unhappy with the way this reorganisation is taking place, although there are a number of positive aspects with which they are happy. It is, however, causing much concern among many soldiers. Morale among many members of the Defence Forces is low and they are unsure about what exactly is happening. Will the Minister outline to members of the Defence Forces where their future lies? It is the least they deserve.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue and thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate. I ask him to make an immediate statement as to whether the Government agrees with proposals to reduce the Defence Forces to one amalgamated brigade. I find the Minister's reluctance to make a comment on this issue very surprising. It is his duty as Minister for Defence to comment on these proposals given their very drastic nature and given that he, as Minister, is presiding over a reorganisation which has outlined a particular process – there are agreed goals and numbers. This memorandum from the Department of Finance totally challenges that, and it is a key Department. The Minister has a duty to outline his beliefs and response to this memorandum.
A three brigade structure was recently agreed. Indeed, we recently passed legislation supporting the reorganisation of the Defence Forces. The figure of 11,500 for the three arms of the Defence Forces has only recently been agreed and reorganisation has proceeded on that basis. This followed a detailed analysis of the Defence Forces over many years. Many members of the Defence Forces believe they are the most analysed and researched group in the country. It is time for action in getting on with the reorganisation rather than upsetting settled policy once again. As my colleague, Deputy Dukes, said yesterday, there is a settled policy in this area and why should we begin to undermine it again, given all the work that has gone into arriving at that policy?
Given the Taoiseach's recent comments about Partnership for Peace, in which he gave clear support for Ireland's participation in the future, it seems ludicrous to put forward proposals at this time that would effectively scale down the Defence Forces, so much so that we could not participate effectively in international peacekeeping.
Compounding the problem, and I support what Deputy Wall said, is the fact that the Government has no current strategy to take compensation claims out of the courts and the constant commentary in the newspapers has led to poor morale and negative publicity. The Defence Forces have become an easy target for ridicule and for cutbacks by the Department of Finance.
The White Paper due later this year should not be used to further undermine the Defence Forces but to chart a positive course for the future. I do not accept the Minister's argument that he cannot comment on one submission out of 41. The principles involved are too important and he can comment in a general way on those.
This memo is devastating to a force that is already subject to enormous scrutiny and numer ous reports and which is attempting to adjust to the three brigade structure. The Tánaiste is in Japan lobbying for Ireland to have a seat on the Security Council. How can we be on the Security Council when we do not have any resources to assist a Security Council decision? How can we go on basking in UN praise if we do not have the resources to support the UN? Why order 41 armoured personnel carriers if this undermining is being contemplated?
I ask the Minister to make a statement on the Department of Finance proposals. I forgot to say that I would like to share time with Deputy Timmins.
I thank Deputy Fitzgerald for affording me the opportunity to speak on this important topic. When the Minister was appointed to his present position almost a year and a half ago, he spoke about being the only person who had the courage to address the ills afflicting the Defence Forces. He portrayed himself as the cool clean hero, the modern day sheriff coming to clean up town, but what has he achieved? By endeavouring to whip up public support for his self-styled crusade he has opened the floodgates of the Army deafness claims as he antagonised serving and forming members into striking back. The Department of Defence appears to have no clear plan of action. All other parties have looked to the Minister to take this matter out of the courts system but it remains there. The Government is now at odds with itself. When I raised the issue of the Department of Finance view towards the agreed strength of 11,500 with respect to the White Paper in this House on 1 October last, the Minister told me that was the position. When was this memo drawn up? When did the Minister become aware of it? It gives me no pleasure to say I do not believe the Minister will be riding off into the sunset but rather heading to a plot on Boot Hill.
The Government's An Action Programme for the Millennium contained a commitment to publish the first ever White Paper on Defence. Because it is a first, considerable emphasis is being placed on maximising the opportunities it presents to address defence issues in a positive and developmental way. The White Paper will make a significant contribution to defence in this country and will set out a clear strategy on defence for the next ten years and more.
The question of having a White Paper on Defence is nothing new. It was recommended by Price Waterhouse in its report on the Defence Forces in 1994. The previous Government ignored this recommendation and, as usual, it took this Government to initiate the necessary steps to undertake what we consider an important and necessary task.
There is a recognition that a White Paper on Defence will ensure the required policy framework to build on the changes made and take cognisance of the changing security environment. The White Paper is a great opportunity, which we propose to take, to ensure that there will be a long-term strategy in place for the development of defence. The planning work for the White Paper is proceeding. The process itself provides a vehicle to ensure the input of all of the stakeholders.
When the Government's proposals were published, I announced a consultative process. I made it clear that as this would be the first White Paper on Defence, I wanted to ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity to make their input and put their views forward. I have received some 40 submissions so far. These include submissions from a variety of organisations covering the full spectrum of defence issues. All of these views are welcome. I am told that some submissions support an expansion of the Defence Forces while others adopt different lines. They give a good insight into the views of those who have an interest in defence or who are part of the defence organisation.
As we are in the early stages of a deliberative process, it is not appropriate for me to publish or comment on the specifics of any one submission. There is no point in putting the cart before the horse – what is the point of having a consultative process and inviting submissions if we are not going to let the process run its course? I am aware there has been criticism of a submission from the Department of Finance. However, I do not intend intruding in the consultative process.
It is important to respect the right of all interested organisations to have their input and for this to be considered carefully. All organisations who made a submission, including the representative associations, would want that to be the case. This must be respected, as should the fact that all submissions are presumably only submitted after careful consideration of all the issues by those making submissions.
I want to make it clear that the White Paper process is not interfering with the many positive changes currently taking place in the Defence Forces. Legislation has been enacted to give effect to a new top management structure in the Defence Forces. A system of regular recruitment is now in place, the recruitment campaign for this year will be announced shortly. This continuous recruitment is already feeding into the Defence Forces ability to conduct more collective training and in meeting overseas and other operational commitments.
This year sees the allocation of pay savings to new equipment – the competition for the provision of new armoured personnel carriers for the Army is well advanced and the delivery of the first APCs will be made before the end of the year. Sixty per cent of the proceeds of the sale of six barracks will be applied to the improvement of Defence Forces infrastructure and equipment. A new ship for the Naval Service will be delivered next September and planning work is well under way to give effect to the special reviews of the Air Corps and the Naval Service.
The White Paper on Defence will continue this developmental work. It will ensure that the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service are organised and equipped to carry out their assigned roles in the domestic and overseas environments and it will shape an organisation the men and women of the Defence Forces will be proud to serve in.
Ireland has participated extensively in peacekeeping for the past 40 years. Since the start of Ireland's UN involvement in 1958, more than 45,000 individual missions have been recorded. There is currently a total of 749 Irish military personnel serving abroad. Seven hundred and fourteen of those are serving with UN missions. Among this number is Ireland's contribution to SFOR, the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the provision of some 50 personnel, mainly military police. This mission operates under a United Nations Security Council mandate. In addition to the aforementioned, there are 27 personnel seconded to APSO to assist in the relief effort in Honduras following the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch.
Ireland continues to build on a long tradition of service to the founding principles of the UN by making practical commitments of personnel on a continuing basis – proportionately, far beyond its size. Defence Forces participation in peacekeeping missions involves major operational taskings and a heavy financial commitment. It is my policy to ensure that the Defence Forces are adequately trained, equipped and resourced to continue in this important role of peacekeeping.
As regards the question of participating in Partnership for Peace, Deputies will be aware that the House approved a motion on 28 January 1999 undertaking to further examine favourably Ireland's participation in PfP. During that debate, Deputies will recall that the Taoiseach stated that he would envisage, all going well, that Ireland will join Partnership for Peace on a mutually agreed basis in the second half of this year, and the Government will be working towards that timetable. He sees the current debate of PfP as allowing an opportunity to the different parties in Dáil Éireann to formulate their positions and to put them before the people as part of the European election platforms.
I reject some of the allegations that were made, particularly by Deputy Timmins, on the question of escalating claims for deafness on my assumption of office. The Deputy knows well that the vast bulk of the claims were already made before I was appointed. He knows also that the decisions by the courts since then have brought about a marked reduction in the quantum, saving hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. The Deputy also knows I am anxious to establish an alternative system as soon as I get the quantum down to an affordable level for minor disabilities. The Deputy knows this is the truth. He came into this House to mislead the public. He has been through the system, he knows what it is like but he will not get away with trying to distort the facts.
As far as Deputy Power is concerned, I am anxious to ensure the development of the Curragh, a major expansion programme and that investment is made in that facility. I want it to be a masterpiece for the Defence Forces. All of the moneys have been provided for the swimming pool and refurbishment work. We will look at any other difficulties as they arise. We will not comment on one of 40 submissions. The Department of Finance has repeatedly produced such proposals. It will be my business to develop a Permanent Defence Force which is developmental and progressive, continues recruitment, which has better equipment and serves in the United Nations. That is what I intend to do.
When did the Minister become aware of the memo?