Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1999

Vol. 505 No. 2

Other Questions. - Defence Forces Reorganisation.

Brian O'Shea

Question:

12 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Defence the position in relation to the Price Waterhouse report on the Army and the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13172/99]

Michael Noonan

Question:

16 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has to replace the Fouga Magister training aircrafts which have reached the end of their life and four of the six have already been retired. [9282/99]

Bernard Allen

Question:

21 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a submission from the chief of staff to address the long-term air and sea requirements of the State. [12676/99]

Jim Higgins

Question:

23 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Defence the number of meetings held by the implementation group of the Price Waterhouse report. [9262/99]

Phil Hogan

Question:

35 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has to replace the aircraft fleet. [9267/99]

Richard Bruton

Question:

36 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence if he will involve the Defence Forces representative association in his special consultation group which he has established in relation to the State air and sea services. [12679/99]

Bernard Allen

Question:

43 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence if he has received the report from the chief of staff, the GOC of the Air Corps and the flag officer commanding the Naval Service; if he has received an implementation plan for them in relation to their services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12675/99]

Nora Owen

Question:

48 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Defence the number of times the Price Waterhouse review group has met; the agenda and timetable for implementation of its recommendations; and if the implementation reports have been received from the Air Corps and Naval Service commanders. [9283/99]

Denis Naughten

Question:

55 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Defence if he proposes to proceed with the reduction in numbers of personnel in the Air Corps to 930 all ranks, the transfer of personnel from Gormanstown to Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, and the move of Air Corps headquarters from its present location in Park House to Baldonnel, without at the same time making arrangements for the modernisation of the aircraft fleet as recommended in the Price Waterhouse review. [9288/99]

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

77 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence if he has received the report from the chief of staff, the GOC of the Air Corps and the flag officer commanding the Naval Service; if he has received an implementation plan for them in relation to their services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13351/99]

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

78 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a submission from the chief of staff to address the long-term air and sea requirements of the State. [13352/99]

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

81 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence if he will involve the Defence Forces representative association in his special consultation group which he has established in relation to the State air and sea services. [13355/99]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

103 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the position in relation to the availability of adequate and modern equipment for the Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13423/99]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

104 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has for the development of a modern, well equipped Army, Naval Service and Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13424/99]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 16, 21, 23, 35, 36, 43, 48, 55, 77, 78, 81, 103 and 104 together.

Cé go raibh an Teachta MacGearailt thar lar, tá sé soiléir go raibh sí ag obair. The Government considered the Price Waterhouse reviews of the Air Corps and the Naval Service in the middle of last year. A planning and implementation process was set in train to give effect to the Government's decision. The reviews of the Air Corps and the Naval Service must be seen in the broader context of the reorganisation of the Defence Forces generally. The Defence Forces review implementation plan made specific provision for the special studies of the Air Corps and the Naval Service on the basis that the initial Price Waterhouse review had necessarily concentrated on the Army.

Price Waterhouse's 1998 report on the Air Corps and the Naval Service sets out a range of recommendations for more effective and efficient air and sea services. Some of these recommendations can be proceeded with fairly quickly while others will take longer. As with the reorganisation of the Defence Forces, the changes in the Air Corps and the Naval Service will be of a positive nature aimed at ensuring the ongoing development of these services consistent with the needs of the State and those of the taxpayer.

It is important that implementation of the recommendations is undertaken in a planned way having regard to the development of the Defence Forces as a whole. This is why I have asked the chief of staff, in conjunction with the general officer commanding the Air Corps and the flag officer commanding the Naval Service to submit implementation plans for my consideration to give effect to the effectiveness and efficiency recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report. The chief of staff has received draft implementation plans and work is continuing on the military side to finalise these for my consideration.

In parallel, and as part of the general White Paper process, I have asked the chief of staff for proposals to address the long-term air and sea requirements of the State. These proposals would form the basis of the longer-term development of the Air Corps and Naval Service to complement the ongoing effectiveness and efficiency measures. I have recently received his initial proposals and these are currently being considered. Of course, these proposals, including the question of future aircraft requirements, will have to be assessed and evaluated in the broader overall context of the White Paper on Defence.

I have also emphasised the importance of involving all the relevant stakeholders in the process. Accordingly, I have established a special consultation group to provide a forum for the input of the key stakeholders in relation to the State air and sea services. This consultation group, which I chair, comprises representatives from the civil and military branches of my Department, from the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

To date the group has held an initial meeting at which I invited the stakeholders to make their inputs to the process and appropriate contacts have been made at official level to facilitate this. Subsequently, the flag officer commanding the Naval Service and the general officer commanding the Air Corps were tasked with drawing up implementation plans to give effect to the effectiveness and efficiency recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report.

As I mentioned, draft implementation plans were recently submitted to the chief of staff and these are currently being finalised for my consideration. Once these plans have been received, the consultative group's principal work will begin. Further meetings of the group will occur as the planning and implementation process develops.

Full consultations will take place with the Defence Forces representative associations in accordance with the normal system of representation. In addition, arrangements are being put in place to ensure that the representative associations are kept informed of developments. However, I am conscious of the need for a balance to be maintained between such consultations on the one hand and my duty as Minister in relation to the formulation of defence policy on the other.

The relocation of Air Corps and Naval Service headquarters to Casement Aerodrome and Haulbowline, respectively, was a key recommendation of the Price Waterhouse report. In directing that the headquarters of both services be relocated as the initial step in the reorganisation process in the Air Corps and Naval Service, I am giving a firm and tangible indication of my commitment to this process.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Before our Government colleagues leave, I point out the Minister requested the quo rum. We thought he only needed a glass of water after his long reply.

This review of the Army and naval service, particularly the review of the naval service, was a major bone of contention during the by-election in Cork. Extreme disappointment was expressed at the lack of progress made and there was concern at the Minister chairing the committee. The Minister will be aware of the recent widespread discontent of naval personnel at the Department of Finance's apparent obstruction of the review. Will he confirm that is not the case and that the Price Waterhouse review of the naval service, which will benefit the service, will proceed without the dead hand of the Department of Finance?

Deputy Ferris is correct. The review took longer than anticipated because the original Price Waterhouse review concentrated primarily on the Army and it was thought deeper consideration should be given to the Air Corps and naval service. The review took longer than anyone envisaged.

The implementation plan for the Navy and Air Corps is in draft form. There is a significant ongoing recruitment programme for the Navy and we will have the first new ship in 14 years in September. Many positive things are happening and a massive new galley has been built in Haulbowline at a cost of almost £3 million. Given that the alternative job opportunities for highly qualified technical people are greater than ever before, the haemorrhage from the service is also greater than ever before. There is a challenge to maintain the manpower levels and we are determined to maintain them. We will introduce any scheme we can to do that. We are at a late stage in examination of that whole process and I am sure people feel a little happier about what is happening.

More people sought places in the naval service than the number of places available.

That was the case in specific areas and that is a good thing. They will have another opportunity to do so later this year.

Has the Minister addressed this matter?

How does the Minister see the process of consultation to which he referred several times during his lengthy but, apparently, last gasp reply. Have the military authorities and the general staff, in particular, acquired the habit of consultation? Have they shed their excessively defensive view of consultation with PDFORRA and RACO? Are they prepared to accept that the representatives of the serving members of the forces have recommendations, views and ideas that are worth taking into account in the future development of the role of our Defence Forces?

As a non-military person, it took me some time to get to grips with the systems in the Defence Forces. For a long time they belonged in the past but they have been radically improved. The consultative partnership approach and consensus type management, which have evolved, particularly in past last ten years, were desperately needed. More of that is happening now and more of it should happen. I want to encourage much greater participation. I accept there is still room for improvement, but a great effort is being made to improve these systems. In the past 12 months, apart from the closure of barracks and the pay deal, which will always be an area of fundamental disagreement in regard to the amount, there has been very little real dissent on all these issues. I am delighted about that and I want to encourage that for the future.

I thought the Minister was running out of credible replies to some of the questions, but interrupting the proceedings by calling a quorum proves it.

I was trying to be helpful.

The Minister appointed himself chair of the implementation group. I understand from his reply that he has chaired one meeting of the group to date. Is that correct?

Surely the Minister should take a more hands on approach to the implementation of this report. The report recommended he should appoint an independent chair. He did not do that; he appointed himself. He has held only one meeting of the group. Surely he should give the matter more impetus. Is it not the case that the implementation of the recommendations of these reports has been deferred pending the White Paper?

No, that is not true. As I indicated in my reply, the draft implementation report is with the Chief of Staff and I will receive it shortly for consideration. There are two ways of approaching this matter. I could become inextricably involved in the process of consultation, which will take place following the publication of the Price Waterhouse review, or stand back and allow those services to put forward implementation plans and then discuss how we will implement or change them. I am not a Minister who dictates to the people involved on a day to day basis and I am not doing that. I see the process of consultation following the production of the plans, as a new area in this whole thing, and I will be more directly involved then because that is the stage where I will have to seek resources and dditional resources will be needed. The profile of financial investment, whether for recruitment, the purchase of a ship, refurbishment or upgrading equipment has increased from £10 million five years ago to £37 million this year. Part of my job is to try to secure the necessary resource when I get the plan. I do not have the plan yet. Once I have it we are ready to go.

I am concerned abut the Minister's approach to this. Will he accept that the Price Waterhouse report on the Navy and Air Corps emphasises the need for a chairperson to drive the process forward, given the many problems there have been in both services down through the years? Should he not take a more proactive approach as chair of that committee to move forward the process? He said last month that he was awaiting the reports. I am glad to hear they are in draft from with the Chief of Staff and with the Navy and Air Corps. Is the Minister saying the delay is because they have not finalised their recommendations to him?

There is a consultative process between the various services and the chief of staff. I directed them to produce their implementation plan without let of hindrance from me. I am waiting for it and the moment I have it we will be into a new ball game. What the services want and need, and the efficiency and other measures they want introduced are in their hands until such time as I get the reports.

Is the Minister saying the reason for the delay in implementing the plan is that he has not received the reports?

I have not received them.

Having had one meeting of the group, the Minister is sitting like Buddha, immobile and waiting for all these things to come. Will he adopt a more active posture once he has the reports? For example, when he has these recommendations will he set target dates for the implementation of the various stages and will he let us know what they will be? Will he provide for consultation on those target dates with the serving members of the Defence Forces?

I have no idea why Deputy Dukes uses the language he does when he asks a question. I said from the beginning that I would ask the different services to produce their own plan and we would then begin the implementation process. I also said I would do everything I could in the interim period, whether a constant recruitment process, refurbishment work, or the purchase of equipment. I have already cited the profile of investment which has increased 400 per cent in four years in different areas. I have done everything possible to improve the system and deal with outstanding allowance issues which have been troublesome for a long period of time. I await the plan of the different services – there is no greater autonomy than that.

We have come to the end of the 18 minutes assigned to these questions.

Does that include injury time?

I wanted to know what financial commitment was given.

Top
Share