Vol. 514 No. 5
1 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the consultation, if any, he has had with the Defence Forces in the development of the White Paper, his views on the Chief of Staff's early return from East Timor due to the crisis in the forces; the steps, if any, he will take to improve consultation with the general staff of the forces; the reason a reduction of 1,000 personnel is called for in the White Paper; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4720/00]
2 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Defence the latest position regarding the White Paper on defence; if his attention has been drawn to the serious alarm caused to Defence Forces personnel by the contents of the paper and the serious reservations expressed by the representative organisations; if his attention has further been drawn to the comments of the former Chief of Staff (details supplied) in which he said the proposed cuts would make the Defence Forces unviable; when he last met the representative organisations to discuss the White Paper; the steps, if any, he is taking to deal with the serious damage to morale; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4724/00]
4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the representations, if any, he has made to the Department of Finance to fund the re-equipping of the Air Corps and Naval Service; the way in which he will fund the re-equipping of both services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4722/00]
106 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the deployment of personnel and the locations he envisages as a result of his proposal to reduce the Defence Forces by 1,000; the plans, if any, he has to relocate personnel serving in various barracks locations; if he envisages any closure of barracks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4721/00]
111 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his views on the serious concerns being expressed within the Defence Forces on the proposed White Paper on Defence; if his attention has been drawn to the low morale and huge concern regarding the proposals contained therein following the leaking of the recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4652/00]
112 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the deployment of personnel and the locations he envisages as a result of his proposal to reduce the Defence Forces by 1,000; the plans, if any, he has to relocate personnel serving in various barrack locations; if he envisages any closure of barracks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4653/00]
118 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the reason he ignored the submission from the military, of the proposed White Paper on Defence; the reason he did not consult the general staff of the military on the draft proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4659/00]
119 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his response to the military staff's view that if the White Paper on Defence is published in its current form, it will seriously damage and undermine the Defence Forces. [4660/00]
126 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if optimum strength and equipment in respect of the Defence Forces will be maintained; and if he will make a statement on the matter/ [4751/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 106, 111, 112, 118, 119 and 126 together.
I will make three very important points. Any suggestion that the Defence Forces were not adequately consulted is without foundation. The White Paper on Defence provides for the most significant development of the Defence Forces ever undertaken. It sets out a general framework for an unprecedented additional investment initiative totalling £300 million over the next decade which will transform the Defence Forces into a world class military organisation. It proposes a very modest reduction in PDF strength which is necessary to develop an affordable, sustainable, world class military organisation.
I am glad to have another opportunity to make it absolutely clear that any suggestion that the Defence Forces were not adequately consulted is without foundation. On the contrary, the entire thrust of the White Paper is based on the Government's acceptance of the requirement for a major programme of capital investment put forward by the military authorities as their No. 1 priority. They have stressed this on a number of occasions. Although certain elements may claim there has been insufficient consultation, the reality is that consultation does not necessarily lead to full agreement. In essence, the fundamental principle is that decisions on the allocation of national resources are a matter for Government alone, not for the deliverers of any services provided by the State.
Since work on the White Paper commenced, I have emphasised the importance of the consultative element of the process. I was acutely aware that a topic of such fundamental importance as defence should be the subject of widespread consultation. To this end I directed that all of the key stakeholders, including the Departments of the Taoiseach, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Finance and Foreign Affairs as well as the military authorities, be given the opportunity to make their input to the White Paper. I also placed a notice in the national newspapers inviting submissions from members of the public. At the same time, I was very conscious of the need for balance to be maintained between consultation on the one hand and my duty as Minister in relation to the formation of defence policy on the other.
As soon as initial draft chapters were available, these were passed to the military authorities. Similarly, as soon as a full White Paper draft was available this was also passed to the military. The military authorities were invited to respond to each of these drafts, which were subsequently amended substantially following consideration of this feedback. Throughout the process every effort was made to accommodate the military views.
There is no foundation to the suggestion that civil servants alone drew up this White Paper without my input. My name is on every chapter. These are the same officials who supported me in my efforts to contain the avalanche of hearing impairment claims, which had the potential to put an end to any hopes of a reinvestment programme for the Defence Forces.
I have been asked about the Chief of Staff's recent visit with members of the Defence Forces, including the Army Ranger Wing serving with the International Force in East Timor. It is incorrect to claim that his visit to East Timor was cut short. The Chief of Staff's work in East Timor was completed. The decision not to proceed with the Australian component of his trip was his. Following his return, further discussions took place between senior civil and military management on the draft White Paper. The process of consultation is continuing and the military have been invited to provide further inputs prior to the submission of a final draft for the Government's consideration. I trust it is abundantly clear from what I have said that the claim that the Defence Forces were not given a sufficient input into the White Paper is based on a fundamentally mistaken view of the decision-making process.
Far from being excluded from the process, the White Paper represents a response by Government to a sustained case advanced by the Defence Forces for re-equipment. This case has been advanced to me, to the Taoiseach and to officials of my Department. The case for re-equipment is overwhelming and it has been accepted. However, the determination of national priorities in resource allocation is a matter exclusively for Government.
Government does not want a larger, under-equipped force, regardless of its appeal in certain quarters. The purpose of the White Paper is to specify Government's requirements; a more capable organisation with better equipment, enhanced training and regular recruitment.
All of the funds released will be available for re-equipping programmes in the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. It has been made clear that the Defence Forces will be provided with further additional funds for any extension of the ministerial air transport service and for the new Naval vessel.
The White Paper on Defence provides for the most significant development of the Defence Forces ever undertaken. The Government is committed to developing the Defence Forces into a world class military organisation and the White Paper sets out a general framework for an unprecedented investment drive.
The foundations for this process are already in place. The allocation of pay savings from the first phase reorganisation have facilitated, for example, the financing of the purchase of new armoured personnel carriers at a cost of £40 million. However, to build a world class military organisation, much more is needed. For many years, military personnel have sought a greater investment in equipment. Under the draft White Paper proposals, this requirements will be met.
The White Paper will include the following key measures: the first ever ten year programme which will see an additional £300 million invested in new equipment and infrastructure; new aircraft for the Air Corps as a matter of urgency; a second new ship for the Naval Service and the maintenance of a modern eight ship flotilla; the provision of continuous recruitment and stability in numbers never granted by any previous Administration; a streamlined organisation more relevant to future needs; and a complete reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force.
The proposed reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force is an important element of the overall White Paper strategy and will be based on the publication of an in-depth study recently completed and a phased consultative process.
I would also point out that there are not any proposals in the draft White Paper for any further barracks closures. A small reduction in personnel will, however, be required to release resources for reinvestment. However, through the use of more modern technology, civilianisation and better use of resources this can be absorbed. Overall, the capacity of the Defence Forces will be greatly enhanced. Restructuring of the Defence Forces will correct the imbalance in the pay:non-pay ratio and move towards the target ratio of 70:30. This will ensure the provision of a sustainable and affordable Defence Forces able to fulfil the roles laid down by the Government.
Undoubtedly the White Paper will present many challenges to the Defence Forces. However, substantial change and reorganisation has been successfully carried out by the Defence Forces in the past three years. The Government has every confidence that the Defence Forces will rise to meet the challenge of completing the necessary reform process.
Ultimately, the White Paper on Defence is a statement of the Government's policy on defence. Governments are elected to make decisions and must be free to make these decisions. In no area of the public service is policy determined exclusively by those whose task it will be to implement those decisions and policies. I have described the developmental nature of the White Paper and am confident that everyone who has the welfare of the Defence Forces at heart can see the necessity for the measures proposed in it. Each of these measures represents a significant and necessary step along the road of reform.
Given these facts, I am disappointed at the unrealistic and one-dimensional view of defence issues which has emanated from certain quarters. When the hyperbole is swept away, the criticism comes down to this proposition – give more money to the Defence Forces and everything will be all right. Here in the real world where important educational, health, social, economic or other public programmes catering for disadvantage would have to be cut back to provide this money, no provider of public services can reasonably expect to write his or her own budget. On the contrary, Government is obliged to set priorities and make difficult decisions.
I will bring my proposals on the White Paper on Defence to Government for consideration shortly. Once approved by the Government, consultations on the White Paper will take place with the Defence Forces representative associations in accordance with the normal system of representation.
As with all Government publications, the White Paper will be widely available following its publication.
The Minister's denial that there has been a breakdown in the relationship between himself and members of the Defence Forces is disturbing because he is not facing up to the reality. What does he intend to do to deal with the serious breakdown that occurred? When will he meet the Chief of Staff and the general staff? What steps are being taken to ensure the White Paper when published will meet the objectives the Minister described which we all support?
As I explained, the ongoing consultative process is proceeding and later this afternoon I will meet the Chief of Staff again to continue that process. The process will continue until the White Paper is presented to Government. It is important, however, to realise that the final decisions in these matters rests with the Government and it is not possible for any one organisation to decide its own budget. Within those parameters, everything possible is being done to meet the Defence Forces' priority, namely, the procurement of additional and better equipment for the Air Corps, the Army and the Naval Service. That principle is being adhered to to the fullest possible extent. This is evident both in terms of the resources we have made available and the ten year plan, which includes a process of constant recruitment and other measures, we have put in place.
The Deputy can rest assured that every effort is being made to achieve, within reason, as broad a consensus as possible. However, there will always be areas in respect of which, for one reason or another, it is not possible to reach agreement.
I wish to offer my sympathy to the Minister, the Department of Defence and the Army on the tragic death in the Lebanon of four Army personnel. I also express my condolences to the Deere, Fitzpatrick, Lawlor and Murphy families.
The Minister stated that it is Government policy to implement the White Paper and to adhere to its recommendations on Defence Forces' funding. There is more to this matter than that. We are not concerned with Army personnel, the Chief of Staff, RACO or PDFORRA telling the Minister how to spend the money, we are inquiring about the negotiations and consultations that have taken place on the one matter in the Defence Forces which can be seen in negative terms at present, namely, morale.
The Minister stated that he intends to meet the Chief of Staff today. How many meetings has he held with the Chief of Staff since the White Paper was initiated? How many meetings has he held with RACO and PDFORRA? What is the position in relation to the Chief of Staff returning from duty and not visiting Australia? The newspapers indicated that he had returned to Ireland because of the problems created by the White Paper. Did the Minister meet the Chief of Staff on his return to discuss that or will today's meeting be the first they have had since his return from his tour of duty?
I live in south Kildare where many members of the Defence Forces live. I am informed that morale has never been as bad and it is due to a lack of consultation. How many meetings did the Minister hold with the Chief of Staff and with RACO? What is the position in regard to meetings with PDFORRA? How many of the proposals put forward by these people or organisations are included in the White Paper? Is it intended to change the White Paper further or is it ready for presentation to Government?
I thank Deputy Wall for his message of sympathy to the families of the four young privates who tragically lost their lives in Lebanon earlier this week. Their deaths, which occurred as they departed for a well earned holiday after their first engagement and tour of duty, have moved not just those of us who are close to the Defence Forces but everyone throughout the country. Go ndeine Dia trócaire ar a anama dílis.
I met the Chief of Staff almost immediately after his return from duty. There have been frequent and ongoing discussions between my officials and the generals during this 18 month process. However, there does appear to be some misunderstanding of roles. As the Deputy is aware, the legislation which establishes the representative associations prohibits them from engagement in matters relating to the principal issues being covered by the White Paper. I will meet both associations next week to hold discussions on certain aspects of the White Paper which, perhaps, come within their remit.
I have heard frequent media reports about low levels of morale in the Defence Forces. I meet soldiers all the time and I understand they may be concerned when forthcoming changes are misrepresented. Deputy Wall is aware that a number of newspapers, notwithstanding assurances to the contrary, carried stories that a number of Army barracks faced closure. I cannot control the actions of newspapers and such reports are upsetting for local personnel. However, they have my assurance that barracks will not be closed.
I also assure them that the equipment they have sought, and which has not been given to them, to enable them to compete as a world class organisation will soon be in their possession for the first time. Military personnel have presented their case to me in respect of this matter and this is the first occasion on which their demands have been met. The way to deal with morale is to ensure that, when they travel abroad, our troops are as well equipped as anyone else and that they are not obliged to beg, borrow or steal. That is the basis of the ten year plan which is now being put in place.
People should not be concerned about the guarantees which are contained in the White Paper, preparation of which must be concluded before it is presented to the Government on Tuesday week. We have left room on all occasions for negotiations to continue with the stakeholders. It must be borne in mind that the stakeholders are varied and include the Departments of Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach, Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The people to whom we supply services have been consulted and their views must also be taken into account.
On behalf of Fine Gael, I join Deputy Wall in offering our condolences to the families, relatives and friends of Privates Deere, Murphy, Fitzpatrick and Lawlor on their tragic deaths.
Does the Minister agree this development process began with the Gleeson commission in 1989 and was continued in the form of the Price Waterhouse report in 1994? On the covering letter with that report, Mr. Kelly, when trying to sum up the entire process, referred to caution in respect of undue focus on cost-cutting and stated that a radical overhaul would not be possible if approached on a cost-cutting basis. The Minister gave a fine reply to our questions which indicated that everything is rosy in the garden. I assure him this is not the case. Senior commanders in the Defence Forces were largely excluded from this development process.
Deputy Wall inquired whether the Minister met the Chief of Staff since he returned to Ireland and he replied that he had. I would like to know if they discussed the proposed contents of the White Paper. When Deputy Fitzgerald heard that the Minister is meeting the Chief of Staff this afternoon she told me we should welcome that development. I agreed but, on reflection, we decided it was a pity that we feel obliged to welcome an announcement by the Minister for Defence that he is going to meet the Chief of Staff. Such meetings should take place on an ongoing basis.
I served in the Army and even then I was interested in politics. However, members of the Defence Forces often do not know the identity of the Minister for Defence. I assure the current Minister that his identity is well known to members of the Defence Forces. They know who he is, though not always for the right reasons.
The Minister stated that the reduction in personnel would be small. In my view a 10% reduction in the current number of personnel, 11,500, is not minor, particularly in view of the fact that when other recent reductions are taken into account the figure is closer to 25%. Does the Minister not agree it is difficult to reconcile such a radical reduction in numbers given our signing up to Partnership for Peace and the loose commitment we gave at the Helsinki Summit regarding the creation of a rapid reaction force?
It beggars belief that we are doing so on the one hand, while cutting back on the other. Things are not rosy in the garden and many military personnel with long experience feel totally excluded from the process because the Department has ignored their advice.
Does the Minister agree that the White Paper would be before the Government if the Chief of Staff, David Stapleton, had not returned? These meetings are taking place after the work has been done on the White Paper. The Chief of Staff returned because of his concern about the White Paper. Suddenly a meeting is taking place today between the Minister and the Chief of Staff and there is the possibility of meetings next week with RACO and PDFORRA.
The newspapers suggested that the White Paper was to go to Government at least a fortnight ago. I cannot believe that these meetings are going to take place at the end of the process instead of at the beginning when the views of these organisations, and particularly those of the Chief of Staff, could have been included in the process.
Is the Minister suggesting there were no serious problems with this process? If that is the case it is very disturbing because it means he is not reflecting the true position. It would be more impressive if the Minister admitted that there had been difficulties and that the generals and the Chief of Staff felt completely excluded at one point from this important process. The Minister is denying this fact instead of facing up to the reality, accepting that there were difficulties and outlining what he is going to do so that they do not reoccur. Such a course of action would lead to a successful White Paper. The Minister should acknowledge that there was a serious breakdown in the relationship and outline what he is going to do to make sure it does not happen again.
There was no possibility of the White Paper coming before Government before now.
That is not what the newspapers said.
Next Tuesday was the earliest date at which it could have come before Government. It has been deferred for one week due to the tragic accident, the arrangement of funerals and so on. The deliberations have not been put back nor has the presentation of the White Paper to Government. It will be presented next Tuesday week.
My meeting with the Chief of Staff this afternoon is one of a series of meetings. I had a number of meetings with him before he went to East Timor.
On the White Paper?
Yes, of course. I have also had a number of consultations with both deputy chiefs. There is a basic misunderstanding of roles. Opposition Deputies seem to be suggesting that, in a democracy, it is possible for an organisation to decide its own budget—
We never said that.
—and to decide its structure and numbers. Deputy Timmins referred to the reduction in numbers in the previous reform process under a redundancy scheme. The Deputy is aware that the majority of people who retired from the Defence Forces at that time were in the category C class. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that this caused enormous problems for the Defence Forces. However, there is no possibility of substantially increasing the envelope for the Defence Forces. There are significant demands on resources from other areas such as education, health and tackling disadvantage. Within that envelope I have been able to implement a major development programme by retaining the savings.
Deputy Timmins also spoke about a reduction in numbers from 11,500 to 10,500. The actual numbers at present are 10,900 so the effective reduction is 400. It is hard to credit that such a reduction could cause the kind of turmoil some suggest to a disciplined organisation, with a long tradition of loyalty to the State, and with new resources for equipment, refurbishment, DROPS, armoured personnel carriers and enhanced overseas operations.
We must move on to the next question.
