Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000

Vol. 516 No. 6

Priority Questions. - White Paper on Defence.

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

86 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence when the final version of the White Paper on Defence will be published; the changes which will be included; if media reports on a memorandum done in his Department on the changes requested by the Chief of Staff are accurate (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9138/00]

Jack Wall

Question:

87 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Defence the author of the departmental memo published in a newspaper (details supplied) on 4 March 2000; if the memo represents his views on the White Paper on Defence; the plans, if any, he has to repair the damage done to morale within the Defence Forces by the manner of preparation and publication of the White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9047/00]

Jack Wall

Question:

89 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Defence the proposals, if any, he has for discussions with the representative organisations regarding the implementation of proposals contained in the White Paper on Defence and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9048/00]

David Stanton

Question:

90 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the way in which the sovereignty of the State will be maintained at sea in the future in view of the proposals on the Naval Service contained in the Government White Paper on Defence, and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9049/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 86, 87, 89 and 90 together.

I welcome the opportunity to deal with a number of matters relating to the White Paper on Defence and to inform the House of the further positive developments in the Defence Forces arising from the White Paper. I regret, however, that some of the questions continue to focus on matters relating to the White Paper process rather than on the content. Many newspaper articles concerning the White Paper on Defence have appeared in the recent past and among these I was quoted as saying that I regard these matters as closed.

The question, however, gives me a further opportunity to inform the Deputies concerned that no such departmental memorandum as that mentioned in the question exists. When I launched the first ever White Paper on Defence I made three very important points, namely, that the White Paper on Defence provided for the most significant development of the Defence Forces ever undertaken – it set out a framework for an unprecedented additional investment initiative totalling £250 million over the next decade, which will transform the Defence Forces into a world-class military organisation; that the White Paper proposed a very modest reduction in PDF strength which is necessary to develop an affordable, sustainable, world-class military organisation; and that any suggestion that the Defence Forces were not adequately consulted was completely 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 number one priority.

As I stated when I published the White Paper on Defence, my main objective is to ensure that the State has available at all times flexible, well equipped and well trained Defence Forces, including an appropriate reserve to meet the roles laid down by Government. I am totally committed to developing the Defence Forces into a world-class military organisation, and this White Paper sets out a comprehensive programme for such development for the next decade.

Under the White Paper, the capacity of the Defence Forces will be greatly enhanced. Although the White Paper has just been launched, I have already announced the most substantial programme of investment in new equipment for the Defence Forces that has ever occurred.

The day after the White Paper was published I announced a major investment programme for the Air Corps, with £55 million being provided over three years for new aircraft. The following week I announced that agreement in principle had been reached for the purchase of a second offshore patrol vessel similar to the LE Róisín, which will cost in excess of £20 million.

During my recent visit to our UNIFIL troops in south Lebanon, I announced a multi-million pound investment programme for the Army, estimated at £25 million. I have also instructed that arrangements to recruit an additional 750 personnel to the Defence Forces be commenced immediately. A recruitment campaign will commence early next month.

In the past four weeks I have announced investment in new equipment totalling at least £100 million. This investment is in addition to the £40 million that I already set aside for the purchase of 40 armoured personnel carriers. All that represents a morale-boosting £140 million for re-equipping the Defence Forces, announced in less than six months. Can the Opposition really be serious when they criticise my performance and assert that morale in the Defence Forces is low?

Investment of this scale merely confirms what I have indicated to the House in the past few months, namely, that the White Paper represents a serious response by the Government to a sustained case advanced by the military authorities to the Taoiseach, myself and officials of my Department. The case for re-equipment was overwhelming and it has been accepted.

The Government was serious when it said it was going to develop the Defence Forces into a world-class military organisation. We have allocated the funding that this ambitious project will require. I put particular emphasis on communications and consultation, and I regard it as very important that the representative associations, RACO, PDFORRA and RDFRA, will continue to have the opportunity to make their input to the development of the Defence Forces.

I met with the representative associations immediately prior to the launch of the White Paper. As Deputies are aware, a dedicated conciliation and arbitration unit is in place in my Department and at any time consultations with the representative associations are ongoing on a whole range of issues. Meetings will take place as necessary to deal with relevant White Paper implementation matters. The representative associations can of course raise any matter of concern falling within the scope of representation at any time, and I would always encourage them to do so.

The White Paper also recognises the important role of the Naval Service in maintaining sovereignty at sea. A primary activity of the Naval Service is the implementation of European Union fishery policies. Substantial funding was provided by the EU towards the acquisition of five of the eight Naval Service vessels. The White Paper sets out proposals for the better utilisation of these assets.

For the future, the White Paper commits the Government to the maintenance of an eight ship flotilla, which is a very significant commitment within overall defence provisions. As already stated, I recently announced the decision to acquire a second offshore patrol vessel similar to the recently commissioned LE Róisín.The final text of the White Paper will be published in the very near future. As I have informed the House already, the text, agreed with the military authorities, will reflect the fully up-to-date position based on the final inputs which I obtained from the Chief of Staff, together with any necessary typographical or presentational editing. The final phase of the proof-reading and layout processes will be concluded shortly and the text will then be immediately sent to the printers.

However, due to the widespread public interest in the White Paper, I have arranged for the final text version to be placed on my Department's website where interested parties may consult it as they require.

It would be less than honest of me not to acknowledge that the final stages of preparation of the White Paper did not run as smoothly as I would have wished. Unfortunately, some commentary was less than well balanced. The resulting commotion distracted from and devalued the impact and developmental nature of the White Paper. At the time I criticised those irresponsible people who could not see the dangers of trying to drive a wedge between a Minister and a group of public servants. 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 recent years and the Government has every confidence the Defence Forces will rise to meet the challenge of completing the necessary reform process.

The White Paper provides a unique opportunity for the Defence Forces and the future of the Army, Naval Service, Air Corps and the reserve will be fully secured. There are many challenges in the White Paper for the Defence Forces, but I have every confidence they will rise to meet the challenge of completing the reform process outlined in the White Paper.

It was unfortunate that what should have been a golden opportunity for the future development of the Defence Forces deteriorated into a lack of trust on both sides. Today is the first day the Minister has acknowledged there were problems and perhaps that offers some hope for the future in that he is being realistic about the difficulties involved. I asked about a memorandum which was described as an internal Department document. Katie Hannon wrote in The Examiner that this document was written in the Department of Defence and that it was very disparaging about the changes the Chief of Staff negotiated. The Minister has just said no such memo exists. Does any such document exist in the Minister's Department? Does it in any way reflect the Minister's view on the matter? Where did this story originate?

When exactly will the White Paper be published? Will it incorporate all the changes negotiated between the Minister and the Chief of Staff? Also, what action is the Minister taking to address the issues which arose in the final stages of the White Paper in particular, but also throughout the process, which showed such distrust and other problems between the civil and military sides? What action has the Minister taken to address these issues?

The White Paper will be sent to the printers in the next few days and will be published in its final form in a little over two weeks. It will contain all the elements agreed with the Chief of Staff, as I have outlined on many occasions.

Immediately after the Government decision was taken I had a series of meetings with senior military personnel. I have described the circumstances on a number of occasions since – they were extremely workmanlike, calm and dedicated. I have no hesitation in saying we are back on track and working to put into effect the many measures contained in the White Paper. As I indicated in my reply, the recent announcement of funding for a new aircraft and patrol vessel and for military equipment – as requested by the military – has obviously been a telling factor in demonstrating the essence of what was contained in the White Paper and the Government's determination to meet the priorities set out by the Defence Forces but which had been impossible to put in place.

No memorandum or document of that kind exists. It does not represent any comprehensive view in my Department about the military. I said at the time there were aspects which reflected my views about the way certain things happened at that time, but I have consigned that to the past. I am happy that the relationship between me, the Chief of Staff and the officials of my Department is excellent. I look forward to seeing the many proposals of the White Paper come to fruition.

The Minister stated that he met the representative bodies prior to publication of the White Paper. I understand those meetings took place the day of publication or the previous day and there were more briefing meetings than consultations. The Minister should clear up this point.

During an Adjournment debate the Minister said he had an excellent and positive meeting with the two assistant chiefs of staff. Was that view reflected in his visit to the Lebanon with the Chief of Staff and is the Chief of Staff now on-side regarding the future of the Defence Forces?

Also, if my memory is correct, at one stage I read a newspaper report that the Minister was going to hold an investigation regarding the memorandum Deputy Fitzgerald mentioned. I find it difficult to accept now that there was no such memorandum, given my recollection that the Minister was going to hold an investigation to determine who processed the memorandum or where it originated.

Deputy Wall is correct. Following media reports I said there would be an investigation. The following day the Chief of Staff was away and I met the deputy chiefs of staff and had further meetings with Department officials. There were three or four investigations at that time into various leaks and one was being conducted by the Defence Forces. The meeting itself was a transformation; it was businesslike and wanted to consign the matter to the past and I felt it eminently judicious to indicate that the Defence Forces investigation of various leaks should end and the other would not begin so that matters could start absolutely anew. That was the position.

Regarding the work with the Chief of Staff in the Lebanon, let the media and those who were there speak for themselves.

We were not invited.

I hope we have an opportunity to change that and I hope to make those arrangements in future.

I appreciate that.

The Chief of Staff was present at one of the interviews I gave and in regard to the announcement I made he said it was a day they had been waiting for for years. The Deputy should have no doubt about that matter.

The consultative process enabled the representative bodies to make their own detailed submissions. They then asked for further time to make oral submissions, which I granted but which delayed the publication of the White Paper. I had two meetings with PDFORRA and one with RACO before publication of the White Paper. The representative associations are resourceful and hard nosed. They know when they go over the time. At times Opposition Members may be attracted to meeting their every whimper and try ing to pamper them, but they know themselves when they are over the top.

I am not sure the Minister does.

They know when they have a real difficulty with overseas allowances, continuous recruitment or new equipment they can come to me and I will solve it. I am doing everything the Opposition failed to do when it was in power.

Does the Minister plan a two-tier Naval Service in future? The White Paper states that some vessels will be manned and equipped primarily for fishery protection duties. Does this mean that the manning levels on those ships will be reduced? Does it mean the ships may not have a main armament or gun? Does the Minister agree that the lack of a main gun effectively reduces the authority of the Naval Service and the sovereignty of the State at sea? Is it true that almost half of the engineering officer establishment has resigned, that only 16 engineering officers remain and that further resignations are pending? If so, what are the Minister's plans in this regard and how soon will the vacancies be filled? When was the most recent engineering inspection of naval ships carried out? Are those ships now at risk due to a lack of inspection and because a high number of trained personnel has resigned and has not been replaced?

In a sense, inexplicable fears have been expressed within the Naval Service about the contents of the White Paper. I deeply regret that as I would not have devised a White Paper which, in the first instance, expressed the Government's wishes and determination to purchase new ships, something which had not happened for 14 years—

Is the Minister planning a two-tier system?

The Government wanted to ensure that the Naval Service had the best possible equipment. The White Paper refers to the Naval Service's "primary function", but all its other functions such as drug interdiction will be carried out as usual. The White Paper does not propose the slightest change to the Naval Service's current functions, in spite of the rumours which have been circulated and the unfounded allegations which have been made.

I state categorically that we will not have a two-tier Naval Service, and senior Naval Service personnel are well aware of that. There may be some changes in the new circumstances, due to modern technology and changing systems, in the number of people who will serve on any particular ship. However, all these matters will be negotiated with the Naval Service and its functions will be carried out within its manpower requirements.

Some people want to pretend that the resignation of some officers is occurring due to a level of uncertainty about the Naval Service's future. That is an unrealistic view given that, for the first time in 14 years, the Government is ploughing money into the purchase of new ships. Engineering officers and other officers with particular skills are either reaching retirement age or are being drawn into other positions in the economy for which they can obtain a higher level of remuneration than we can provide. That loss of expertise is regrettable. I have instructed the Naval Service to use every device at its disposal, even to go abroad if necessary, to recruit, commission, upgrade and up-skill staff to ensure we have a fully fledged, eight ship flotilla which will perform all the functions it has performed heretofore without diminution. The White Paper outlines the Naval Service's primary task, a task which is not denied by anyone.

What about armaments?

We are running out of time. I will allow two final brief supplementaries.

I want to clarify the Minister's comments in regard to the internal document referred to earlier. The newspaper report in question contains detailed quotes, apparently about the Minister's attitude or that of his departmental officials to the White Paper process and particularly in regard to the manner in which members of the Defence Forces conducted themselves. The Minister stated that this document does not exist. Am I to understand that a freedom of information request, for example, would not result in the production of any document containing the quotes which appeared in The Examiner report with which I am sure the Minister is familiar? Has the Minister taken action in regard to this report? Is he satisfied it does not reflect a prevailing attitude within the Department? I am not returning to this issue merely to trawl over issues unnecessarily but to clarify whether the content of this newspaper report is in any way indicative of a departmental attitude. The Minister stated that it is not and I welcome that. From where did the story and these detailed quotes come? The article refers to an “internal document seen by The Examiner.”. What document? Where is the document or is it, as the Minister stated, a complete fabrication?

Will the Minister say what percentage of the submissions made by PDFORRA and RACO were included in the White Paper? It is my understanding that only a small percentage of the associations' substantial and costly submissions were taken into account.

The fundamental point stressed over and over again by the military authorities and the representative associations related to equipment. No parallel can be found in any past Government to the manner in which this Administration has approached this issue, as confirmed by recent announcements. The primary aim of the representative associations was met 100% and I am sure even they may have been surprised by the rapidity with which that was achieved. All representative associations approach matters from their own perspectives but, in the final analysis, it is the Government that must make decisions.

I already answered the question put to me by Deputy Fitzgerald. Some of the content of the article in question does not in any way represent the views of my departmental officials on the military authorities. My Department is unique in that it deals with both civil and military issues and, for the most part, it works very well with the military authorities. It is true that some tensions and differences of opinion existed in regard to the White Paper, but those have been ironed out and consigned to the past and we are now moving forward.

Top
Share