Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 May 1996

Vol. 147 No. 2

Defence Review Implementation Plan: Statements.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Barrett)

I welcome the opportunity afforded me by the Seanad to clarify the present position regarding the review of the Defence Forces. It enables me to deal again with issues which have given rise to misconceptions surrounding the efficiency audit group process.

The Government has embarked on a major reform of the Defence Forces aimed at increasing efficiency and streamlining structures and organisation. The efficiency audit group has conducted that review on behalf of the Government. The EAG was established to examine the workings and practices of each Department with a view to recommending improved or alternative practices and methods which would reduce costs and improve efficiency. The group comprises senior figures from the public service, trades unions and the private sector and is chaired by Mr. Tony Barry.

A number of factors led to the present review of the Defence Forces. The report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces — the Gleeson report — highlighted a number of shortcomings in the organisation and structure, with excessive numbers employed in non-operational tasks. Similar structural problems were again highlighted by a subsequent review of military administration by the EAG.

Arising from a changed international environment the Government adopted in September 1993 a revised statement of roles for the Defence Forces which placed a greater emphasis on current operational roles as opposed to defence of the State against external aggression, hitherto the primary role. Furthermore it had been apparent for some time that the rising age profile of the Defence Forces would cause problems if it were not addressed in a co-ordinated manner.

Against a background of general acceptance that reform of the military organisation is necessary, together with a change in the overall role of the Defence Forces, it was decided to ask the EAG to conduct a review of the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces. External consultants were engaged by the EAG to conduct the detailed work of the review. To ensure that the consultants had the necessary military expertise, senior officers of the Defence Forces were involved at every stage of the selection process. The selected firm, Price Waterhouse, provided a team which included retired Major-General Lewis Makenzie, ex-UN commander in the former Yugoslavia, and other Canadian military experts. The Canadian military team was accepted by the Irish military authorities as having the necessary and appropriate military competence to conduct the review.

Last year the Government announced its response to the report of the efficiency audit group and published a document detailing the EAG report and setting out the Government's approach to the reorganisation. The Government established an implementation group to draw up a fully costed development plan for the Defence Forces setting out the measures to be taken during the first three years of the reform process. I expect the entire process to take about ten years to complete.

The implementation group established several joint civil/military groups to undertake the detailed work involved in preparing the three year plan. This plan, with which the military authorities are in full agreement, was approved by the Government last March. It is essentially strategic in nature and sets out the parameters and objectives within which the reform of the Defence Forces will take place. It does not go into the fine detail of the new organisation or structure, nor would it be appropriate to do so at this stage.

The plan also includes a voluntary early retirement scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force but I want to make it abundantly clear, as I have been at pains to point out on many occasions recently, that there is no question of compulsory redundancy in any section of the Defence Forces. For anyone to suggest otherwise can only be described as mischievous. Also, the financial benefits which will accrue to members of the Permanent Defence Force who avail of the voluntary early retirement scheme are in addition to the favourable superannuation arrangements which are already in place.

A booklet giving the details on voluntary early retirement was launched and distributed to all members of the Permanent Defence Force on 22 April and the first day for the receipt of applications under the new scheme was last Monday, 29 April. The indications at this early stage are that the response to the scheme is extremely favourable and I am delighted to say that the VER scheme has been well received within the Defence Forces. The proof of this is that within three days of the scheme opening over 600 applications have been received. These applications are representative of all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force.

This review is not a cost cutting exercise. It is not being carried out in order to produce a programme of cutbacks and closures. I want to repeat here what I have said on many occasions in the past, including in this House, in relation to barrack closures. There is no reference in the Government decision to barrack closures. The question of barrack closures just does not arise. It appears to be stemming from unhelpful statements made in various quarters in relation to possible barrack closures, which are not a matter for discussion, certainly not within the first three years.

I would like to deal briefly with the roles of the Naval Service and Air Corps. Over the past 20 years a growing appreciation of the value of our marine resources has coincided with a period of growth and development for the Naval Service and Air Corps. In particular, the extension of our exclusive fishery limit to 200 miles offshore marked a turning point in our appreciation of the importance of the sea as an economic asset. As a result, the Naval Service and the Air Corps have seen considerable growth and development. With the new arrangements on fishery control measures introduced this year the workload of the Naval Service and the Air Corps is increasing. Some time ago we reached agreement on the new EU fisheries surveillance package which, for the first time, includes an element of funding for operational costs for Ireland.

The continuing success of the Naval Service in fishery protection, search and rescue and their important role in dealing with pollution threats and the illegal importation of drugs has resulted in a much more widespread appreciation of the outstanding work performed by them. The Air Corps perform vitally important functions in search and rescue, air ambulance and security operations and, from time to time, assist in non-military operations such as the relief of distress in emergencies arising from natural disasters.

Recognising the diversity of tasks performed by both the Naval Service and the Air Corps, the Government decided that, as an integral part of the process of implementing the recommendations of the EAG, separate in-depth studies should be carried out on their structure and organisation. What I and the Government want at the end of this whole process is to have an organisation that is best suited for the discharge of the roles assigned to it. A key objective in the exercise is to release more personnel for operational duties. I know this is what the military personnel themselves want.

The military authorities have now taken possession of this plan and are running with it. They have seized the opportunity which has been presented to them to modernise and shape their own structure and organisation for the future. What will be achieved at the end of the exercise is a modern, efficient organisation, staffed and equipped to fulfil the roles assigned to them by Government in a manner which will provide good value for money. This objective is in the national interest; it is in the interest of the Defence Forces themselves and it is an objective which I am confident is supported by all sides of this House.

Finally, I cannot let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the heroic work the Defence Forces are carrying out in very difficult circumstances in South Lebanon. I have just returned from there where I saw at first hand how our Irish troops are contributing to the work of the UNIFIL force in trying to fulfil the mission assigned to them and also in trying to deliver humanitarian aid to those in need. Our troops are once again displaying the courage and professionalism which we know they possess. I am sure this House joins me in wishing them well in their most difficult task.

Mr. Byrne

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him well in his task. I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Defence Review Implementation Plan, which is long overdue. Successive Governments in recent years should have paid more attention to the conditions and development of the Defence Forces.

I was pleased the hear the Minister pay tribute to our forces in the Lebanon, from where he recently returned We are proud of their peacekeeping role throughout the world over the last 30 years. We are also proud of their families, many of whom were very concerned in the past two weeks about the involvement of their husbands in keeping the peace in the Lebanon. We are proud of the manner in which they performed their duties.

The report is very long and important. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that there should be no panic regarding the closing of Army barracks. This is a shrewd way of approaching the problem. It will take many years to implement various sections of the report because of the neglect over the years.

There has been concern in my own constituency about Kickham Barracks in Clonmel. It is fine barracks and I am proud of the role played by the Army there. Much of the accommodation could be used for additional purposes to those of the Army. A member of Clonmel Corporation recently suggested that some of the surplus accommodation may be used at a future date for people guilty of minor offences instead of having them clog up our prisons, which could then be used to accommodate those guilty of more serious crime. Perhaps the Minister will consider this proposal and discuss it with the Minister for Justice.

Doubtless the plan will generate much discussion within the Defence Forces and the political parties in this House. There was a stop/go system of recruitment to the Army in earlier years largely because of the financial priorities of previous Governments. It has left us with an undesirable age structure within the Defence Forces. I hope that when the various sections of the plan are put into operation it will balance out.

The Minister also mentioned the important role the Army is playing, and will play, in the years ahead, in co-operation with the Naval Service and Air Corps. on the issue of drugs smuggling and the protection of our fisheries. In view of the importance of these areas I urge the Government to act swiftly. Given the size of the drug and crime problems the Army and Navy can play a major role.

The fisheries industry is very important but it is being swamped by Spanish boats which are everywhere. We should pay tribute to our fleet who is doing an excellent job to address this problem. It should get whatever Government assistance it needs immediately.

When all the various proposed changes have been made, the suggested savings to the State should be invested in improving the lot of the average members of the Defence Forces and the equipment they require. My colleague, the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, established this review — and not before time.

I would like to refer to Civil Defence which has been neglected over the years. That is sad because it has played an important role over the past 50 years and I would like the Minister to acknowledge that by awarding medals or scrolls. People spent many years in the force and have given a great example to young people in rural areas, in towns and cities during the war years, in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and, in particular, when we had problems in Northern Ireland. These people were leaders in their parishes and we should pay them tribute because they have done a great job. It is heartening to see young people provide a guard of honour when the President or a Minister visits an area.

In recent years, even before this Minister took office, there had been a lot of cheese-paring as regards support for Civil Defence. I believe there is a problem with basic clothing and I appeal to the Minister to rectify that. There is a great sense of pride among people who join their local FCA. Surely the State should see to it that they get proper winter and summer gear. There should be no penny pinching. We should be proud of the FCA and I hope the Minister will provide help for this service in the near future.

There are many problems in the Army which have been caused by neglect over a number of years. Successive Governments have not paid enough attention to the modernisation of equipment, accommodation and recruitment. I hope this plan will auger well for everybody concerned, and for the State. We must have confidence in and respect for the Army. We should thank the families of members of the Defence Forces involved in UN peacekeeping duties who have made us proud. We should see to it that their families are properly compensated. Unlike our Army few countries can boast of such a wonderful record while serving under the UN flag.

We must ensure the force is updated and supported in every way. Young people should be encouraged to join. It was suggested many years ago that all young people should serve 12 months in the Army, although this would be very costly and some people might not be suited. If we could make the Army more attractive, it would be a step in the right direction.

I am sure the Minister has the support of both Houses and I wish him well in implementing this plan, although it will probably take at least ten years before some of the recommendations are put in place. It is time we started to move in this area.

Mr. Belton

I pay tribute to the Minister on his recent trip abroad to visit our troops in south Lebanon at a time when a lot of anxiety has been expressed by relatives and the Army about the safety and well being of our troops in that war torn country. It was reassuring and brave of him to visit the Defence Forces at this crucial time.

This is perhaps the first time a Minister for Defence has taken on such a difficult and farreaching task which will bring our Defence Forces up to date because it would have been easy for him to leave things alone. Over the years there have been calls and warnings from various sources about the future of our Defence Forces, but no Minister has really tackled the problem until now.

Coming from County Longford, in the midlands, I have first hand knowledge of the Defence Forces. Young men have always been anxious to serve in the Defence Forces but they did not get the opportunity because there was no recruitment. Everybody knows that if a group or organisation does not bring in new blood, its vitality will suffer. The present plan will certainly address that problem. It was heartening to hear the Minister say there will be a voluntary retirement scheme. We often hear wild speculation about this and I agree with the Minister that there may be a certain amount of mischief behind these rumours.

Defence Force personnel are scattered throughout the country. The media should be more responsible when they decide to publish wild stories. In the past 12 months we have heard stories about towns which will be severely hit by the closure of certain barracks. There was no question but that Army barracks were to close. These stories were false and caused enormous stress to the families of Army personnel in Longford. At the time I told local radio and local newspapers about assurances I got from the Minister that these stories were false. However, I was glad that, in the last 12 months, I had an opportunity to reopen Connolly Barracks on two occasions. As far as I am concerned, the media tried to close it down but they failed. The barracks is open and long may it stay that way.

The Minister emphasised that Army barracks are not under review at this time and will not be in the foreseeable future. There are other compelling and immediate problem with which the Defence Forces must deal, such as the age profile, new recruitment and equipment. A modern army the size of ours must be efficient and lean and capable of quickly changing its strategy. The plan recognises these problems and looks to the future. It is important and will be welcomed by the Army. Apart from fears which have arisen, the plan is properly focused. It is a positive development with regard to the Defence Forces and public service reform. It combines a reduction in the overall manpower of the Defence Forces with a more streamlined organisation which has increased operational capabilities.

Many Army operations have been more suited to 40 or 50 years ago. Every organisation, especially the Army, must move forward and acquire modern equipment and technology. The plan tackles the age profile problem, which has been identified as requiring immediate attention. As the Minister pointed out, there is no compulsion on any personnel to take early retirement. This is a fair and positive way of dealing with the issue.

Military personnel have given a great deal of service not just to the Defence Forces but also to communities. It is important to towns and communities to have Army barracks. I know at first hand of the service Army personnel have given to Longford town. They have been involved in sports and social activities and are always willing to lend their assistance in whatever way possible. Such barracks are the life of towns. I have talked to the Minister about this issue privately. He reassured us here that this matter must be dealt with in the overall context of the plan. As a result of this plan, the Army will be more modern and streamlined and will offer good careers to young people.

It is important that young people be given the opportunity of training in the FCA. There are so many other activities today to occupy their time and minds. The FCA can play a vital role in giving them a sense of purpose, nationalism and discipline. I strongly recommend to the Minister that broadening the resources, personnel and future of the FCA should play a major part in his plans. Young people are anxious to join the FCA and to be part of our Defence Forces.

In many countries there is compulsory army service. In Switzerland everybody must spend at least three years in the defence forces. This might seem shocking to us but we know that the Swiss are disciplined, well trained and well organised and this may have something to do with their army training.

Mr. Magner

The Senator should not forget their navy.

Mr. Belton

I have not seen their navy. Perhaps they have not launched it yet. With regard to our Navy, I am glad the plan provides for its review and updating. It plays a vital role in fisheries protection and preventing the illegal importation of drugs. It is highly important that our Naval Service is active, ready and able to deal with these matters.

In the not too distant past I was told that the Army Band in Athlone was to be disbanded and was to play for the last time. Well known, prominent and responsible politicians cried from the roof tops in Athlone that the band was to go because Fine Gael was in Government.

Mr. Magner

Deputy O'Rourke.

Mr. Byrne

The Senator should not beat the drum.

Mr. Belton

I am glad we have the opportunity, thanks to the Minister, to say loud and clearly that the band plays on.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important part of the life of the country. Senator Belton must live a sheltered life if he did not hear more than a little rumour about the closure of barracks. When the Government published a report last year, it was not just a rumour that a number of barracks was listed for closure. I strongly welcome the Minister's reassurance that no barracks will close. However, last year 19 barracks were listed for closure, including a barracks which was in the course of construction in Lifford, County Donegal. This construction involved expenditure of over £1 million and an officers' mess had been completed. The possible closure of these barracks was debated in the House.

Reference was made to mischief and rumours and a prominent politician in Athlone. Senator Belton must live a sheltered life if he did not read this list of barracks. The situation became more alarming when the Tánaiste gave a public assurance that barracks in Kerry would not close. I want to be positive.

Mr. Belton

Good.

Mr. McGowan

We have a trend of thought that says this country should be neutral. This little island has done nicely through having no alliance with European armies or any other armies. We will mind and defend our own island and there is a lot to be said for that if it is practical. I totally support the Government in having a leaner, more efficient and better equipped Army. However, the decision to bring in eminent consultants like Price Waterhouse was based on economic necessity.

Mr. Belton

Your party brought them in.

Mr. McGowan

Whether they brought them in or not, the terms of reference are important. The present Government is implementing the terms of reference. The Army is so basic and important that one should not decide that the only criteria to be used for it is how much can we afford. The average person looking at their television set understands that. Young men apply to join the Army believing they will qualify but they are not accepted. This is a big issue nationally.

I am delighted the Minister has decided to kill off, once and for all, the possibility of Army barracks closing. Members on both sides of the House know that it was a political hot potato. Everybody in the country knows that to close down either 15 or 19 barracks around the country was unacceptable.

I am not happy at the provision for the FCA, which seems just a bit of lip service. Over the years the FCA has given great service, almost free of charge. Apart from outings, training and a special week or two in military barracks, it has cost almost nothing to have the FCA on call; yet the FCA has not received recognition or support at any level.

The Minister should spell out for the young men working on a restricted budget in the FCA that there will be no cutbacks. The best advice I can get from young men who are committed to serve in the FCA is that there are cutbacks and serious restrictions at the moment. It is an awful mistake to dissuade such young men who want to serve and defend their country should the need arise.

We should have a well organised, well trained and well equipped Army. I am privileged to live near the coast and can see the need for a well trained Naval Service. Every Member of the House is aware of the high standards necessary to qualify as a naval cadet. The naval cadets are the highest professionally trained people in the country. That is how it should be, because they are doing a job which calls for discretion and dedication. No amount of support that we in this House can give them would be sufficient. These people are prepared to put their lives on the line whether they are called for duty at home or abroad.

We must recognise the value of our Army, the FCA and the Naval Service. The Minister has our total support for upgrading the Army and Naval Service, as well as recognising the service the FCA has given, but what are the Minister's plans for the future of the FCA? To put it bluntly, will the Minister allow the FCA to be starved to the point where it is no longer worth a young person's while donning an FCA uniform? The young men and women who serve in the FCA should have some pride and recognition in what they are doing, but that has been removed. The FCA is a demoralised force at the moment.

I welcome the Minister's contribution and the reversal of the statement to close Army barracks. That was a clear statement.

Mr. Magner

It was never made in the first place.

Mr. McGowan

It was made and it was clear. It was understood by everybody.

Mr. Magner

Who made the statement?

Mr. McGowan

It was a crystal clear recommendation.

Mr. Magner

Who made it?

Mr. Belton

It was in the Fianna Fáil report.

Mr. McGowan

It was not a Fianna Fáil report. That does not help the contribution.

Mr. Byrne

That is unfair, Senator Belton.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McGowan, without interruption please.

Mr. McGowan

My contribution is as honest as I can make it. It is made with a sincere commitment to those whom I represent. There are three Army barracks in Donegal, at Finner, Rock Hill and Lifford.

Mr. Belton

The Senator does not represent me.

Mr. McGowan

I have represented those people well enough to have been elected to this House on six occasions.

Mr. Belton

We are not doubting that.

Mr. McGowan

It behoves me to say that the Senator is out of order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McGowan should address the House through the Chair? Senator McGowan without interruption, please.

Mr. McGowan

I am not only representing a Fianna Fáil point of view here. The Minister should recognise the value of the FCA and the great work that both the Army and Naval Service are providing on the cheap. I want to see better equipment, better organisation and a more positive attitude towards the armed services, of whom we are proud.

Mr. Magner

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Barrett, to the House. I appreciate the way he has approached legislation, such as the Harbours Bill, which was subject to some amendment in this House. The creation and introduction of the Defence Review Implementation Plan requires someone in command who is amenable to listening and to taking on board constructive points. While the opening contribution by Senator Byrne was balanced and fair, the same cannot be said for Senator McGowan, although nobody doubts his integrity, honesty or beliefs. Fortuitously, I happened to be in Athlone on the day of the demonstration. A number of people were on the back of a big truck which drew up in the town square. They included Deputy Mary O'Rourke, who categorically said that this was the end of the Army bands.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not refer to Members of the other House.

Mr. Magner

I am sure Deputy O'Rourke will not be disappointed if I say that she attended a demonstration in Athlone.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is a convention that Members of the other House should not be referred to by speakers in the House.

Mr. Magner

I am respecting that convention. An unnamed senior person attended the demonstration and said that from now on not alone would the Army bands disappear but the massive contribution they make to music would disappear also. Of course, this was not so.

I do not know who stated that a certain number of barracks would be closed down or of which Government that individual was a member. However, I know there were many rumours and various people felt constrained to state that it would not happen in their backyard. I cannot recollect a statement being made by any politician or member of Government that specific barracks would be closed down.

Many tributes have been paid to the Defence Forces — the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps — not least by the Minister when he referred to the contribution of the Army in the Lebanon. Many Members recall the Army's first sojourns in the Congo and other places. The men and women of the Defence Forces have always behaved, and carried their country's flag, in an honourable and brave manner. I have no hesitation in saluting them.

During the past 15 to 20 years the national profile of members of the Defence Forces has improved beyond measure. There is a great deal of respect for the Army and appreciation for the work carried out by its members, whose conduct is impeccable. In recent years we have become used to seeing soldiers escorting prisoners, large amounts of cash or surrounding and guarding banks. Invariably their contact with the public increases the esteem in which they are held. They are first class in the manner of their dress and display. I congratulate each of them in this regard.

Irish soldiers are internationally recognised as being extremely well trained and able to cope with the demands of the modern world. I had the pleasure of accompanying General Norman Schwarzkopf's second in command, Major-General William Keyes who commanded the 2nd Marine Division in the Gulf War, on a visit to Irish Army Headquarters. Major-General Keyes expressed a wish to make this visit because he knew the Irish Army by the reputation gained from its overseas work. The reception he received in Dublin and in Collins' Barracks in Cork left nothing to be desired because the staff epitomised courtesy and friendliness. Major-General Keyes left Ireland with very fond memories of the Irish Army.

The one disappointing feature of the visit was — I mentioned this to the Minister on a previous occasion — the Collins' Museum at Collins' Barracks in Cork. The museum is under-funded and the staff are doing their best to see that it remains open. It is a great pity that more assistance is not provided in this regard because the museum is situated in a barracks in Michael Collins' home town. The Department might generously consider providing extra funding to bring it up to an acceptable standard. I was very impressed by the commanding officer at Collins' Barracks who is very anxious to integrate the Army with the city of Cork and open more of the barracks to the public. I believe Members would welcome such a development.

As good as it is, the Army, like every other organisation, must change; it must become more efficient and increase its ability to respond to changing demands. Having read the plan under discussion, I compliment those responsible for drawing it up. It is probably one of the few Government publications which is readable and written in understandable English. It largely avoids the normal double Dutch approach of similar reports. As far as I am concerned, no one could disagree with the objectives set out for the audit efficiency group and, subsequently, Price Waterhouse. This document was fathered by different regimes who all retain ownership of it. One does not inaugurate such an in-depth and costly study and decide to do nothing with it.

The mission given to Price Waterhouse in compiling its report is one with which all Members would agree. The key issues outlined include the age profile of the Defence Forces, inappropriate top management structures, operational effectiveness impaired not by a shortage of manpower but by too many small units geographically dispersed, military personnel engaged on duties which could be undertaken by civilians, too many medically unfit personnel and an imbalance in the ratio of pay to non-pay expenditure leaving insufficient funds for buildings, equipment and training. No one, including the taxpayer, could not disagree with the list of things which must be corrected. The report goes on to set out what it tried to achieve, which is a modern, efficient army capable of responding to current needs and pressures.

There is no way the Irish Army, if its structures and equipment are not modernised, could possibly take its rightful place among the United Nations forces. There is an unanswerable case for modernisation. I am sometimes confused by contributions which suggest that the Defence Forces are some kind of enlarged FÁS scheme instead of a modern fighting force whose job it is to protect the integrity of this state and undertake very dangerous missions abroad on behalf of the Irish people. The Defence Forces are not an employment exchange. However, employment is vital and the approach made by this document to the objective of lowering the age profile is humane and sensible. As the Minister stated, a ten year window is provided and retirement is voluntary. The employment of incoming troops on a contract is sensible because this will avoid a situation where, in 20 to 30 years, Price Waterhouse would be obliged to complete another report. In many ways this is an extremely sensible manner in which to go about restructuring.

I note that PDFORRA and other Army representative bodies are fully involved with, and kept fully informed of, the ongoing process of restructuring. It is essential that the representatives of members of the Defence Forces are fully engaged in the implementation of phase one and subsequent phases of the process. It is not acceptable that people's lives can be changed without consultation or agreement. Members of the Army are no different to any other section of the community. This fact has been recognised by the present Government and its predecessor. The policy of consultation and the introduction of change on a phased basis — which take account of human difficulties, early retirement, etc. — are to be welcomed.

The conclusions of this report would lead to Ireland's Defence Forces becoming modern, efficient and well-motivated. Members will agree with that objective. I wish the Army personnel — from the Chief of Staff to the newest recruit — well in this joint endeavour and I hope they become fully involved in this process. The Minister is wise enough, and has shown enough sensitivity in matters affecting the Departments of the Marine and Defence, to take this into account.

The Headquarters of the Naval Service should be in Cork, not Dublin. However, that is special pleading on my part. The role of the Naval Service has been outstanding. Perhaps the Irish people should be taken out on one of the Naval Service's corvettes during a force 10 gale to see whether its members are doing a good job. Its record in terms of protecting Ireland's fisheries stock is stupendous. Although I have not seen recent figures, it seems at times that Spanish fishermen pay for the cadets. This is only fair. One ship caught so many of them that they were probably meeting a budget deficit rather than anything else. The Air Corps now has its own distinctive uniform and command under the general command of the Defence Forces. This is also welcome because it gives the Air Corps a sense of identity.

As the British Government discovered, nothing is more difficult than trying to introduce rationalisation in a section in which there is tremendous cohesion, not just as a group but also when it is broken down into small subsections. There is great affinity to various infantry battalions and brigades, etc., and this makes the task much more difficult. In this case the Government has wisely adopted a course of consultation and steady implementation over a phased period. I have no doubt that at the end of the process the Army and the Government will have achieved the mutual objective of a modern, efficient, well paid and well founded force.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. This side has sought this discussion for some time, even before the change of Government, because the contents of the report of the efficiency audit group and the Price Waterhouse report were of considerable concern. This is why a debate on those issues is appropriate and I am glad the implementation plan is before the House and that Members are in a position to consider it.

I am pleasantly surprised by the broad thrust of the plan. It covers many matters which are necessary for a modern army, but I wish to mention a number of points; I am critical of some aspects. It was represented to me recently that the Progressive Democrats are not in favour of the Defence Forces and that we feel the country could adequately do without them. I do not know from where that idea emerged but it is not party policy and I consider the Defence Forces essential. They have contributed enormously to Ireland's profile internationally and over many generations they have contributed to the stability we enjoy in this country. They have also contributed to maintaining peace along the Border. From these points of views and others, the Defence Forces are necessary.

However, nobody denies the need for reform and the representative associations, which appeared before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, also made this point. There is a wide acceptance of the need for reform. The age profile is heading in the wrong direction and what is required is a modern, well equipped, mobile force, which can respond to needs in Ireland, and internationally when it is called upon to do so by the Secretary General of the United Nations. I hope this ready response, which has always been evident, will continue to be so.

There is a lack of clarity regarding the role of the Defence Forces. It has been defined, but how relevant is it to state that the Defence Forces will defend the country from outside aggression? I am sure the Defence Forces would do so and that professional soldiers would, if necessary, lay down their lives. However, although it is a minor point, how relevant is that role in modern warfare. Perhaps there is a need to re-examine it.

Another aspect is the degree to which the Army must participate in Western European Union, NATO and associated bodies. This issue can be debated more fully when the House is discussing the White Paper on Foreign Policy. Perhaps this is where the matter should be considered. But, irrespective of the possible outcome of that debate and whatever association, or lack of association, is developed in terms of European defence, it is unquestionable that the Defence Forces will have a role to play in that area. This role should be considered and clarified. Another relevant point is that the focus is very much on a three or four year timescale, although there is reference to the need for a ten year view. This ten year plan should be more clearly defined in terms of the expected position of the Defence Forces at that time and how that point will be reached.

The Minister referred to the Army's activities in Lebanon. I am aware he visited the troops there and I am glad the decision was taken to deploy the 79th battalion to replace the previous operation. It would have been wrong, and the Army would not have required it, to hold the new battalion at home other than for logistical reasons, such as the ability to move people around. The Army wants to go out and do its work, which it does very well. In those circumstances, where Irish soldiers were in the eye of the storm when Hezbollah and Israel were firing at each other, it is extremely important there is some international authoritative verification of what is taking place. The international community needs to be informed and it should not have to rely on the partisan statements of one or other party to the dispute. There should be a group in the middle which can make authoritative statements. The Army was in a good position to do this and it did it very well. It also helped the humanitarian need.

This underlines the patriotism that has been evident for so long in the Defence Forces. It is taken very much for granted that we have a stable democracy. When one considers the history of the foundation of the State, it is a great tribute to the people who were so near to a civil war — this also applies to the Garda — that power was transferred so smoothly from the then Cosgrave Government to the incoming Fianna Fáil Government without any major hiccup. These points and our democratic freedom are taken for granted and it is one of the reasons I do not favour PDFORRA or the other Army representative organisations becoming involved in politics. Army wives took part in the European elections before last and this was fine. However, it is important to maintain that distance between politics and the Defence Forces. In addition, it is not appropriate for PDFORRA to be part of ICTU. Although the trade union movement is laudable, it should be separate from the activities of the Army representative associations.

It is evident that savings will result from the reduction in the strength of the Defence Forces. This money should be used to equip and resource the forces adequately and not swallowed up in the national coffers. I am open to correction, but representative associations also made this point. One of the most depressing parts of the report — I agree with Senator Magner that its language is clear and easily read — is the information on the time some weapons have been in service. I was taken aback to note that 48 pieces of equipment known as 25 PDR — I do not know what this is and perhaps the Minister could enlighten me — are in stock and that they are 46 years old. One wonders what would happen in terms of defending the country with 46 year old artillery pieces. It is extraordinary how often the word "obsolete" is mentioned in the various charts of the weapons available to the Army. The Minister is aware that the Army must be adequately resourced. Whatever savings are made should be put towards ensuring it has the equipment and logistical back up required by a modern army.

I will not go through the points made by the representative associations to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. RACO and PDFORRA appeared before it and their requirements have been well aired. The point of consultation is at issue here. Senator Magner skirted around it to an extent when he said that people were informed. Informing them is not the same as consultation. It is important that those representative associations should be involved in meaningful consultation when it comes to debating these plans and the direction the modern Army should go.

The Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association should also be taken into account. From a reply given by the Minister in the Dáil, there are 14,748 people in the FCA, of whom 2,800 are women. I hope more can be done to encourage women to join the Reserve Force.

I would agree with the three brigade model envisaged. Originally there was talk of having one brigade; that was not a good idea. I also welcome what is in the document about the no closure of barracks. I especially welcome the commitment to maintain the Army bands. I raised this matter, about which there was widespread concern, on the Adjournment at one stage. Army pageantry requires Army bands and I am glad that aspect has been left alone and that the Army Equitation School is to continue. However, I have some worries about the Army Apprentice School in Naas. It has done tremendous work. Many gold and silver medal prizewinners in the City and Guilds over a long number of years have come from that establishment and it has a valuable input.

I also note the commitment to decentralise Departments. I strongly urge that the Departments of Defence and the Marine — this will come as no surprise to the Minister — be relocated to County Kildare. I looked at the numbers; they are not very large. There seems to be centres in several areas and it would be as accessible to the Army and the city to have these Departments at the end of the motorway in Newbridge or Kildare. I do not see why that cannot be done. I would very much favour such a move.

The Minister will also be aware that PDFORRA had worries about the five year contract. This is relevant in the sense that it depends on the activity for which the private soldier is being trained. Perhaps an infantryman or woman may be trained more quickly that somebody going into a specialised area of Army activity. It would be unfortunate if they were to be lost at the end of the five year period. Not to renew their contract in the event of them not getting promoted to NCO or sergeant level would strike me as a poor investment.

The Minister said that 600 people have taken up the voluntary early retirement scheme and that there is no desire on the part of the Government to have anybody leave the forces other than by way of this scheme. However, while the number of officers offering has been reasonable, this number may fall dramatically over the next few years once this hump is out of the way.

The plan skirts around the recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report for a separation of the Naval Service and Air Corps budgets. To what extent would it now be sensible to have three different services? The system envisages the pyramid where the Chief of Staff would be at the top and everybody would report to him, and he, in turn, would report to the Minister. While that seems reasonable, to what extent would it be more sensible to have the Air Corps and the Navy more separate than they are and to have a system of Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the Army Chief of Staff as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That model is used in other countries.

This accountancy approach to the Army is not a good way to look at it. There is far more to the Army than this. I live within a few miles of Curragh Camp — I grew up there — and I know the contribution made by the Army to a whole series of voluntary organisations and to the life of Newbridge and Kildare. It is impossible to quantify that contribution in financial terms, but nevertheless it has been huge and it was by virtue of the fact that those people had Army training. It is extraordinarily easy to spot a member of the Army, whether a private or the Chief of Staff, by their bearing and their conduct.

The Army makes a huge contribution to society. That is one of the reasons I am very much in favour of ensuring that barracks in places like Kilkenny — which I am sure Senator Lanigan will mention — Clonmel and other areas are kept open. Reference has been made to the economic benefits of barracks to the local communities, but there is also a less tangible but a significant and important benefit, which has been evident in my constiuency. I hope the involvement of members of the Army in the life of the local areas will continue for a long time because that is central to what the Army is about, apart from its defence keeping role.

My final point concerns peace enforcement as opposed to peacekeeping. This may come back to Western European Union and NATO, but peace enforcement is as important to our Army as peacekeeping. That issue will crop up to a greater degree in the years ahead and will have to be given greater attention.

I welcome this document. However, if I had more time, there are aspects to it of which I would be critical. We all accept that we must reform our Army. It needs good management, modern equipment and professional people who are able to do any job we give them.

Mr. Sherlock

This debate is timely. Our Defence Forces are a vital national resource. They have served with distinction, not only at home but in venues ranging from the Congo to the Lebanon. All too often defence forces serving outside their countries' borders do so in an aggressive capacity, but Ireland's Defence Forces have always served abroad in a peacekeeping capacity. This is a tradition of which we are proud.

In recent weeks, during the bombardment of southern Lebanon, we saw the importance of the humanitarian work performed by Irish peacekeeping troops. Of course, modern times demand modern responses from an Army as much as from a business point of view. The review of the Defence Forces is designed to equip and meet the challenge, not only for the 1990s but also for the 21st century.

When the review was announced, there was considerable concern not only among members of the Defence Forces but also among the local communities which were alarmed about the economic and social impact of barrack closures. I accept the Minister's commitment on this and I welcome his reassurance that there will be no barrack closures. This issue is being raised in the area I represent. Despite the fact that reassurances have been given, it continues to be raised and it needs to be emphasised that there will be no barrack closures. I would welcome a further reassurance to the effect that the Minister will engage in ongoing consultation with the members of the Defence Forces — this was referred to by Senator Dardis — and that he will take on board the recommendations made in the PDFORRA submission to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security.

Defence Forces throughout the world are increasingly taking on extra duties in the realm of civil defence, sea-air rescue, etc. Many of these duties are highly specialised and require specialised technical and managerial skills. The Minister in his statement refers to Naval Service involvement in fishery protection and the prevention of the illegal importation of drugs as well as the Air Corps' involvement in search and rescue operations. It is good to put this on the record.

The PDFORRA document makes a number of worthwhile suggestions which, if implemented, would enhance the performance, efficiency and morale of the Defence Forces. When a document containing proposals of this nature is debated at this level, issues can be raised which can to some extent affect the morale of the forces. For that reason, a commitment to consultation is vital.

In chapter 8 of the submission PDFORRA makes a number of recommendations which if implemented would lead to the development of a flexible and transparent career structure while also ensuring that Defence Forces personnel have the skills necessary to equip them for civilian life after their service expires. I share PDFORRA's concern at the proposal that a soldier who does not reach the rank of corporal within five years or sergeant within 12 years should be dismissed, even if that soldier has an excellent record. Whereas at present there is no compulsory early retirement, the implementation of that recommendation has the same effect and that is affecting the morale of the forces.

I have no doubt that the Minister will take on board the situation of category E personnel during this transition period who may have left the Army before agreement is reached on this document. I would like that matter to be emphasised. The proposed reforms will not be successful unless they are carried out in full consultation and partnership with members of the Defence Forces and I urge the Minister to reaffirm his commitment to such a partnership.

Mr. Lanigan

I thank the Minister for coming in today to discuss this matter. I have been asking for a discussion on the efficiency audit group review for about nine months. It was perceived within the Defence Forces that this review was necessary and that there would be an up side and a down side to the review.

I thought I was about to join the Army in 1956, having done my leaving certificate, but I failed my medical because I did not have enough opposing teeth. In the week before I went for my medical I played a hurling match and some clown from Wexford knocked six of my teeth out. If he had knocked the six opposing each other out I would be in the Army today. However, I joined the FCA.

I had the great privilege of being in the FCA at a time when uniforms were scarce. We had the bull's wool — the old uniform — and the big boots. When we went to Brussels to run for Ireland at the Conseil Internationale Sportif Militaire, the people in Brussels thought we were going to support them in the congo, so we were cheered all over Brussels. I got my stripes, I kept the stripes and refused to take more. I ran for UCD on one occasion against the Army. The race was organised in a particular barracks and they had the function in the officers' mess afterwards. I refused to go into the officers' mess because I was a corporal in the FCA, so we had to get the Army to move the function from the officers' mess to the NCO's mess. Since then I have kept a close eye on developments.

The EAG conclusion comes about as a result of a recommendation made by a former Government and it was timely. The conclusions that have been reached will receive a reasonably popular reception throughout the country.

The age profile of the Army is too high; there is no question about that. That has to be addressed without causing great problems for present members of the Defence Forces who are too old. It is not their fault that they are still in the Army. The structure of the Army allowed them to stay too long although they are not particularly fit.

The relationship between the Department of Defence and the military establishment has to be addressed in a deeper way than it has been addressed in the efficiency audit group review. There is no doubt that civil servants, although they are civil servants of the highest quality, are not military personnel and therefore should not be involved in the top management structure. They are working for the Government, not in a military situation.

It has been suggested that the operational effectiveness has been impaired not by the shortage of manpower, but by having people in too many places throughout the country. That situation must be addressed. The Minister has said that no barracks will be closed, but it is farcical to suggest that this is the case. Barracks can be kept open, but if there are no personnel in the barracks it is a waste of time; so suggesting that this Government will not close any barracks is not correct. Any barracks can be kept open, but there is no point in keeping them open unless they are effective and doing a job. Many military personnel are engaged on duties which are not of a military nature and that has to be addressed. Luckily this issue has been addressed in the report.

There are too many medically unfit personnel. A person who is medically unfit to walk up a stairs may not be medically unfit to look at a screen and it appears that looking at television screens is now more important than being able to walk up and down a barrack square. According to the latest reports from Washington, television screens can now be used to take rockets out. They can sit down at a computer and just take them out. Why does one have to be fit? Is a person medically fit if he can look at a television, or must he be able to walk up and down a barracks square? Must he be able to walk a quarter of a mile in 50 seconds, or is it sufficient to be able to look at a television screen for an hour and a half and to be able to blow a rocket out of the sky?

There is an imbalance in the ratio of pay to non-pay expenditure, leading to insufficient funds for buildings, equipment and training — and undoubtedly, but for our UN involvement, that imbalance would be huge. Even though we are owed a lot of money by the UN for our service abroad, without it the Army would be totally bereft of the equipment needed for a modern force.

The implementation group was told to prepare a plan for restructuring and reform of the Defence Forces which was to detail the action to be taken in the first phase. This phase was to last three years, which is broadly compatible with the recommendations of the EAG, and was to include a voluntary early retirement scheme for military personnel. The number of staff who have sought early retirement under this scheme is far higher than the number envisaged in the EAG proposals. This may cause problems, because when voluntary early retirement was made an option in Waterford Glass and other industries, the best people availed of it and those who would not be re-employed elsewhere did not. In Waterford Glass, those who took the early retirement option are now employed on a part time basis as consultants where they had previously been employed as members of staff. If a voluntary retirement scheme does not get rid of the people one wishes to remove, it will not work. As happened elsewhere, the Army will allow good people to retire and get them back as consultants.

During the first phase of the process, there will be no barracks closures, no reduction in the number of bands, the Army Equitation School will remain, etc. This is marvellous for public perception, but it means the next Minister will decide whether there will be closures — the present Minister can quote the efficiency audit group and make no decision. It appears the Government hopes the next Minister will be a Fianna Fáil Minister and he will have to make the hard choices. I also think the next Minister will be from Fianna Fáil.

The present established figure for the Defence Forces is approximately 18,000 persons, although the strength is 12,750 persons. It is proposed that 11,500 persons will be the figure for both the established forces and the strength of the forces. The reduction is therefore not simply from 12,750 but from 18,000 to 11,500. The Minister must explain how he can suggest the reduction is only from 12,750 to 11,500 when the established defence forces figure is 18,000 persons.

Some command headquarters are to be suppressed. This issue will be of grave importance and Kilkenny is one of those headquarters. The suggestion is that there should be a re-organised defence headquarters with three brigades, a national training centre in the Curragh, a logistics base in Collins Barracks, Dublin, and the Curragh, and the Air Corps and Naval Service, which will be established in Cobh. This means everything will effectively be based in the Curragh and Dublin, but there is no logistical sense in those locations being the headquarters for the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. It might make sense if we were under threat and the Army did not have to act as a back up to civilian services — that is, the Garda and the prison service — and on the Border, but that is not the case. The report states that at present too many people are tied up in various levels at headquarters but the proposals will cement that.

The units will be more effective and efficient, but only if they are kept up to strength. The strength should be kept at 18,000, not the proposed number of 11,500 nor even the current strength of 12,750. The current figure for the established defence forces is 18,000 and that will be dropped to 11,500. Anyone who does not believe this should look at the figures.

The EAG recommends that some units should be split up between two or more military posts, but this will disperse resources and tie up excessive numbers in administration if put into practice by the implementation group. It is not possible to reduce units and numbers to maintain an efficient Army without closing some military posts and we all agree there have to be some closures.

It is desirable to maintain the Army Equitation School and Army bands but they should not be kept at the expense of operational troops, because if we do not have such personnel there is no point having bands and showjumpers. The Minister is interested in showjumping, as am I, but I would prefer to see our troops deployed on a peace-keeping mission in the Lebanon.

Under the implementation group report there is no provision for an operational unit to support the Defence Forces training centre in the Curragh, but security will be required for installations such as the stores and the Army ammunition depot. Operational troops must also be available to the various training schools for instructional exercises. The plan is flawed in not providing an operational infantry unit outside the three brigade structure. It also proposes the suppression of the Army Apprentice School, which provides tradesmen who are needed in the Defence Forces and has been exceptionally well used over many years. If we are going to maintain the Army's PR units there is no way we should lose the apprentice school.

I could speak for another hour and a half but I must finish. I hope this debate continues because it is of value and has effects on everyone. The voluntary early retirement scheme is not attractive to personnel over 50 years of age. If one wants to allow voluntary retirement one must target those people first, but few of them have sought it. Those who have applied are people under 50 who want to take up opportunities outside the Army. The offer is on a first come, first served basis.

A number of items must be tackled and I hope this is only the beginning of this debate, which I have sought for many months. I also hope that at the end we have an Army structure which is suitable for our country, able to deal with peace keeping and peace enforcement problems we may encounter abroad, and that the Army will be stronger for the debates on the EAG and the implementation group.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is a very useful debate because it has put some of the matters which have been discussed over many months into context. There have been wrong headlines and erroneous rumours. All of us in this House have great regard for the Army and welcome all it has done over many years.

We have seen changes in other organisations and bodies and the Army itself wants to change as we approach the next century. It is important for consultations to take place and for various matters to be examined. The role of the modern Army must be looked at and reviewed. The roles of the Naval Service and the Air Corps have changed in relation to their various protection duties and other work, and the role of Army personnel has also changed.

I support the action taken by the Minister and the Government. The plan will be phased in over several years and there will have to be changes. It is important for the Army to get the back-up and services it needs. The Army has been successful in relation to the duties it has carried out at home and our long tradition, dating back to the Congo, of performing admirably in relation to peace keeping duties. Lip service has been paid to the Army, which has been the poor relation at times and has not been as well organised or looked after. It is important that this Government has recognised the necessary and integral part played by the Army, which is changing and modernising. I hope, following on from the consultation and review which has taken place, we will have an Army of which we can be proud.

Times have changed, as has the traditional role of the Army, particularly in relation to Border duties. The Army can, and should, be called upon in relation to various other duties. The Army has a role to play in relation to shipments of money or the transfer of prisoners. One sees gardaí escorting Securicor vans which are transporting money and perhaps there is a role for the Army there. The gardaí would be better employed in trying to solve crimes rather than following a van for 100 miles. I hope people join the Garda to provide a system of justice and bring criminals to justice rather than to escort money, although that is a necessary task given the robberies which have occurred.

I welcome the maintenance of the bands in the various command posts. They provide a certain amount of colour and individuality and have always provided great support for the events at which they have performed. I hope they will be maintained and given reasonable resources.

A previous speaker mentioned diversification between the peace keeping forces and the Army Equitation School. I am sure the Equitation School will receive reasonable support from this Minister and the Government to maintain its tremendous tradition. That might mean extra capital for the purchase of horses to augment the strength of the school. Army officers have been members of our teams for the Aga Khan and Nations' Cup championships and we have had great success in three day eventing. The Army has played a part in the success of Irish horses over the years throughout Europe and the rest of the world. I hope extra funding can be found for that. We have had very good horses from time to time, but money must be made available as we are competing with Germans, Americans and others who may have an open cheque book. If money can be made available for training young horses, that success will continue.

Some barracks have been upgraded and updated. People cannot be asked to live or work in outdated and outmoded conditions. A scheme of refurbishment and rebuilding has to take place in certain areas, similar to that which has taken place in local authority housing. Some of the camps and barracks are quite good but there is room for improvement in some areas. People have to be provided with reasonable and modern facilities in order to carry out their work. I am not saying armchairs should be provided, but people must be provided with reasonable working conditions. I ask the Minister to look at the various areas and, within the restraints of his budget, to earmark their restoration.

The Army must be provided with a reasonable supply of the up to date equipment required by a modern army. It is important to maintain morale in the Army, which is reasonably good. That is important for those making a career in the Army, some of whom may retire early. We all know people who have retired early and who have used their experience in another field. I hope morale in the Army is maintained. This country owes a great debt to people in all ranks who have played a role down through the years.

I praise the present work of the Defence Forces, particularly in south Lebanon, where they are acting as referee in a match with many problems on both sides without using a heavy handed approach. I hope our troops are protected at all times because the UN force is trying to fulfil a difficult mission at present. It is important that we do not forget these people doing a hard job in difficult circumstances. The courage and commitment the Army has shown down through the years is once again very evident.

I compliment the Minister on what he has done so far and he will have the support of all Members. It is important that we recognise the need for change. This country needs a well-trained and disciplined Army which can be sent on various missions and perform tasks. I support what has been said and I hope this debate will provide the Minister with some ideas. We must support the Army and listen to its difficulties.

I hope the Minister will not forget the FCA when considering these matters. Many people have benefited from and have served in it. It is important that extra money is found to ensure that missions, camp meetings and training programmes are encouraged. Young people should be encouraged to gain particular expertise and knowledge. I welcome this debate and I hope the Army will develop.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Army. I congratulate the Minister on visiting the Lebanon to see first hand what our Army personnel are doing. The Army does us credit and brings great honour to the country when it goes abroad by doing its job efficiently and effectively.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that although the conflict had ended when he visited the Lebanon, there was no communication between Army personnel and their wives during that conflict. They could not find out what was happening or get up to date information. We should have a little more consideration for these women at home with their families. There is no reason somebody could not telephone the wives of personnel in danger zones to reassure them. They got more information from Sky News and from RTE than from the Army. I appeal to the Minister to look into that because it is important that people get a first hand account rather than having to depend on journalists, who are doing a good job — but only for them we would not have known as much about what was going on.

Consultants are making a lot of money from all these reviews. Very often they are accountants and they look at cost cutting and pounds, shillings and pence rather than the human side of things. Many people in the Army are very badly paid. This morning a woman from Sligo said that other personnel on Border duty get £60 for each shift, but an Army man gets £40 and a sandwich for seven days work. Other personnel get meals from hotels paid for by the State and delivered by State transport. That is not fair. If there is a problem, the Army is a dangerous position and it must defend us. Army personnel on Border patrol have done a great job. If the Army was not stationed along the Border, I would not like to think what would have happened in this part of the country. It has had to deal with subversives and smugglers and to provide back up to Customs officers dealing with the drug problem. The Army should not get a lousy £40 per week, which is grossly unfair. I would be critical of the Army officer I heard this morning who adopted the attitude of a sergeant major in World War One, that is, that people knew what the Army was like when they joined and that they should take what they get. That is not the way to talk to anybody. Thank God that World War One attitude is long gone.

It was great that 10,000 young men applied to join the Army this year. However, the reason for this is there is no work for young people and they are looking for jobs. If a persons goes into another service, there are unions to protect them and nobody will say to them that they knew what to expect when they joined and that they can leave if they do not like it. One cannot do that in any other section of the community. Why should Army personnel be penalised for doing this type of work? It is time we treated them like officers because they are as responsible and are in as much danger.

The Army is ensuring that our agricultural industry is kept going. Our cattle are being exported and there is no danger of cattle being smuggled at a time when it would be profitable to do so. I appeal to the Minister to look at this section and at those on Border duty working long hours. He should give information to the wives of Army personnel working in dangerous areas and pay those doing back up duty on the Border. They are entitled to this. They are all paid from the same purse. It is scandalous and a major discrepancy that one person should be paid £60 for a shift and another £40 a week for doing the same work. I ask the Minister to look into this situation.

We have been told that no Army barracks will be closed. This is true, but what will happen as a result of not recruiting people? Barracks will automatically close because there will be no personnel to fill them.

There is a great deal of vandalism in this country. There are many young thugs in this city and in every town and we have no proper place to put them. I suggested some time ago that we should open a school for them which would be run by the Army. Young people who do not go to school and are wild should be taken into the Army, not to be abused but to be trained and educated under proper supervision. They could learn trades and become good technicians, mechanics or horsemen. This would bring great peace to Dublin and other towns. It would take these young people out of the drink, drugs and sex syndrome they are in at present. They should be properly trained, cared for, fed and clad.

There used to be four Army bands but this may be reduced to two because the Army is not training young people to be musicians. If there is no training, how can we keep the bands going? They are dying out because there are no people to fill vacancies in them. The Army bands were great and were always a centre of attraction in towns they visited. It would be a pity to allow them to die and we should keep them going.

Under the new system future recruitment is to be for only five years. We should not expect people to give five years of their lives to the Army and only receive a minimal pension. How would they be able to obtain bank loans, buy houses and look after their homes and families? They would have no security. Five years is too short a period to expect people to give of their best. If this proposal is implemented, unless there is some degree of security I cannot see the same numbers of people wanting to join the Army as now want to do so. People will leave the Army after five years at a time when few will want to employ them. I appeal to the Minister to consider this from the human perspective of how people are treated and how they do their job.

The barracks in Finner, County Donegal, was almost closed 25 years ago but was kept open because of the troubles in the North. At the time it consisted of only a few dilapidated sheds. If the barracks had been closed, how would we have manned and controlled that part of the Border during the 25 years of violence? We can close things down but what price will be paid for this? This was the attitude we adopted when we closed small schools. We thought it would be cheaper to bring children to larger schools by bus. We felt it would be cheaper to do things on a larger scale. However, the result is that the whole system breaks down because the personal touch is gone.

If young people join the Army they should be guaranteed jobs for at least ten years. Five years is ridiculous. We should maintain the Army bands. I feel strongly that those on duty on the Border should be given recognition and should receive more than £40 for a seven day week. It is scandalous that others doing the same work are paid £60 a shift. I appeal to the Minister to consider these points and do something about them.

Mr. Wall

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The importance of the Defence Forces for south Kildare cannot be underestimated as it is the home of the Curragh.

It is appropriate that we should debate the role of the Defence Forces. Recently, the Government published a White Paper on Foreign Policy. While that document confirmed Ireland's military neutrality, it envisaged an expansion of our roles as peace-keepers and peace-enforcers in conjunction with the Western European Union and the NATO led Partnership for Peace. I support the broad thrust of the line taken in the White Paper; but if we are to pay more than lip service to it, we need to modernise our Defence Forces. I welcome the Minister and I commend him on his initiative thus far.

The Government has correctly outlined the challenges facing the Defence Forces. These are the development of a force which is modern and well equipped, flexible enough to respond to various challenges, well managed and with an appropriate command structure, and one in which professional soldiers are rewarded with a professional career. This debate comes on foot of the fundamental review of the Defence Forces conducted by Price Waterhouse consultants and the efficiency audit group. These reports outlined the problems with existing arrangements in the Defence Forces and their command structure. Those problems include the worrying age profile of the forces — a problem which will not be fully tackled until we make a rewarding career out of membership of the Defence Forces — excessive bureaucracy and resultant pay difficulties.

These issues are substantial and go to the core of the Defence Forces. I welcome the Government's decision to establish an implementation plan to deal with these problems. I also welcome the commitment to ensure that in the first three years of this plan there will be no barracks closures. I was disappointed to hear Members on the other side say they should be closed as of now. We can see the benefits of a barracks to a town, especially in rural Ireland. Barracks are as good as industries to towns and none of them should be closed prior to them ceasing to be of benefit to the Defence Forces.

Senator Dardis spoke about the Army Apprentice School in Naas. It is imperative that this is kept in operation so that its benefits to the nation are maintained. Many great tradesmen attended this school. There is a trend in industry at present not to take on apprentices. If we close that school we will close one of the places which has provided us with apprentices of the highest standard. The school should be retained irrespective of what other barracks are to be closed. One might say I have mentioned it just because it is in Kildare, but it is not actually in my constituency of South Kildare. I have always seen its value because of my involvement in a trade. I have seen the number of personnel who came from the Army Apprenticeship School. I have seen the way they fitted into an industrial pattern and are well able to look after themselves, displaying skills they learned there.

I agree with the statements on the Army Equitation School. If we are to ensure the development of our valuable thoroughbred industry it is imperative to keep the equitation centre going. It is marvellous to see our international show jumping teams performing all over the world with great riders like Ringrose, Kiely and McMahon. Their successes reflect not only on the Defence Forces but also on the country at large. The Minister's interest in equitation will ensure that the school will survive any recommendations and will continue from strength to strength.

Central to the success of the plan for overall management of the Defence Forces is an overall reduction of personnel from 12,500 to 11,500. The voluntary early retirement scheme is designed to facilitate this change as well as addressing the overall age profile by facilitating the recruitment of 1,000 new members.

If we are to keep the Defence Forces fresh and vigorous we must facilitate ongoing recruitment to the force, which in itself opens up promotional opportunities to keep talent within the organisation. As things stand, too many men are operating at certain levels with the forces and measures must be found to restore mobility to the Army's career structure. I welcome the proposals outlined in the implementation plan in this regard.

The recommendations contained in chapter 6 of the report are also critical. The inappropriate allocation of resources to tasks is a problem which is not confined to the Defence Forces. However, if the Defence Forces are to be in a position to take on the expanded role envisaged by the Government, this problem must be resolved. It is difficult to contest the consultants' recommendations that new procedures are required. For instance, the use of more civilians for office-related tasks has already been carried out to some effect within the Garda Síochána.

I also welcome the proposal to centralise individual training in the Curragh. The Minister visited the area recently and he should examine the residential accommodation for Army personnel there. I have been involved with a number of groups in the area trying to organise a housing co-operative. The Minister is well aware of the residential problems that the Defence Forces have in the Curragh. In such a situation the overholder cannot draw down his pension because he is in a house which is the property of the Minister for Defence.

On numerous occasions I have requested that residents of the Orchard Park housing estate should be permitted to buy the homes they live in under the tenant purchase scheme. Unfortunately, the last three Ministers for Defence have not seen fit to allow that. The Minster should reconsider the situation because while it is not a case of not wanting to assist the residents, the tradition still stands. Tradition should be put to one side in this case and residents should be given permission to buy the houses they live in.

Numerous single people who retire from the Defence Forces have no place to live. Some residential locations on the Curragh which are not used at present could be developed into homes for such people, who would then be able to enjoy a lifestyle of comradeship after their Army service. While such people are linked to the Curragh and Newbridge, they have nowhere to go when they retire. They can end up on the street because no one is responsible for finding accommodation for them. An effort should be made to deal with that problem by using vacant residential areas on the Curragh for the benefit of single people who have retired from the Defence Forces.

Training is a critical facet of a modern, properly functioning army. As we know from other sectors of the economy, training has an ongoing effect. It is something one does not forget, and it must be repeated at various times during an individual's career. I am aware that this is an expensive plan but the money must be found over a number of years to ensure its implementation.

The Minister should consider the points I have made about different aspects of the plan. I have no doubt that the Defence Forces will benefit accordingly and that the Army will continue to represent the country proudly, as it has in the past, be it is a peace-keeping role, defending our autonomy or in show jumping.

Mr. Cotter

I congratulate the Minister on the way he is handling the changing role of the Army and in assisting morale within the Defence Forces. I am from County Monaghan, and those who live in the Border counties are aware of the necessity of having Army barracks located there now and into the future. I am buoyed up by the current Minister's attitude.

In recent months there has been some scaremongering at local authority level with people predicting barrack closures. I am glad the Minister has moved to quell such rumours. It is his duty to do so because the morale of the Army is important to all of us. The Minister has never flinched about taking an opportunity to act when it was necessary.

People living in the Border counties during the BSE scare of the past four or five weeks appreciate the need for an Army presence there to assist the Garda. At a recent meeting a colleague of mine noted that a rabbit could not find its way across the Border without being caught, and Members of the House will appreciate the reason for that. We are faced with a huge problem arising from difficulties with beef. If the Army and Garda were not in a position to seal off the Border we would have had mayhem. Internationally, we have been proved right by protesting in the way we did. We have demonstrated our bona fides to everybody who is anxious to obtain proof that we had a sensible and successful BSE policy. When a problem with BSE arose in the UK and Northern Ireland we took decisive action and demonstrated that we have an absolute intention to ensure Irish beef is of the highest quality. The Army played an essential role in that regard. I recently travelled through the Border counties and saw the Army and Garda protecting Irish livestock from BSE.

The role of the Army is changing and evolving, as the role of the EU is evolving. Its traditional role of defending the country from outside attacks has become irrelevant in recent years. This fact underlines the necessity for under-taking a complete review of the role of the Army and consider the introduction of more efficient methods. During the past five to six years it became apparent that the age profile in the Army had moved out of kilter. Due to events in the previous decade, the average age of soldiers was too high. People in the Army were very conscious of this. Soldiers have an image of themselves as being lean, fit and capable of responding quickly to any difficulties or problems. A high age profile did not match this image.

I am glad the Minister decided to introduce the voluntary early retirement package. I am informed that many people in the Army will be happy in this regard. The package is good and is a voluntary measure, which means that people will not be coerced into accepting it. I believe it will be successful and that the average age of soldiers will decrease dramatically in the near future. I congratulate the Minister because he took decisive action which was essential and necessary.

Many people who serve in the Army for a number of years appreciate the training they receive. Those now in civilian life always remember the very good training they received while in the Army. When I worked as a post primary school teacher many of my past pupils progressed to the Army Apprentice School in Naas. With the changes that have occurred in the role of apprentices in industry and the new attitude to apprenticeships, the emphasis at Naas is also changing. I know the Minister is reviewing this situation from time to time. I am sure that the training people currently receive at the apprentice training school is very different to that received by my earliest past pupils.

The Army is highly regarded throughout the world because of its peacekeeping duties. This gives everyone a sense of pride. I have never heard criticism from any source about the way in which Irish soldiers behave or act. If we consider Irish history, it is apparent that it is easier for the Army to take an evenhanded role in fulfilling its peacekeeping duties. Such duties also attract much needed finance to the country. It is good that the Irish Army is held in the highest international esteem.

In regard to barracks, it is difficult for the Minister to consider the need for some form of rationalisation in the future because, politically, this is a very awkward subject. I am sure that a time will come when a barracks in some part of the country will be obliged to close. I know the Border counties better than others and I must state that the Army presence is of supreme importance to a town's economy. Once that presence is established and soldiers begin to spend their wages in local shops, a major input to the local economy is made. The people of the Border counties appreciate the presence of the Army from the point of view of security in the towns of Castleblayney, Monaghan and Cavan. That presence is also appreciated because it brings important wealth into the community.

The Minister fully appreciates and understands that people become very disturbed when scaremongering begins about the intention to close the barracks in Castleblayney or Monaghan, for example. One can imagine the void that remains when hundreds of families are removed from an area. An army barracks makes a contribution to a community commensurate to that of a large factory. It is important that the Minister is successful in attempts at cost cutting and streamlining in order that these barracks remain open. They are very important and I thank him for his appreciation of that fact. I commend Deputy Barrett for his actions since becoming Minister for Defence and I wish him well.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Barrett)

I thank the many Senators who, in the main, contributed to this debate in a positive and constructive manner. I will deal with the exceptions during my reply.

First, I will deal with the issue of closure of barracks. At no time did the Department, myself or anyone else issue a list of possible closures of barracks. This plan is not dependent on the closure of barracks. There are no plans to close barracks. I appreciate the fact that Senator Byrne accepted that this is the case. However, there is obviously a division within his party. I was surprised by the attitude of some of the Senator's colleagues who seemed to be extremely disappointed that barracks will not be closed. I went to the trouble of meeting a delegation from Kilkenny, at the behest of Senator Lanigan, which included the town clerk and assured them that it was not intended to close Kilkenny barracks. I also travelled to Mullingar with the Chief of Staff to meet representatives from the council and local chamber of commerce.

Mr. Belton

The Minister has not yet travelled to Longford.

Mr. Barrett

The Chief of Staff confirmed that Mullingar barracks would not be closed. Apparently, my assurances were not enough for some people and the Chief of Staff had to provide confirmation. I ask that people stop spreading rumours about the possible threat of barracks closures.

As Senator Cotter stated, it must be remembered that we are dealing with families, children and people paying mortgages on their homes. These people become terribly upset when they hear these rumours. They often believe they will be obliged to move when the barracks closes and wonder what will happen to them. I request that people desist from starting rumours about barracks closures because there are no positive plans in that regard and such rumours negatively affect ordinary human beings. I make no apologies to anyone.

Deputy Lanigan accused me of being cowardly about not facing up to the issue of barracks closures. I reject this criticism. I am not cowardly. If I wanted to be cowardly, I would not have become involved in this matter and could have sat back for the next 12 months and done nothing. This plan is being put in place because we have too much respect for the Defence Forces, the work they have done and service they have given. They are great ambassadors. We are doing it for all these reasons and because we respect people who choose the Defence Forces as a career. They have done an excellent job over the years.

I am not cowardly about facing up to issues. The reason no barracks closures are mentioned is that this is not included in the three year plan. It is reasonable that people are given a chance to implement phase one of the plan without having to deal with rumours about the closure of barracks. As many Senators said, barracks are essential to the economies of many towns and if the closure of a barracks was being considered it should be discussed well in advance and cover matters such as alternative employment opportunities for the town or the use of the land for industrial development.

One does not wake up one morning and say a certain barracks will be closed next year. That is not how we do business and I hope that as long as I am a member of the Government we will not treat people in that fashion. If the closure of a barracks is planned, it should be done properly by me or my successor — if we must face that situation — with notice well in advance and preparations for a replacement industrial activity in the town and use of the barracks.

Senator McGowan said a list was published, but a list was never published by anybody dealing with the implementation plan. Suggestions were made by a representative association that if one was to go down the road suggested by Price Waterhouse, the closure of barracks would be necessary and it identified barracks which could be closed as a result. However, it is the representative association's business if it wants to speculate in that regard. I cannot do anything about it; I just outline Government decisions.

The Price Waterhouse report was independent and it does not necessarily follow that the Government must accept every word of it. The Government took the report and changed many things recommended in it because that is what we were elected to do. The implementation group was established and it produced the report the House is debating. This report is different from the Price Waterhouse report; people often confuse this point. The Government acted on the Price Waterhouse report on the basis of recommendations from the implementation group as a practical solution to the current situation.

I am most disappointed that Senator Lanigan used the occasion to state that the equitation school is a waste of time, that it should be closed and that we should not worry about horses. Members of the Defence Forces are ambassadors and the equitation school was set up to promote the Irish horse. Anybody who knows anything about Ireland knows the country is famous for horses and considerable money has been made over the years from the export of horses. There is nothing better to see than a good horse, bred in Ireland, competing at international level with a rider wearing a Defence Forces uniform. Millions are spent promoting tourism in Ireland and what better way to promote Ireland than with ambassadors such as members of the Defence Forces presenting a good image and sending a message about the quality of our horses? I have no intention of closing the Army Equitation School. I have spent my time trying to secure additional funds for it to ensure, as Senator Cosgrave said, it has an ongoing programme of purchasing young horses which will eventually reach international standards.

There was a suggestion that cutbacks were made in the FCA and Civil Defence. However, I assure the House that is not the case. The Estimate this year shows an increase on last year in both the FCA and Civil Defence areas. There are no plans for cutbacks because the Government recognises the wonderful voluntary work done by members of these organisations. The FCA will be the subject of a special study during phase one of the plan. Everything cannot be dealt with at the same time, so during the first three years there will be a review of the FCA to consider how it fits into the new structures. The Government has no intention of cutting back on the FCA. There is no need to convince me of the valuable work it has done and how good it is for the country that people offer their time on a voluntary basis in the FCA or Civil Defence.

The Civil Defence is implementing its own plan, "Towards 2000", which ensures that the activities of the organisation reflect the needs of the country in, for example, crowd control or mountain rescue searches. It has changed its structure and it is implementing its plan. The Government is assisting the Civil Defence as best it can and I hope that will continue.

The implementation plan is not a cost cutting exercise. It is designed to create a more modern efficient Defence Force that is capable of performing the roles assigned to it by the Government. I hope the savings that will be made eventually will change the current ratio of 80 per cent pay, 20 per cent equipment, to 70 per cent pay and 30 per cent equipment. This will enable the purchase of modern equipment so that the people asked to do a job will be in a position to do it. People are trained for things we hope will never happen, but they must be trained in case such eventualities occur. Resources must be spent on this area to ensure that if such an event happened, trained personnel are available to perform certain tasks.

One small example is the fire brigade strike in Wexford, which went on for many weeks. The people of Wexford would have been without such a service but for the fact that the Defence Forces were in a position to move in and provide it until the dispute was resolved. Ultimately, it takes time, effort and money to train people in fire fighting and that is a practical example of the day to day role the Defence Forces can play in assisting the community.

Senator Lanigan said many good people will be lost in the voluntary early retirement scheme. However, this scheme is voluntary and it works both ways in terms of those offering it. If people with essential skills apply, it does not necessarily follow that their applications must be accepted. The scheme will be implemented by setting up a board which will assess each application. If certain categories cannot be facilitated due to a shortage of skills in particular areas, it will be a matter for the board to decide in some cases that applicants may not be offered retirement. By making the scheme voluntary, it means individuals will not be honed in on and hunted out of the Defence Forces. This is not the purpose of the scheme. It is voluntary in the context that people who do not want to accept it will not have to do so.

Senator Sherlock was concerned about category E. People in this category are usually below the required medical standard and would not be entitled in the normal way to voluntary early retirement because they are due to be discharged from the PDF. However, because it was known this scheme was coming up, we did not categorise people as category E so as to give them a chance of taking up the voluntary early retirement scheme. I hope that will satisfy Senator Sherlock's concerns. We left these people in category C so they could apply for the scheme. This was an effort to show that we take a humane approach to human problems.

Senator Farrell was totally opposed, shocked and horrified about the fact that I was introducing five year contracts for members of the Defence Forces. It was the Senator's party which first introduced five year contracts in 1993. I was sceptical about the wisdom of this when I was in Opposition. However, people who have worked with five year contract members have told me they are excellent people by and large and there is no sense of their being part of a different group because they happen to be on a five year contract. They have integrated very well in the overall structure.

However, part of our problem, which we are addressing in this review, is in dealing with the age profile. Due to the nature of the Defence Forces, certain people cannot be guaranteed a job for life. By its very nature, these people may for one reason or another not be capable of performing the role expected of them. Therefore, one cannot guarantee these people a job for life. If this is done, one will end up with a serious age profile problem, which is what we are currently trying to address. Maybe there are better ways of dealing with this than offering five year contracts, but at least we were giving some people a start in life. These people, as some Senators said, were and are being taught skills, a sense of pride in what they are doing, self-respect etc. I hope those who will not be invited to continue as members of the Defence Forces will find that their training will help them in no small measure in getting employment in the outside world.

If we go down the road of contracts, whether they be five, seven or ten years in length, there must be a cut off point where people will be offered a further contract. Some standard must be set. I have not decided if, for example, a soldier is automatically entitled to stay on if he has reached NCO level is the right way, but we still have some time to decide on it. The concept I feared has proved me wrong, from my practical experience in the short time I have been Minister for Defence and the Marine. We must recognise there will be a problem if the age profile gets out of control. At the end of the day, we have an Army to run with duties to perform and we must have the personnel capable of performing them.

I want to see us train people, give them skills and see them perform these roles as skilled and trained soldiers, sailors etc. We should not waste time having them carrying out duties that should be performed by civilians. This happened for many years in the Garda Síochána before it was eventually addressed. We are trying to do the same in the Defence Forces. Having trained soldiers serving cups of tea to people must be examined. Should somebody else involved in that business be doing that, letting the trained soldiers free to do the job for which they are trained? Perhaps there are areas where it would be necessary to have skilled soldiers perform certain tasks but others could be performed by civilians, which is what this exercise is trying to achieve.

I gave five year contracts a lot of thought. I am not saying we have found a solution, but at least offering a contract to those reaching NCO level is a start. Maybe some soldiers do not want to stay on and it may suit them to leave when their contracts end. It may be in their interest that the system currently in place will continue.

I was surprised and concerned to hear Senator Farrell refer to the lack of communication between our soldiers serving in the Lebanon and their families. I was informed that there is currently in place a comprehensive communications system with, and support for, the families of personnel serving overseas and that it has been developed over the years. Officers from each barracks around the country from which personnel are deployed in south Lebanon establish contact in as wide a range and manner as possible with these families to keep them in touch with the latest developments. We were conscious of this matter. If Senators know of individual cases where contracts were not made with families, I would be interested to receive information about them because I would certainly follow them up. I am anxious that we keep in touch. If families did not have telephones, officers from different barracks called to the homes to inform wives and relatives about the situation in south Lebanon. That is an essential part of this exercise. I was concerned to hear Senator Farrell's comments on this matter because I would not like to think this would be acceptable practice. It is certainly not, as far as I am concerned, and I would like to have it rectified. If Senators have the names and addresses of people who have been affected in this way, I will have their cases investigated. We have spent much effort and time putting in place a system to keep people in touch and in communication.

All personnel posted to Border units receive a special Border duty allowance ranging from £42.52 to £48.12 per week or £2,218.69 to £2,510.90 per annum in recognition of incidence of separation from families and difficult working conditions. This allowance is paid irrespective of hours worked. In contrast, personnel who perform certain security duties in non-Border units are paid security duty allowance only on the occasions of the performance of these duties, whereas the allowance paid in the Defence Forces is paid irrespective of the hours worked.

The rate of remuneration of the permanent Defence Forces, including security duty allowance and Border duty allowance, were determined by the Gleeson Commission in July 1990. The commission expressly stated its conclusion that military duties were clearly in a distinctive category and it would not be appropriate to fix military pay on the basis of a direct comparison with the pay of gardaí, prison officers or fire-fighters.

In addition, all permanent Defence Force personnel receive a military service allowance of £1,996 per annum to compensate for the special disadvantages of military life, such as liability for long duty hours, being subject to transfers, which involves a disruption of home life, and a requirement to serve in bad or uncomfortable conditions. Again, this allowance is payable irrespective of the actual hours worked. That is separate to the Border units. A military service allowance of £1,996 is paid.

As Senators know, personnel of the Permanent Defence Force now have representative associations which may make claims for improvements in their remuneration through the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme. In fact, the issues of security duty allowance and Border duty allowance are at present under consideration under the aegis of the conciliation council. I wanted to put that on the record because I know there is some discussion going on at the moment. That is the position and there is scope for discussion and consultation to take place through the representative bodies and the staff of the Department under the umbrella of the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

I have tried to answer most of the questions that have been put to me. I thank you again for affording me the opportunity of addressing the House. If Members wish to have a further debate or discussion at any time I would be only too pleased to come here and answer any questions that individuals may have. I think all the Senators who contributed for the courteous manner in which they received me.