Skip to main content
Normal View

Defence Forces Reorganisation

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 25 June 2015

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Questions (1)

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Question:

1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether the essential element of military efficiency and effectiveness is command and control, and that this is only effective when this operates closest to the operational troops; if it is the case that the 2012 reorganisation of the Defence Forces has undermined this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25256/15]

View answer

Oral answers (8 contributions)

This question is straightforward and aims to establish if the Minister accepts that command and control are at the heart of military efficiency and effectiveness. Does the Minister believe that the 2012 reorganisation has contributed to enhancing or diminishing the whole area of command and control as we have experienced it?

Effective command and control is indeed essential to military effectiveness, and exists within all units of the Defence Forces. Equally, having an appropriate organisational structure is also key to military efficiency and effectiveness.

The objective of the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force in 2012 was to design a viable organisational structure which prioritised the operational capacity of the Defence Forces, within a strength level of 9,500 personnel. The proposals for the reorganisation were developed by senior civil and military personnel. The recommendations for the territorial areas of responsibility and the location of brigade headquarters were assessed with due regard to operational requirements. I am advised by the military authorities that proximity to a headquarters is not the determining factor for effective command and control.

Final proposals relating to the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force were agreed between the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and the Secretary General. The recommendations for the reorganisation were accepted in full at the time by the then Minister for Defence. I am satisfied that the current structures optimise the operational capacity of the Permanent Defence Force and have enabled the Defence Forces to deliver the required operational outputs, within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel.

I am not sure I concur with the Minister. To me, there is an inescapable logic in saying that command and control are most effective when closest to the operational troops. At the heart of the former Minister, Deputy Shatter's, reorganisation of the Defence Forces was the relocation of the command and control of Custume Barracks in Athlone and Finner Camp in Donegal to Dublin. The control of troops in Renmore Barracks in Galway was relocated to Collins Barracks in Cork. That seems to me to be a questionable initiative.

It is difficult to believe that there have not been additional costs accruing to the Defence Forces as a result. Can the Minister tell us if there have been additional costs arising from troops carrying out routine duties in Dublin, yet having to travel from Dundalk, Athlone or as far afield as Donegal in order to do so?

I am advised that there are no practical day-to-day difficulties involved. Clearly, however, there is now a requirement for people to travel to certain meetings and so on. From a territorial viewpoint, however, Ireland is not a huge country. We have reorganised the Defence Forces in a way that essentially went from three senior command structures to two. That was done on the basis of giving advice to the Minister, having had a long discussion between the Secretary General and the then Chief of Staff.

From my experience of having been Minister for Defence for nearly a year, and from what I have seen, the operation of the Defence Forces is highly efficient. Of course there are some requirements at times to travel either to Cork or Dublin from the locations the Deputy mentioned. However, I do not think it has had a significant operational cost impact on the overall command and control structures within the Defence Forces.

There are many within the Defence Forces who would disagree with the Minister. The Minister will recall that at his very worthwhile symposium in Farmleigh, this reorganisation featured as a particular issue.

Many would argue, and I would concur, that the formation structure of our Defence Forces was to allow for expansion or contraction as the need arose. It is difficult to believe, however, that there are not real, identifiable, additional costs arising from that reorganisation. It is equally inescapable that many people in the Defence Forces, with a deeper knowledge of those forces than either I or the Minister, would suggest that efficiency and effectiveness have been diminished rather than enhanced as a result of these changes.

There will always be people who have different views, but the context here is a Permanent Defence Force of 9,500 people. A decision was made to close four barracks, as well as restructuring and reorganising to reflect the new, agreed strength levels of the Defence Forces. It was to ensure that we had barracks and structures that were full, busy and fully operational, as opposed to trying to spread them across a large infrastructure having reduced the overall number within the Defence Forces. That is what happened.

The Deputy referred to our recent symposium on defence in Farmleigh, but this issue was not a big feature of that discussion.

It may have been mentioned during the day, but I have had many discussions concerning the Defence White Paper, which is approximately 160 pages long. We have tried to accommodate as many viewpoints as we can both from the military and civilian sides, and we are continuing to do so.

I acknowledge there are others who share the view the Deputy is advocating in this regard, but my experience as Minister for Defence is that the current structures are working well.

Top
Share