Tom Enright
Ceist:13 Mr. Enright asked the Minister for Defence if the Efficiency Audit Group consulted European military establishments before concluding their report.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Efficiency Audit Group Report.
Michael Bell
Ceist:23 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Defence if there has been any delegation of financial functions, either on a statutory basis or informally, to the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Theresa Ahearn
Ceist:44 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Defence if the implementation group, set up on the recommendation of the Efficiency Audit Group, have yet implemented any of the proposals made in that report.
Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:49 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the progress which is being made by the review team, established following the Efficiency Audit Group report, on (1) administrative, (2) functions, (3) structures and (4) systems within the Defence Forces.
Madeleine Taylor-Quinn
Ceist:121 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Defence if, (a) the Efficiency Audit Group consulted European military establishments before concluding their report, (b) the implementation group set up on the recommendation of the Efficiency Audit Group have yet implemented any of the proposals made in that report, and (c) his views on whether scope exists for the implementation of all the recommendations.
Seán Ryan
Ceist:122 Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Defence whether he is prepared to place a copy of the Efficiency Audit Group report on his Department in the Oireachtas Library; whether in the light of that report, the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, and the Defence Acts require to be amended; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 23, 44, 49, 121 and 122 together.
As indicated by my predecessor in reply to a parliamentary question on 31 October 1991, the Efficiency Audit Group recommended the establishment of a review team to examine the administrative structures and systems within the Defence Forces with terms of reference which he outlined. The team has been set up and its deliberations which are proceeding extend into the areas of the management of resources, securing economies particularly as regards the number of military personnel engaged in administrative duties, the simplification of procedures, arrangements for financial management and delegation of authority as well as the use of information technology. As regards the various other recommendations of the Efficiency Audit Group, particulars of which were given to the House on 31 October 1991, these are being examined with particular reference to the likely legislative implications.
Meanwhile there have been various developments in the matter of financial delegation to the Defence Forces on an ongoing basis. I propose to circulate in the Official Report a detailed statement of the major items which have already been delegated. In the area of Defence Forces' allowances the authorisation of expenditure of the order of £15.6 million per annum is managed by the military authorities.
Further areas of administration which might be delegated are being examined and as the implications of delegation are identified and suitable administrative systems are established within the Defence Forces they will be introduced.
I understand from the Department of the Taoiseach that the working group which was set up by the Efficiency Audit Group to conduct a scrutiny of my Department made inquiries as to the financial administration of the armed forces of other European Community member states. I have transmitted to that Department the request to have a copy of the report of the Efficiency Audit Group placed in the Oireachtas Library.
Delegation of Financial Functions to the Defence Forces
1. Engineer Services:
Defence Force Regulations, Q5, provide for the authorisation of certain works and contracts by the Corps of Engineers, within the limits provided for in the Vote for such works, as follows:—
|
Appointment |
Categories of Work |
Estimate cost of work including labour and materials |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
Director of Engineering |
Minor new works excluding work in Canteens, Messes and Public Quarters. |
Not exceeding £2,000 |
|
Director of Engineering |
Minor repairs or other main- tenance work. |
Not exceeding £4,000 |
|
Command Engineer |
Minor repairs or other main- tenance work. |
Not exceeding £2,000 |
(2) In the case of a barrack, etc. where there is no maintenance staff, or where such staff is inadequate, the corps of Engineers may enter into a contract for the execution of work of an urgent nature (e.g. making good damage caused by storm, urgent plumbing and electrical repairs) the total cost of which work, is estimated not to exceed £800.
(3) The officers holding the appointments mentioned below may place contracts for the supply of materials urgently required for ordinary maintenance or authorised works within the limits indicated.
|
Appointment |
Limit per Contract |
Annual limit per appointment |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
Director of Engineering |
£400 |
£4,000 |
|
Officer Commanding a Maintenance Company, Corps of Engineers |
£400 |
£4,000 |
The foregoing figures are presently being reviewed.
2. Running Contracts:
Contracts are placed by the Department on the basis of competitive tenders. In respect of certain items the contracts provide that local military commanders may draw down on these contracts as and when required within the relevant financial limits provided in the Subhead of the Vote without reference to the Department. The following are some examples: spare parts and components for motor vehicles, local repairs of vehicles, solid fuel, petrol, lubricants, marine diesel oil, aviation fuel, spectacles, x-ray developers, diagnostic kits, blood products, food items, aircraft spares, navigational charts, servicing of diving cylinders and life-rafts, electronic components, laundry and dry cleaning, and disposal of unserviceable tyres, waste oil, etc.
3. Defence Forces Allowances
The administration of the following allowances paid to members of the Defence Forces has been delegated to the military authorities within the annual allocation in the Vote for such allowances.
|
1991 Approx. Provisions |
|
|
£ |
|
|
Security Duty Allowance |
8,000,000 |
|
Patrol Duty Allowance |
600,000 |
|
Border Duty Allowance |
3,000,000 |
|
Subsistence Allowance Home |
|
|
and Foreign |
4,000,000 |
4. In all cases payments are made by the Department's accounts branch subject to the certification by the appropriate military authority and to random checking as to the appropriateness of the disbursements.
I welcome the Minister's reply. However, I had hoped that the Efficiency Audit Group report would have been placed in the Library before now because it was promised by the Minister's predecessor on 31 October. Each of the spokespersons had asked for a copy of the report but to date we have not received it. Could the Minister be more specific as regards consideration of the financial controls? What financial controls are being considered for change? As regards the member states of the EC, what aspects were investigated by the group, from whom did they seek information and in what way was that request made? Was it made with a view to overall co-operation in the future or specifically for information purposes?
With regard to the delegation of financial functions to the Defence Forces, in the engineer services area, for example, the Defence Forces regulations provide for the authorisation of certain works and contracts by the Corps of Engineers within the limits provided for in the Vote for such works. Directors of engineering and command engineers will be authorised to carry out minor new works not exceeding £2,000, excluding work in canteens, messes and public quarters. In the area of maintenance the maximum amount is £4,000. In the case of a barrack etc. where there is no maintenance staff or where such staff is inadequate the Corps of Engineers may enter into a contract for the execution of work of an urgent nature, for example, making good damage caused by storm, urgent plumbing and electrical repairs, the total cost of which is not to exceed £800. The officers holding the appointments mentioned may also place contracts for the supply of materials urgently required for ordinary maintenance or authorised works within the limits. For example, for the director of engineering the annual limit is £4,000 and for an officer commanding a maintenance company, corps of engineers, the limit is also £4,000.
With regard to ongoing contracts, again in respect of certain items the contracts provide that local military commanders may draw down on these contracts as and when required within the relevant financial restraints. There is a list of items on which they may decide but I will not take up the time of the House with it because the details are included in the reply. This reply also refers to Defence Forces allowances. For 1991 security duty allowance amounts to £8 million; patrol duty allowance, £600,000; Border duty allowance, £3 million and subsistence allowances, home and foreign, £4 million.
In all of these cases payment is made by the Department's accounts branch subject to certification by the appropriate military authority and to random checking as to the appropriateness of the disbursements. This random check is carried out by the Department to ensure that administration is running quite smoothly in that regard.
May I ask the Minister, in regard to the workings of the group and their terms of reference, how the recommendations of the Gleeson report stand? Were the group required to have regard to some of the basic recommendations of the Gleeson report, which impinge very fundamentally on reorganisation, structures, administrative staff and so on, or have the group the power to set their own agenda with regard to recommendations?
The recommendations of the Gleeson report will not be affected in any way by this report or its recommendations.
Will they be acted on?
I would also add that discussions will take place with the various associations before any major changes are made.
The Minister said the recommendations of the Gleeson report will not be supplanted or set aside by the working group but did he exhort the group to take on board some of the recommendations of the Gleeson report to see if they could be actively implemented through their recommendations on savings, particularly in regard to the geographic location of barracks, the dispersement of soldiers and the duplication of administrative structures in the Department and the Defence Forces?
The report was commissioned by the Taoiseach's Department and, therefore, the Department of Defence had only a small input, particularly in relation to the implementation of the various proposals. The terms of reference are a matter for the Taoiseach's Department.
This represents a major change in defence policy. Will the Minister say who headed this group? Did the review group go abroad to examine the operation of other defence forces?
Nothing major will happen in this regard without the matter being referred to the House because legislation will be required in certain instances. While the implementation group have been set up, no positive recommendations have yet come before Government. If and when this happens the matter will be considered fully and will be brought to the House for full discussion.
The Minister has deliberately failed to answer the questions I posed: did the review group go abroad to examine the operations of defence forces in other countries; what countries did they visit; who headed the review group? Did the review group visit neutral countries or did they visit countries involved in a military alliance?
I do not have such detailed information.
The Minister should have the information.
I am only supplied with so much information; I do not receive information on every little detail.
Only on EC member states, neutral and non neutral.