Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 1994

Vol. 446 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Defence Forces Review.

Mr. Dukes

I am very grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue which is causing great concern to the families of members of the Defence Forces. The Price Waterhouse review of the Defence Forces was presented to the efficiency audit group three months ago but so far it has not been published and as far as I know, has not been made available officially either to PDFORRA or RACO. In the meantime there have been a great many media reports and leaks about the contents of the report. So far as we can see, the recommendations are far reaching and would involve major restructuring and reorganisation of the Defence Forces. It also appears — and this is much more worrying — that the general staff of the Defence Forces are extremely unhappy with many of the recommendations in the consultant's report.

In the light of the many media reports and leaks, the chief of staff felt the need to take the unprecedented step of making public some of his concerns about those recommendations. We are led to believe — again by media reports and leaks — that the general staff have submitted a separate dissenting report to the efficiency audit group. The result is that enlisted personnel, non-commissioned officers, officers and their families are uncertain of their future and are in a state of high anxiety. If the reports about the recommendations are true, what is proposed is a major restructuring and a reduction of our Defence Forces, potentially the most fundamental change in the structure and organisation of our Defence Forces for 50 years. It is reportedly proposed, for example, that half of the barracks will be closed. The Minister for Defence has said this suggestion is in the realm of "science fiction" but he has given no indication of what he proposes. We are told there is a proposal to reduce the strength of the Defence Forces by 3,000, a 25 per cent reduction which would fundamentally alter the nature of our Defence Forces. I would like to know the Minister's position on this proposal.

It is proposed to close the equitation school, the catering school and two of the three hospitals currently run by the Defence Forces. How are those services to be replaced in the event that those proposals go ahead? We are told that a two brigade model is being proposed for the Defence Forces. I would like to know not only what the Minister thinks of that but also what the general staff think.

There is no doubt that changes are needed. Our security needs have changed utterly and, we hope, permanently. European security has been transformed as has the world scene. Reorganisation of the United Nations is mooted and the Tánaiste has promised a White Paper on foreign policy which must surely take some account of security issues. These developments have substantial implications, directly or indirectly, for the role and the structure of our Defence Forces. If the demands of Border security are reduced should we use this as an opportunity to reinforce our commitment to UN operations? If the European Union proves capable of playing a coherent role in European and world security and defence, what is our capacity to respond and to participate? In a totally transformed world what are the ideal or the practical prescriptions for defence of our national territory? Those are issues we should address seriously and with deliberation now. However, we are left in the dark in that we do not know the consultant's proposals nor the views of the general staff. Why? Countries with much larger defence budgets than ours, including the United States with a defence force which is much larger than our total GDP, can discuss defence options, defence policy and defence budgets in detail in parliament and in public. Why can we not do likewise?

I call on the Minister to publish the submissions to the efficiency audit group by the consultants and by the general staff so that we can have an open and informed debate on the issues that face us and our Defence Forces. Evasive ministerial platitudes and the usual bone headed mania with secrecy can only exacerbate the anxiety and the distrust which have been building up for three months and which can only be detrimental to the morale and efficiency of our defence forces.

Minister of State and the Department of Defence (Mr. Dempsey)

I am pleased Deputy Dukes has raised this matter but he appears to have made the same mistake as everyone else in referring to an internal document which was part of a number of submissions to the efficiency audit group. He has given them the title of proposals. I want to make it clear they are no such thing. The reason a report has not been issued is that the Government has not received one from the efficiency audit group.

I am concerned that a considerable degree of confusion has been created by recent speculation about the likely direction of the efficiency group audit review and I welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the issues involved.

The efficiency audit group has not yet made its report to the Government. Accordingly, the Government has not taken decisions on the future of the Defence Forces in the context of the review. The report of the consultants employed by the group, to which the Deputy has referred, is only one element in the review process. When the Government receives the efficiency audit group's recommendations, the advice of other interested parties, including the military authorities, will be sought before any final decisions are taken.

The review was not undertaken out of the blue. It is widely accepted that there is a need for change in the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces. Deputy Dukes acknowledged that this evening. Military personnel from the top ranks to enlisted men would agree and have no difficulty with that. Over four years ago, the report of the Gleeson Commission highlighted serious shortcomings in the structure of the Defence Forces. Similarly, the problems regarding the rising age profile of military personnel have been the source of debate and question in this House for some time. Last year, the Government issued a revised statement of roles for the Defence Forces which re-emphasised the need to focus on the effective performance of operational tasks. Given the acknowledged need for reform, it is in the interests of the Defence Forces that these issues be confronted as soon as possible to enable remedial measures to be undertaken as part of an organised programme.

It is disappointing to me and to a number of other people that much of the comment to date about the review has been negative. In undertaking the exercise, the Government's objective is to ensure that the Defence Forces will be staffed, equipped and organised to meet the challenges of the future. The achievement of this objective is in the interest of military personnel and the taxpaying public alike. Unfortunately, some of the wilder speculation repeated tonight about possible outcomes has clouded the positive nature of the review process.

There is no question of closing 17 military barracks or any such extreme measures. There will not be compulsory redundancies. There will be consultations with the representative associations in accordance with the agreed system of representation. Where changes are required, they will be introduced as part of a comprehensive programme and will be delivered at a pace which the military organisation can digest.

I should inform Deputy Dukes, who has a particular interest in this matter, that when the efficiency audit group report is completed and the Government has deliberated on it, I will have no difficulty in having a full open discussion and debate on the proposed reforms which will take place in the Defence Forces. It would be healthy for this House, the public and the military authorities.