I wish to share my time with Deputies Mary O'Rourke and Batt O'Keeffe.
Adjournment Debate. - Closure of Army Barracks.
I am sure that is satisfactory.
I appreciate that Deputy Coveney is but a short time in office and I wish him well in his work, but he must have known that the cold-blooded and clinical statement given on "Morning Ireland" yesterday was bound to create a furore in Army circles. Not even the carefully crafted statement issued in The Irish Independent today, which unravelled during the day, eased the situation. Hence, just a few hours ago, we heard another television broadcast by the Minister in which he indicated that the Taoiseach would bring forward a memorandum on the review of the Defence Forces, and perhaps even heightened tensions by indicating that there would be no closures until after a period of three years. In so doing he has hung the sword of Damocles over all the Army barracks. That time span will bring us beyond the next general election.
Is this the way to treat loyal servants of the State who served with distinction at home and abroad, who have raised national morale and brought prestige to this country by their work in peacekeeping operations in far away places in difficult times, from the Congo in 1958 to the Lebanon today? The Minister must without preconditions immediately enter into negotiations and consultation with everyone concerned and take the closure of barracks and the substantial reduction in the Army off the agenda. We would be glad to support that kind of dialogue.
The social and economic impact of the closure of barracks would be great. In Kilkenny there are 400 Army personnel generating a £6.5 million wage bill in a year. At Kickham Barracks, with which the Ceann Comhairle is familiar, there are 300 Army personnel with a wage bill of £4.5 million. That is what we are talking about.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I come from an Army town, the headquarters of the western command and, no matter how draconian the Minister's proposals, I think even Fine Gael would balk at closing the western command.
People in the Army barracks at Longford and in Mullingar have been agitated since the Minister, or someone on his behalf, spoke on Shannonside Radio yesterday and since his intentions have been made public in media reports. There is great disquiet in those towns. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the folly on which he has embarked.
Army barracks bestow social distinction and status on a town and generate much business, and there is a sense of pride among the personnel who work there. I make my case straight-forwardly, as our spokesman on Defence has done. The Minister should tread warily. He has proven business methods but this is not the way to run the Defence Forces. I plead again with the Minister not to touch Longford or Mullingar.
First let me congratulate the Minister on his appointment.I know he will do an excellent job.
I refer the Minister to Leo Murphy barracks in Ballincollig. I am aware of the Minister's wish to keep that barracks open on the basis of a commitment given by him at a dinner there which we both attended at Christmas time. I will not play politics with the Minister on this issue because he was in Opposition then and things change when one assumes the mantle of power. There are 180 people employed in that barracks. The first field artillery battalion is based there, as is the industrial munitions dump. It is the training centre for the FCA in the southern command. It is an integral part of the town. The population are proud of the barracks. Closing it would be like taking a major industry out of the fastest growing town outside of Tallaght and would have devastating effects on the economy. I exhort the Minister to ensure that this barracks is kept open in the interests of us all. Only today I spoke to Army members on the telephone and they are really afraid for their jobs and their livelihood in Ballincollig and are depending on the Minister to keep the barracks in our constituency open.
I thank the Deputies opposite for their good wishes.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the present situation regarding the review of the Defence Forces by the Efficiency Audit Group.
The Efficiency Audit Group, EAG, was established in 1988 to examine various Government Departments with a view to recommending practices and methods which would improve effectiveness and efficiency. The group comprises senior figures from the public service, trade unions and the private sector. In 1993, the EAG was asked to carry out a comprehensive review of the Defence Forces.
The Efficiency Audit Group submitted its report to the Department of the Taoiseach in late December. The report has not yet been considered by Government. Accordingly, no decisions concerning the future of the Defence Forces have been taken.
This review did not commence out of the blue. It was initiated for very good reasons when the Deputies' party was in Government. It is widely accepted that there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the Defence Forces and that there is a need for change. This was accepted by the Opposition when they were in Government. It has also been accepted by the military authorities, by the military representative associations and by the Government. There is scope for debate as to the possible solutions, but there is no denying the nature and extent of the fundamental problem.
In many ways, the conclusions reached by the EAG and its consultants, Price Waterhouse, were predictable. 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 have been the source of public debate for some time. In 1993, 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 country and of the Defence Forces that these issues be addressed.
Before action of any kind can be contemplated on foot of the recommendations of the EAG, it will be necessary to establish an implementation group to prepare a fully costed implementation plan for phase 1 of the proposals. This first phase, covering a period of three years, will not involve the closure of a single barracks. It will concentrate instead on the more fundamental issues in the recommendations. I will not, therefore, be presiding over the closure of any barracks.
No, but the Minister is paving the way.
Let us hear the Minister out without interruption.
It will be up to another Minister to make a similar statement when the time comes.
I am committed to ensuring that any reforms will be implemented in a planned and sensitive manner. There will be no compulsory redundancies. There will be consultations with the representative associations, commencing next week, in accordance with the agreed system of representation. Where changes are required, they will be introduced as part of a comprehensive programme and at a realistic pace.
I am determined to tackle in a positive way the many problems confronting our Defence Forces e.g. the rising age profile, the imbalance between pay and non-pay spending, poor equipment, the excessive numbers working in civilian type jobs. If these and other problems are not tackled, then the operational capacity of the Defence Forces will be seriously eroded. Therefore a "do nothing" approach is neither a realistic nor a responsible option.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that the review process, which predates by several years my arrival in the Department of Defence, was not undertaken as an exercise in book-keeping. On the contrary, Price Waterhouse, a leading international firm of management consultants, which included eminent Canadian military experts, conducted an in-depth analysis of all aspects of the Defence Forces. In addition, the EAG was separately advised by a leading expert in military re-organisation from New Zealand. Senior officers of the Irish Defence Forces also participated actively in the study and are largely in agreement with its recommendations.
You can bet they are because they do not affect them.
Does the Minister intend to publish the Price Waterhouse report?
It has effectively been published already.