M. J. Nolan
Ceist:8 Mr. Nolan asked the Minister for Defence the number of functions performed by each of the Army bands during the period 1992 to 1994. [6585/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Bands.
During the period January 1992 to December 1994 the Army bands performed at a total of 2,021 functions.
The Army No. 1 Band performed at a total of 511 functions of which 282 were military, 86 were State functions and the balance of 143 were civilian engagements. The band of the Western Command performed at a total of 375 functions of which 239 were military, seven were State functions and the balance of 129 were civilian engagements. The band of the Southern Command performed at a total of 646 functions of which 427 were military, 31 were State functions and the balance of 188 were civilian engagements. The band of the Curragh Command performed at a total of 489 functions of which 374 were military, seven were State functions and the balance of 108 were civilian engagements.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Having regard to the high number of engagements carried out by the four Army bands, will he confirm if there are proposals to stand down any of them or to reduce their numbers?
This matter is being dealt with by the efficiency audit group arising out of the Price Waterhouse report. It is surprising that, given that the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report were leaked as early as last summer, there was no reference to this issue until approximately one month ago. One of the most radical recommendations of that report was that the number of Army bands should be reduced from four to one and that the numbers in the Army School of Music be reduced. While the Government has not yet considered the advice of the efficiency audit group, I can say with some confidence that it will not accept the reduction proposed in the Price Waterhouse report.
I thank the Minister for being open and honest in his reply. Bearing in mind the number of engagements in which the four bands participate and their geographical spread, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong for any Minister to stand down any of those bands? Will he ensure this does not happen? Will he also comment on the formal or informal order that was given to individual members of those bands not to lobby politicians in this regard, a matter that was brought to my attention in recent days?
The Deputy is putting words in my mouth. I said I would not recommend the adoption of the Price Waterhouse proposals to reduce the number of bands from four to one. I did not say there would not be any changes, but changes as radical as those proposed in the Price Waterhouse report would not be acceptable.
I am not aware of any instructions given to members of the bands about lobbying politicians. I have been lobbied effectively both through the media and in letters from various Members.
In a previous reply the Minister stated there would be no cumpulsory redundancies as a result of the Price Waterhouse report.
That is still the correct position.
On that basis, and bearing in mind that personnel in the bands are not trained in the same way as serving soldiers, how does the Minister propose to make changes if he accepts that there will not be any compulsory redundancies and that individuals cannot be moved to do other duties in the Army?
It is too soon to get involved in detailed dialogue about what might or might not happen as a result of the Price Waterhouse report, but there will be no compulsory redundancies. I accept that members of the Army bands are not trained for other duties of the Army, but if there are no compulsory redundancies those whom the Deputy is representing will not have any difficulties.
I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will not accept the recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report regarding the Army bands. Is the Minister aware that it is not possible to redeploy anywhere else within the Defence Forces band members who signed under this special section 19? Would the Minister consider the Army School of Music a national institution and not just another branch of the Defence Forces?
This is a statistical question.
We have a very open Minister.
But a very confined Chair, I am afraid.
To answer the first part of the Deputy's question, there will be no compulsory redundancies. If that causes problems, it does so for people other than those the Deputy seeks to protect. As to the second part of the question, it is similar to the previous question about whether we should extend an Army institution to a wider community. That is outside the remit of the Army. I could not develop the Army School of Music beyond the requirements of the Defence Forces.
Has the Minister an opinion on it?
I have not heard the suggestion until now; I do not have an opinion. Whereas Price Waterhouse recommended radical reductions in the number of bands, it did not propose the closing down of the Army School of Music.
We have read in the papers in the last ten days that the entire Army band structure is to be scrapped, and the figure of 40 was given. Given the number of engagements the Army band has in a 12 month period, the 40 people will have a very busy time. The band of the Southern Command is an institution with highly professional people who will have no place to turn if the bands are scrapped. Also, a number of young women who enter the Army——
That is outside the scope of the question.
Will the Minister seriously consider any decision to scrap those bands?
I am considering it seriously. I am very much aware, and the figures bear it out, that the public at large have much affection for the Army through the Army band and their television perception of an Army equestrian team winning an international event. I am conscious that those are important factors for the country and for the people's perception of the Defence Forces.