Before I call Senator Lanigan I congratulate the Minister for Defence on his appointment and I welcome him to the House.
Adjournment Matters. - Closure of Army Barracks.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I join in welcoming the Minister to the House. I raise this matter not expecting to get definitive answers to the concerns and problems raised by the Price Waterhouse report and the efficiency audit group, and their bearing on what might happen in the Defence Forces in the future. I was at a function in Ballincollig on Saturday last. Since Deputy Coveney was appointed Minister for Defence the people there are quite satisfied that Ballincollig is safe. However, I would like the Minister to say so. I wish I could say the same for other places around the country.
People may think that the Minister has a greater interest in our naval service than in our land services, but I hope that in the next few months as he reads himself into his brief, his Department officials will realise that the Army, the Navy and our Air Service play an integral part in the life of the country.
In his speech last night the Minister gave the impression that he would not be Minister for Defence in three years time, that he was leaving decisions over for that period during which people will work on the programme that Price Waterhouse has laid out. That has exacerbated the problems of confidence among Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. They see this as a softened stance on the closure of barracks. That is not what I would like to see. I hope the Minister will look at the Defence Forces in their entirety.
The Minister stated that our barracks were opened because the British were here and that they were barracks of occupation rather than barracks of need for a modern era. In his speech he suggested that communications are now so good that one does not need the same involvement on the ground as in the past. That might be all right if we were talking in terms of a rapid response group. However, we are not; we are talking about multifaceted Defence Forces which have to serve abroad and at home and which have to maintain military and civil powers. Over the past few years the Army has been involved as an aid to the civil powers. Transfers of money for the banks could not take place without the Army as we do not have a Garda force that can do the job the Defence Forces do.
We have been proud of the role played by the Defence Forces in peacekeeping abroad. That role enhanced the Army and the image of the country. In the future we will be called on to become more involved in peacekeeping operations throughout the world because we are good at it. We can be proud of our Army personnel who have been involved in the United Nations in different parts of the world. They have always fulfilled the mandate given to them. They have never become involved in local operations and have always abided by the rules of the United Nation. Because of that, they have not been popular with countries like Israel. In southern Lebanon Irish Army personnel do not consider themselves as primarily members of the Irish Army but members of the UNIFIL forces. They want everything that happens in that area to go through the United Nations command; they will not deal with local Israeli soldiers and are, therefore, respected by everybody except those soldiers. Southern Lebanon would be a wilderness but for the Irish involvement in UNIFIL. No matter where one goes, whether it is the Iran-Iraq border, Syria or Somalia, the Irish are respected.
We must protect the recruitment and the training potential of the Army, Navy and Air Corps. The Navy is becoming more involved in fisheries protection. Perhaps that should not be its role but nevertheless it does it well. Because of recent changes allowing Spanish fishermen further into the Irish box, the Navy will have a major part to play in fishery protection.
The closure of barracks may be a local emotive issue. It also damages a local economy. In the Minister's constituency Irish Steel does not contribute more to the local economy of Cork than does the barracks in Kilkenny to its local economy. To keep jobs in Irish Steel workers are subsidised by possibly £200 each per week. One could consider that paying £200 per week to a soldier in Kilkenny is subsidisation but I do not believe we are subsidising the soldier because he is an aid to the civil power. Portlaoise barracks, for example, is also strategically located.
It is difficult to see how a group of accountants can audit the operations of a defence force. The only way they can audit it is in terms of its cost. I believe outside experts were brought in from Canada and other countries. When did the Canadians ever acquire expertise in organising an army, a navy or a defence force? The former Chief of Staff, Noel Bergin, said this was nonsense.
The Minister must ensure that the Price Waterhouse report is made available to those interested in the future of the Defences Forces so that we can analyse its contents and have a meaningful discussion on it rather than on the leaks which have come from PDFORRA, RACO, the Department, the media and elsewhere. Nobody other than the Minister's Department, including those in the military section of the Defence Forces, has seen the report so how can we analyse it?
Will the Minister produce the report so we can analyse it and consider the implications, not only of the closure vitally important barracks? I ask the Minister to consider the report in detail but not to delay its implementation for three years because it will create havoc in the families of those involved in the Defences Forces.
Senator Lanigan raised many issues to which I would like to respond. The submission was more wideranging than the motion which was specific. I will try to deal with some of the points raised. Last evening I was pleased to have the opportunity to address Dáil Éireann on defence issues and this evening I am grateful to have the chance of addressing Seanad Éireann on the same important issues. I am happy to avail of this occasion to clarify the situation regarding the review of the Defence Forces by the Efficiency Audit Group.
The Efficiency Audit Group, EAG, was established in 1988 by the Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, 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 Efficiency Audit Group was asked to carry out a comprehensive review of the Defence Forces for the Government.
The Efficiency Audit Group submitted its report to the Department of the Taoiseach at the end of December. The report has not yet been considered by Government. Accordingly, no decisions concerning the future of the Defence Forces have yet been taken.
This review did not arrive out of the blue. It was initiated for good reasons when the Senator's 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 in Government. It was also accepted by the military authorities, by the military representative associations and by the present Government. There is scope for debate as to the possible solutions, but there is no denying the nature and extent of the fundamental problems we must face.
In many ways, the conclusions reached by the EAG and their consultants, Price Waterhouse, were fairly predictable. Over four years ago the report of the Gleeson commission highlighted serious shortcomings in the structure of the Defences 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 I of the proposals. This first phase, covering a period of approximately 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 Kilkenny barracks or for that matter, any other barracks.
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 in accordance with the agreed system of representation and I have invited both groups to meet me next week. 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, for example, the high and rising age profile, poor equipment, inadequate collective training, the excessive numbers working in civilian type jobs and the imbalance between pay and non pay spending. At present 82 per cent of the Defence budget is spent on pay and 18 per cent on equipment; the ideal ratio would be 70 per cent on pay and 30 per cent on equipment. 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 would like to emphasise that the review process, which predates my arrival in the Department by several years, was not undertaken in any sense as a pure exercise in bookkeeping. On the contrary, Price Waterhouse, a leading international firm of management consultants which included eminent Canadian military experts, whom our own military admire and have worked with on UN missions, conducted an indepth analysis of all aspects of the Defence Forces. In addition to that, the EAG took on a separate international expert from New Zealand who is also held in high regard. Senior officers of the Irish Defence Forces also participated actively in the study and are largely in agreement with its recommendations.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 February 1995.