Changing Defence Forces require a long-term development plan to achieve new objectives

For almost 10 years the Defence Forces have been undergoing major change

For almost 10 years the Defence Forces have been undergoing major change. Throughout the process the Forces have continued to carry out many disparate tasks at home and abroad.

These have included aid to the civil power on the Border, throughout the State, at sea and in the air. They also involve a permanent deployment of almost 800 soldiers on peace support duties in many international trouble spots. Additional duties such as fishery protection, search and rescue, air ambulance, island relief and many more are routinely undertaken.

It is to the credit of our Defence Forces that this work has been accomplished in a professional way and with a commitment which belies the significant internal turmoil occasioned by continuous reform.

The catalysts for change have been many and varied. In 1989 representative associations were set up and now operate within an established conciliation and arbitration system. The Gleeson Commission (1990), while setting down levels of pay and allowances, also laid down markers on a reform agenda which has driven a series of Efficiency Audit Group Reviews during the 1990s.

READ MORE

The first review recommended that the Chief of Staff be made accounting officer for Defence Forces expenditure. This was a recommendation before its time and it was decided that a less radical option of partial budgetary devolution to the military be put in place. This still leaves Defence facing an accounting versus responsibility dilemma. The resolution to this may well be found through the civil service review under the Strategic Management Initiative.

The second review recommended administrative reform and the simplification of Defence Forces regulations. These recommendations have not yet been achieved.

The third and most comprehensive review led to the Defence Forces Review Implementation Plan which was accepted by Government in March 1996. This is a 10-year reform plan with Phase 1 covering 1996-1999. The plan deals with top-level management and organisational issues, personnel and training matters, re-equipment and infrastructure and the reorganisation of the Air Corps and the Naval Service.

The passing by the Oireachtas in July of a Defence Amendment Act has cleared the way for a streamlined top management with the aim of providing more coherent leadership for the Defence Forces. The setting by the Minister for Defence of a date putting this legislation into effect will enable the reorganisation of Defence Forces headquarters to begin.

The amendment also opens the way for the reorganisation of commands, corps, brigades, and units.

Reorganisation plans exist in a very developed state and the announced closure of six barracks by the Minister is also a further significant step.

A wide range of personnel issues had to be addressed. Numbers had to be reduced, new blood recruited to improve the age profile and a high number of medically-ineffective personnel targeted for early retirement.

The Government's commitment to automatic recruitment up to the agreed ceiling has led to a very welcome induction of young soldiers which is starting to redress the age profile issue. Numbers are now at the agreed ceiling but convergence of the appropriate ranks in the proper locations will take time.

Fifty per cent of personnel savings resulting from the reduction in numbers is being ploughed back into equipment and infrastructure but building and equipment programmes require lead-in time.

Shortcomings in conventional military training, which provides the foundation for all tasks undertaken by military organisations, have been tackled. Much work in this area remains to be completed.

The Air Corps and Naval Service Special Study has been completed. The next step is the production of an implementation plan which will be overseen by a steering group chaired by the Minister. This too will take time.

The overall picture therefore is one of steady progress but at a very slow rate. After 2 1/2 years much has been achieved but much still remains to be done and that will take more time than the three years envisaged for Phase 1.

Two major developments have arisen which will have a major impact. These are compensation claims (in the main for deafness) and the Defence White Paper.

The compensation claims have had a very negative impact on the Defence Forces. The first point is that there are damaged people who must be compensated. The second point is that Ireland is not unique in this. Other armies throughout the world have the same problem. They do not, however, pursue cases through the courts but have them processed by boards or tribunals. Pursuance of claims through the courts is time-consuming and expensive.

There are non-financial costs too. The "drip feed" of court cases reported in the media has created an atmosphere where public confidence in the Defence Forces is being eroded and the morale of the Defence Forces is being undermined.

The production of a White Paper on Defence is to be welcomed. There is no doubt that Ireland should have a stated defence policy and the Government is to be congratulated on its initiative.

Ireland is a sovereign state and as such has an obligation to preserve and enhance the security and wellbeing of its people. Ideally, the Defence Forces should be structured, equipped and armed in accordance with a stated defence policy which is co-ordinated with other national policies, most notably a foreign policy. This has not been the Irish experience.

Certainly the Defence Forces have dealt with specific situations as they arose in a pragmatic way but that cannot replace clearly defined defence policy objectives. The opportunity now arises to set this straight in the context of Ireland's much-changed national and international defence and security environment.

There is a fear in some quarters of the Defence Forces that the White Paper will be used as a vehicle to reduce numbers in order to fund compensation claims. Such an approach would wreak havoc on a Defence Forces already working its way through the implementation of three major reviews, none of which has yet been fully completed.

The current implementation plan must be allowed to run its course. The White Paper must set defence policy objectives and deal with the medium to long-term development of the Forces to meet those objectives.

It would be foolhardy to inflict further trauma on an organisation already suffering from review fatigue.

Lieut Gen Gerry McMahon retired as Chief Of Staff of the Defence Forces last month.