Keeping the defence forces’ house in order
In an evaluation of the defence forces published this month, the government-appointed Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) cited a minority of recruits who were challenging legitimate military orders “on the grounds of inappropriate behaviour or health and safety”.
“Considerable concern was expressed that the current emphasis by recruits on ‘their rights’ was leading to ‘softer’ training where… instructors were fearful of using corrective action,” said the group. It expressed concern that “the pendulum may have swung too far” in the recruits’ favour.
“The result may be that the essential robust nature of military training is in danger of being lost,” the group cautioned.
Defence Minister Willie O’Dea acknowledges the problem, but insists it is a “problem of success” — the defence forces having rectified the culture of bullying that was identified in the first IMG report four years ago.
“We came from a situation back in 2004 when [the IMG] reported there was a real problem in there [in terms of] bullying and harassment, etc, and that was acknowledged by the army,” he says.
“They agreed to put their house in order under the direction of the Department of Defence.
“The suggestion is that because we’ve done such a good job in informing recruits of their rights, and putting in place such a robust system to allow them to vindicate their rights… trainers are inclined to be reluctant to go too hard on recruits in training. You must find a balance, I suppose.”
The latest IMG report contains recommendations to help find that balance.
“There are some practical proposals in the report which, it seems to me, will get around that difficulty, such as extra training for the trainers, and we intend to proceed with that,” says Mr O’Dea.
He is less committal about the future of the Asgard II, the sail training ship which sank off the French coast in September.
The Asgard “seemed to be in good nick” when an underwater survey was taken, Mr O’Dea acknowledges, but his concern is the damage that could occur in raising the vessel — and the money that would be squandered as a result.
“It will cost up to €2 million to bring it up,” he says. “Now, that’s all very fine and good if it’s going to be in good nick after you bring it up and you don’t do any damage in the course of bringing it up. That would be fine, but I mean, there’s a very substantial risk here.”
The board of the Asgard is arranging for a second survey in January, and will make its recommendation to the minister, who will then decide the ship’s future.
The reluctance to gamble €2m would seem evidence of the newfound parsimony in Government Buildings. But Mr O’Dea insists his department was one of the few which actually made cuts when times were better. As a result, there is little scope to cut further, he says.
“I would make the point that of all the state organisations, defence is the only one that has reduced numbers pre the Celtic Tiger, and those numbers didn’t increase despite the boom and all the extra public service jobs that were created during the Celtic Tiger.
“We reduced the defence forces from over 12,000 to 10,500, and if you look at the number of civilian employees in the Department of Defence, it has remained fairly stable. So we’ve already taken a fair hit, you know… We’re pioneers of cuts, really. [But] of course, if we’re directed to find further cuts, we’ll have to find them.”
The simple truth, he says, is that if the Government really wants to save money, it will have to examine “the bigger areas of expenditure” — the three biggest being health, education and social welfare.
“Defence only accounts for a fairly small part of the overall [Government] budget… If you really are going to make a difference in the figures, particularly as regards current expenditure, you must look at the bigger areas of expenditure… That’s a mathematical certainty.”
He admits the economic crisis means the deferral of ships, extra weaponry and other equipment. But he rejects suggestions that this will have an obvious impact on the army, navy and air corps.
“I would never recommend to the Government that our troops should go into a war zone less than adequately prepared. Force protection is the thing that weighs foremost with us when we’re deciding whether or not to commit troops to a mission.”
