A CRITICAL breakdown in confidence and communication has taken place between representatives of officers in the Defence Forces and Government officials, a conference here has heard.
Delegates at the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (RACO) conference heard there was a battle between different Departments for control of the Defence Forces' budget and management.
The RACO general secretary, Comdt Brian O'Keeffe, also spoke against the "potentially dangerous" proposal in the Public Sector Management Bill to place control over Defence Forces management in the hands of Department of Defence officials.
He said the Defence Forces were facing their greatest threat yet in the guise of the Public Sector Management Bill".
"The Defence Forces have always been directly responsible to the Minister for Defence and the Government. This is as it must be in a democracy. However, a recent amendment to the heads of this Bill (the preparatory, published stage of the Bill) which RACO has studied, will hand full responsibility and authority for the work of the branches of chief-of-staff, adjutant general and quartermaster general over to an unelected official, the secretary of the Department of Defence.
Such a move is not only contrary to sound management practice, it is potentially dangerous.
Comdt O'Keeffe asked if this meant that the secretary of the Department of Defence would now have full responsibility, authority and accountability for operations?
Would this mean that if the Army decided that a battalion was needed for an operation on the Border, the secretary as the person responsible for the output - the OPORD (operation order) itself - can say, "No, don't use a battalion, use a company?"
"Civil control of the military, which is absolutely essential in a democracy, means control by government, exercised through a minister. . . How can this control by the elected government be ensured if an unelected civilian official, the secretary of the Department of Defence, has, by law, responsibility and authority for the overall management of the forces?"
Comdt O'Keeffe said RACO had also no confidence in the negotiating machinery set up to resolve personnel issues. Business at the conciliation council had almost come to a standstill and there was extreme frustration on RACO's part. The official side, the Departments of Defence and Finance and military authorities, appeared to be at war with each other.
The lack of trust between the two Departments and the military authorities was manifested by the fact that all three sent full teams, totalling 16 people, to negotiations on the smallest points.
"We are about to enter into a phase in which issues will he decided which will, to a large extent, determine the shape and nature of the Defence Forces for the foreseeable future. If we are to reach mutually acceptable results in each of these areas - and it is essential to the success of the change process that we do so - we must have efficient and effective negotiation mechanisms."
The RACO president, Comdt Con McNamara, added: "Our approach to negotiations is serious, positive and professional. It is unacceptable that RACO be subjected to a civil side among whom internal battles over control of management of the Defence Forces appears to be of more importance than the solving of issues.
"For the past two years, we have been trying to resolve a number of relatively minor issues, such as the conditions of service of our members serving in New York and Vienna and the recognition of Naval Service qualifications by the Department of Marine.
"If we cannot do business with officials on such relatively low-key matters, how long will it take us to reach agreement on the reorganisation of the Defence Forces, namely such issues as merging, loss of appointments, infrastructure and equipment."
Commenting on the fact that only 800 young people applied to join the Defence Forces, Comdt McNamara said there had been no high-profile advertising campaign for recruits. "Where was the television advertisement portraying the life of a soldier at home and abroad?"
He said the reduction in size of the Defence Forces was already causing additional burdens for those soldiers who remain. The reduction this year of the officer cadre, from 1,500 to 1,300, meant that officers were "double and treble jobbing".
"The task facing us at this moment is to ensure that worthwhile careers exist for all our members in the new Defence Forces and that, through our negotiations, we will ensure the existence of an attractive career for all our members in the future."