In announcing the closure of six army barracks yesterday, the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, has grasped a difficult political nettle. Every one of the army barracks facing closure forms an integral part of the local economy in its area, contributing as they do, millions of pounds in wages and salaries and boosting spending power. The presence of an army barracks is also a source of great pride to the townspeople: there will be an understandable sense of loss that the towns in question will no longer be seen as "Army towns". That said, no one should pretend to be shocked or taken aback by the announcements: it has been signalled well in advance. Indeed, the closure of a significant number of the State's 34 army barracks has been on the agenda for a decade and more. Price Waterhouse, the consultants who are reviewing the efficiency of the Defence Forces argued for still more radical surgery with widespread closures and sharp reductions in manpower. Mr Smith might be criticised for adopting a minimalist approach towards the Price Waterhouse recommendations. But it is to his credit that he has had the political courage to address the very sensitive issue of barrack closures - unlike several of his predecessors.
The case for such closures is overwhelming. Indeed, few fair-minded people within the Army itself would argue that the maintenance of all the existing barracks is justified by security and defence requirements. The closure of six army barracks may be painful for the local communities concerned, but it is clearly in the interests of the taxpayer and it best serves the longer-term interests of the Defence Forces.
Regrettably, there is little sign that the closures form part of any integrated or coherent plan for the Defence Forces. Defence policy in this State largely deals with specific situations in a pragmatic way, as the Chief of Staff, Lieut-Gen Gerry McMahon, observed recently. There was, he lamented, a lack of clearly stated defence policy objectives and a lack of direction. In truth, the Government has probably selected the six barracks for closure on the basis that they are - in political terms - relatively soft targets. The Government has promised a White Paper on the future of the Defence Forces which will seek to arrest the sense of drift that has settled upon them. Some clearer policy direction is required. The Government says, proudly, that it will reinvest most of the proceeds from the sale of the barracks in new equipment and facilities for the Defence Forces. But it makes little sense to throw more money at the Defence Forces without some overall policy direction. The political reality is that a long-term policy for the Defence Forces may not be formulated until the final bill for the army deafness claims - variously estimated at anything between £150 million and £2 billion - is known. The sheer volume of deafness claims has already inflicted great damage to the image and standing of the Defence Forces. But it is also delaying much needed modernisation and reform in the Defence Forces themselves.