"I suggest that you may safely disregard rumours which you have heard concerning what is alleged to be the Government's intentions in connection with the Naval Service" - this comment was made by a Taoiseach, John A Costello, just over 50 years ago, but it could have been made last week. The decision by the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, to reject a Department of Finance proposal to merge the Naval Service and Air Corps will ease only some of the uncertainty which has been mounting in both organisations over the past number of years. As the Minister stated in an interview with this newspaper published last week it would not make sense to amalgamate both services into a coastguard, given the level of investment already committed to both. The Government has accepted in principle the Price Waterhouse consultancy review, published over a year ago, which recommended a £235 million reequipment plan for both branches over 10 to 18 years. The Department of Finance was a party to this expensive consultancy exercise, which also sought some efficiency measures; it was one of a number of reviews dating back to the first Efficiency Audit Group study in 1991. Yet, in its submission to the White Paper on Defence the department chose to take an opposite tack. Instead of favouring further development of both wings, concomitant with a marine resource estimated at £30 billion, it chose to recommend a cost-cutting exercise. By merging the Naval Service and Air Corps into a coastguard, money could certainly be saved - but at what price?
To add to the confusion, a land-based coastguard concerned primarily with marine safety has already been proposed by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Dr Woods. The Irish Marine Emergency Service (IMES) has expanded considerably under Dr Woods's tenure. He intends to move legislation changing its title to that of a coastguard, which would also hold responsibility for inland waterways. The sense of drift is not the fault of one minister: the record of the previous government, which commissioned the special Naval Service/Air Corps study, is not unblemished. And much of Mr Smith's period in office has been dominated by the costly Army deafness affair.
The Price Waterhouse Navy/Air Corps review was not to everyone's taste when it eventually emerged. In recognising the value of the non-military responsibilities of both wings it pointed a critical finger at certain existing structures within the Department of Defence. It also dismissed the model of a single-task fisheries protection agency favoured by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. Small wonder that a white paper on defence was commissioned, and that the representative organisations accused the Government of a "fudge". Over a year later, those organisations may have been proved right. The implementation plans are still awaited by the Minister, just several months before the white paper's promised publication. Meanwhile, Naval Service and Air Corps personnel continue to seek better-paid options elsewhere.