The Army deafness controversy, which has still to be fully resolved in the courts, has done much to damage the proud reputation of the Defence Forces. But it has also had a corrosive effect on each of their component parts - the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. The momentous changes in the security landscape - both internally and externally - mean that a process of adjustment and restructuring is inevitable. But, regrettably, the debate on the future of the Defence Forces has been put to one side until the extent of the State's liability for Army deafness is known. It is to be hoped that the Price Waterhouse report on the Naval Service and Air Corps - reported by the Marine Correspondent of this newspaper in today's editions - will help to stimulate some debate about the role and function of these agencies. The report is part of the ongoing Efficiency Audit Group of the Defence Forces conducted by Price Waterhouse. An earlier report on the Army four years ago, stoked great political controversy by recommending that Defence Force numbers should be cut by 3,000 and half of the existing barracks closed.
In their latest report, the consultants are more protective of the Naval Service and the Air Corps. They appear content that both have an important role to play. Critically, they oppose the privatisation of either body, arguing that the multi-skilling - which might typically see a naval officer performing both search and rescue and fishery protection duties - makes sound economic sense.
The consultants identify the important roles played by the Air Corps and the Naval Service in fishery protection (this State has the second largest but most poorly policed sea area in Europe), drugs surveillance and search and rescue missions. Few would disagree. They also explore how the Naval Service could occupy a more important role in pollution control, which has still to gain the priority it deserves. Much will be made of the recommendation that some £235 million should be spent on the new equipment package for both the Air Corps and the Naval Service over ten years. Some in Government will, no doubt, be reluctant to commit further resources until the army deafness issue is clarified - but this is the least that is required to provide an adequate service for the public. Both the Air Corps and the Naval Service can help their own case by introducing the kind of cost and budget control recommended by the consultants. There is much to be done. Many Air Corps pilots are continuing to opt for a much more lucrative career flying civilian aircraft; the current strength of the Naval Service is below 1,000 and morale is said to be poor. Both the Air Corps and the Naval Service could benefit from some firm signal from Government about future operational needs and requirements. Immediate publication of the Price Waterhouse report - submitted to Government in February - would help to arrest the sense of drift that appears to have descended on the Defence Forces. Some clearer policy direction would help. Instead, there is loose talk about a White Paper on Defence at some future stage. And the Government's intentions with regard to the wider range of Price Waterhouse recommendations on the future of the Defence Forces remain unclear. The Defence Forces - and the wider public - deserve better.