Officers call Naval Service and Air Corps review a `fudge'

A dispute has occurred over the Government's implementation of the Price Waterhouse review of the Naval Service and Air Corps…

A dispute has occurred over the Government's implementation of the Price Waterhouse review of the Naval Service and Air Corps, with the Department of Defence denying claims by officers that it represents a "fudge".

The review, which was published by the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, yesterday, recommends a £235 million re-equipment plan for both wings over the next 10 to 17 years and confirms that they have a multitasking role.

The Government says it has accepted the recommendations in principle, and says a fully costed implementation plan will be drawn up by the Minister for Defence, "consistent with the White Paper on Defence".

The Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (RACO) has said this will delay action for at least a year, until the White Paper on Defence is completed. RACO's general secretary, Comdt Brian O'Keeffe, said this decision would "devastate morale" in both the Naval Service and Air Corps.

READ MORE

"The consultants' report is already 18 months overdue, and this has put both services in a state of suspended animation for a prolonged period," Comdt O'Keeffe said. "Personnel need to know what the future holds for them. To delay implementation of what is a good report is a disgrace."

The Price Waterhouse report held "the promise of a bright future for both services", he said, with a recommended increase in resources. The decision to defer implementation of its provisions contrasted sharply with the haste with which the decision to close Army barracks was put into effect, he said.

However, a spokesman for the Department of Defence denied action had been deferred, and said an implementation plan would "give immediate effect to efficiency measures, including both performance and personnel". This would be acted upon before the White Paper, he said. "Not everything is on hold."

The report recommends an increase in Naval Service numbers, a cut in Air Corps personnel, an eighth Navy ship and complete fleet replacement at a cost of £195 million, and new equipment for the Air Corps, including four medium-lift helicopters at a cost of £40 million.

However, it also seeks increased efficiency and a more commercially-driven approach.

In a statement yesterday, which also outlined the main objectives of the proposed White Paper on Defence, the Minister said progress on efficiency issues in the consultants' review would ensure a "secure and stable future" for the Naval Service and Air Corps as military organisations. It said "value-for-money" principles would apply in decision-making on allocation of the various non-military sea and air support tasks, such as fisheries protection and search and rescue.

Significantly, the Naval Service is already giving greater value for money, with an increase of more than 40 per cent in boardings of fishing vessels for the first six months of this year.

In an analysis of the demand for non-military services, the review says that fisheries protection requirements would envisage an increase in boardings of vessels from a current 1,100 annually to 2,500. Even the advent of an eighth ship would not enable the Naval Service to approach this target without considerable other changes being introduced, it says.

On drug interdiction, it says the Naval Service will probably be busier in this area. This would have an impact on its ability to meet increased fishery protection targets, it notes.

It is also critical of the highly centralised Defence system, and notes little or no significant devolution of authority to the Flag Officer commanding the Naval Service and the General Officer Commanding Air Corps. It says the Naval Service and Air Corps are "subjected to too much control by Defence Forces Headquarters", largely due to regulations which are inappropriate to the needs of these specialist services.

It notes difficulties arising from operation of a Strategic Management Committee, which currently excludes the two heads of the respective wings, and the fact that the Defence Force headquarters is, in effect, "an Army headquarters".

It recommends devolution of Naval Service headquarters to Haulbowline and Air Corps command to Baldonnel, while acknowledging that this is unlikely to happen in the short term.