In Leinster House they call him the "Monsignor", but Michael Smith doesn't genuflect to many in his role as Minister for Defence. If anything, he likes to raise his head above the parapet.
Witness his handling of the Army deafness claims and his initiation of tougher drink-driving legislation when holding the environment portfolio back in 1994.
How then will he approach the Price Waterhouse recommendation for a major shake-up in Naval Service and Air Corps, as reported in yesterday's Irish Times? Positively, one would have expected, given his statements on the issue when in opposition 18 months ago.
Back then, Mr Smith promised that Fianna Fail in government would buy extra ships - but would also ensure that there was enough crew for same. It would tackle recruiting levels, which had dropped significantly. The closure of Army barracks was now "inevitable", he told the 1996 annual conference of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers. The barracks closures, as recommended in the initial Price Water house review to the Efficiency Audit Group on the Defence Forces, required "greater honesty" from Government, he said, and his party would publish a White Paper on defence policy within 12 months of returning to office.
Marking that first birthday in Government today, Mr Smith has several good reasons for not delivering on some of those commitments. Firstly, he only took over the defence portfolio when David Andrews was promoted to foreign affairs to replace Ray Burke last year.
Secondly, Army deafness has been an all-consuming issue within his department; many believe he has played a blinder in taking on a "compoculture" which is probably more symptomatic of poor Army morale. Thirdly, the Price Water house review itself, which has in turn been held up by Army deafness - and the fact that some of the key players in the Taoiseach's Department were also involved in the Northern peace process.
Then, as Fine Gael defence spokeswoman, Ms Frances Fitzgerald, alluded to yesterday, there is also the final say of the Minister for Finance.
If that all sounds like a bit of a fudge, there are genuine fears within the Defence Forces that the proposed White Paper will become another excuse for deferring a decision on these recommendations. Yet not only did this initial three-month review - commissioned in June 1996 - take two years to complete, but the fact that long-term issues had to be taken into account during that time also means that the proverbial bullet has to be bitten very soon.
The Price Waterhouse review clearly states this. The consultants who had recommended a 10 per cent cut in Naval Service numbers back in 1994 now recognise the need for a 10 per cent increase. Neither the Naval Service nor the Air Corps can function without re-equipment, their review states.
In outlining a £235 million programme, the consultants support the primary role of both defence wings and the value of the multi-tasking approach to fisheries protection, search and rescue, pollution control and drug surveillance. They rule against privatising fisheries protection, on the Scottish model, while also referring to the need for more efficiency. They recommend an increase in boardings and more days at sea.
On search and rescue, they say the Air Corps will need to guarantee 24-hour cover in return for the medium-lift helicopters with which to do that work.
Viewed through the economist's lens, the amount of capital expenditure recommended over the next decade is quite small. It is particularly so when compared to expenditure by other EU states.
The Naval Service costs about £40 million annually, which is a fraction of the estimated £2 billion worth of fish taken annually by non-Irish vessels from these waters every year. Belgium, which has an exclusive economic zone 32 times smaller and far less fish-rich than this State, spends a similar amount of GDP on its navy. Spain and Portugal, which have sea areas half the size of this, spend 0.29 and 0.7 per cent of GDP respectively. The Netherlands spend 0.5 per cent of GDP, for a sea area one-tenth this size.
When comparing naval fleet strength, Ireland is also in the ha'penny place. This State has 0.53 vessels per 10,000 square miles of water, compared to 150 for Belgium, 96 for Germany, 36 for the Netherlands, 23 for France and 15.4 for Spain. In "shore-based" terms, Irish waters are the second largest and the most poorly policed in Europe - equivalent to two Garda patrol cars for this whole island, against a European average of over 20.
At the same time, pressure on Ir ish fish stocks is increasing. A drug-runner will find it 20 times easier to get to European waters through the Irish maritime corridor than by any other route. Pollution control, which should be a responsibility of the Naval Service, now demands more resources, due to new international commitments.
The Irish Marine Emergency Service, which is primarily responsible for search and rescue and is to be transformed into a "coastguard", has taken the opportunity to fill that void.
None of these tasks is the sort of function which one would expect a White Paper on defence to address. If the State is ever to take its marine resource seriously, the wide-ranging Price Waterhouse review offers that opportunity. Even a Tipperary minister couldn't argue with that.
