When the Minister introduced this Estimate last week, he gave a very wide coverage of everything, but if you read his speech carefully you will find that he really said very little about anything. Perhaps that was designedly so, with the idea of encouraging a full debate on all the matters he covered in his speech. The first point I want to deal with is Civil Defence. The argument of quite a few Deputies has been that Civil Defence should be a matter for central Government. I do not agree with that. If we are faced with a situation where we have to go into action in Civil Defence here, it is far better for us to have local organisations so that we may utilise all the resources at our disposal.
That does not mean to say it should not be controlled and operated by a central Government service. I took the speeches of the Deputies to mean they wished the system to be changed as a whole. I do not agree. I think we should continue the system we have. I feel that the response to Civil Defence, which, perhaps, is not as important in this country as in other countries on account of our not having very many big urban centres, has not been as good as it might. I would go a certain distance with these people who advocate the centralisation of the problem in agreeing that the Government should, in so far as it is possible, sponsor it, perhaps, more actively than they are already doing.
The Minister did not really give us any defence policy. It appears to me we are going to keep on with an Army of a certain standard, largely, I suppose, for the purpose of being in a position to train personnel in the event of its being necessary, because of a flare-up in the European or world situation, for us to fight. The idea is to train a greater number of personnel. He mentioned that the Army was up to date—at least, I think he did. He did not give us any indication as to how it was up to date, what kind of weapons we have or whether we were keeping in touch with other forces moving into more modern types of warfare. Perhaps it is some top secret which the Minister does not want to divulge to the House, but he could have given us a little more information than he gave. On reading his speech, so far as the Army is concerned, I found no information whatever except that it was modernised and up to date. Perhaps the Minister might care to enlarge on that when replying.
The Minister dealt with the Naval Service. I have repeatedly asked questions in this House to ascertain if we propose to continue with the naval corvettes or not. I think I am right in saying that corvettes have been disposed of by every navy in the world, with the exception of our own small navy. I cannot see that these corvettes are suitable for the purpose for which we largely require them: the protection of our fishing grounds. We have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands telling us we are to have a great expansion in the fishing industry here. We all appreciate that is possible but, to have that, it must be fully and competently protected.
I have tried to point out in this House on several occasions that the corvettes have several disadvantages. First, they can be seen hull up miles away, so that anybody can get away before they can get on the scene. Secondly, they are very slow. Under modern conditions, they are probably one of the slowest fighting craft afloat to-day. Third, their draught is considerable. As a result, there are only about three or four harbours around our coastline into which they can go. It is not very difficult, therefore, for the fishing fleets to have a pretty good idea where our corvettes are located.
The only thing that can be said for the corvettes is that they provide a means of training crews. I wonder if that is a great advantage. As far as I can see, we are training our naval crews to move subsequently into the merchant service. Surely if we are training them for ordinary merchant ships, the up-to-date training they get is not of any particular benefit to them one way or another?
I should like the Minister to tell us if it is the intention to keep these corvettes indefinitely. They are becoming more and more obsolete each year. I was given to understand under the tenure of office of the previous Minister an offer was made for them and they could have been sold. I do not know whether that is true or not. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether we are wedded to them for the rest of our naval history.
There is one other point concerning the Naval Service to which I wish to refer. About a year ago, a ship was in difficulties off the Wexford coast and the lifeboat went out and the crew did their best to take the marooned sailors off the ship. They found it was impossible to do so and they radioed to their people ashore that a helicopter was required. I am informed that the message was passed to the senior naval officer of the Naval Service at Haulbowline. He had not got the authority to order a helicopter and I believe he had to telephone the Department of Defence to get the consent of either the Minister or some of his officials or, if I am wrong in that, he had to get the consent of the Army authorities. In this case, it was a matter of life or death for the people on the ship which was breaking up and it took a quarter of an hour to phone from Haulbowline to Dublin to get the green light to go ahead, although anybody who has had experience of trunk connections during the past few years could reasonably have imagined that it might have taken half an hour. Is it not possible for the Minister to give the senior naval officer in charge the necessary authority, when he thinks fit, as a trained sailor knowing conditions, to give a direction to get, as in this case, on to Cornwall to secure the available helicopter for the rescue work? It is a small point but it might mean the difference between life and death. Perhaps the Minister would consider it.
The Minister mentioned that we are to have a helicopter service. We in Fine Gael are pleased to hear it because over a period of years we have been pressing the Department of Transport and Power to do something about it. As far as I know, we are the only civilised and up-to-date country in the world which has not got a helicopter service. This service is to be operated by the Department of Defence and I think everybody will agree that that is the best arrangement. Again, when we examine the Minister's statement, the information appears to be fairly limited. It may be that the Minister was hoping to initiate a discussion and, indeed, he has succeeded in doing that and there has been a considerable debate on most points in the Estimate, but the House would like to know what type of helicopter the Minister has in mind. One can only surmise from the figures —the only information we have had to date on this matter—the type of helicopter he may be considering.
I am not a technical expert but I am advised that there are two types of helicopter. There is the turbine type and the piston type. The difference between them is that the turbine type can take off immediately; in other words, it can go into action as soon as the SOS message or emergency message comes in. The piston type cannot do that and it is a matter of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before it is heated up and before it can go on its errand of mercy.
I am also reliably informed that there are two types of turbine helicopters available to the Minister. It may be that there are more but this is the information I have. One of them is manufactured by a British firm and the other by a French firm. The British type of helicopter is the type which has been used for lifesaving, ambulance work and hospital work and so on — in fact for all the different types of work which go to make up the uses to which a helicopter can be put under modern conditions.
I am further informed that the British manufactured helicopter, the "Westland Whirlwind" is the one very much in use across Channel in all these circumstances. It is able to cater for six stretcher cases. There is plenty of room for manoeuvring in it. It is also able to carry, as part of its equipment, up-to-date medical services so that any emergencies may be dealt with. As well as that, it may, if necessary, be used as a vital maternity unit and, in fact, in other countries is being used as such. I am told it is capable of travelling a considerable distance without refuelling which is important in regard to our helicopter service here as it might well happen that it would have to function out over the Atlantic in emergency rescues from aircraft and ships in distress. I am informed that its overall range is about 270 miles and that it is capable of carrying a reserve fuel tank which, when it has been utilised, can be ditched so that the helicopter can travel another 80 miles or so.
All things considered, it does seem to me that that would be the most suitable type of craft we should order. As well as that, there is always the difficulty of obtaining spare parts and this type of craft is manufactured only a few hours distance away. I am also informed that if the Minister is considering a smaller type of craft it is possible to get such a craft manufactured by the same firm. There is also a French type of helicopter which, admittedly, is cheaper than the other one I mentioned. I think it is called the "Alouette" but it has not got the same ambulance capacity as the other one. I am taking the long-term view and I believe that if we are starting helicopter services here—and it seems that from the amount of money being voted the Minister's mind is moving in the direction which I respectfully submit it should—we should get the bigger and better equipped type of helicopter. He will then have a better service at his disposal, one which will be easily serviced, which will have a wide range and which has been tried and tested throughout all the rescue operations that have been going on around our coast by British helicopters because we had not got one of our own. I would ask the Minister to take those factors into consideration. It would also be useful if he would indicate to the House what he has in mind and whether or not any decision has been taken so far.
The training of the personnel for the helicopter services is a vital matter and I feel sure the Department of Defence, which has shown itself, with one or two minor exceptions, to be an efficient Department, will be well able to provide the personnel to man these craft. I would further ask the Minister, when he is arranging for the training of this staff, to bear in mind the fact that if we are establishing a helicopter service, we will have to have a round-the-clock service. He should not stint himself in any way in regard to pilots and personnel. We on this side of the House can claim credit for having fought during the past few years for a helicopter service. Many people outside the Dáil were interested to learn that we are to have this vital and efficient service.
If the Minister has decided that the price of the French helicopter is cheaper than its British counterpart, I would ask him to take into consideration that certain difficulties will have to be faced in regard to the training of personnel. There may be a language difficulty. I do not know the proficiency of the Irish Army in speaking French. I know they are very good at speaking Irish. The previous Minister was very keen on that. It is easier to train pilots in a language which is known to everyone than in a foreign language. I hope the Minister will give a full explanatory statement on this very vital and important new service.
In conclusion, I want to agree whole-heartedly with Deputies who have spoken about the Irish soldier's uniform. There is no doubt that the uniform of the private soldier and the non-commissioned rank is the most unglamorous outfit I have ever seen. I understand there has been considerable difficulty in recruiting personnel to the Army. There has not been the same difficulty since the start of the Congo operations because it has always been the wish of an Irishman to spread his wings. I suppose he has it in his blood from the days of the Wild Geese. If the Minister did something about the uniforms—which Deputies of all shades of opinion recommend—it would be far easier to get recruits. There does not seem to be any reason why we should continue with the extraordinary outfit that has been worn over the years.
In the south of my constituency there is a barracks, in Duncannon Fort, which I think would be suitable for the training of personnel. In the summer months, it is used by the FCA, and I do not see why more use should not be made of it by the Army. I agree that it is rather a back-end and there probably would not be a lot for the soldiers to do, but it is a healthy spot and it is not too far from New Ross. The Minister should consider using that barracks because that would help to preserve it in good condition. It is a fort which we might need some time in the future.