Votes 46 and 47 may be discussed together.
Supplementary Estimates, 1981. - Vote 46: Defence.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £27,996,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence, including certain services administered by that Office; for the pay and expenses of the Defence Forces; and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
The Estimate for Defence for the financial year ending on 31 December 1981 which was passed by the Dáil on 9 July last, was for a net sum of £143,980,000. The Supplementary Estimate for Defence which I am now introducing is for an additional sum of £27,996,000.
Before proceeding to the details of this Estimate, I should inform the House that the original Estimate for Defence was not adequate in relation to pay, at least, to meet the commitments which could be anticipated to arise in 1981.
One of the first tasks of this Government was to undertake an urgent examination of the country's finances. This examination highlighted the very serious condition in which the finances of the State had been left by the outgoing Government. Other Ministers in the course of the presentation of Supplementary Estimates to the House have referred to the inadequacy of the funds required for their Departments. It will not, therefore, come as any surprise to the House or to the country that this pattern of under-estimation has also emerged in so far as my Department is concerned.
When I refer to under-estimation I want it clearly understood what was involved. What was involved was that the provision made in the original estimate for pay was inadequate to the tune of £10 million. In other words, adequate provision was not made to cater for the numbers actually in the Defence Forces at the time the Estimate was framed. A decision was taken to allow recruiting to continue on the basis of acceptance of suitable applicants who presented themselves — active recruiting measures being discontinued. It was simplistic to hope that, in the prevailing circumstances, merely to discontinue advertising for new recruits would result in a substantial reduction in strength. That did not happen and anyone who faced up honestly to the situation would have realised that it would not happen.
The obvious conclusion is that the inadequate provision was not accidental or due to unforeseen circumstances but represented a failure to take into account the reality of the strength of the force. We now find ourselves in the extraordinary situation that the Government have to find the necessary finance to meet a commitment which the former Government did not provide for. That, of course, is part of the story of the financial crisis which we inherited.
The figure of £27,996,000 now required includes an amount of £14,899,000 in respect of increases in pay and allowances granted to members of the Defence Forces and civilian employees and civil servants of my Department for which provision was not made when the original Estimate was made. The main increases for the Defence Forces are those arising from the application to the pay of all ranks up to and including commandant of the benefits of an arbitration award to executive grades in the civil service with effect from 1 September 1980.
There also has been an increase in the numbers of FCA members attending for training and increased expenditure on transportation, Post Office services, buildings and lands. As well, there has been increased expenditure on supplies and equipment for the Defence Forces due to carryover of commitments from last year, price increases, and outstanding orders being met more rapidly than expected.
The Estimate already passed by the Dáil was on the basis of a strength of 1,525 officers, 109 cadets and 10,700 NCOs and privates making a total of 12,334 all ranks. In fact, however, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, which had declined substantially in the period mid-1977 to mid-1979, on the 1 January 1981 was 13,731 all ranks. It is now about 14,850 all ranks.
While the present tragic situation in Northern Ireland continues the need will be readily apparent for adequate numbers of well trained men to service the many calls in aid of the civil power on Border patrols, check-points, protection of vital installations, escorts for cash in transit, and so on. The Government are committed to the promotion of efficient Defence Forces integrated with the community, equipped and trained to safeguard our neutrality, to render necessary aid to the civil power and to maintain our established role within the peace-keeping forces of the United Nations.
I will now give details of the subheads involved from which it will be clear that savings on some services have offset to some extent excesses on the subheads requiring this Supplementary Estimate.
Under subhead A — Office of the Minister for Defence, Salaries, Wages and Allowances — the sum of £400,000 is required to meet the cost of pay increases to the staff involved.
There is provision for an additional sum of £21,880,000 under subhead B — Permanent Defence Force: Pay — to cater for under estimation, the cost of pay increases and increased strength.
The additional sum of £2,805,000 required under subhead C — Permanent Defence Force: Allowances — is to meet the cost of increases in rates of certain allowances and an increased volume of subsistence allowance payments.
The sum of £2,250,000 is required under subhead D — Reserve Defence Force: Pay etc. — to meet the cost of increased numbers of FCA members attending for training and also the cost of increases in pay and allowances.
An additional £750,000 is required under subhead F — Civilians attached to Units: Pay etc. — to meet the cost of pay increases.
The additional gross sum required under the subheads of the Vote relating to items other than pay and allowances amounts to £3,579,000.
This sum, which is related to increased costs and carryover commitments, arises under subhead G — Civil Defence — £100,000; subhead I — Medicines and Instruments, £51,000; subhead L — Petrol, Fuel Oils etc., £120,000; subhead R — Solid Fuel, Electricity, Gas and water, £400,000; subhead U — Transportation etc., £300,000; subhead V — Expenses of Equitation Teams at Horse Shows, £30,000; subhead W — Travelling and Incidental expenses — £125,000; subhead X — Post Office Services — £665,000; subhead DD2 — Expense of operation of Sail Training Scheme — £70,000; and subhead FF — Office Equipment and Other Office Supplies — £40,000.
There is provision for an additional sum of £700,000 under subhead M — Clothing — due mainly to increased carryover and outstanding orders being met more rapidly than expected. Under subhead S — Buildings — an additional sum of £600,000 is required due to increased progress during the year on building and maintenance works. The sum of £228,000 is required under subhead CC — Lands — for increased purchases of premises and £150,000 is required under subhead D1 — Assistance to Sail Training in connection with the purchase of the sail training vessel Asgard II.
The total increase of £31,664,000 is partially offset by savings amounting to £1,988,000 and by surplus appropriations-in-aid amounting to £1,680,000, leaving the net additional sum of £27,996,000 required for the Supplementary Estimate. The main savings arise in subhead P — Naval Stores — £1,450,000, due to anticipated expenditure on naval construction not arising in 1981; in subhead 02 — Aircraft — £300,000 due to a refund of a VAT payment in respect of an aircraft purchased in 1980; in subhead K — Provisions — £100,000 due to expenditure on rations being less than expected; and in subhead AA — Irish Red Cross Society Grant-in-Aid — £100,000 due to savings on the provision for repairs to the society's headquarters.
The surplus of £1,680,000 under Appropriations-in-Aid comprises additional receipts from United Nations, from the occupation of official quarters, and from rations on repayment, which are partially offset by shortfalls in receipts from discharges by purchase, from the EEC and from the recoupment of costs incurred in connection with oil incidents.
It is my aim as Minister for Defence to provide, in men and equipment, a modern well-equipped Army capable of meeting the many demands made on them in these troubled times.
Having had some experience of Army life I am very much concerned about the welfare of our Defence Forces. In line with Government policy I intend to ensure that the conditions of service generally of members of the Defence Forces will be maintained at a high standard and, in particular, that those personnel who are bearing the brunt of very onerous responsibilities will continue to be compensated for their efforts.
Before I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for Army Pensions for the year ending 31 December 1981, I wish to express my appreciation of the work being done by all ranks in the Permanent Forces and in the reserves, including Slua Muirí, the FCA and others, and also the Irish Red Cross Society. I hope to have an opportunity before long, when the main Estimate is being dealt with, to deal with this subject fully.
I should like also to refer to the Irish troops in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that many people here seem to think that when our troops go abroad they do so for two things, a bit of sun and a few extra bob. Nothing could be further from the truth. The display of ignorance of some people who have been reporting for and writing to newspapers in the past couple of months has been appalling. Some people want to know if we have troops all over the Middle East. We have. As well as having a battalion in the Lebanon we have officers and NCOs in Syria, in Egypt, in Israel and other Middle East areas. They are risking their lives to keep world peace but this is not appreciated by the general public. Therefore, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the work they are doing. I know Deputies opposite have the same point of view. We must make it known, loud and clear, for the benefit of people at home that our soldiers who go abroad are working to try to hold world peace, and I offer them my special thanks for the way in which they are doing their jobs. They are very well respected where they are serving.
Now I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for Army Pensions for the year ending 31 December 1981. The main Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1981, which was passed by the Dáil on 9 July 1981, was for a net sum of £25,600,000. The supplementary is for an additional sum of £1.090,000. The additional sum is required mainly to meet the cost of the actual increases granted in 1981 over and above the amount, £1,711,000, provided for increases in the main Estimate.
Budgetary increases in military service pensions, special allowances and in the allowances payable to widows of military service pensioners and special allowance holders, together with the normal general increase from 1 July 1981, require additional sums totalling £699,000 in subhead C — Allowances and Gratuities to Dependants etc.; subhead D — Military Service Pensions; and subhead G — Special Allowances. Subhead E1 — Defence Forces Pensions Schemes — requires a further £720,000 arising out of an increase in Army pay granted after the main Estimate was framed.
Subhead E2 — Payments in respect of Transferred Service — relates to the scheme whereby service in one part of the public sector may be reckoned for pension purposes in another. It is of particular relevance to a man leaving the Army, moving into other pensionable employment and being credited for pension purposes with his Army service. In some instances a financial adjustment will be required between my Department and the final employer. There is a token amount of £10 in the main Estimate but it is now expected that some payments may fall to be made under this scheme before the end of 1981 and, accordingly, provision is being made for a further sum of £50,000.
There is also a token amount of £10 included in the main Estimate for subhead K relating to lump sums payable in the case of personnel killed or injured while serving with a United Nations Force. As the House is aware there have, unfortunately, been a number of tragic deaths of Defence Force personnel in Lebanon this year and, accordingly, a further sum of £72,000 is now required under this subhead. The annual allowances for dependants of such deceased personnel are provided for under subhead C.
The total increase of £1,541,000 is mainly offset by savings amounting to £303,000 and by surplus Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £148,000 leaving the net additional sum of £1,090,000 required in the Supplementary Estimate. The main savings are £195,000 under subhead B — Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities etc. — and £100,000 under subhead M — Funeral Grants. The surplus Appropriations-in-Aid is due mainly to contributions to pension schemes for widows and children of personnel of the Permanent Defence Force being higher than anticipated.
I commend both Estimates to the favourable consideration of the House. If Deputies require more information on any points I shall be glad to give it.
First of all, I should like to wish the Minister well in his new Ministry, Defence, a Department which has grown in importance over the years and is now one of the most important Departments, due of course to the situation which prevails in this country at the present time vis-à-vis the Northern part of it, the security duties, the UN duties and the many other duties which the Army did not have, possibly, when the Minister was in the force during the Emergency.
The Minister has referred to the inadequacy of the main Estimate and the shortfall, particularly in regard to Army pay. There is a shortfall with regard to Army pay but I should like to point out that, in 1980 in particular, there was a very intensive recruiting campaign carried out by way of advertising in the media, particularly television. This campaign was quite successful. By way of advertisements a new picture was created of Army service and young men were attracted and recruiting did increase in that year. That campaign was necessary because the Defence Forces were below full strength. From 1977 to 1980 Army strength increased. That recruiting campaign was discontinued at the end of 1980 and it was natural to assume that recruiting would decrease in 1981. The Estimate was based on the projections with regard to the amount needed for Army pay. As we now see, the strength has increased from 1 January last from 13,731 to 14,850, an increase of 1,100 approximately. There are reasons why people are attracted to the Army despite the lack of an intensive recruiting campaign. Unemployment has increased enormously in the last year or two. Unemployed young men, in particular, will look around to see what they can do. More of them are attracted to Army service.
There is nothing unusual about a shortfall in the provision for Army pay. This is not the first time that a supplementary estimate has had to be introduced and I do not suppose it will be the last time. Projections must be made as to what the requirements will be for the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. It is not the eighth wonder of the world that there should be a shortfall.
With regard to the other subheads of the Supplementary Estimate I would say all of them are justifiable. There are increases in transport and other costs. It could not have been anticipated that the OPEC countries would increase the price of oil on which we are so dependent two or three times this year. At the beginning of the year Saudi Arabia was talking about freezing the price. We know what has happened in the meantime. We also know about the budgetary increases which occurred in July. It is not unusual or exceptional that a supplementary estimate should be required. It is necessary to provide this Supplementary Estimate for the Army because of the security role which they now have in this country and which they did not have until the last eight or ten years in particular.
I too would like to pay tribute to the officers and men of the Army who have served under conditions of hardship. They carry out their duties at different hours of the day and during the night. They are exposed to weather. Some of the money now being asked for in the Supplementary Estimate is for the purpose of increasing allowances for these duties and nobody will quibble or object to those increases.
Increases were granted since the last budget and since the main Estimate was drafted at the beginning of the year. Therefore, these increases must be provided for in this Supplementary Estimate not only in respect of Army pay but also in respect of allowances for security duty, duty with the United Nations and, of course, in respect of the Reserve Forces, in particular, I would say, the FCA, who have not had any increase of any substance for many years. Of course, the Reserve Forces are strictly voluntary and are entitled to be considered for increased allowances at least for the time they are in camp or in training.
It is to be noticed that under practically all of the subheads the Minister has referred to today where increased provision is required, increases were included in the main estimate, if one compares the 1981 Estimate with the 1980 Estimate. It was not just a matter of writing off something or trying to carry on with the amount of money that was provided in the previous Estimate. If anybody cares to look they will see that there were increases so that the criticism about cuts and the statement by the Minister with regard to a failure to provide adequate money for pay and so on are not as justified as they appear at first.
The Minister rightly paid tribute to the battalion serving with the UN. He visited that battalion in Lebanon and he is aware of the conditions under which they are serving. They must contend with temperatures well in excess of 100 degrees, particularly those who make the tour of duty from May to October. Because of the prevailing conditions there those soldiers have to contend with more than the position with regard to the PLO forces and the Israelis. As I understand it, in all there are more than 50 factions operating in that small country and, of course, there is no shortage of arms of all descriptions. Our soldiers are doing a first-class job under difficult conditions. Indeed, they are highly thought of by all sides for their conduct and the manner in which they carry out their duties. In fact, they are probably the most highly thought of contingent of the seven groups serving with the UN in Lebanon at present. That is how the Army have always carried out their UN duties abroad since they went to the Congo originally. We must acknowledge the difficult task they undertake in the Lebanon and praise them for the manner in which they carry out their duties.
There are some matters I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. During my short term as Minister for Defence I was particularly concerned about the condition of many Army barracks. Many of them are old and outdated and are a carry-over from the time the British forces were here. It is very important for the morale of our troops that they have decent living conditions but some barracks are in a bad state. I accept that some were reconditioned and improved but others are not suitable for Army personnel to live and sleep in in this day and age. One barracks which is outdated and has poor living conditions is that in Limerick. The Minister should try to do something about the situation there. The Department of Defence would not have to purchase a site for a new barracks because a site of a few hundred acres ia available at Knocklisheen. Of course, because of the central location of the existing Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick it would fetch a good price if it was offered for sale and that would make a sizeable impact on the cost of providing new quarters. I am sure the Minister is aware of the other barracks that are in need of major repairs. One that I was concerned about following my visit to the various centres was the barracks at Cavan. It is the most despicable barracks I know of and I do not know how people have continued to occupy and live in that accommodation over the years. It has to be seen to be believed. I accept that there is a proposal to remedy the situation and I believe it is at an advanced stage. I understand it is intended to replace the barracks with a new centre. I hope that work is getting under way or about to commence.
It is understandable that more money is needed under the various subheads because the strength of the Army has been increased by 1,100 since 1 January last. That is one explanation for the additional money needed for pay and allowances. We are all aware that the troops were granted increases in pay and allowances since that date and any criticism of that increase in the Estimate is not justified. I hope the strength of the Army will continue to increase. The standard of personnel, officers and other ranks, has improved over the years. They are to be admired for the way they conduct themselves and carry out their duties. They deserve credit for the way they accept discipline particularly in relation to the extended duties they are now called on to carry out along the Border. We have troops along the Border from Donegal to County Louth and they work under difficult conditions. The troops must also protect people's money. They were granted increases in allowances before the change of Government and they were fully entitled to them. They are entitled to the same treatment as other workers. It must be remembered that they are not in a position to create pressure like other groups and they should always be considered for increases when they are granted to other sections of the community by way of pay or allowances.
I should like to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the dedication and service members of the Defence Forces have given since the foundation of the State. Regardless of the parties that formed the Government they could always rely on the commitment and dedication of the Defence Forces. I agree with a lot of what has been said by the Minister and by Deputy Barrett who had experience of the Defence Forces as Minister for Defence. It is possible while paying lip service to the commitment of these men to overlook the fact that they are the only work force who do not have any kind of representation. It is now becoming quite popular in Europe for members of defence forces to want to be unionised. I do not believe such thinking exists in our Defence Forces but we should appreciate the fact that they do not have a voice. The time is long overdue when consideration should be given to providing a pay board for the Army to consist of personnel who understand the needs and the requirements of members of the Defence Forces and who could communicate with the Minister of the day. The setting up of such a body would be a step in the right direction.
In spite of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of recruits in recent years the Army is still 3,000 short of its establishment. That is an extraordinary situation when one considers that we have 150,000 people unemployed. It begs the question: why is it that young men prefer not to do anything when they could join the Defence Forces with its excellent record and opportunities for those who wish to avail of them. At the moment, with the ever-increasing co-operation between the Garda and the Army, Army personnel find themselves on escort duty and Border duty and so on. Yet the Army personnel are getting about half the take-home pay of their counterparts in the Garda. This is not good for morale and warrants serious consideration. Trained men are needed to use the kind of sophisticated equipment that the Army are using today. But the situation is that because "civvy street" regards them as very highly skilled and will offer very high remuneration to these people it is difficult for the Army to hold on to them once they are trained. We will have to take a new look at the whole situation. We cannot expect men who have these skills to go in, give their services and be on call 24 hours a day. I am saying this for the benefit of the Minister and the Opposition and all of the people who have to deal with these problems.
From time to time there are strikes and the Army are the biggest fatigue party in the country. If we have a bus strike they have to man the lorries. If we have an oil strike they have to man the tankers, and in a refuse strike they have to go around and act as garbage collectors. This is not the way to encourage young people to join the Army.
Deputy Barrett referred to the bad living conditions. I endorse everything he said because I know that there are men who have had to put up with conditions that would not be countenanced in "civvy street" for a moment. It has always been the policy at budget time to leave the Department of Defence in the poor relation area because they cannot object. When the last resource we have in any situation is the morale and loyalty of the Army, it is short-sighted of us to short change them. Deputy Barrett spoke about housing. Portobello Barracks is probably the oldest inhabited barracks, apart from Collins Barracks. It has 57 acres of prime land attached to it. When it was put there it was never envisaged that the garrison would be surrounded by a city. But time has caught up and that is what has happened. These places would be far better off somewhere outside the city. It occurred to me that a lot of money could be made for the Department of Defence through the sale of those 57 acres and they could then afford to provide modern and adequate accommodation for the Army. Another dilemma is in relation to Army personnel looking for housing. Because there was no alternative Dublin Corporation have de-tenanted some of the housing and included the people on the housing list. But there are still many in totally unsatisfactory housing. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is conscious of the fact that we need to improve pay and conditions. But I appeal to him when we get down to the budget for the coming year not to allow the Department of Defence to become the poor relation and expect them to do with the lesser portion. I am asking that they get fair and due consideration because of the important role they have played at every level in our society, and that we will make the Army so attractive that we will not be losing trained personnel to outside agencies. If the equipment is there we need trained men to use it; otherwise there is no point in having it. I am asking also that consideration would be given to taking a new look at Army property to see what can be sold to get the money to provide suitable and adequate housing for those people.
Again I would join with the Minister in the tribute that he has paid to those people because this country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men who have served in our Defence Forces.
First, I would like to join my colleague, Deputy Barrett, in congratulating the Minister on achieving what has been achieved. I join with the Minister in deploring the criticism of the men who serve in the Middle East. I can never understand why people criticise those men who go out there and risk their lives. We will recall the sermon on the Mount which says "Blessed are the peacemakers". These are peacemakers out there and we should all be proud of them. They are playing a big part in maintaining world peace especially today when two giant powers are growling at one another all the time and talking of war and nuclear shots. We must be more than ever proud of those men who have gone out there.
We should also mark the addition to the Defence Forces of the Women's Corps. It is a new departure for this country and I am sure the women will equal the perfection of the men in their military duties.
Deputies Glenn and Barrett spoke about the living quarters in barracks. I know the Minister is conscious of this, as was Deputy Barrett when he was Minister. Indeed, for many years Ministers have been aware of the really bad married quarters in some of the barracks, particularly Cathal Brugha Barracks. A start has been made there. During my short sojourn at the Department of Defence with Deputy Barrett as Minister, the foundations of some new flats were laid. It was appreciated by all the people there but this project was going ahead slowly. Perhaps the Minister might consider some kind of a tie up between the local authority and the Department of Defence to provide accommodation in the city barracks. Deputy Glenn referred to the sale of land at Cathal Brugha Barracks. There is a record on the file in the Minister's Department of a decision being taken to move in that direction. I understand that that was changed afterwards and I understand there was some very good reason for changing it. But perhaps the Minister would have a look at it to see if anything can be done along these lines to improve conditions.
Last, I would like to refer to the Civil Defence. Again, during my short time as Minister of State, I travelled all around the country to officiate at various functions and exercises for the Civil Defence department and I have never seen such wonderful enthusiasm as that shown by the members for the task they have undertaken. Not only have we a very good Civil Defence organisation but we also have a good social organisation in which young men and women — and some not so young — give their time voluntarily to learn about Civil Defence. Their enthusiasm was infectious. In any town where there is a Civil Defence organisation there is great civic pride. I know it is hard to find money for everything but the Minister should eke out money from somewhere to provide new uniforms for Civil Defence personnel. We promised this but the shortage of money inhibited our efforts. It is well worth while bettering conditions for Civil Defence personnel. Their present uniforms are very heavy and unattractive. There is a wonderful spirit in the Civil Defence organisation and they are not just marking time waiting for a catastrophe. When there is a rail crash or when a mountain rescue team is needed these people play a tremendous part in helping their injured fellow citizens. I also want to praise the Civil Defence organisation for their handling of the Vietnamese refugees. They showed the typical efficiency which we have come to associate with any section of the Army.
I hope the Minister will look into some of the matters I have mentioned: married quarters in some barracks and the provision of nicer uniforms for the Civil Defence organisation. We should ignore criticism of the men who are serving in the Middle East.
I join with the Deputies who have spoken here this morning and who have paid a very well deserved tribute to our forces serving in the Lebanon. They have a very difficult task to perform and operate under very hot and difficult conditions, hot in more than one sense of the term. The situation in the Lebanon is complex and there are very many warring factions operating there which must add very considerably to the difficulties of any peace-keeping force in that region.
Part of their task is to preserve a balance in that area between these different factions, which can be difficult to identify. To illustrate the complexity of the situation, the media have got into the habit in recent years of reporting events there. You will find as a matter of course throughout the media, when they are talking about Christian villagers living in the Christian enclaves, they refer to them as the right-wing Christian militia, whereas when they are talking about Moslem villagers living in those areas they are referred to as left-wingers. What basis there is for this has always mystified me. They are villagers living in arid terrain, with very little agricultural land, and there are both Christians and Moslems struggling to make a livelihood out of that land in the war filled conditions which exist there. I mentioned the point to illustrate the complexities of the situation that arise. Having regard to the fact that our forces are operating in that area on a long-term basis, we and our politicians must take care to show a balanced and neutral position when our Ministers talk about matters affecting that area. If they give the impression in any way that they are biased towards any of the various factions in that region, then they are making the task for our forces working there all the more difficult and complex. The only hope that a peace-keeping force has of doing its job well is that the country they come from is known to be neutral.
I suggest that the statement made by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, at Bahrain did not help the position of the forces operating in the Lebanon, because the statement contained a suggestion that we were departing from the essential neutrality which must be observed if mutual respect from all warring factions in the area is to be achieved. The statement was damaging in that respect. I know we are caught up with the policies and politics of the EEC and the EPC, but, to preserve the essentials of our neutrality in this respect, we must make sure that we dissociate ourselves from the unified policy of the other EEC countries. The considerations that may motivate many countries in the EEC do not necessarily coincide with ours. Many of those countries come under the massive pressures of oil politics and the oil lobby is intense and massive. We are as subject to that pressure as anybody else, but we are different in the sense that we are a country in the EEC which has soldiers and personnel operating in a sensitive area. We should not participate in any statements or comments coming from an EEC source which would prejudice the position of those men.
The total amount of money provided for in the Defence Estimate to cover Civil Defence is £875,000, a trifling sum. I am very concerned that we are neglecting even the most basic necessary precautions that could threaten us in the event of a nuclear war. We have had enough irresponsible talk in the last couple of weeks from Americans, statements about nuclear war being confined to Europe and setting off a nuclear war head as a warning. This has certainly highlighted the situation. If that were to happen — and it could happen at any time by design or by accident — I wonder what real protection there is for our people. It is not just a matter of threatening us with a bomb. We all know, from the incredible power and strength of these missiles accumulating in such enormous quantities in the United States and the Soviet Union, that even if they were exploded very far from our shores the radiation threat would affect us. It will take more than new uniforms for the members of the Civil Defence to counter that situation. Has provision been made — and I strongly suspect that it has not — to provide even basic shelters to protect people here in the event of a belt of radiation coming at us from nuclear explosions in Europe?
I do not intend, or want, to cause fears that any such eventuality is likely, or probable. However, we must think about these things, as they are real possibilities. If they were to happen, it would then be too late to do anything about it. Now is the time, when we have the opportunity to give thought to it, to make preparations for the eventuality. The man who takes out fire insurance on his house does not expect, or want, his house to go on fire, but takes out fire insurance cover, nonetheless. I cannot see that £875,000 for civil defence will do anything that will give very much protection in the event of a nuclear holocaust breaking out in Europe. Some of the talk of recent times frightens me, such as of setting off a nuclear bomb as a warning.
We must review the situation. I do not know how much information is available to the public on civil defence. The only item that I can recollect goes back very many years, when a booklet was circulated — I presume by the Department of Defence — giving information as to how to organise one's home to achieve some minimum form of protection for oneself and one's family. I am sure that that must have been 10 or 15 years ago and I cannot see that any real information has been given to the public from that date to this.
I ask the Minister and the officials of the Department of Defence to have a rethink on the situation and consider whether now might not be the time to re-examine the situation and have a long, hard look as to whether we are doing enough in this regard. No money which could be spent on an insurance policy, which is what this is, can be over-spent. We are talking here about the possibility — albeit a remote possibility — of danger to life and limb and, indeed, to the very continuity of our nation. Any money required to pay these insurance premiums would be very well spent.
(Dublin North-West): I compliment the Minister on bringing in this very necessary Supplementary Estimate. We have been appalled over many years at the lack of adequate accommodation for members of the Armed Forces. There is no provision in this Estimate for funds to try to remedy this very sad situation. Many members of our Armed Forces are asked to live in severely dilapidated dwellings. Indeed, the term “slum” would be a fitting description for many of the units of accommodation in the military barracks around this city and the country. We ask the young children being recruited in the Armed Forces to face the bullet for the rest of their lives. That is the oath which they take; that is the task which they take up. Yet, we cannot find, within our system, sufficient funds or interest to provide adequate accommodation for them and their families.
It has always been of great interest to Members of Fine Gael and to the Minister personally to try to come to some agreement on the provision of adequate accommodation and a fitting environment for the patriotic youth of our country who dedicate their lives to the protection of this country and its institutions. This Estimate, unfortunately, does not contain any provision for that.
The Chair was about to advise the Deputy of that position. I would ask him not to develop, at any great length, any matter which is not referred to in the actual Estimate. The requirements of this debate would be that we concentrate on what is in the Estimate, rather than on what is omitted.
(Dublin North-West): I thank the Chair for its directions. I am merely pointing out its presence by the strength of its absence from the Estimate.
In looking after the Defence Forces from a financial point of view and the administration of the Armed Forces, there are many sections which could do with immediate and radical attention. It is not sufficient merely to diagnose the problems, defects and shortcomings, but very necessary to provide treatment for these. The Minister has mentioned provision of a subsection dealing with equipment. It has been known for many years that until the previous Coalition Government came into power the equipment of our Army was perhaps the worst in Europe. A great drive was made then to improve the equipment and working conditions of the soldier and this took place for a number of years under successive Ministers. However, the fact that an improvement has taken place is not sufficient grounds for complacency. We should strive to improve the lot of our fighting soldiers, particularly as they are engaged nowadays in such hazardous roles as peace-keeping overseas, a peace-keeping scene which has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, from our first peace-keeping trip to the Congo in the early sixties. We are now engaged in a totally new area of sophisticated armaments and weaponry and sophisticated terrorism not seen heretofore — possibly one of the most lethal and vicious areas of subversive type activities and attack upon the person.
All efforts should be made to involve co-operation from countries with more sophisticated protection for the individual soldier — bullet-proof jackets and other methods of protecting him from bodily injury. We saw, with great regret, the kidnapping of one of our troops in Lebanon. There is still no report of what has happened to that unfortunate soldier. We have also seen recently 500 of our troops arriving back from a strenuous and dangerous tour of duty in the Lebanon and having all their equipment, goods and presents seized by the customs. Both the Department of Finance and the Department of Defence could possibly have acted in a more humane manner on that occasion. These men might have been given a little leniency and not limited to the petty amount of £27 allowed duty-free for presents and goods to bring back to their loved ones and their families here.
With regard to equipment, and particularly with regard to the Air Corps and Naval Service, Baldonnel, the headquarters of the Army Air Corps, is possibly undermanned and not able to keep up with the new and more frequent landings and take-offs there. This could be partly due to a reduction in the number of people stationed there. I would like the Minister to have a look at this, particularly in regard to the extra strain on the small airport there in dealing with the Government's jet and other landings there. The Air Corps are providing very important facilities to the medical services in transporting injured, infirm and acutely ill people from all parts of the country to the emergency services in the hospitals mainly in the Dublin area. This can provide a great strain at times. I would like the Minister to look into the number of people at Baldonnel Airport to ensure that the number is adequate to deal with the services when they are stretched almost to breaking point.
The Minister should look at the fishery protection vessels to ensure that they are modernised. As we are protecting very large fishing stocks for European countries the EEC should provide some of the capital necessary to provide ships and equipment for fishery protection and also contribute towards the maintenance of those ships, which is very costly. The EEC could also provide money for the Air Corps to help them to provide protection around our coasts.
We all know that there are great problems in urban areas in relation to our youth. We should ask members of the Defence Forces to provide an unarmed work corps. People convicted of vandalism and some of the layabouts around the city area could be recruited into this corps. Under the jurisdiction of the Army they could be immediately dealt with for any misdemeanour they commit because there is a court there and the officer in charge could impose a fine, a short-term in the glasshouse or extra duties as punishment. The Army could help to alleviate the existing situation in relation to muggers and maulers. I emphasise that this would have to be an unarmed work corps under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces. They would not be trained in weaponry or how to hurt their fellow men. Instead of places like Loughan House being built to lock up young children they could be given a decent training in such an unarmed corps. They would have to get up early in the morning and be taught a trade.
I am sure the Deputy appreciates that that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. There is no reference to it in the Supplementary Estimate before the House. I ask for as brief a reference as possible to anything which is not contained in the Estimate.
(Dublin North-West): I was referring to this under-recruitment. Those people could be directly recruited from the courts and instead of being sent to jail they could be sent to this unarmed corps where they could learn a trade. They could be taken from the courts and given voluntary service in this work corps. This would enable them to pay back their debt to society and they could be helped to develop into people who would fit into society in two or three years.
The Chair appreciates the Deputy's ingenuity in getting into order but nevertheless asks him to accept that there are other matters which are more directly relevant to the Supplementary Estimate before the House.
(Dublin North-West): I bow to your ruling. The present strength of the Armed Forces is 14,850. I welcome the introduction of the female armed section and wish them well in their future careers. Many people have admired the way they have taken on a new career. I compliment the Minister and all those associated with the introduction of this section of the Armed Forces.
With regard to wages I would like to refer to the money paid to people in the Army who teach different trades to members of the Armed Forces. Different trades can be learned in the Air Corps, the Army and the Naval Services and the people who train the members of the different forces are paid out of the Defence Forces Estimate. I would like the Minister to take a look at the trades available to people in the Navy. There is a very limited number available to people in the Naval Service. I would like the Minister to do everything possible to widen the scope of the trades available. This is an investment in training those people to come back into civilian life and be financially independent.
I would like to commiserate with the Minister for having to bring in this Supplementary Estimate because provision was not made by the previous Administration. I hope the Minister can give attention to some of the points I have raised. I wish him well in his appointment as Minister for Defence. I know he has been connected with the Armed Forces for practically all his adult life. It has been said that inside everybody's haversack there is a field marshall's baton. In this case that has proved to be very true and there is no better man to be at the head of our Defence Forces at the present time. I would like to express appreciation on behalf of my constituents for the work the Army are doing backing up the Garda Siochána in providing such excellent security over the last few years and for the excellent work they have done overseas. The public have great confidence in the Armed Forces. Their efficiency and conduct are second to none.
I should like to thank those who wished me well. I wish Deputy Barrett and Deputy Moore well in their positions, and I hope they will be there for a long time. While most of the comments made were very constructive, and I do not want to start a political argument on this Supplementary Estimate, I have to correct something which Deputy Barrett said. While I agree that quite an amount of the money required under the Supplementary Estimate was due to increases granted during the year, increased costs and so on, there is one factor to which I must refer. The original allocation in the budget early this year was £82,151,000. This provided for an average strength of NCO's and men of 10,700. When the budget was introduced the strength was 12,194. The only way in which the men in the Defence Forces could be paid was if they were reduced by about 3,000. I do not know whether that was the intention of the then Government, or whether this matter was not properly considered when the original Estimate was introduced. The plain fact is that there was not enough money to pay the people in the Army if this Supplementary Estimate was not introduced, because the necessary money was not provided at the beginning of the year when the budget was introduced.
I have the greatest sympathy with Deputy Barrett. I know how difficult it is for Ministers for Defence to get money for the Defence Estimate. Nobody has to twist my arm to get me to do the right thing for the Department of Defence. I have been in this House for a long time, and my record down through the years shows that I have always been on the side of the Department of Defence. I have the greatest respect in the world for the Department and the people serving in it, both civilian and military. The House can be assured that everything that can be done to improve the position in the Department of Defence will be done.
I should like to refer in passing to a couple of things Deputy Byrne said. While I would agree with many of the things he said, I would not agree with him entirely. So far as I am concerned the layabouts of the cities and towns will not be moved into the Army to teach them manners or anything else. We do not want them. We will not have them. Over the years the standard of the people accepted into the Defence Forces has improved so much that it is now an honour to be accepted. Those who are accepted have to be of good character and be people who will not let down the colours. I should like to see things continuing in that way.
The Deputy also referred to the decision of the Revenue Commissioners to tax certain items coming in here from the soldiers in Lebanon. I was a bit annoyed when I heard that their little gifts were subject to duty. I have to say that the Revenue Commission officers on duty only did what they were there to do. There were exceptional circumstances. The gifts came unaccompanied. Normally Army goods should not be opened by the customs people but, at the same time, the law says a certain thing and people have to do their duty. I hope when the matter is fully considered whatever money was paid by the soldiers coming back from the Lebanon will be returned to them. I cannot promise that it will, but it is my wish that it should be done. Our soldiers in Lebanon are under threat to their lives from the time they go out there until they come home. It is poor recompense that whatever items they bring back with them are subject to duty. The entire amount is not very high.
Deputy Mervyn Taylor referred to comments made about whether they were left wing or right wing. When the men go out there and find that on one side they are under threat from Major Haddad's forces and on the other side from the PLO forces, they do not mind whether they are left or right or what they are called. They are there to prevent infiltration. They are doing a damn good job. We must all give them credit for it. I should like to see them treated a little better when they come home. It is a pity that this should have happened.
On the question of trades for the men in the Naval Service, they do not join the Naval Service to learn a trade. However, I will have a look at this and see if something can be done about it.
The provision of new buildings was mentioned by Deputy Barrett in particular. He was not quite correct when he talked about the oldest barracks in Ireland. The oldest barracks in Ireland is the one in Cavan, as far as I know. It was built in 1710 and it is still occupied as a military post. In 1740 an officer in charge of the barracks described it as a most unsuitable building and very uncomfortable. It has not improved since 1740. I was in it for a short period in 1940 and it was not good then. I hope that some time later this year we will be in a position to erect a new barracks in Cavan.
It is a pity that people in that area and in many other areas tend to object when it is proposed to provide a barracks in their area. We have had far too many objectors. The former Minister had them too and agreed that a barracks should not be built in a certain place. I have now decided for a different reason that it will not be built there. I consider that it is a most unsuitable site. We have to build a barracks in Cavan. When soldiers are stationed in a town they are as good as an industry. The amount of money they spend is very great. I wish people would stop treating soldiers as if they were people who were not wanted in their area.
On the question of housing for soldiers, certain local authorities brush off their responsibility in this regard by saying it is a matter for the Army. It is not. Soldiers are people. If they are living in an area and are entitled to be rehoused the local authority should give them the same consideration as anyone else. The problem of overholding in barracks at the moment could be solved if local authorities would consider the people who are overholding and rehouse them.
At present we are trying to improve the living conditions of a number of people in the married quarters in those barracks. I do not know whether this is the answer. When people have been living in married quarters for a long time and leave the Army after a long period apparently they are nobody's babies. The Army cannot keep them on because they need the accommodation for somebody else. Many local authorities do not want to accommodate them. The whole matter is under review. My predecessors built a number of new married quarters and we hope to build more. It is a problem which has to be looked at.
I hope to go down to the Limerick barracks on Sunday week. The question of providing new buildings at Knockalisheen is being studied at present by the military authorities. I hope we will be able to erect a barracks there, and a number of others. Some work has been done in Gormanston, some in Dundalk and some in Monaghan. The whole trouble is money. Deputy Glenn referred to Cathal Brugha Barracks. There are two schools of thought. One is that it should be sold and the money given to the Department of Defence. I wonder have a Government ever sold property and earmarked the money before it was sold for a certain Department? We all know that if Cathal Brugha barracks were sold whatever money was obtained would belong to the Government and not the Department of Defence. I would not be too sure that that is the answer to the problem. It may be an answer and it is being considered at present. New buildings are being erected there. I do not think it is an immediate problem in respect of the question of accommodation. The matter cannot be disposed of in the foreseeable future but perhaps something will be done. New billets are being erected there and at Gormanston and we hope to increase the permanent Defence Force accommodation around Dublin.
Deputy Glenn referred to pay and conditions of service. I think some people do not get the right end of the stick when they talk about these things. The Department of Defence have kept reasonably in line with outside employment when the matter of adjusting pay arises. When the Army are asked to do exceptional services, particularly where they are involved in strikes, I do not consider them merely fatigue parties. I think they are doing a national job and this is appreciated even by those on strike. It is accepted that the Defence Forces are in a special position. They are paid an additional sum for that: they are not just rushed out to do a dirty job without any payment for it. I am as anxious as anybody else to see that people in the Defence Forces are paid well. A young recruit starts with £86.73 per week and after about 14 weeks this rises to £101.47. That is not bad. After three years service the gross pay for a private is £114 per week. I do not need anyone to twist my arm to see that soldiers are treated properly. As long as I am Minister for Defence I will make sure that is the case. I accept the point made by Deputy Glenn that they have to be well treated and it is right that they should be.
Deputy Hugh Byrne referred to landing facilities and he said something would have to be done to improve the position. He will be glad to know that progress on the modernisation of airfield facilities is continuing. The latest improvement was the installation of a Doppler VHF Omni-range at Casement Airfield in 1980 and the replacement of the radar system at Casement is to be proceeded with. This will enable landings to be made in poor visability conditions. It is hoped that the radar will come into service next year.
The peace establishment of the Air Corps has been increased from 869 to 1,172 all ranks to cater for expansion of the Air Corps in the field of fisheries protection and coastal patrol and the provision of a transport service. The current strength is 764. The question of vehicles was referred to. We hope to provide a considerable number of new vehicles. The numbers of trucks, landrovers, motor cycles, saloon cars and tipper trucks have increased in the past few years and we hope to provide further supplies. The major problem is that particularly on the Border the amount of mileage covered by the vehicles is astonishing. This applies especially to light vehicles. If a person did not actually see what was happening possibly he would not believe the vehicles are doing as much mileage as is the case.
So far as equipment is concerned, while I cannot give details because I do not think it would be in order, substantial sums in excess of £12 million have been spent in the past year on new equipment. We will continue with this work. We are anxious to keep up with the best in the world and people cannot say now that we have not got the equipment and arms that are needed. One of the things that shocks me is the cost of some of the ammunition needed for the bigger guns. Somebody maintained that the cost of firing a few shots would feed a family for a year. This is one of the things that has to be considered. A balance must be maintained in this area. It costs an enormous amount of money to provide training but if the Army do not carry out this training they will not know how to use the guns.
Civil Defence was mentioned by a few speakers. Deputy Moore spoke about the uniform. The original uniform was designed in 1958 and, although suggestions for its improvement were made from time to time, it remained unaltered in design and quality until 1973, when it was decided to provide an improved type of uniform made from a more refined cloth and with some changes in design. It doubles as a uniform and working dress. A committee were appointed to examine the suitability of the present uniform for Civil Defence purposes and they have recommended further improvements. However, the cost is substantial and that is one of the matters that will have to be considered before a decision is made to change the uniform. However, a fresh look is being taken at the situation.
The question was raised whether there should be some way of fixing the rate of pay of members of the Defence Forces. It was suggested that in other countries trade unions have been set up. While I am a great advocate of trade unions in civilian employment, I think the Army have been able to keep up with trade union rates, even though they are not represented by a trade union. Traditionally the welfare of the Defence Forces is the special care of the government of the day. All of the governments have not been slow to ensure that in the matter of pay and conditions of service the Defence Forces have kept in line with other public sector employees. There is no immediate need for a change in this area.
Deputy Mervyn Taylor raised a relevant point, namely, the whole matter of Civil Defence. In 1965 a Civil Defence home protection handbook was issued and approximately 700,000 copies were distributed at that time. Further distributions were made in 1968 and in 1972 for houses built since the previous issue. Copies of the booklet are handed out to the public at the Civil Defence Stand during the RDS Spring Show and at other shows throughout the country and are made available to individuals on request. The information contained in the booklet is still substantially correct. However, it is being re-examined with a view to bringing it up-to-date.
Deputy Mervyn Taylor expressed a view that others have put forward in the past few weeks, namely, what general protection arrangements have we made in the event of an accidental or otherwise radioactive fall-out? I am afraid the answer is: very little. While the Civil Defence organisation are doing a good job in the circumstances, very few arrangements have been made to try to provide shelters. Occasionally when somebody is building a house he requests information regarding any facilities he might get in the provision of a shelter but he is considered a kind of crank. The Government must get down to the whole question of Civil Defence protection against radioactive fall-out. There are a number of old buildings that could be used. I propose to have a survey carried out in an effort to bring home to people the fact that the situation could be far more serious than many think it to be.
I should like to thank all the speakers who have contributed to the debate.
Vote put and agreed to.