Vol. 366 No. 11
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £252,415,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986 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 Defence Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1986 is for a net sum of £252,415,000 of which £193,865,000 or 77 per cent provides for pay and allowances. This represents an increase of 5 per cent on the net provisional outturn for 1985. The gross provision in the 1986 Estimate is £263,965,000. It includes £70,100,000 for non-pay items. The provision of £11,550,000 for Appropriations-in-Aid shows a decrease of £2,250,000 on the 1985 provisional outturn. The Estimate is based on an average strength of 1,600 officers, 50 cadets and 12,450 other ranks, a total of 14,100 in the Permanent Defence Force.
Demands made on the Defence Forces continued at a high level during the past 12 months, particularly in regard to internal security matters. While the Garda Síochána have primary responsibility for internal security, events for some years past have clearly shown the need to have a strong, well-equipped Army available to assist the Garda as required in internal security arrangements. The rendering of such assistance to the Garda has imposed a heavy burden on the Defence Forces.
The employment of Army personnel and resources in aid of the civil power involves the Defence Forces in a wide range of activities. By way of illustration of the involvement of the Defence Forces in such activities, the following are some particulars of the main security tasks undertaken by the Defence Forces in 1985:
About 11,000 parties were supplied in the Border area for operational duties; 9,500 check-points were set up; 15,000 patrols were sent out into the road network along the Border or in other areas; escorts for explosives and blasting operations were provided on about 900 occasions; almost 4,500 escorts for the protection of movement of cash were provided; about 150 requests for bomb disposal teams were handled.
In addition, the Defence Forces provide guards for the movement of prisoners and assist in searches for arms, ammunition and explosives. Certain vital non-military installations are also protected either by permanent military guards or military patrols.
Deputies who may have seen our troops operating in the Border areas will have been impressed by the dedication and hard work of the troops and their readiness to support the Garda Síochána on a round-the-clock basis. While I know that there is general recognition of the significant contribution which the Defence Forces are making in the security field, I think it is important to highlight the demands which these security operations make both in terms of manpower and resources.
To ensure that the Defence Forces have the capacity to respond to requests for assistance from the Garda, the strength of the Defence Forces must be kept at an adequate level and the equipment of the forces must be kept up-to-date. While general recruitment to the Permanent Defence Force is restricted at the moment, it was possible in 1985 to have an intake of 1,070 recruits — 910 for general service to fill vacancies in operational units and 160 for the Naval Service. As a result, the average strength of NCOs and privates for 1986 is expected to be over 300 higher than in 1985. Stability and a sense of security are essential prerequisites for social and economic progress and although the cost is high, it is essential to maintain law and order and to preserve our democratic freedoms.
I am sure that Deputies will agree that personnel of the Defence Forces, and their colleagues in the Garda Síochána, are worthy of our highest praise and gratitude in their endeavours to maintain the peace and to uphold the rule of law for all our citizens.
In the international field, the Defence Forces continue to make a significant contribution to United Nations peace keeping missions. Their participation in such missions indicates in a practical way Ireland's dedication to the United Nations' aims and ideals of maintaining international peace. By their participation in peacekeeping the Defence Forces have shown not only devotion to duty but also commitment to the service of the international community.
At present an Irish contingent of about 740 all ranks is serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). In addition eight Irish personnel are serving with the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and 21 Irish officers are working with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) in the Middle East. The Minister for Defence will be visiting our troops in the Lebanon this weekend to see at first hand the conditions prevailing there.
Deputies will be aware of the difficult and often tense situation in which troops of the Irish contingent serving with UNIFIL have been required to operate over the past 12 months. During this period confrontations between Irish personnel and Israeli-backed militia occurred on numerous occasions and resulted in the woundering of an Irish soldier on one occasion. Other incidents occurred as a result of firing close by Israeli-backed militia at positions held by the Irish contingent. There have been incidents involving other armed Lebanese elements, mainly at check-points manned by the Irish contingent. In one such checkpoint incident an Irish soldier was shot and wounded. Happily, both wounded members of the Irish contingent made satisfactory recoveries.
These incidents were the subject of vigorous protests both locally to the parties involved in the conflict and also, where appropriate, to the Israeli authorities at diplomatic level. The safety and welfare of Irish troops have been a constant source of concern to the Government and we are continuing to monitor developments in Lebanon very closely so as to avoid any unnecessary risk to Irish personnel.
Despite the general unsatisfactory situation in South Lebanon, we should not underestimate the positive aspects attributable to the presence of UNIFIL. These include the protection and humanitarian assistance afforded to the local population and the relative stability and sense of security provided in the region by UNIFIL. The employment of the force still appears to be the best available way of trying to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the international border and of restoring peace and the effective authority of the Lebanese Government in the area. Efforts to resolve the causes of conflict must be continued by all the parties concerned with a view to giving the necessary co-operation to UNIFIL to enable it to implement its mandate fully.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Irish officers and men serving in Lebanon and Cyprus, and to their colleagues serving as military observers with UNTSO, for their exemplary dedication and courage in performing their difficult tasks. I also wish to pay a well deserved tribute to Lieutenant-General Callaghan, on the relinquishment of his appointment after more than five years service as Force Commander UNIFIL. Through his distinguished service with UNIFIL, Lieutenant-General Callaghan has brought honour to the Defence Forces and to our nation. I wish him every success in his new appointment as Chief of Staff, UNTSO.
The pay and conditions of members of the Defence Forces continue to be maintained at a high standard. The remuneration of the Defence Forces has kept pace with that of other sectors of the public service. The pay of a recruit is now almost £121 a week rising after about 14 weeks basic training to just under £140. On advancement to Private 3 Star, which usually takes place during the first year of service, gross pay rises to more than £145, while after 3 years' service the gross pay of a private is more than £159. I am sure that the House will agree that these rates of pay are reasonable. The increase of 3 per cent from 1 May 1986 under the first phase of the Public Service Pay Agreement will, of course, be applied to the rates of pay of all members of the Defence Forces.
Allowances are also payable to officers and men who perform duties of a security nature. The rates of these allowances are kept constantly under review to ensure that personnel are adequately compensated for the duties which they are required to undertake. As a result of the most recent review of these allowances the rates for service in the Border areas were increased to £21.28 a week for officers and £18.48 a week for men. The allowances for other duties in aid of the civil power, such as guard duties on vital installations, cash escorts and prisoner escorts, were increased to £9.06 for each weekday and £18.12 for each Sunday or Army holiday.
Great emphasis is placed on education and training in the Defence Forces. There are 99 officers at present attending full time at university and similar institutes. In addition members of the Permanent Defence Force who attend educational courses in their own time may be recouped costs of tuition and examinations. A scheme also exists in association with AnCO whereby apprentices may be qualified in various trades.
It is proposed to send a number of Defence Forces personnel on training courses overseas this year, in order that they will be competent to maintain up-to-date military equipment and to secure information and experience of military developments.
Competitions for the award of cadetships in the Army and the Air Corps were held in 1985 and 34 cadetships were awarded. Further competitions for 1986 will be advertised shortly. I should like to draw to the attention of the House that the rule that canvassing will result in disqualification will continue to operate in respect of these competitions. Last year 80 apprenticeships in the Army Apprentice School, Naas, and the Air Corps Apprentice School, Baldonnel, were awarded. Competitions for the award of up to 59 apprenticeships in 1986 were advertised in February last. The apprentices will commence training in August of this year.
It is also intended later this year to commence a potential officers' course for up to 25 non-commissioned officers. The course will run for nine months and the successful participants will be commissioned as officers of the Permanent Defence Force.
As regards the Reserve (First Line), the FCA and an Slua Muiri, I regret that because of financial considerations it is again necessary this year to reduce annual training by seven days. However, notwithstanding the reduced period, the gratuity payable to qualified members of the reserve who complete the maximum permissible training period in 1986 will be at the full rates and not at the reduced rates which would normally apply in respect of attendance at training for the shorter period.
The non-pay provisions for this year, which amount to £70.1 million, are required to maintain the capabilities of the Defence Forces and to meet commitments already made. There is a continuous programme of improving the equipment of the Defence Forces by the provision of modern up-to-date equipment within the financial constraints necessarily imposed on all Government spending. My Department will be in a position this year to procure some of the equipment which is more urgently required for the present needs of the Defence Forces.
With regard to the five twin-engined Dauphin helicopters, on order from the French aircraft manufacturer, Aerospatiale, the position is that some difficulties were experienced by the manufacturer in the incorporation of certain specialised avionics into the aircraft. This is an area of technical complexity. However, the company has assured us that the difficulties have been overcome and the aircraft are at present being accepted by the Air Corps. Two of the new helicopters will be used in connection with the Naval Service's partol vessel, L. E. Eithne, and the other three for search and rescue, air ambulance and transport services. The aircraft will have the capability of flying at night and in conditions of reduced visability. As a result of the delay in delivery, the provision in the 1985 Vote for Defence could not be availed of and the provision in the Estimate for 1986 in respect of helicopters is inadequate to meet the final payments on all aircraft. A supplementary Estimate to cover the additional expenditure involved will be necessary later in the year.
The provision in subhead S of the Estimate for building and engineering works is £8.25 million as compared with last year's outturn of £7 million. This enhanced provision will enable further progress to be made in improving accommodation and other facilities for the Defence Forces. Included in the provision is a sum of £5.25 million for a number of new buildings and some major refurbishment works.
As indicated in last year's debate, the programme for the improvement and modernisation of accommodation and facilities includes the construction of new billets and renovation of existing ones; the building of new cookhouse/dining hall complexes and the renewal of others; the development of recreational facilities; the provision of modern administrative and operational accommodation as well as suitable storage arrangements for equipment and material.
Genuine progress has been made in recent years on the provision of much needed accommodation. New billets with amenities have been provided at a number of locations and further billets are planned for Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin; Ballincolling Barracks, County Cork and in other barracks. A scheme for the improvement and redecoration of existing billets is in hands.
At present a considerable number of major projects are in train and work is proceeding on the construction of the following: Phase two of the new Ceannt Barracks, Curragh Camp; the transport stores, Clancy Barracks, Dublin; the catering complex at Casement Aerodrome; billet accommodation, Collins Barracks, Cork; the cookhouse/dining hall, Ballincollig Barracks, County Cork; and officers' quarters at Finner Camp, County Donegal.
Some major maintenance tasks such as reroofing and rewiring are also being undertaken. Planning is well advanced on other projects such as Cavan Barracks; surgical facilities at St. Bricin's Hospital; the transport stores, Collins Barracks, Cork; refurbishment of hangars at Casement Aerodrome; billet blocks at Lifford, County Donegal, and Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin; and gymnasia at various locations.
Despite the progress being made, a lot remains to be done. As Deputies who have visited military barracks are aware, many of these barracks are well over 100 years old and are inefficient and costly to maintain. However, I am pleased that this comprehensive programme of building and renovating is proceeding right throughout the country.
On the question of soldiers' married quarters, I am happy to say that some alleviation of the problem has occurred in the past year. The inclusion of the occupants of these married quarters in the special grant scheme administered by the Department of the Environment for the purchase of private housing, has led to the evacuation of a significant number of married quarters.
In addition, the Rural Resource Organisation has been examining the possibility of providing low cost housing at suitable locations on lands which are surplus to Defence requirements. These lands would be made available to the organisation at the Valuation Office's assessment of value. The houses would be available for occupants of soldiers' married quarters and others. One such project has already commenced in Knockalisheen, County Clare.
The Department have a long-standing involvement in equitation through the Army Equitation School and I am glad to report the 1985 was another successful year for the school. Army riders competed in competitions both at home and abroad, which yielded prize money in excess of £37,000.
Asgard II completed a full programme of cruises during 1985. The vessel covered over 12,000 miles and carried a total of over 300 trainees. There was increased sponsorship of trainees by the Probation and Welfare Service, by St. Augustine's special school and by the Asgard Support Group. The Youth Employment Agency also sponsored some trainees for the first time in 1985. Sponsorship of this type helps young people who can derive most benefit from cruises on Asgard II but who are least able to afford the fees. This is something which Coiste and Asgard are most anxious to encourage. An coiste would like even more support from schools and clubs in inner city areas.
The highlight of the 1985 season was the visit of Asgard II to the United States. The visit, which was undertaken in response to an invitation received from the St. Brendan Cup Committee in America, was a great success. The young people involved made a very favourable impression everywhere.
A full programme of cruises is being carried out again this year. The highlight of the season will be the participation of Asgard II in án international race of sail training vessels from Newcastle in England to Bremerhaven in West Germany in July. The vessels will then sail from Bremerhaven to Larvik, the Norwegian port where the original Asgard was built in 1904.
The provision of £1.71 million for Civil Defence this year underlines the importance which the Government attaches to the maintenance and development of this aspect of the State's defensive capabilities.
Our philosophy as regards Civil Defence is that it can most capably be undertaken by the community itself, given the proper instruction, organisation, and basic equipments, all of which are provided by my Department in collaboration with the local authorities. The focal point through which training and instruction are transmitted to the volunteers is the Civil Defence School in the Phoenix Park, which in terms of personnel and equipment is capable of imparting the skills necessary to mitigate the effects of war and kindred disasters on the civilian population. The actual recruitment and organisation of the volunteers and their training locally are undertaken by the local authorities. This has been going on for many years now with the happy result that the number of volunteers in active service is approaching some 20,000, with at least as many more on the trained but inactive list who are available to serve the community should the need arise.
About two-thirds of the provision for Civil Defence is utilised to grant-aid local authorities in respect of their expenditure on administration, including staffing, publicity, training, exercises and competitions and on maintenance of equipment and on county control centres.
As regards equipment, the Department have acquired the total requirements of a new basic radiac instrument and the stock is now available for distribution to the local authorities. Various other purchase programmes are being continued to cater for the needs of each Civil Defence service and purchases completed this year or in train include eight fire appliances, nine personnel and equipment vehicles, a truck, four new mobile welfare trailers and a further supply of uniforms.
The ongoing provision of new and replacement equipment is a vital aid to the training and operational capability of the Civil Defence services. The contribution of the Civil Defence volunteers and of their colleagues in the voluntary aid societies to the provision of effective well-trained services in peacetime emergencies is, I am sure, well recognised. Their role in providing and maintaining a skilled response to the primary hazard of radioactive fallout is vital.
I am pleased to note the increasing awareness of the value of the Civil Defence volunteer organisation, with all its resources, expertise and training, which has become mainfest not only in the plans of local authorities for major peace-time emergencies but also in the demand for their assistance at various events. This is as it should be; theory and training are all very necessary but practical application of their skills in a peacetime role will add to the effectiveness of the volunteers.
I should not allow this occasion to pass without making some reference to the publicity which surrounds the recent nuclear accident at Chernobyl. There have been a number of quite misleading assertions made about Civil Defence, some very prominently featured and I would be failing in my responsibility to those who serve Civil Defence if I did not correct any suggestion that Civil Defence has not planned and prepared to fulfil its responsibilities. It is important to bear in mind that, as part of the national defence structure, Civil Defence was established principally to provide for the protection of the civil population in war time.
In relation to any possible risk from the peace-time use of nuclear energy, responsibility in the first instance rests with the Nuclear Energy Board operating under the aegis of the Department of Energy. The correct general perspective in this regard has been given in the statements made by the responsible Ministers. In so far as Civil Defence is concerned, the first requirement is regular close liaison with the Nuclear Energy Board, which does take place, and an appropriate contribution from the Civil Defence organisation should the board and the occasion so demand. Civil Defence does have the capacity and would be prepared to make trained personnel available to assist the Nuclear Energy Board, should such assistance be deemed necessary. A Civil Defence national, regional and county warning and monitoring network has been established, intensive training has been carried out in the detection, measurement and prediction of radioactivity and Civil Defence radiac instruments, to which I have already made reference, are capable of detecting levels of radiation over a range from very high — such as might be expected to result from a nuclear war — right down to levels below those which would entail the declaration of a state of emergency in peace time.
I regret the disservice to Civil Defence personnel caused by ill-informed and misleading information. We owe them a great debt of gratitude and to all such people who give their time and energies free in the service of their fellow citizens I express my own thanks and that of the Government. I also take this opportunity to record my appreciation of the voluntary aid societies, namely, the Irish Red Cross Society, the Order of Malta and the St. John Ambulance Brigade, who make common cause with the Civil Defence casualty service in their service to the community.
I now turn to the army pensions estimate for the year ending 31 December 1986, which is for a net sum of £37,330,000. The net provisional outturn for the year ended 31 December 1985 was £36,848,000. The 1986 Estimate represents an increase of £482,000 or a little more than 1 per cent on the 1985 provisional outturn.
The main increase in the Estimate in terms of cost is £817,000 in subhead E1. This subhead provides for retired pay, pensions and gratuities granted under the defence forces pensions schemes. The increase is due to a rise in the number of former members of the Defence Forces on retired pay and pension. There are decreases in the subheads which relate to pensions and allowances payable to veterans of the War of Independence. This of course is attributable to a fall in their numbers. There are now only 1,025 in receipt of military service pensions and just over 2,300 in receipt of special allowances under the Army Pensions Acts. These represent reductions of over 300 and 700 respectively since the beginning of 1985. The total number of pensioners, dependants and allowance holders at present being paid is approximately 18,000.
In this year's budget the Minister for Finance announced a concession relating to the ex gratia pensions payable to the widows and children of pensionable public servants who retired or died prior to the introduction of the contributory spouses' and children's pension scheme. Since 1979 the rate of such ex gratia pensions stood at ?ths of the rate payable under the contributory scheme. The Government decided to introduce full parity for such ex gratia pensions in two steps — on 1 January 1986 and 1 January, 1987. The cost of this concession in respect of widows of former members of the Defence Forces will amount to £260,000 in 1986. Provision for the increase will be made in the Vote for increases in remuneration and pensions.
I commend both Estimates to the favourable consideration of the House. If Deputies require more information on any point I shall be glad to supply it.
First, I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Defence and to wish him every success in the very responsible and demanding role he has. The fact that he is the man in Government and within the State responsible for Civil Defence gives him a major responsibility in modern times. I look forward to many innovatory ideas being put into practical operation while he is there.
I would also like to compliment and congratulate the new Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Toole, and wish him well in his new post. I am disappointed, however, that the Government saw fit to amalgamate the very important ministry of defence which has a distinct place in our Constitution with another important Department, Roinn na Gaeltachta. The Department of Defence should have been left as one single Cabinet responsibility in the traditional manner. I wish Deputy O'Toole well in the very responsible dual role he now has to play.
I would also like to pay tribute to and thank the former Minister, Deputy Cooney, for his co-operation and courtesy to me while he was Minister and his contribution as the political head of our Army.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Lieutenant Tadhg O'Neill, formerly OC of the western command on his appointment as the Chief of Staff. I wish him well in his new rule. He is an excellent military man and will make a major contribution to the development of our armed forces in the years ahead. I wish him well, and as a person who lives within the western command I want to say how honoured we are that a man from the western command has been chosen as Chief of Staff of the Army.
I would also like to thank and compliment the former Chief of Staff, Lieutenant O'Sullivan, now retired, for his courtesy and co-operation to me while he was Chief of Staff.
There is no reason to go into these things in detail for obvious reasons. I know the Deputy is making complimentary remarks but it could be that, on some other occasion, contrary views might be expressed.
Finally, I want to thank Dr. Somers and his staff in the Department of Defence for their co-operation and courtesy to me as spokesman on Defence.
I am disappointed with some aspects of the Defence Estimate. I will go through them in more detail as we proceed. They are all very important aspects of defence. There has been a reduction in the allocation of funds this year. This is very serious and must be rectified either by way of supplementary estimate or by way of the prepared Estimates for next year. Defence is important to the security of this island. The State cannot renege on its responsibility to ensure that funds are available.
I want to pay tribute to the Army for their excellent performance and the level of efficiency with which they do their work. We are fortunate that our Army has gained international recognition across the globe for the contribution they have made over the years. I want to acknowledge that and pay tribute to them as Opposition spokesman on Defence.
In the last week we had a major show of strength by the Army close to the Border. This is a very good situation and I want to pay tribute to the men and officers involved. The efficiency and co-operation and camaradarie between the various units of the Army, the battalions and commands and the co-operation and co-ordination between the Army, the military police and the Garda Síochána were excellent. This will have a very good effect on morale within the Army and in regard to security generally. It demonstrates that we recognise the responsibility we have to the people of Northern Ireland and I am delighted that the Army decided to have that show of strength in the Border area.
There was also tremendous co-operation with the FCA who manned the various Army barracks when the Army were along the Border. This is very good. It is essential for us to recognise the importance of the first line reserve and the role they have to play. I am disappointed that again this year there is a cutback in the involvement and training of the FCA; they are confined to seven days' training this year. At the moment morale is low in the FCA. They are affected by emigration. Their numbers have reduced over the past two years and it is time we recruited people into the FCA and made more money available for training to keep morale high and create opportunities for people who want to be involved in this tremendous national service. The radiation disaster at Chernobyl demonstrates the necessity we may have to call on defence, both civil and military. It is therefore important to review and renew all levels of defences and ensure that all people anxious to do so are given an opportunity to play their proper role in the defence of this country. I therefore regret that the amount of money that should have been made available by the Department in 1986 has not been made available.
The Army often comes to the aid of the civil power. The Minister has outlined in detail the contribution they have made in the normal traditional way. This has not been acknowledged by many people. We must pay tribute to the Army for the tremendous back up they give to the civil power. This is a major draw on the financial and personal resources of the military powers and it must be acknowledged. It is important to look at the constant need to have the Army available as an aid to the civil power in the event of incidental disaster, national disaster or international disaster.
Specific plans should be available to ensure that the Army can be brought quickly and efficiently to aid the civil power at all times. A few years ago sections of the Army were being called very quickly to aid the civil power in the south eastern part of this country. That plan was not too specific or too clear. The durability, flexibility and resilience needed by the Army in coming to the aid of the civil power can be diminished and frustrated if there is not a detailed plan.
I want to pay tribute to the Army, particularly for the contribution they have made to world peace keeping. Various battalions have served with the United Nations Interim Force in the Lebanon and have made a major contribution in trying to restore that hotbed of tension to normality and bringing about a balanced sense of dignity and a certain life style to the people in that area. I also want to pay tribute to the soldiers and officers who served there and in particular to wish the 59th Battalion who are serving there at present, every success. I also want to pay tribute to Lieutenant General Callaghan and to wish him well in his new position as Commander of UNTSO. He was previously the Force Commander with UNIFIL and brought distinction to the Irish Army and to this country. We are delighted he is the man in charge of UNTSO and I wish him well.
We have a duty as an independent neutral nation and as a member of the United Nations and the European Economic Community to play our role in international affairs and to bring pressure whenever we can to ensure that all members of the United Nations and all nations with a commitment to peace, bring peace and stability to mankind and play their proper role. It is disappointing that some of the wealthier nations are reneging on their commitments to the United Nations peacekeeping operations.
The mandate for UNIFIL was in doubt some weeks ago but it has been renewed for a three month period as distinct from a six month period heretofore. This is disappointing and it cannot be good for the morale of the personnel serving with UNIFIL. This can also lead to confusion in the Department because the Army will not be sure where they are going or when. If the members of the United Nations have not an international commitment then world peace will be constantly under threat. The bigger nations, the super powers and the smaller nations like Ireland have a common international duty to bring peace and stability to the world. I appeal to this Government and to all Irish politicians at all international fora to highlight Ireland's contribution in this area and to stress that all nations have a responsibility to make their contributions physically and financially.
It is disappointing that £20 million is owed to this country in contributions which should have been paid by members of the United Nations over the years — as far back as our involvement in the Congo in 1962. Twenty million pounds is a very large sum to a small country. If we had that money we could build a new Army headquarters, buy new military equipment, provide greater opportunities for Army personnel and ensure that they could compete with the sophisticated equipment which is available to other Armies. This is a point which should not be lost sight of. If a member of the Government, a TD or an international diplomat gets the opportunity, he should make this point because the contribution Ireland has made will stand the test of time. We have made a unique contribution to world peace and the more often we highlight that the greater the honour we can bring to this country.
The amount being made available for defence equipment has been reduced by 14 per cent on the 1985 figure. This is a very big reduction when one realises that our equipment is almost obsolete, some of it almost 35 years old and costing more to restore and keep in working order than to replace it with new equipment. I know tests are being carried out regularly in this area and I hope that at least some of the equipment will be purchased in 1986. We need a great many small arms urgently and a flexible type of adaptable folding stock should be purchased to ensure that we get the maximum use from this equipment. When the Government are considering purchasing this equipment I hope they will bear in mind the fact that we are a neutral, non-aligned country and if possible we should purchase this equipment from another non-aligned country. There are a number of such countries who are anxious to sell that equipment. I hope the Government and the Department will take this view into consideration when they are buying this equipment.
Earlier I complimented the Minister of State and wished him well in his new role. Civil Defence is very important as was amply demonstrated recently when there was a radiation leak from Chernobyl some 1,500 miles away. Radioactive dust was blown across Europe into Ireland. Compare this position with Sellafield where we have a silent nuclear oozing volcano only 60 miles from our shore. This shows that the Department have a grave responsibility in this area. I am very disappointed that only £1.7 million has been allocated for Civil Defence in 1986, a 2 per cent reduction on the 1985 Estimate. I am not satisfied with the equipment available for Civil Defence. I appeal to the Minister of State and the Government to take a new critical look at Civil Defence vis-á-vis investment, administration and the provision of equipment. I know that about 20,000 volunteers are involved and available for active service at any time, but the vast majority of the people are aware of the consequences of an incidental small disaster or an international major disaster.
While Sellafield is so close to our country we must always ensure that the maximum protection is available for our people. The time has come for a critical look at all of this. We must have a new, vigorous, co-ordinated programme of Civil Defence activity right across the country. The Minister of State assured us today that the whole Civil Defence organisation and co-ordination are in order, but from my investigation I think there is not sufficient commitment within local authorities or sufficient opportunity to make local authority members and the public at large aware of the need to have constantly available the Civil Defence mechanism to meet the event of any holocaust or disaster.
I must question the fact that the Department of Defence are responsible for grants-in-aid to local authorities in respect of expenditure on administration. Local authorities have administration and the Defence Estimate should not be responsible for any contribution vis-à-vis expenditure on the administration of Civil Defence. There is ample administration within all our local authorities to ensure that they carry that burden and that people responsible therein are readily known to the public. I question also the responsibility for expenditure on staff. Again local authorities have excellent staff and there is no reason why we should be responsible for any expenditure on staffing. I know we would be responsible for publicity, training, exercises, competitions and the maintenance of equipment.
What equipment have we? Where is that equipment? How much have we got? Is it modern or obsolete? Tomorrow the all-Ireland finals of Civil Defence competitions will be taking place in Westport and in three countries on the western seaboard only one Civil Defence Group are involved. I presume that is fairly similar to what prevails in other parts of the country. A new programme of Civil Defence activities must be promoted and an invitation extended to all civic minded people to make their contributions to Civil Defence. It is vital that we have a proper co-ordinated programme involving the Department of Defence, local authorities and all public servants within urban and rural areas. By that I mean members of the Garda Síochána should be fully trained in and know exactly the position on Civil Defence matters and that local people can identify with that.
Members of the postal authorities and postal staff who are constantly in communication with the people, State and semi-State employees should also be involved and should understand and be able to react to any occurrence if the necessity arises.
A major amount of money should be spent on publicity for Civil Defence. All State and semi-State and public buildings throughout the country should carry posters indicating who the local Civil Defence officer is and whom to contact in any emergency. We must bring Civil Defence down to the people at ground level. We must ensure Civil Defence activity within ten miles of every fairly large centre of population and, indeed, in hamlets throughout the country where there is any concentration of population. The farthest anybody should be away from a Civil Defence officer should be ten miles. We must create such a new, co-ordinated programme involving staffs and members of the public service in all areas.
In modern times successive Governments have invested large amounts of money in various community centres and in the provision of public and civic buildings. Consideration must be given in future where State funds are being expended to providing within those buildings community facilities and safe, strongly protected areas against the event of a nuclear holocaust — although they may not be of much use after that — or in such event as a nuclear leak from Sellafield. We must recognise the terrible disaster that any type of nuclear leak is and our difficulty if there were to be a major disaster in Sellafield.
It is time that we considered control instrumentation for monitoring radiation. The radiac workshops in Clancy Barracks have had such equipment since the fifties. Is that equipment up to date and sufficiently accurate in the context of the sophisticated progress made in atomic and nuclear developments over the past 30 years? Again it begs the question: how safe are we on this island now?
We must renew our commitment to bring Civil Defence to the people and ensure constant awareness of its importance to our community, and that people will be properly trained, actively involved and available at any time of difficulty. I hope the Minister of State will spare no effort to ensure that a new programme of Civil Defence is implemented and that every opportunity will be availed of to provide funds for Civil Defence activities particularly next year.
I commend the Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Environment on their consideration of the proposals put forward by me and by other speakers in this House over the past year to ensure that the special grant for relocation from local authority houses and in this case from Army houses, would be made available to members of the Army. Under section 107 of the Defence Act, 1954, members of the Defence Forces or reservists called out or to be called out on permanent service are exempt from any kind of criminal liability for debts incurred. This has created major difficulty for members of the Defence Forces. The special £5,000 grant is available and many Army members wish to purchase their own homes and get mortgages, and financial institutions are not prepared in many cases to consider applications from members of the Defence Forces for mortgages and financial assistance. I asked the Minister to consider bringing legislation into this House to amend the Act and to put members of the Defence Forces would par with ordinary citizens in that regard. Members of the Defence Forces would welcome that. Officers are exempt from the provisions of section 107 of the Defence Act, 1954. I ask the Minister to give that priority because a small number of people are in difficulty in that regard now. I hope such legislation can be brought forward quickly, perhaps in this session.
Maintenance staff are taken on annually by the Department. Last year a fairly large number of staff were taken on and, as far as I know, last month the Department agreed to take on some 100 men on a temporary basis, but I understand this is being held up because some of the names omitted from last year's list have been questioned. The names of a small number of men have not been forwarded for various disciplinary reasons and I hope that the other 100 people who are anxious to continue the temporary work which they do each year in the Department in the maintenance area would be taken off the unemployment register and given an immediate opportunity of working in this area. I hope this will not be held up any longer.
The time has come to reconsider the system of awarding medals for distinguished service in the Defence Forces. Members of the Army who go overseas on international duties readily recognise that, compared to other armies, the number of awards we make are not very numerious. They are prestigious and distinctive awards for those who receive them but many military people who never left this country have been honoured for exemplary domestic service while others who risked their lives at home and abroad, and in some cases lost their lives, have not been honoured. The victims of the Niemba ambush in the Congo are a typical example. These men risked their lives for the honour and glory of Ireland and the cause of world peace. Many lost their lives on that occasion and a special medal for gallantry should be awarded to the survivors posthumously. I ask the Minister to reconsider the situation as it seems that various decisions have been made in regard to not awarding these special medals. They were a very gallant group who lost their lives in the early sixties and I hope on the 25th anniversary of Niemba these men will be honoured in a special way and the medals presented to their families.
I understand the frustration many people feel in regard to expenditure on internal defence security but we must at all times ensure the safety of our people, territory, institutions and installations and the right of people to pursue their activities in a normal manner. All this places a major drain on our civil and financial resources and are proof positive of the chaotic situation which we have reached in regard to security. I want to pay a tribute to the Army for their contribution in that field and for aiding the civil power. Individual citizens and those in commercial life have no option but to spend millions of pounds on an ever-growing security industry, which is a sad reflection on modern times.
There seems to have been a complete slowing down of the recruitment of women into the Army over the last few years.
The Minister did not make any reference to the provision of new headquarters for the Department of Defence. It is imperative that the Minister and the Department should proceed immediately with the provision of a new headquarters as the conditions in which Department of Defence staff and senior Army personnel have to operate are not conducive to getting the best contribution from them and it is also very bad for morale. The location for the new headquarters is strategic. While I know that the Government plan to fund it on the basis that it will not have to be paid for until the building has been completed and will probably be passing on the cost to another Government, nevertheless it is important in view of the historical documents which are stored in bad conditions, to have a proper army complex, especially in view of the fact that the other heads of State and military personnel will visit it. People operating in the present headquarters cannot possibly give a modern, efficient service and I hope the Minister of State can tell us when work will start on the new headquarters.
The provision for pensions in 1986 is only 1 per cent greater than that for 1985. I appeal to the Minister to abolish the means test for surviving members of the Old IRA. These people risked their lives in gaining freedom for this country and there are not many survivors. As an acknowledgment to their contribution to the founding of the State, we should abolish the means test for the few who are left.
It is a coincidence that we are discussing the Defence Estimate on International Disarmament Day, designated as such by the United Nations. Ireland as an independent, non-aligned, neutral, democratic state has consistently expressed concern at the inherent dangers in the escalation of arms growth. We believe that the need to make efforts to halt the arms race and towards effective disarmament, with special regard to militarisation and the production of nuclear, conventional and chemical weapons, is very important. I hope that we will avail of every opportunity as politicians, as members of Government and at a diplomatic level to ensure that we will continue to strive to bring about the deescalation of the present serious situation. It is ironical that we are discussing the Estimate on such a day although I am not sure what arrangements have been made to celebrate it here. Perhaps the Minister of State could enlighten us in that regard. We must take that into account and be always conscious of it. We must at all times make an effort to bring about peace and stability not alone here but throughout the world, as we have been doing consistently down the years.
The time has come for the Army to display its ability, its colour and the contribution it is making to an Irish way of life. The Army School of Music has not been used to the maximum to project the image of the Army. The bands of the various commands should be used on more public occasions to highlight another facet of Army life. It appears that there are constraints on those bands. They do not get many opportunities to play at public functions.
It is disappointing to note that the Estimate has been reduced under many headings. There has been a reduction of 14 per cent under the heading of defence equipment, a reduction of 2 per cent for Civil Defence and of 6 per cent in the contribution to the Irish Red Cross. The latter organisation has made a major contribution down the years and is deeply involved in Civil Defence. I hope the Minister will reconsider those cuts in the coming year. He should ensure that sufficient funds are made available to the Civil Defence and the Irish Red Cross.
I was disappointed that the Minister saw fit to reduce the Estimate for the sail training scheme on Asgard II. A new departure under that scheme is that those going on the sailing trips will be charged. The many young adventurous people anxious to participate in this scheme should not be charged. The Minister should consider encouraging children from less well off areas to go on those sailing trips. It appears that it is the intention of the Government to charge for all services provided by the State, and that is regrettable.
I appeal to the Minister of State, who has a special responsibility for Civil Defence, to organise a display later in the year by Civil Defence personnel so that the population will be made aware of the ability of those involved to deal with emergencies. I suggest that the Minister should consider following the example of the Army who carried out a wonderful display last weekend. It is important that the people are aware of what the personnel of Civil Defence can do.
I should like to point out to Deputy Skelly, the next contributor, that 22 minutes remain for this debate, because I must call on the Minister to reply at 12.15 p.m., and that Deputy Haughey is offering.
I shall try to confine my remarks, but it is disappointing to learn that only a limited amount of time is available for the debate on this important topic. I do not think this Estimate has been taken seriously by the House, given the economic crisis the country is facing. Everybody loves the Army, but the Opposition spokesman on Defence did not go into the cost factor involved. He did not deal with the cost of the Army to the taxpayer. This debate is about how the Minister is running the Department of Defence and whether taxpayers are getting value for money. It appears that Members are afraid to criticise, even constructively, the Army. We are fortunate that the Army has not had to engage in combat on this island in recent times; but we might not be so affectionate towards the Army if, like the British Army in Northern Ireland, many soldiers were killed. Those deaths prompted people in Britain to call for a withdrawal of the Army, and if our sons were being slaughtered up there we might adopt a different attitude.
The Minister told us that 14,000 people are in the Permament Defence Forces and that 11,000 parties were supplied in the Border area for operational duties, a decrease on the figure for the previous year when 14,000 parties were supplied. Given the amount of wages paid to soldiers, it appears that 1,200 people were involved in doing that work. One is tempted to ask what the other 12,500 soldiers are doing apart from those who are on international duty. It appears that a lot of time is spent on escort patrols for the transport of explosives and blasting operations — there were 900 such patrols — on the protection of the movements of cash and on bomb disposal duty. In addition, the Defence Forces provide guards for the movement of prisoners and soldiers are used in searches for arms and so on. If the Army is being used in that way should we not examine its role and ask ourselves if it is necessary to have an Army of that size and if we should spend so much money maintaining it and the paraphernalia that goes with it.
The Minister did not give much reason for the Army and said that the stability and a sense of security are essential prerequisites for social and economic problems and that, although the cost was high, it was essential to maintain law and order and preserve our democratic freedoms. That begs the question. "Are our democratic freedoms under threat"? Recently we concluded an Anglo-Irish Agreement and it is fair to say that we have friendly neighbours. We have a problem in regard to terrorism and a problem in the North that certainly warrants back-up security services, but is it necessary to this extent? Taking into consideration the cost of maintaining such personnel and equipment, are they effective? Are the Army in a position to be effective if they have to swing into action?
The former Minister for Defence in 1984 showed a certain lack of faith in the Army being able to do the job which they are consitutionally required to do, that is, safeguarding the State against attack from external forces. He said:
We are hardly in a position to defend our neutrality as we stand now. It would cost thousands of millions of pounds if we were to try to enhance our defence capacity to put us in that position.
He also said:
Because of the size of the Army, their capacity is extremely limited and being ideologically and geographically allied to the western block, we can confidently rely on it to protect our territory should any State or combination of States hostile to the western world threaten it.
These are the only indications that I can winkle out of debates on Defence Estimates over the past couple of years that there has been any real discussion about the need for the Army. I know the Army are held in great affection in the hearts and minds of the people and by all Members of the Dáil and Ministers. However, people should not become paranoiac if Members go so far as to question that need, as I am doing.
On 3 March last, I tried to draw the attention of the House to this matter by asking two questions, one about the cost of the Army and one concerning the need for it. I think people understood what I was getting at. I got much flak about that in recent times from Army personnel. On an occasion at a formal private party when leaving the dance floor with my wife, I was accosted by a very senior Army man in military dress concerning my cheek or audacity in asking those two questions and my reference to the outmoded system. He invited me to come to his quarters so that he could show me that he was available to his soldiers at all times. I did not accept that invitation. Yesterday at a function on Constitutional Day at the German Embassy, I was approached by another senior Irish officer who was very annoyed that I should dare question the role of the Army. He said that my remarks were insulting. The Army are very sensitive about that.
I have been waiting for a long time to debate these matters, perhaps under the heading of Defence policy, rather than on a limited Estimate. We should have had much more time available to discuss the Estimate. This was the case in 1981 when Deputy Haughey was Taoiseach. I should like to have had the opportunity to go into the matter more deeply and have many suggestions concerning the £263 million annual Estimate, the workings of the Army, the total ethos surrounding it, its value to the country. I shall not go into the UNIFIL operations or our efforts for the United Nations, except to say that we should be questioning the value we are getting for these. We appear to be getting merely our daily running costs for providing these services for the United Nations. However, the super powers are making a huge profit in their case. Some are running their economies on what they are getting for the manufacture and supply of military equipment. Deputy Treacy rightly pointed out that the costs we are incurring are not paid immediately. I do not know if we are getting interest on these amounts. If we are needed to supply a backup service because of the mess that the super powers are making in different parts of the world, risking lives in so doing, we should be paid adequately for that.
I have not time to make the speech I intended to make, but summing up, there is nothing sinister about my questioning the role of the Army since 1922, bearing in mind what the situation was like from the twenties to the fifties. The Army offered a sinecure, as far as the officers were concerned. There have not been many casualties in the Army, or much conflict. We might have a different attitude on the matter if that had not been the case. In order to keep 14,500 people employed, we are providing £263 million in this Estimate. Bearing in mind that we are a neutral country, we should be getting away from such cost, but we appear to want to expand and encourage the Army. There is not the slightest hope in the world of a little country like this ever getting into the big league and supplying the technology necessary for the Army.
I should like to see armies eliminated altogether, if that were possible. Soldiers are trained to kill and if we keep going along this road people might be killed, not the odd unfortunate soldier killed on duty on behalf of the nation in different parts of the world, or as in the awful accident which killed four children from my constituency who were walking through the Glen of Imaal a few years ago and whose relatives were never compensated. Many could be killed. Had I time, I should have referred to what Deputy Haughey said as Taoiseach, giving his objective in starting negotiations with the British Prime Minister as a reduction in the threat to peace for our people. I hope an opportunity will arise over the next year or two to debate this matter fully, but I am sure that it will not. I regret that, on a Friday when we have plenty of time available, we must proceed to the Public Service Estimate in the afternoon. I do not think there is a speaker lined up on this side of the House, apart from the Minister himself. Here we have £263 million going through on the nod and we cannot discuss the subject as we should like.
I am grateful to Deputy Skelly for giving me a few moments. I fully agree with him that it is absolutely ridiculous that on this matter we have not time even to look deeply into this Estimate, even the financial Estimate itself, apart altogether from discussing much broader issues of policy which are presenting themselves increasingly urgently to us today. I must comment very briefly on the statement by the Minister in the early part of his speech today "that while the Garda Síochána have a primary responsibility for internal security events for some years past have shown clearly the need to have a strong well-equipped Army available to assist the gardaí as required in the internal security arrangements." That is perfectly true as far as it goes, but it is a totally inadequate statement of what policy should be. Just to indicate that that seems to be the only role of the Defence Forces at this stage of our affairs is quite ridiculous.
I wanted to get in very quickly to say that one of our greatest concerns at present must be the adequacy of our Civil Defence and the other arrangements which we should have for dealing with the effects of a nuclear accident such as that which occurred recently at Chernobyl. Since Chernobyl there have been a few other accidents, what some people would call minor accidents but which I would regard as serious, one recently again at this menace of Sellafield.
On the 11 o'clock RTE news summary a member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was quoted as saying that a Chernobyl type of accident is inevitable in the United States in the next 20 years and that the reactors are not designed and not able to cope with serious accidents. That is a pretty chilling statement from a member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Surely, all these things indicate to us the need to take this whole nuclear menace much more seriously and deal with it much more urgently than we are doing. In the moment or two available to me I want to appeal especially to the Minister of State and, through him, to the Minister to have a complete and thorough review of our Civil Defence apparatus and evolve a policy for dealing with the different types of nuclear dangers that now present themselves to us.
I have said in this House on another occasion that there was perhaps a defensible theory by some people that in the event of a nuclear war holocaust, no one would survive and, therefore, there was no point in doing anything in the Civil Defence area. That has now been shown to be erroneous. It is clear that we can have nuclear dangers coming to us against which we can take some measure of defence. I want to reiterate again the simple truth that this Government are misleading us in regard to the danger of Sellafield. We had that question debated in this House on two separate occasions and on both those occasions the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Energy endeavoured to create an impression that we could have this menace of Sellafield dealt with through the European Commission.
I want to say categorically in this House that that is not so. I have ascertained for myself beyond doubt that there is no inspection mechanism available to the European Community or to the European Commission that will do what this Government are purporting to say to us they want done. It is not just that there is no inspectorate which would have the capacity to inspect Sellafield from the point of view of safety, but it is almost certain that the European Community have not got the legal capacity to create such an inspectorate. Will the Government please accept that position——
I will not accept that.
——that Europe cannot deal with the meance of Sellafield for this country?
That is not correct.
I will conclude by saying that the only remedy available to us is to confront the British Government directly and bilaterally on the danger of Sellafield. Like other Deputies such as Deputy Skelly, there are many other aspects of this Defence Estimate that I would like to talk about but because of the constraints I will confine myself to that one aspect. I ask the Minister to concentrate at this stage on a complete review and reassessment of our Civil Defence capability and evolve a policy and apparatus capable of dealing with the very real menace of nuclear fallout.
I would like to thank the Deputies for their contributions. In the short time I have I will concentrate on replying to the points raised.
Deputy Treacy mentioned the recent exercises close to the Border. One of the important reasons for having these exercises close to the Border is to enable the defence forces to familiarise themselves with the terrain and to ensure that they are a backup to the civil power which, indeed, they are at all times. The Government are always anxious to ensure that along that area we do have adequate security for the protection of the people living there. That can be done by having regular exercises. This shows to people who might have notions and ideas that there is a real intent to ensure that they cannot use that area as a haven for their illegal activities.
Deputy Treacy suggested that the morale of the FCA is low and that numbers had reduced over the past few years. In 1984 and 1985 recruitment did take place to replace the wastage which had occurred over those periods of time. I believe that morale is high and there was no significant variation in numbers over that period of time. It is important to say that. Last year, recruitment was 1,070 which was a reasonably large intake. Slightly over 900 were taken into the general service and 160 into the Naval Service. This brings the total numbers to 12,500 which we believe is adequate to meet the needs which are there. Like anything else, one must review the strength of the Army from time to time and look at their needs and requirements. At present, we are satisfied that what we are doing is adequate.
Deputy Treacy raised the question of military medals for gallantry. This was dealt with some time ago. The Defence Force Regulations provide that awards of military medals for gallantry or a Distinguished Service Medal should be made by the Minister for Defence on the recommendations of a military board appointed by the Chief of Staff for that purpose. Therefore, it is an internal Army situation. The Minister would take advice from that board. It is better to do it that way rather than the Minister or some civilian body making decisions on this matter. The Army on the ground are the better people to know when that type of medal should or should not be awarded. I would be satisfied to leave it that way.
Reference was made to the overall effect of Civil Defence. Civil Defence play a very important and effective role throughout the country. Some areas are better than others. That is the result of how active a local authority are and the type of staff they have. I want to assure the House that we are always trying to ensure that Civil Defence are effective and how we can make them more effective.
The Chernobyl accident has quite clearly indicated that there is a need to ensure that we can deal with a problem that could arise, not necessarily at Sellafield but in France or other parts of Europe which are quite close to us. An annual exercise has been held for many years involving networks right across the board. RTE television is available for the purpose of warning and monitoring and the health boards and local authorities are also involved. This is a mock nuclear fall-out and is a very effective exercise. With regard to the equipment and the meters which monitor the fall-out, new stock has been acquired to ensure that we have an up-to-date and efficient system. I am glad to say that this equipment is manufactured in Ireland. We continue to look at this. We must encourage our voluntary organisations to participate in this. Deputy Treacy indicated that it should be devolved down to the people. That is basically what it is. The local authority is the forum through which it operates. There are people working fulltime on this in the local authority.
When wearing my Defence hat I would be quite happy to think that the local authorities would foot the bill for the general operations, but when wearing my Environment hat I would like to think that the other Department would look after it. The important thing is that it works effectively and efficiently. We will continue to look at this, because changes take place and lessons have to be learned. What happened quite recently brought home to us all that what can happen overnight can affect a whole country and a whole way of life. I take that seriously.
Deputy Skelly raised the question of the purpose of the Defence Forces. I did not think that question would be raised. It is necessary for many reasons. We all known that there are subversives operating in our society. They quite clearly stated that when they dealt with one part of our country they would then turn their attentions to this part. If, when people specifically spell out what they intend to do, we sat back with a cosy, complacent, neutral, non-aligned attitude to those people, then they would fulfil that promise. Any civilised state that wants to maintain its democratic institutions must have an Army. We are fortunate that we have an Army of the highest calibre. The people not only hold it in affection but also in high esteem. They look to it with confidence because of its impartiality — it is totally independent, as any army should be. There is an army in all neutral countries. The exercises at the Border are a clear indication of where we stand in this regard.
Deputy Haughey raised the question of Sellafield and the Government's intention or lack of it in this regard. I totally disagree with this. He doubted whether or not there could be a European inspection. If we want supervision we should be part of the European Community and if we want effective action it must be done through that Community. I have attended Council of Ministers meetings on Environment. They have brought in laws prohibiting leaded petrol. They are going to bring in laws which will prevent the emissions from cars. That will happen because the EC and the Council of Ministers can make these decisions. Because of what happened in Chernobyl the Europeans will take this much more seriously. I raise this point because it was raised by Deputy Haughey but it does not come within the responsibility of this Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Energy.
I wish they would look after it.
I am satisfied that they are looking after it and that the Government are dealing with it in the right way. It is easy to pass bland motions in this House about the closure of Sellafield or about doing one thing or another and then to walk away and say we have done a good job. We must look at this in a much more positive way. Approaches have been made to the UK Government at all levels, including approaches, from the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and my own Minister in the Department of the Environment, Deputy Boland, who had talks quite recently on this matter. It should be done through an international inspection unit by the EC. That would be a positive contribution. If we think that by throwing our hands in the air, bemoaning it every now and again and hoping that that is the way it will be done, we are living in cloud cuckooland. It might be good for the optics but it has no real effect at the end of the day.
There is no such inspectorate.
We are aware of that. This country have taken up the cudgels to get that inspectorate going. We do not intend to be pushed aside. If we are to have muscle in this area it must be through a body such as that. We would have the support of the largest countries in Europe to bring about the kind of pressure we all want to see to ensure that whatever plants are operating are operated in a safe and better way. I am not taking issue with the Deputy, but I believe what we are doing is right and he obviously believes that his approach is better. The Government are very concerned about this and we are dealing with it in a responsible way.
I wished to refer to other points but time does not allow it. Deputy Treacy mentioned means tests. They have been relaxed progressively over the years and they are now far from severe. It is negligible and we can look at it again from time to time.
Some people are still losing their pensions.
If one looks at the means test it is of a very negligible nature and would not have any adverse effects on the situation.
