Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Dec 1988

Vol. 385 No. 5

Supplementary Estimates, 1988. - Vote 38: Defence.

, Limerick West): I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £3,700,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, 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 the payment of certain grants-in-aid.

The Estimate for the Financial year ending 31 December 1988, which was passed by the Dáil in May last, was for a net sum of £252,144,000. The Supplementary Estimate for Defence which I am now introducing is for an additional sum of £3,700,000. The Supplementary Estimate provides for additional expenditure mainly on new naval vessels and fishery protection communications facilities and also on transport, defensive equipment, medical equipment and building work. The gross extra expenditure requirement is £16,820,000. This is partially off-set by savings and increased Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £13,120,000, thus reducing the net supplementary requirement to £3,700,000.

The main item of additional expenditure is £13,800,000 under Subhead P in respect of the acquisition of two Peacock class patrol vessels for the Naval Service. The additional expenditure also caters for the installation of a computerised information system for use in fishery protection activities.

The new vessels, which came on the market recently, have been acquired from the British Ministery of Defence and will be re-named L.E. Orla and L.E. Ciara. They were taken over by personnel of the Naval Service on 27 October 1988. These vessels are relatively new and are in very good condition. They are replacements for the minesweepers which were taken out of service in 1987 because they had become unseaworthy. As in the case of the minesweepers, the role of the new vessels will be of a fishery protection nature. The vessels have an effective operational range of 3,000 nautical miles and have a maximum speed of 26 knots, which is considerably faster than the speed of our existing patrol vessels.

In conjunction with the acquisition of the new craft. I have made arrangements for an intake of 100 recruits to off-set wastage and to enable the Naval Service to meet the extra staffing requirements arising from the purchase of these vessels.

An additional sum of £1 million is included under Subhead P for the provision of a modern communications and information system for the Naval Service. The facilities are being provided in connection with the fishery protection activities of the Naval Service. They comprise communications, radar and data-processing equipment.

The installation of a satellite communication link between the naval base and each patrol vessel will considerably improve communication facilities and provide a high quality voice and telex link with vessels irrespective of weather, position, or time of day. Four of the patrol vessels are being refitted as necessary with more powerful radars, thereby increasing their detection range. A modern data-processing system is being installed at the naval base which will have data links with the patrol vessels and the Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell. In addition four of the patrol vessels are being provided with all-weather boarding boats.

This programme of improved fishery surveillance facilities, which will significantly enhance the efficiency of the fishery protection service provided by the Naval Service, has been approved by the European Commission. The total cost involved will be over £2 million, of which about £1 million is due for payment this year. It is expected that part of the cost involved will be recouped from the European Commission.

Provision for an additional sum of £1,500,000 for the purchase of vehicles is included under Subhead J. Some additional expenditure arises under Subhead H in respect of defensive equipment which is now expected to be available before the end of this financial year at a cost of £840,000. Similarly under Subhead I, an earlier than originally planned for expenditure of approximately £180,000 on X-ray equipment for St. Bricin's military hospital and other medical supplies is provided for.

The year 1988 has been a good year for making progress on building works — probably because of the favourable weather conditions. As a result, expenditure on the construction and maintenance of buildings has been heavier than expected in the year to date. Some essential building works were undertaken and completed ahead of time. It is anticipated that an additional sum of £500,000 will be required under Subhead S by the end of the financial year.

The total increase of £16,820,000 is partially off-set by savings amounting to £9,220,000 and increased Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £3,900,000. Apart from the savings on the pay subheads, the main savings arise on Subhead O2 dealing with aircraft, where a saving of £3,300,000 is anticipated due to aircraft maintenance requirements being less than expected.

The increase of £3,900,000 under Appropriations-in-Aid consists of additional receipts from the United Nations in respect of arrears due. This arises mainly because of a change of heart by one of the major powers in regard to paying its arrears of contribution to the UN fund for the United Nations interim force in Lebanon.

Now I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for Army Pensions for the year ending 31 December 1988. The Estimate for Army Pensions for the current year was also passed by this House last May and was for a net sum of £40,385,000. The Supplementary Estimate is for an additional sum of £2,350,000 net and is required to enable my Department to make payment of the December 1988 issue of pensions and allowances under the Army Pensions Acts and the Defence Forces pensions schemes in the middle of the month instead of at the end of the month.

The proposed early payment will facilitate the introduction during 1989 of a new system of payment of pensions and allowances by payable orders instead of by warrants. The change will bring my Department's system of payment into line with that in operation for other public service pensioners such as civil servants and gardaí. I might also mention that the maintenance of the present system of payment, which involves daily settlement with the Central Bank in respect of warrants presented for payment through the commercial banks, would create considerable difficulties in the context of the decentralisation of the Finance, including Pensions, Branch of my Department to Galway in mid-1989.

The December issue of pensions and allowances would ordinarily be made at the end of the month and would fall to be met from the following year's Vote. This is because, unlike payable orders, which are charged against the Vote on the basis of the date of issue, warrants are not charged against the Vote until they have been presented for payment. Thus, the early issue of the December pensions and allowances will result in 13 months issues, instead of the usual 12, being charged against this year's Vote and hence the need for the Supplementary Estimate.

The gross extra expenditure requirement is £2,740,000. This is again partially off set by savings, including increased Appropriations-in-Aid, amounting to £390,000, thus reducing the net Supplementary requirement to £2,350,000.

I commend both Estimates to the favourable consideration of the House. If Deputies require more information on any points I have raised, I shall be glad to respond within the time available.

On the Supplementary Estimates as presented by the Minister, I have no trouble in accepting the figures mentioned or the reasons for the expenditure. I will come back to the savings later.

The coastal patrol capability is a most important security aspect and we lack the resolve to tackle the job seriously. Today's expenditure of £13.8 million on two secondhand naval vessels does nothing other than replace two minesweepers which had to be called ashore because they were unseaworthy. This raises several questions. I contend that the naval services are so under strength at the moment in both staff and equipment that their undoubted efficiency is absolutely under siege and they are unable to carry out their brief to the extent that they and indeed we as legislators, would like. The high seas have always been renowned for rough justice and in centuries past it was the survival of the fittest and down through the centuries not much has changed. A Spanish or Swedish factory fishing vessel which decides to plunder our fishing stocks does our economy great damage. A boatload of illegal arms or ammunition earmarked for the IRA or others will probably kill or maim thousands of innocent people and will help to weaken our security strategy. The mind boggles at what illegal dumping of drugs and drug trafficking will do to our young people. The Naval Service has to deal in part with all of this and maybe do a great deal more.

Because of the responsibility thrust on the international community to suppress terrorism, Ireland, with others, should receive much greater financial assistance from the EC. After all, drug trafficking and illegal arms smuggling are problems common to all countries and can be stamped out only by a co-ordinated patrol strategy. Ireland has too much coastline to patrol and too few taxpayers to pay for it. I estimate that we would need at least to treble our naval strength to be anywhere near the point of reasonable surveillance.

Indeed, our present naval protection is far from adequate. I understand that at any given time there are only two naval vessels in action because of the necessity to carry out maintenance on the others and to maintain a roster of crew. Some fishermen would say they would not see a naval patrol vessel for days. If this is true, then the position is clearly not satisfactory. Have we made any headway with our application to Brussels for funding to purchase extra vessels? Did we look for or receive any funding for the two patrol vessels we have purchased or was an application made to Brussels for such funding? I would like to ask the Minister if we have an overall plan for the Naval Service and how technology can be introduced to provide a better service.

Why has it taken so long to equip the LE Eithne with a helicopter? The ship has the facility for this and now the Dauphin helicopters are operational this should be looked at immediately. Have the new boats for which this Supplementary Estimate is being brought in today the facility to carry a helicopter? This brings me to the whole question of our search and rescue service. Everybody now accepts that a new approach is called for with our rescue service. Our most vulnerable area, the western seaboard, is least equipped to deal with the all too frequent accidents. My party's proposal to relocate the entire Dauphin helicopter range from Baldonnel to Shannon, in my view is very reasonable. It makes sense to place helicopters at a point where maximum advantage can be gained. Let me add here that, following a number of queries to the Minister in the House at Question Time the day before yesterday a great schemozzle seems to be going on in some newspaper reports today as to whether we have the capability as far as manpower is concerned in the Air Corps to shift the squadron anywhere because so many Air Corps pilots want to leave.

Regarding the rescue service, if the pilots are now trained to the stage where they can fly at night, as some reports from the Department of Defence suggest — others suggest they cannot, and to be honest, I am not 100 per cent sure whether they can, but I assume we are nearing the point where our Dauphin helicopters can be flown at night — because they have a range of 100 miles or so, it makes great sense to relocate them at Shannon. Recent tests which my party carried out with the aid of a helicopter proved what everybody knows but had to be proven, that thus one was at least one hour closer to the centre of the calamity or disaster. In the context of rescue on the high seas, that is extremely important. I take this opportunity today to ask the Minister to ensure that no consideration, good, bad or indifferent, will stand in the way of the effort to ensure that the best possible cover is given for the amount of equipment we have and for the areas most in need.

There has been a suggestion that if the helicopter squadron is placed at Shannon the east coast will be left wide open. That is not so because the other helicopters are there and there is the very fine working arrangement we have with Great Britain. There are almost twice as many life boat stations on the east coast as there are on the west coast. On behalf of the 4,000 or so strong island communities, the many thousands of people involved in the fishing communities and the isolated mainland communities from Cork to Donegal, I appeal to the Minister to make this change as these people would feel much safer. I hope there will be no foot dragging on the matter and that it will be done immediately irrespective of inside pressures to maintain the status quo. There is great public pressure at the moment for this change.

This, in itself, would not be enough to deal with the great disasters far out at sea. There is no reason the Department of Defence should not have an arrangement with a private helicopter company to have on 24 hour standby a huge helicopter like the British Seakings with the capacity to fly 200 or 300 miles out, to carry at least 20 or 30 persons and the ability to hover in the air for a couple of hours. Such aircraft exist. I am not saying for one moment that our economy could afford to purchase one but that does not mean we cannot supply it. Other countries such as Great Britain, Norway and others have this system. It would allow us to provide the service at a reasonable cost without having to lay out the capital cost. There is no reason an outside firm could not complement the work of the Air Corps.

The figures given by the Minister overall appear to be all right. I find it difficult to understand how, at the eleventh hour, a saving of £9.2 million could be arrived at on an Estimate which we passed in this House last April or May. This is quite a substantial amount of money and if it was achieved by efficiencies within the service I would congratulate everybody concerned. I assume the reason for the saving is that many things were not allowed to happen. One of the things here, a saving of £3.2 million on aircraft relates, I assume, to the maintenance of aircraft. It has been indicated to me recently that because huge numbers of technicians have left their jobs, there are none to carry out the work. It would be a very negative thing if that was the way we actually saved £3.2 million.

At a time when there is huge unrest in regard to the pay and conditions of the Defence Forces, the fact that we are able to say that there is a saving of £9.2 million will, I imagine, ring very hollow with the Army personnel and their spouses when they believed they would be getting a sum far greater than that. In the light of the savings made I have to ask the Minister how soon can we expect an announcement of a worthwhile increase in pay and allowances and conditions for our Defence Forces. The figures I have here in front of me today will not make good reading for those people who are so hard pressed.

Also on the question of pay and conditions, I find it difficult to understand why the interdepartmental committee are taking so long to give their findings or proposals to the Minister who in turn would bring them to the Cabinet. It was well known when the Estimates were being framed last year that all was not well in the Defence Forces as far as pay and conditions were concerned.

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, particularly since there is a limited time at his disposal, but I see nothing in the Supplementary Estimates before us today appertaining to pay and salary scales. A fleeting reference is in order but I would not wish any Member to go into the matter in depth. It is not included in the Supplementary Estimates before us this morning.

I would have thought that when I was told about the savings it would have been in order to talk about the entire Estimate. However, I bow to your ruling on it. I would hope that the question of the poor pay and conditions in the Army will not have to be mentioned on the floor of this House again and that that problem will be solved by the next occasion we are here.

I would like to refer to the question of communications and the new data processing system being installed at the naval base. I understand that this has been sought for a long time and it is very important. I hope the whole thing can be co-ordinated when the helicopters are actually brought to Shannon. I must confess that I do not fully understand this technical end but I understand that one of the problems in regard to helicopters landing on the LE Eithne, apart from the fact that the helicopter is not there to do it, is that the communications link has not been got right. I hope the investment we are hearing about here today will get us over that problem. Obviously we have to be as good in the field of technology as the people we are trying to keep out of our waters for whatever reason.

Many of these people are geared with the best telecommunications technology in the world and if we cannot be as good, if not better, we will find ourselves outdated once again. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the communications system built into this is the best available and will not be outdated in three or four years time. Nothing less is any good in the circumstances. I hope that from 1989 onwards, until we get our strength up, we will be able to buy or lease the type of naval patrol vessels that are important for the task in hand.

I intervene to advise the Deputy that his time is almost exhausted. He has less than a minute left.

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Department have purchased the two vessels. I hope the 100 persons will be recruited shortly and that they will be very successful because we will be depending on them. I should like to pay tribute to the Naval Service who have been doing a fine job under the worst possible conditions. It is with a certain amount of sadness and distress that I note that the Estimate for 1989 does not contain sufficient money to enable the Naval Service to do their job.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on purchasing the two vessels for the Naval Service and I am pleased to note that he intends to recruit personnel for those vessels. The seas around our coast are constantly being used by drug and arms smugglers. We are all aware of the huge quantities of arms that were landed here in recent years. Like others I am concerned that our seas are not patrolled properly. The law of the sea amounts to the survival of the fittest and for that reason our Naval Service must be kept up to a proper standard so that they can combat the dangerour events that take place from time to time.

It is a poor reflection on the commitment of this Government to our Defence Forces that the reason we are here today debating these Forces is not the crisis currently afflicting them, not the need to tackle the numerous and serious problems facing them but to approve a Supplementary Estimate for the amounts required in this year for retired pay, pensions, compensation, allowances and gratuities payable to the members of the Defence Forces and certain other people and to approve a Supplementary Estimate for the amount needed for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence and certain services administered by that office.

The fact is that none of these items, important as they may be in their own right, has any relationship to the really critical issues facing these Forces. They will have no effect on the problems of appalling conditions, low morale and the appalling pay of the Defence Forces and they will not tackle the allegations of intimidation and abuse of personnel whose spouses are members of the National Association of Army Spouses.

The truth is that our Defence Forces are in an atrocious state. They are facing many problems. These problems have been developing for many years but nobody has done anything about them. It was only over this summer when these problems reached the headlines of our newspapers and television screens that any action was taken.

Since the summer, however, little has changed. The committee appointed by the Government to investigate the problems of the Defence Forces, and particularly to examine levels of pay, have not yet reported. However, I was delighted to learn that an improvement will be announced before Christmas. The Minister for Defence was not able to tell the House on Wednesday when he expected the committee to make their report but I welcome the statements in the media that it is expected soon.

The Minister should clarify what exactly he means by saying that the results of the report would be positive. It will simply not be good enough to throw a couple of extra pounds a week at these soldiers and say that this is positive. Levels of pay for these people have fallen way behind what is an acceptable wage. Action must be taken immediately to restore these levels to a reasonable level and it must be taken immediately, not over the coming years.

Pay, however, is only one aspect of the problems facing the Defence Forces. The conditions under which these people have to operate are equally bad and, therefore, are in equal need of review. The living accommodation and even the standards of the equipment being used by our Defence Forces are all in an atrocious state.

It is inevitable that with conditions as bad as these there should be problems with morale. Again, it has been quite obvious for some time now that these problems would arise. In January of this year I warned about the worsening situation. I did so because it was obvious that it was serious. In November of 1987 an extra 400 people were taken into the Defence Forces. Despite this, however, the number at the end of the year was still some 200 lower than it had been the previous year. More significantly, over the year of 1987 an average of between 60 and 70 people were leaving the forces each month. These were people who were not leaving the forces to become part of a booming economy; they were leaving to join an economy which had massive emigration and huge levels of unemployment, but they still preferred to take their chances with that than stay part of our Defence Forces.

Over the past year this situation has not got any better. In fact, I would be very amazed if the number leaving this year is not significantly greater than was the case in 1987. The seriousness of the situation was demonstrated by the fact that the Government have recently had to go to the court to prevent an Air Corps pilot from leaving. In fact, it is a tribute to the dedication, loyalty and commitment of the men and women who serve in our Defence Forces that the problems of morale are not much worse than they are at present.

The very high standards which we, as a country, receive and which we have come it seems to take for granted, from our Defence Forces has been highlighted over recent weeks by the fact that a representative of the Irish Army has been chosen by the United Nations Peace-keeping Force to accept the Nobel Peace Prize which the peacekeeping forces won this year as a recognition of their role in safeguarding the cause of peace throughout the world in recent years. It is against this background that the recent allegations of intimidation and abuse against members of the Defence Forces whose spouses are members of the National Association of Army Spouses must be seen.

When the Minister for Defence was asked about this issue at Question Time in the Dáil on Wednesday he denied having any knowledge about it and asked Deputies to cite to him details of individual cases. In view of the present climate in the Defence Forces, however, it is wholly impracticable to expect such information to be forthcoming. Throughout yesterday, however, representatives of the National Association of Army Spouses again repeated claims that this intimidation and abuse was going on and specific reference was made to three barracks in the Dublin region. In view of the seriousness of these allegations, I believe that the Minister should now undertake an investigation to ensure that no such intimidation or abuse is occurring.

The most disturbing thing about the various problems currently facing the Defence Forces is that they are a reflection of the general approach which successive Governments have taken to the whole issue of defence and the whole question of our military role. The fact is that successive Irish Governments have viewed our stance as a neutral country as an excuse to do nothing about our Defence Forces. This is a serious error. Being neutral is no excuse for ignoring our responsibilities. In fact, our neutrality should demand that we take extra interest in and care of our Defence Forces.

Under international law, neutral States must take whatever military measures are necessary to ensure that their territory is not used in any way by one belligerent to the disadvantage of another. Those countries which fail to comply with this provision may lose their neutral status and a belligerent which feels that its interests are threatened by the military weakness of a neighbouring non-belligerent State may legitimately take whatever military or political action is necessary to ensure that the territory of the non-belligerent or neutral country is not used to its own military disadvantage. A country does not become neutral simply by declaring itself neutral.

The contrast between how we, as a neutral country, organise our military affairs and how other neutral countries in Europe, namely, Austria and Finland do so, reveals a lot about how we deal with the issue. Austria has a population of 7.6 million. It maintains a total armed force of just under 55,000 or 0.7 per cent of the population. It spends 1.2 per cent of its GNP on defence. The Austrian army has 170 heavy and 240 light tanks, 460 armoured personnel carriers and 200 pieces of field artillery plus 460 anti-aircraft guns. Its air arm deploys 38 modern fighter aircraft and has 18 more on order, the same air arm also has 14 transports and 85 helicopters with 36 training and general-purpose aircraft.

Finland has a population of some 4.9 million people. It maintains an armed force of some 35,000 or 0.7 per cent of its population which is the same proportion as for Austria. It spends some 1.7 per cent of its GNP on defence annually. Its army has 150 heavy and 15 light tanks 30 armoured cars, 200 armoured personnel carriers, over 400 pieces of field artillery and 300 anti-aircraft guns. Its 3,000-man navy has two modern corvettes, 14 fast attack craft with four more on order, five anti-submarine patrol vessels, two minelayers and 14 minesweepers. The Finish air force has 74 fighters, 20 transport aircraft, eight helicopters and 83 trainers, 48 of which have an additional light strike capability.

In this country, we have a population of some 3.5 million. Our Defence Forces consist of some 13,000 people which is equivalent to 0.4 per cent of the population. We spend annually some 1.3 per cent of our GNP on our Defence budget. Our 11,000-man Army has only 14 light tanks, 52 armoured cars, 20 armoured personnel carriers, 60 pieces of field and 28 of anti-aircraft artillery. Our Navy, with a strength of less than 1,000 has only seven coastguard vessels of minimal military potential. Our air arm which has a similar strength has no true combat aircraft and consists of 15 trainer or light-strike aircraft, eight light-army co-operation or communications aircraft, four transport aircraft and 15 helicopters. Two of our transport planes are used for maritime patrol.

We can see from this, therefore, that we currently maintain Defence Forces which have a strength little more than half those of Austria or Finland, relative to population. In contrast to this, however, we spend a slightly higher propoetion of our GNP than Austria and slightly less than 70 per cent that of Finland in doing so and we equip our forces to a much lower level than those of either of these countries.

It is quite obvious that we are not taking our neutrality seriously. It is also obvious that we are not even getting value for money for the money we are spending.

When comparing figures like these people will obviously say we are not in as serious a situation as either Austria or Finland and that, therefore, we can afford to take our neutrality a little less seriously. That is wrong.

The fact is that not only does this country have to contend with the possibility of an outside threat, we also have to deal with the very real and immediate threat posed to this State by the campaign of armed subversion being organised against it and against our immediate neighbour, by the IRA terrorist organisation and the possibility of terrorist action from a much wider range of organisations.

We must face up to the consequences and responsibilities of this threat. We must ensure that we have a defence force capable of dealing with it. Up to now this country has never really been sure exactly what role we wanted our Defence Forces to play. On the one hand we expect them to fulfil what we regard as the normal role of a Defence Force. On the other hand, however, we also expect them to protect us against terrorist subversion and at the same time to look after our interests when various public bodies go on strike. We have told them to run our buses, to clean our streets, to man our power stations and to empty our bins.

But while we have told them to do all this we have refused to recognise their value by paying them a proper wage, by keeping whem well equiped or by ensuring that their conditions are up to an acceptable level.

The consequences of this appalling attitude are now plain to be seen. Action must now be taken to ensure that we address those problems and take action to ensure they will not arise again.

In particular the Government must without further delay take action to end the appallingly low levels of pay and must begin to improve the conditions under which we expect these most important and loyal people to serve.

On the occasion of the debate on the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Defence I would like, very briefly, because it is not necessary to repeat some of the points that have been made forcibly already in relation to conditions in the Army, to emphasise that very point. This last session of the Dáil has seen the wives of those serving in the Permanent Defence Forces organise and come to Leinster House and present their case for better conditions, not only for their husbands, I emphasise, but for their families. I welcome the commitment of the Minister given in the last few days that there will be a quick report from the review.

I worry about the implementation of the conclusions of such a review when there appears to be little provision of a financial kind made for its implementation in the short term. That point worries me. It is very important in the interest of morale in our Defence Forces that the issues of pay, of promotions, of conditions and of a general review be regarded as of extreme urgency. This is a matter to which Deputies Pattison, Bell and others have drawn attention during the year.

In the short time that is available to us in discussing Supplementary Estimates only a number of points can be made. I would like, therefore, to confine myself to a few. In the course of Dáil questions answered this session and in the previous session and, indeed, in the last few years, a number of us have asked what the position is in relation to female participation in our Defence Forces. What we have heard can give nothing but grounds for disquiet. The evidence presented to myself shows that those who have reached officer grade within the Army are regarded, because they are women, as people who are not suitable for combative duties and, so, find themselves limited to simply administrative functions. This is an extraordinary prejudice which, of course, predominates within our culture generally. To find it within a Department of State and within an activity responsible to a Department of State is particularly appalling. There is another side to this as well and that is that an analysis of the recruitment pattern shows that the recruitment of cadets does not include females. Certainly there is no encouragement to suggest that women can look forward to an equal career in the Army.

In relation to discussions I have had with members of the Army, many of them from a long macho tradition, they have informed me that some parts of the service have been saved from women's participation. "Look at the effects of it in Britain" was one of the remarks I heard. I appeal to the Minister for Defence to ensure that the future philosophy and the future policy of the Department of Defence will be such as will honour the equality principle in practice. I do not want to hear a great deal of guff to the effect that that is the position. What I want is a straight answer to a straight question. What functions are women who are officers in the Army precluded from? Are they entitled to a full range of participation as equals? What is the position in relation to recruitment practices? Are they being treated equally or not? I do not want to be given the bland answer about how well all the women in the Army are doing — that is Christmas card stuff — I want straight answers to those two kinds of questions.

The Deputy is a good man to answer questions—

The other point I want to make in relation to the general discussion which is developing now relates to our Naval Service. I welcome any commitment that is made to improve our Naval Service and indeed there is specific reference to that. I should like to say that our Naval Service was placed in an incredibly difficult position following our accession to the European Community. When we were involved in the heady days of the entry campaign I recall a small number of TDs — Deputy McGinley, the late Clement Coughlan and some others — being interested in addressing the issue of what the implications would be for the future of the fishing industry but one was swimming against the tide in relation to the benefits for milk and the large scale commercial agricultural producers. We ended up in a disgraceful position in relation to our fisheries resources where no effort was made to seek protocol that would have defended our fisheries resources, a protocol which I might say was available. In the end because of the insufficiency of the guarantees given the Norwegian Government decided not to proceed with their application. The work at diplomatic level was done but it was once again a hasty rush to what were perceived to be the benefits of butter and beef to the exclusion of the national interests, including fisheries.

During the time I was a member of the first Oireachtas joint committee between 1973 and 1977, of which the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, was chairman, he, other Deputies, and I visited the European Commission. At that stage it was clear that we were arguing against limits which had been given away and quotas which had been badly established. It was very clear that what had emerged was that we did not have the capacity by way of naval protection to even protect the crumbs which had been granted to us late in the day. I think we are becoming a nation akin to the political postulance of St. Jude in relation to the European Community when we find thrown into speeches phrases such as "it is hoped that the European Community can assist in this regard".

What is the status of an aspiration such as that? The fact is that we had a responsibility and we exercised it badly. We are now moving very slowly for an inadequate level of protection. We have brave and good officers and I must say that I regret that some of them have been intimidated in seeking to implement conservation policies which are in the interests of not only ourselves but also of the Community, but the thinking of the European Community in this regard is not very wholehearted. We have seen an invasion of our fishing grounds by fleets. I can look out from my home in Galway any evening I care to choose and see the lights of foreign vessels fishing off the Aran Islands and our facilities are totally inadequate to deal with this problem. It is a matter of the greatest importance.

A great deal of reference has been made and I disagree with Deputy Clohessy in this regard — to the confusion that exists in this House. There are Members here, somewhat arrogant people I might say, who suggest that the theme of neutrality has never been debated. I was chairman of the Labour Party for ten years between 1977 and 1987. Prior to that we had published a policy document on neutrality. We had agreed with other parties and groups of the Left that we should use our neutrality within the context of a positive neutrality. Let me say only a word about that. Externally, positive neutrality means that it informs ones foreign policy in all respects. Secondly, it also means that there be a cohesive approach, for example, towards seeking to align oneself with other neutral nations such as the countries of Scandinavia or the progressive members of the non-aligned movement. It also means that it informs one's human rights policies. Internally it means that one educates in the values of peace and neutrality so that it is not perceived as a burden.

The first person to write on the subject of neutrality comprehensively was Tom Johnson. Before the formal foundation of the State a paper was submitted by Tom Johnson on the role of a future Ireland. One of my predecessors as chairman of the Labour Party, the late Deputy Michael Keyes, also addressed this issue comprehensively. It is not a policy which began with Mr. de Valera and it is not a policy hedged with conditions, that we are only neutral if Ireland is united. That is a peculiar piece of Fianna Fáil casuistry. It is not a policy which says we are militarily neutral but that we are really part of the West. It is in that latter part that the greatest danger lies. If people say we are only militarily neutral they should tell the public that. When those of us on this side of the House speak of neutrality we do not speak about the strange notion that we are ideologically of the West and at the same time somehow militarily neutral, thereby setting up a false dilemma and paradox where there is no consistency between our policy of neutrality and our defence relationships, and going on to argue that only a country with enormous defence potential can really afford to be neutral.

That is a limited view based entirely on a false premise. It ignores altogether the role of neutrality within foreign policy and the general community of nations. In this city 12 months ago my party organised a conference which I chaired. Many of the neutrals of Europe are now seeking a new relationship with the Community and they would be very anxious to find Ireland participating with them in a new alternative to the WEU and other groups within the European Community. Here, I am speaking about Austria, to which reference has been made already, and many other countries, such as Malta, who are seeking relationships and who see in their different patterns and historical paths towards neutrality a great enrichment in the concept. In the confusion which has been sown there has been a drift inevitably to the idea that in a large integrated market post-1992 one will inevitably acquire obligations in regard to defence. I also see the drift to the argument which suggests that one is required, not only because of the integrated market but because somehow or another it is communautaire, to be part of the common defence. Our views on neutrality, those of us who take it seriously, are not negative and defensive but we see it as a building principle towards a wider theory of neutral interdependency and the playing of an effective role in international agencies and as something dynamic which can be used, for example, to widen space between the superpowers. There is evidence of this everywhere. Therefore, neutrality is not reducible to military neutrality except for those who want to fudge on the issue, and neither can it be reduced to a defence issue.

A number of other points have been made. There was a reference to our peace-keeping role. Has it struck anybody that one of the great reasons we are welcome in providing our forces and we are almost at the top of the invitation list to serve in a peace-keeping role is precisely because of our historical conditions and because people have perhaps an exaggerated sense of our independence in foreign policy. I join with other Deputies who paid tribute to the United Nations peace-keeping force on the receipt of their award which will be accepted in Stockholm by Perez de Cuellar and be received by a member of the Irish Defence Forces. Many of the Irish people who have served have died in the interests of peace, some of them from my own city. They have been part of the great principal structure of the United Nations whose great achievement was the drawing up of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose anniversary we will be celebrating tomorrow. I almost tragically made the mistake of saying celebrating here, because our own Minister for Foreign Affairs will be joining in in the celebrations in Paris and there will be celebrations in most of the European capitals. I have yet to be made aware of any significant celebrations organised by the Government to celebrate the signing, on 10 December 1948, of the most important charter of human rights of this century.

This speaks volumes because we have neglected to understand the internal principles of neutrality through our hostility to studying political social studies and we have also precluded any discussions among our school children of the importance of human rights. I do not blame the present incumbent at the Department of Foreign Affairs for this as I know he is a man deeply committed to peace and to making a significant contribution abroad. It is a great pity that we are not celebrating these events formally. It would be useful if we were to have a brief session of Parliament to recall the moment we signed the declaration. When we come to discuss another Estimate I will deal with the manner in which we have failed to ratify some of the conventions.

I want to conclude by making a very specific request for information. It is only on occasions such as this, in discussing the Estimates for the Department of Defence, be it the major Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate, that I can ask what is happening on the Irish Sea and in regard to the activities of submarines of foreign nations in the Irish Sea. Newspaper accounts, investigative accounts and reports on fishing vessels which have been damaged have been allowed to fade away without any effective answer being given. This is my question: what are we doing within the realm of defence to ensure that the waters over which we have jurisdiction by several Statutes are not used as an information corridor by the superpowers? What is happening in relation to this submarine activity? What information has the Minister to tell the House — does he require assistance from abroad or what extra assistance does he need? Is it not possible, for example, for us, along with other neutral and peace-loving countries who do not want their waters to be used for subversive acts of aggression and information gathering of different kinds, to apply new technology sensitively so as to ensure jurisdiction over the waters for which we have responsibility?

I rise on behalf of The Workers' Party to indicate that this Supplementary Estimate moved by the Minister for Defence is most unwelcome, untimely and should not earn the support of this House. We completely reject the Supplementary Estimate and intend to vote against it when the opportunity arises. It is remarkable that, when we have an opportunity to discuss savings in the areas of pensions, wages, allowances and expenditure in other areas, we cannot muster into the House more than four Deputies at any one time. One thinks of the times during the past few weeks when we were honoured by the presence in the Public Gallery of the spouses of the enlisted members in the Defence Forces and there was hardly a seat available in the House. It is also to be noted that not one member of the press is here to listen to anything which has to be said by the various Deputies and the Minister. While interest in this matter, both within the House and elsewhere, seems to be waning. I want to make the point that the issues have not changed and that the resolution of those of us within The Workers' Party and on the Left will be maintained until something effective is done to resolve the problems in relation to the pay and conditions of the members of the Defence Forces.

This year the members of the Defence Forces and their spouses have highlighted such issues as the pay and working conditions of the members of the Defence Forces, and the shame of the major reliance on the family income supplement scheme as a means of propping up and helping to cope with the real poverty imposed on members of the Defence Forces, the inadequate housing and medical services available to the Defence Forces — and I note that in a pitiful letter sent by the Minister to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights he admitted that the barracks where soldiers are obliged to live are "substandard and unhygienic"— and the fact that promotions within the Defence Forces are almost negligible. In spite of all this, we are now being asked by the Minister for Defence to agree to a Supplementary Estimate which involves savings of almost £3 million in the area of wages, allowances and benefits. The Minister has got to tell the House how he has achieved these savings and on what basis he can find the courage to stand up here in the face of all the evidence of real poverty within the ranks of the Defence Forces and ask us to agree to this Supplementary Estimate. I attended a meeting in Dublin of representatives of the spouses of the members of the Defence Forces and I listened to one woman who told of her pitiful experience of having to maintain a husband and five children on approximately £140 a week. That cannot be tolerated nor allowed to continue for much longer. There is no way any member of The Workers' Party could agree to a Supplementary Estimate that allows for savings in the areas of income, wages, allowances and benefits when conditions like that exist within the Defence Forces. This is an utter disgrace. I want to refer to some of the areas in which the Minister has achieved savings.

I have already raised with the Minister the question of the outpost allowance. This is a very meagre payment which is not being entirely abolished but is under attack and being modified. Because this allowance affects so few members the Minister believes that it can be done down. The practice of describing what are effectively major military activities by the Defence Forces as nothing more than training exercises is a mean and typical example of the way the Minister treats his soldiers. These activities have been carried out on numerous occasions this year, and I instanced one such occasion in the Dundalk area.

Soldiers are mobilised to engage in a search and seize operation to look for the huge numbers of weapons landed in this country by the Provisional IRA on their Eksund expedition. These soldiers are out of doors 24 hours of the day, they sleep in ditches and are fed from barrack tents. They are told that it is not a military exercise or part of the remunerative area of their work for which they would be paid an allowance but is a training exercise. They carry out this work along with members of the Garda Síochána who, for doing exactly the same job, are paid overtime and get time-and-a-half or double-time for the same work carried out by these soldiers. That is an intolerable situation and it is insulting that this is happening at a time when the Minister has come in here and asked us to agree to savings in the payment for this type of work.

Of course, all of this highlights the fact that soldiers are not allowed to form their own representative association. This is the kernal of this issue. The spouses of the Defence Forces can come in here, when their domestic duties allow them to do so, and draw our attention to the issue and Deputies can raise their voices when the opportunity arises at Question Time or during the debate on an Estimate but the only effective way to deal with pay and working conditions in the Defence Forces on an ongoing basis is for the men and women involved to be represented through their own ranks by a representative association. There is nothing in law or in the Constitution which would prohibit the establishment of such an association. It has nothing to do with a prohibition on people meeting and, as the Minister told us recently, talking to public representatives about military matters; pay or working conditions or other details affecting the daily lives of soldiers does not amount to military matters and are matters which should and must be dealt with through the proper organised channels of a representative association.

That message must go out from this House today and it must be repeated until soldiers stand up and say "this is our association — not our spouses association but our association — which was formed by the men in the Defence Forces", as happens in every other European army. This matter was agreed to unanimously by the European Parliament as long ago as 12 April 1984. The resolution has regard to such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we hope to celebrate on the morrow. There is reference to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, to which we are a party. The resolution goes on to state that such professional organisations must have the right to take part in negotiations concerning the professional and social interests of their members. It refers to a resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 8 May 1979 which allows police officers, military police, armed forces personnel and militiamen performing the functions of the police to establish, join and actively participate in, professional organisations. The resolution continues:

whereas servicemen, whether conscripts or personnel serving for longer periods, must not become isolated from democratic society and must experience at first hand the democracy which they are protecting, having regard to the principle that the serviceman is to be regarded as a citizen in uniform—

In accordance with the order agreed this morning the Minister is to have ten minutes to conclude. The question must be put at 12 noon. I have to ask the Deputy to give way to the Minister.

The resolution calls on all members states of the European Community to grant their servicemen the right, in peace time, to establish, join and actively participate in professional associations in order to protect their social interests. Until the Minister promotes and facilitates such a development within the Defence Forces the sorry state of affairs which now exists will continue to be brought to his attention.

Limerick West): I thank Deputies for their contributions to this debate and for their tributes to the personnel of the Defence Forces. I will have great pleasure in conveying those tributes to the military authorities. I should like on my own behalf to re-echo those tributes, which are very well deserved.

In the limited time at my disposal I will deal with some of the points raised by Deputies. The Naval Service has performed highly efficiently in its fishery patrolling role and in coastal surveillance. Facilities are adequate to cater for our needs. Application has been made to the European Community for financial assistance towards the cost of the two vessels which have been purchased and it is expected that arising from discussions with the Commission positive proposals will be made in the near future regarding new financial arrangements which will benefit this country. These discussions are at an advanced stage and are being actively pursued by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Provision has been made for adequate strength in the Naval Service. Present numbers of personnel are adequate to meet requirements, bearing in mind the 100 new recruits who are being taken on for the ships which will be operating in the new year.

Deputy Connaughton referred to the Air Corps. They are quite capable of operating helicopters from the LE Eithne, as was demonstrated last year to EC officials. The new Peacock class vessels cannot take helicopters and were never intended to do so. Night flying training is continuing in the Dauphin helicopters and a number of successful rescue operations have taken place at night. The question of improving air rescue services is being actively considered by me and my colleague, the Minister for the Marine. Decisions on the matters raised by Deputy Connaughton will be taken in the very near future and I hope they will be adequate to meet needs, keeping in mind all other constraints.

The Deputy mentioned the anticipated saving of £3.2 million on aircraft. This is due mainly to certain orders for aircraft spares and components not falling due for payment this year. Spares ordered in 1988, costing in the order of £3 million, will not fall due for payment until 1989. This reflects the longer lead-on time on the part of manufacturers in the delivery of spare parts. Certain efficiencies were also effected in the ordering of spares, which contributed to the reduction in costs.

The new communication facility comprises a link by satellite between the patrol vessels of the Naval Service at sea and the naval base at Haulbowline and with the Air Corps base at Baldonnell. Fast voice and telex connections between these three activity centres is the kernel of the new system and it will certainly enhance operational capabilities significantly. The system is up to date and will serve the interests of the Naval Service for many years.

The Deputy also mentioned savings on pay and allowances. The provision for pay this year was over £200 million and the anticipated savings on this provision amount to a little over 2 per cent of the total. The saving on the Army pay subhead is approximately 1.2 per cent of the provision. The level of expenditure on pay is affected not only by strength but also by the pattern of wastage and recruitment. There are other savings in relation to the pay and salaries of the staff of my Department and civilian employees who are employed in barracks from time to time, depending on the need at any time.

Deputy Clohessy referred to the interdepartmental committee on pay and allowances. I do not propose to make any statement in the matter until the work of the committee has been completed. It is a comprehensive investigation and a report will be issued very shortly.

Deputy Clohessy and other Deputies raised allegations about the intimidation of soldiers. I am surprised that Deputy Clohessy is not here. I have not received a single piece of evidence of intimidation of Army personnel by officers. No instructions were issued by me with regard to the intimidation of soldiers. Until such time as I get the name of the person involved, the place and the time, I cannot carry out an investigation. I want to give the assurance to the House again that an investigation will be carried out and the necessary action will be taken if any person is found guilty.

Deputy Higgins said he was disturbed that he did not see any provision in the Supplementary Estimate for a pay increase, if that is recommended by the pay review committee. Special arrangements will be made in that regard. He also raised the point about women in the Defence Forces. Again, we have to consider the question of recruiting additional women. That matter is considered from time to time but we also have to consider scarce resources, the combat role——

It is the old story. We heard that before.

(Limerick West): It is no different from the position when the Deputy's party were in Government. They made no changes either.

There will be neither men nor women, at the rate the Government are going.

What about the quality of functions in the Army?

Is the motion in respect of Vote 38 agreed?

I am putting the question: "That Vote 38 be agreed to."

Question put, and a division being demanded, it was postponed in accordance with Standing Order of the Dáil No. 127, as modified by order of the House, until 3.45 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 December 1988.
Top
Share