I wish to share my time with Deputy Brendan Smith.
Private Members' Business. - Defence Forces Policy: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Michael Smith on 5 November 1996:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Minister for Defence for his failure to articulate a coherent policy on Defence matters particularly in regard to the following:
—the reduction in numbers serving in the Defence Forces, having regard to security requirements in the Border areas, United Nations and elsewhere;
—the necessity to strengthen the Air Corps and Navy to deal more effectively with fishery protection and drug interdiction;
—ignoring the concerns expressed by Army wives in relation to conditions for soldiers serving in the Border areas;
—failure to be honest about barracks closure;
—lack of concern for spouses and children of deceased soldiers who did not opt for the Spouses and Children's Pension Scheme;
—delay in recruitment and changes in the scheme with regard to age qualification and lack of recognition for the contribution made by young FCA members; and
—confusion in the VER scheme and failure to review the five year contract scheme.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "that" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann commends the Minister for Defence and the Government for the substantial progress achieved to date in implementing a balanced programme of reform in the Defence Forces; for the Minister's personal commitment to a process of full consultation with the military representative associations; notes the Government's commitment to the recruitment of 1,000 persons to the Defence Forces over a three year period commencing in 1996 in order to address the age profile problem; notes the introduction of the VER in 1996 at a cost of £16 million following consultation with the representative associations; and pledges its continuing support for the Minister's policy of a partnership approach to developing the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps with a view to enhancing operational capability."
—(Minister of State at the Department of Finance).
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
An indication of the gravity of this matter is that this is the second occasion in six months Fianna Fáil has been obliged to table a private Members' motion to address the serious problem in this area.
I support the motion in the name of our spokespersons, Deputies Michael Smith and Power and endorse the statement made last night. Because of the time constraint that applies I will not go through the points raised in it. I will deal with the position in the Border area.
I agree with the president of PDFORRA when he stated he was concerned that the Army did not know it would be involved in the prevention of the spread of BSE until after the IFA knew. It is deplorable that the Army was not informed of that before the IFA, the media or anybody else. He also complained about the long hours involved, an average of 72 hours per week. The allowance for that work is approximately 30p per hour after tax. I ask the Minister to address that matter.
I am concerned that the Border units operate under strength. Will the Minister check the workload of men and women in the Southern Command, in the 27th and 29th battalions and compare the conditions in terms of Border allowance and duty money? I understand those on duty money find it much more beneficial than the allowance for Border duty.
On 15 October I asked the Minister for Defence his plans to increase the number of soldiers serving in the Border area in view of the increased responsibility, to improve their conditions and if he would make a statement on the matter. The reply was that it is not the practice of the Minister's Department to give precise details of the number or position of troops serving in the Border area or any changes relating to those matters, that the situation is kept under continuous review and changes are made in the light of operational requirements. It also stated there are no proposals at present to alter the conditions of service of personnel serving in the Border area and that changes are not being made in the light of operational requirements. If they were made men and women would not be asked to work an 80 hour week and nobody would have to spend 24 hours on duty. The Minister must be condemned for being dismissive in stating that he had no proposals to alter the conditions of service of personnel serving in the Border area. I appeal to the him to seriously consider the position and to reconsider that. Morale is low in the Army. Army wives are genuinely concerned. They see gardaí rightly rewarded for their splendid work in preventing the spread of BSE.
I appeal to the Minister to provide proper accommodation for Army personnel. In Castleblayney there are plans for a new Army barracks but to date only a new officers' mess has been erected. I ask the Minister to ensure building proceeds on that new Army barracks.
The FCA unit in that area is working out of two portacabins. That is not good enough and I ask the Minister to address it.
I pay tribute to the Army who has served us well at home and abroad and we can be justly proud of it. Nowhere has it served us better than in the Border area, particularly during the past 25 years. There is an obligation on the Government to look after it properly.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important motion tabled by Deputies Michael Smith and Power. As Deputy O'Hanlon stated, the motion embraces all major issues of concern to members of the Defence Forces and to all others who recognise the importance of having a proper Defence Forces structure and sufficient personnel at all times.
The commitment by Deputy Michael Smith that Fianna Fáil on its return to Government will bring forward at an early date a White Paper on defence policy is welcome and very important. A Government statement outlining a long-term strategic plan for the Defence Forces is long overdue and would be welcomed by all Army personnel.
In previous debates initiated by Fianna Fáil in private Members' time Deputies on this side of the House outlined in detail the wide range of activities covered by the Permanent Defence Forces ranging from service abroad to mercy missions at home. All too often the diversity and importance of those activities is not fully appreciated by the public.
There has been a strong and sound Army tradition in my constituency. I know generations of families in my county who have given and continue to give dedicated and loyal service to this State. Many members of the Defence Forces from my county have served with great distinction on difficult missions abroad.
Fianna Fáil in Government has always demonstrated the need to provide ongoing investment in the provision of adequate facilities for members of the Defence Forces. Our party in Government in 1988 placed a contract for the construction of the new Army barracks in Cavan town, Dún Uí Néill, and the provision of that barracks ensured that the members of the Defence Forces stationed locally have the most up to date facilities available. It is an excellent headquarters for the 29th battalion.
The presence of the Defence Forces is of enormous social and economic value to the towns in which they are located. The people of Cavan and Monaghan realise the crucial importance of those barracks. The personnel based there play an important and positive role in their local communities.
Last night my colleagues Deputies Michael Smith and Dermot Ahern and tonight Deputy O'Hanlon spoke about the very low morale in the Defence Forces. Many members of the Defence Forces and their families expressed concern about the lack of understanding and commitment by the military authorities, the Department or the Minister to resolve many issues.
It was brought to my attention recently that members of the Defence Forces who took part in a special operation from January to May 1993 have not yet been paid their allowance in respect of those duties. Some members worked in excess of 110 hours per week on it. One member who left the Defence Forces some years ago has not yet been paid the allowance due to him in respect of that operation. It is disgraceful that should occur. It is not good enough that any arm of the State allowed that to happen to people who carried out their duties in a diligent and conscientious manner. It shows disregard for the efforts of those people in difficult circumstances.
During the past number of months soldiers have yet again been deployed on Border duty, their hours are extremely long and their workload is excessive. The Border allowance, or the inconvenience allowance as it is known, is not nearly adequate to reward those soldiers for their efforts in difficult conditions. It must be demoralising for any member of the Defence Forces to put in such long hours and obtain such little reward. The Border allowance must be reviewed and substantially improved. Some weeks ago Fianna Fáil raised this matter on the Adjournment when it was pointed out very clearly that the treatment of those people is just not good enough. The members to whom I spoke have had no work or income since September last and the Department's offer to bring forward payment of part of their gratuity is not satisfactory. Those people served the State well and now their treatment is totally unfair. I ask the Minister to have this position remedied so that the people involved receive the entitlements they have earned.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Mulvihill and Kemmy.
I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.
When I first read the Fianna Fáil motion I experienced a sense of déjà vu— I am convinced that we discussed the same motion last May.
Nothing has been done since.
I wonder why we are dealing with a recycled motion.
Because the position is worse now.
I am sure the position within Fianna Fáil is worse. We have had recycled policies and now we have recycled motions. Fianna Fáil must be getting desperate.
We can stand over any motion we put before the House.
The Defence Forces review implementation plan which is fully supported by the military authorities has its roots in the efficiency audit group's examination of the Defence Forces — I am saying now what I said in response to the motion last May. Not alone is Fianna Fáil recycling motions, we are forced to repeat ourselves in response. The problems confronting the Defence Forces, including ageing personnel, layers of red tape and spending imbalance did not arise today or yesterday and the Government is aware that they cannot be solved overnight. Full implementation of the plan may take about ten years. The key point is that the pace of change will be managed. The Defence Forces are faced with new demands in a changing world, yet their structures and organisations have remained largely unchanged since the foundation of the State. No organisation as active as the Defence Forces could continue indefinitely without facing the type of change that is necessary, and the Defence Forces are as aware of that as we are.
In 1990 many of the problems facing the Defence Forces were highlighted in a report prepared by Mr. Dermot Gleeson. While that report focused on pay and conditions it also recommended that a thorough review be conducted of the Defence Forces organisations and structures. We are all aware that Fianna Fáil's preferred response to reports and recommendations of this nature is to leave them to gather dust. The hands-off school of Fianna Fáil politics has not served Ireland well and would certainly not benefit the Defence Forces as they prepare for the challenges of the 21st century. Modern times demand modern responses and that is as relevant for the Army as for any business. The review of the Defence Forces is designed to equip them to meet the challenges not only of today but also of tomorrow. The alternative to the plan is to sit back, do nothing and hope the problem will disappear of its own accord, but that will not happen.
The Government is not prepared to follow in the footsteps of Fianna Fáil's passive philosophy of government. We are already paying the price for that in many areas too numerous to mention. Fianna Fáil's response to the implementation plan can be summed up in one word: scaremongering. I have seen the results of that, as have Deputies in all parties, with people coming to us who are desperately worried about their future and full of notions that have been put out as facts.
They have every reason to be worried when the Deputy's party is in Government.
Earlier this year, despite repeated assurances by the Minister Fianna Fáil persisted in trying to convince the public that Army barracks would close, but that did not happen. I notice that an attempt is made to resurrect this lie in the motion before us. They also peddle the myth that the implementation plan will result in a shrinking of the Defence Forces when they know — this is what I find most offensive — that 1,000 people will be recruited to the Defence Forces this year to redress the age imbalance. The new structure will have a total strength of 11,500. These facts are well known to Fianna Fáil, yet it comes up with these old myths.
Democratic Left is the party for myths.
Implementation of the plan is accompanied at every stage by a painstaking process of consultation with the relevant representative bodies and that process will continue. We must recognise that the Defence Forces have not only given of their time and energy but at times have put their lives on the line for this country. The Defence Forces are not only a national but an international asset. They have served with distinction in difficult circumstances not only at home but in places ranging from the Congo to Lebanon. Too often the Defence Forces serving outside our country's borders do so in an aggressive capacity. Ireland's Defence Forces have always served abroad in a peacekeeping capacity, a tradition of which each of us is very proud. The new structure and organisation will enable us to fulfil our peacekeeping and humanitarian commitments more effectively. It will allow us not only to maintain but to expand our activities under the umbrella of the United Nations and the OSCE. Our Defence Forces have served this country well and they deserve better than to be made political playthings of Fianna Fáil who does not appear to have anything else to discuss.
They deserve their entitlements, which they are not getting.
I am pleased to speak on this motion. I wish to address my comments principally to one aspect of the Defence Forces, the Naval Service which has a particularly important role to play in my constituency of Cork East, but first I wish to make a few general remarks about the motion. This is the second week in a row that Private Members' time has been used in a cynical electoral fashion by Fianna Fáil. Last week we were treated to a motion against road tolling from a party that introduced such tolls. It is no wonder Deputy McCreevy was unable to defend his and his party's position on television on Monday evening. This week's motion is little better and will carry little weight with the public. It is no wonder they have grown cynical of politics when politicians are so cynical.
Times have changed. The electorate have had their fingers burned and will not have the wool pulled over their eyes by this kind of politicking. I note that in moving this motion Deputy Smith indicated that his party would bring forward a White Paper on the Defence Forces within a year of returning to office. Such a statement begs a smart response, but I will refrain from making it. I fail to see what the difference is between a White Paper and an implementation plan as proposed. Does Fianna Fáil believe that just because it enters office all existing problems will be resolved by the mere publication of a White Paper? If so it is living in cloud cuckoo land.
As the Minister pointed out, standing still is not an alternative; it rarely is. It is completely disingenuous of Fianna Fáil to continuously suggest that there will be barracks closures. The Minister stated that there will be no such closures and until I see evidence to the contrary, that is good enough for me.
Since I represent a Cork constituency, the plight of the Naval Service is of great concern to me. The motion suggests the need for the Naval Service to deal more effectively with fishery protection and the fight against drugs. Very few of us would have qualms about those sentiments. It would be wrong of me to undermine the great work done by the Naval Service. In the past year the success in the fight against drugs importation conducted by the Naval Service has received a great deal of media attention. The recent huge haul in Cork harbour is but the latest example. Even tonight a ship is being searched in County Cork. I pay tribute to those involved in this work.
I have listened to various Deputies, particularly party colleagues, speak about the horror of drug abuse in our cities, particularly Dublin. They are correct in suggesting that we must do everything in our power to stem the flow of drugs on our streets and the Naval Service has a huge role to play in this regard.
As the Minister outlined yesterday evening, seven ships are currently in operation. There is a case for increasing the number of ships. For instance, not all seven ships can be at sea at the same time and they have to protect an extremely long coastline. This is currently imposing a huge burden, not only on the ships but on their workforce. The oldest of the ships, the LE Deirdre, has been in service with the Navy since 1972 and must be due for replacement. In many cases sailors face three weeks of continuous service at sea and are then allocated duties upon returning to port. While that may be satisfactory for single men, it is clearly onerous for married men with families. It compares very unfavourably with the conditions of personnel in the merchant navy or ferry services and it must be looked into.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the first round of the general service recruitment component of the reorganisation plan is under way. This move has been facilitated by the success of the voluntary early retirement scheme. This is good news for the Defence Forces. Recruitment is essential to preserve the vibrancy of any organisation and the Defence Forces is no exception. The age profile of the Defence Forces has been skewed for quite some time and this requires tackling. I congratulate the Minister on his success in this area. I also wish to put on the record my belief that recruitment should be ongoing. This is of particular importance in the Naval Service where training takes considerably longer.
I welcome the action taken by the Minister to improve the quality of our Defence Forces. He is correct that we cannot afford to stand still. The Defence Forces continue to be worthy of our investment. We are entering into new territory vis-à-vis our international responsibilities. Whatever decision we make in this regard, a professional defence force will be an essential component of it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies McGrath and Browne.
I am sure that is quite satisfactory.
I am glad Deputy Brendan Smith has returned to the House. He is normally a very affable, highly intelligent Deputy. I do not know what got into him tonight. He indulged in uncharacteristic sabre rattling and some very bellicose remarks. Perhaps the military aspect of the Bill got to him. This could merely be a smoke screen. All this sound and fury and sabre rattling is a cover up.
I was merely expressing the anger of my constituents.
I thank the Deputy for prompting me. It is a smoke screen to hide the fact that the Deputy is unwilling to come to the House and engage in a constructive debate to help our Defence Forces. Nobody should fear honest criticism. The Deputy has been very mischievous in this debate. He has attempted to throw a smokescreen over the whole debate. Deputy Smith knows that he and other Deputies from his side of the House welcomed the Price Waterhouse report. Fianna Fáil welcomed this report more than anybody else.
We have nothing to fear from any report. My only regret is that the report was not extensive enough to cover the Garda Síochána as well as the Defence Forces. I would put the Garda in first of all. Deputy Smith supported that review, as I did. None of us should be afraid to look at the workings of any State body, whether it is the Army, Naval Service or Air Corps. If we are not afraid there is no reason we should run away from the findings of any report that comes before the House.
We live in a vastly changing world and our Army is in the front line of that change in far flung foreign fields and in dangerous war zones. We had British garrisons here a long time ago. There were garrisons in my city for 800 years. King John's Castle was built in 1210. That it was right in 1210 does not mean it is right today. It is time to look at the role of our Defence Forces in the context of the world we live in.
To listen to the Opposition speeches tonight one would think we were about to abolish the Defence Forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one will be forced out of our Defence Forces. People will be allowed to retire — the numbers speak for themselves — on a voluntary basis without any questions from anybody. Consultation will remain the key note throughout. I am not here tonight to say that the Army is beyond criticism; that would be foolish. The object of this debate should be to make our Defence Forces more effective and efficient. If we do that we will have done a good day's work.
I, more than anybody, respect the dedication and loyalty of our Defence Forces. Throughout difficult times the Army has been loyal to the State and stood firm. It has done difficult, dirty and dangerous work, not only in Ireland but in other countries. It has guarded our Border. I do not regret the Army guarding the Border in recent times during the BSE scare. That was an emergency. We had to call upon the Army and we were served in a very loyal way. The Army is also involved in the moving of money and in peacekeeping duties overseas. The involvement of our Defence Forces in foreign activity has been good. Our personnel are working closely with bigger, better equipped armies, and it has been beneficial for them. They have gained in stature and experience because of that.
Having praised the role of the Army in our society in a broad way, it would do the Army no service tonight to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it cannot improve. Of course it can improve. The reality of a changing situation cannot be ignored. There is a marked difference between age groups in the Army. People in this House have called it Dad's army but I would not use that phrase. There is no reason to laugh at somebody who is no longer young. Their experience can be valuable. There is an imbalance in the age structure of the Army and anybody who says otherwise is not telling the truth. If we have an open and honest debate in this House the Army will benefit from that. If we have a dishonest debate it will serve no purpose. We cannot treat the Army as some sort of marginalised sector of our society. The Army is in the front line in the mainstream of our society. That fact must be faced in any debate on the Army's role for the future.
Contrary to what the Opposition might say, there is widespread acceptance in the Army, from top to bottom, of the need for change. The Army leadership is made up of enlightened people. They are mainly men who have worked their way up through the ranks and have served abroad at a very high level of responsibility. They have no ulterior or sinister motive in regard to the changes which will come about in the Army. They are there to do a job, to serve the Army as best they can. Anyone who suspects them of having any hidden agenda or sinister motives is wrong. There is no uisce faoin talamh here. There is no hidden agenda on this.
We have to examine all our structures. The Air Corps and Naval Service must come under similar scrutiny. Their role must also change to face new challenges such as drug trafficking and other criminal activity. The three strands of our Defence Forces must also be given higher profiles. Better, more relevant training must be provided for young people entering the forces. This debate and the change that is taking place must be seen as a challenge, a new opportunity for young people to start careers in the Army. The Defence Forces must give them better training and welcome them in. The Irish say "Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí"— praise the youth and they will respond.
There is no reason we should downgrade our Army. If Members keep talking about bad morale, people might believe it. That is no incentive to young people taking up new careers. To say that morale is bad in the Defence Forces serves no purpose whatsoever. It is a good career and we should encourage people to take up any chances they have. We must be more positive and let the Army become more community oriented and more creative. There is no reason we cannot give the Army a far higher profile in our society. To do that would be to serve the best interests of the Army. I will now share my time with two other Deputies even though I have lots more documentation and have many more points to make.
The facts I put on the record do not suit the Deputy.
I thank Deputy Kemmy for agreeing to share his time. It is a great honour for me to address this issue in the House because in 1989 there was tremendous unrest in the Defence Forces and I benefited from an Army wife standing for election in my constituency. The margin by which I was elected probably reflected that fact and the major party lost out as a result. That is why I remember that election.
I congratulate our Defence Forces for the marvellous job they are doing, not only in patrolling the Border but in dealing with the BSE crisis. It is a very difficult job. We also have 775 soldiers serving abroad with the UN. They serve this nation and the peacekeeping forces of the world extremely well in 18 countries. They do justice and honour to us all in that service.
It is hypocritical of Fianna Fáil to put down this motion and to cast a slur on our Defence Forces as if they were not doing their job properly.
Where is the slur?
It is particularly hypocritical when it refers——
The Deputy looks very hurt. Where is the slur?
If Deputy Power gives me a chance I will point it out.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Power should show some Army discipline.
The motion refers to: "lack of concern for spouses and children of deceased soldiers who did not opt for the Spouses and Children Pension Scheme". I will give Deputy Power a history lesson. Going back through the records of this House, it is clear that I pioneered the case for these widows over a number of years. Successive Minister for Defence, Fianna Fáil Ministers——
And Fine Gael Ministers. I have the records.
——and in particular the then Minister Brendan Daly, the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, Deputy David Andrews——
The Deputy should leave my brother out of this.
He was Minister at the time. I spoke to those Ministers about the difficulties of the widows——
And what has the Government done?
——and nothing happened.
Exactly.
I have raised this again with Minister for Defence, Deputy Barrett, and nothing has happened.
Where is the history lesson?
I am hopeful we will move forward and the Minister should look at the numbers involved. There are about 200 widows who have missed out on the pension scheme through no fault of their own. Their husbands opted out at the time and the wives did not know. They were left high and dry when pension time came for them. There are about 1,600 soldiers still in the Defence Forces who have opted out of the scheme. Deputy Higgins should suggest to the Minister that those 1,600 people should be approached again and asked to join the scheme. If they want to opt out, as in other circumstances, they should sign to do so but I would add this provision to the opt-out form: that their spouses should also sign it.
The Minister does not have the interest.
There are five Deputies sharing time and they are to be permitted to use that time without interruption.
They are wasting it.
Let us have a sense of fair play in this matter.
Obviously Deputy Power does not want to hear the truth and he must have no concern for widows when he is not interested in hearing the case espoused in this House. It is strange to see recruitment mentioned in this motion. Looking at the recruitment figures, in 1991 when there was a Fianna Fáil Minister, 22 were recruited to the Army. In 1992, 51 were recruited. In 1993, three recruits were taken into the Defence Forces and in 1994, 500 were taken in. Many would say it was because of the Labour influence in Government but they were recruited nonetheless. In 1995, 60 were taken into the Navy and this year 200 will be recruited. In 1997 and 1998 400 will be recruited. It is, therefore, hypocritical of Fianna Fáil to criticise this Minister and Government in relation to recruitment for the Defence Forces.
The Minister has repeatedly said there will not be barrack closures. It is not on the agenda but has been raised in many areas of the country by politicians and aspiring politicians. We must accept the Minister's word. When a Minister gives a categorical assurance, as in the case of Columb Barracks in Mullingar, that a closure is not contemplated, we must accept it. However, there are politicians who will not accept that and will continue scaremongering and upsetting people. Those people are wondering what is in the future for them. The message coming out clearly is that there are no Army barracks closures contemplated and we should accept that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I thank Deputy Kemmy for allowing me time to speak. The Fianna Fáil Party must have been circulated with a poem they learned years ago, which said: “We'll all be ruined, says Hanrahan, before the year is out”.
"If rain don't come tonight".
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They are convinced now that we will all be ruined before this Government gets out. Opposition spokespeople are almost getting strokes at how the country is being run. How long can these feigned symptoms of distrust go on?
Will I give the Deputy a list?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It does not matter if I am interrupted by the Deputy. Everything is wrong. Has the morale in the Army become so bad in less than two years that we have to listen to this motion? What could have happened to the seven great years of plenty in which Fianna Fáil was in power? If the Army had been looked after by Fianna Fáil in that time, we could drift for the next five years. Fianna Fáil forgot about the Army and now have the cheek——
We looked after them well.
(Carlow-Kilkenny):——to put in a section on “ignoring the concerns expressed by army wives”. Fianna Fáil did not listen to Army wives and it cost them seats. I heard a speech last night about how the Opposition Leader and the spokesperson met the Army and were nearly crying at the thought of the low morale in the place. That is unbelievable nonsense that nobody believes. I will take great pleasure in voting against this motion tonight because it is a show that is trying to work up a frenzy in the Army.
In my car, I heard an interview on CKR with a PDFORRA representative who was full of praise for the Minister for being willing to listen.
He was not a member of Fine Gael?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy will have to show maturity and stop being foolish. He was very complimentary to the Minister for Defence and it does not matter if the Opposition, especially Deputy O'Keeffe, make up stories about barrack closures. They are told the barracks are not being closed but still inform the Army that the barracks will close and that they are being treated badly. The Opposition will begin to believe it themselves.
I will explain in a minute.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If double the number required applied for early retirement, there must be something to it despite all the Opposition stories and their current motion.
Recruitment is starting. My only criticism is the case of a young man who is very anxious to join the Army and who was 22 on 21 September——
They will not take him. I have dozens of such cases.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is a sign we will have a young Army that will take its place with any foreign army. It was said we had an old army. That will no longer hold.
There is a certain amount of unease in the Navy. Much of this may be caused by people born in inland areas, who are not used to the sea, joining the Navy. Although they believe they have the stomach for travelling on the high seas, it does not always work out. Perhaps there should be better screening of those who wish to join the Navy so that fewer members will not want to leave when they find the lifestyle at sea unsuitable. This motion is an effort at political propaganda which is so absurd that the Fianna Fáil party does not even believe in it.
I am proud to speak on this motion. Deputy Browne said he did not believe Army people came to see us, but they did.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I did not say that.
He said he did not believe they were worried about their position. Deputies Bertie Ahern, Dermot Ahern, Seán Power and Michael Smith and I had a lengthy meeting with Army people and a deputation of Army wives. They had genuine worries and to rubbish those worries as the Deputy did is sad.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I did not; I rubbished the Deputy's party's hypocrisy.
I am honoured to speak on this issue as I have done on many occasions. I have constantly defended the Defence Forces in Government as a member of Cabinet and in Opposition and I will continue to do so. I will assert the right of my party or any other in Opposition to bring matters to the floor of the House. Those on the other side of the House have spoken as if the Opposition did not have the right to bring an issue to public notice. The Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, did not develop the points in his speech last night.
I wish to address two items in this motion, the lack of concern for the spouses and children of deceased soldiers who did not opt for the spouses and children's pension scheme and the delay in recruitment and changes in the scheme as regards age qualifications and the lack of recognition of the contribution made by young FCA members. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on Army widows. The answers to those questions were interesting.
The Deputy is a late convert; she did nothing in Cabinet.
There are 200 Army widows whose husbands or spouses did not opt for the pension scheme in 1978 or 1985. I followed that up and asked if a precedent had been set by a previous Minister for Defence in granting Army pension rights to an Army widow whose husbands did not opt for the pension scheme for widows and families. I was told a precedent was set in February 1986 in relation to five widows and four children, to whom the Department granted pensions.
I then tabled a further parliamentary question asking if the Army had told other widows who had not been given pensions they could get them by producing a doctor's certificate saying their husbands were not of capable mind to opt for the pension. The response was that it did not inform the other dispossessed widows that they could get pensions by producing a doctor's certificate stating that their spouses were not capable of making the decision.
This is prima facie evidence that a precedent was set in relation to five widows. Although these widows produced medical evidence, no other widow was told that she had the right to do so. If any of these widows have the money or if a case is made on their behalf, they have a clear case to get their widow's pensions. I urge the Government to tackle the long running scandal of the forgotten Army widows. Successive Governments have failed to address a grievous wrong perpetrated on a vulnerable group of women, which sadly diminishes each year. Army widows now number about 200.
In 1978 and 1985 inadequate explanations of the pension scheme for spouses and dependants were given to serving soldiers. There was little attempt to explain the case to Army members or their wives. The men were gathered together and the facts were given to them in military and legal jargon. No counselling was given nor was there any follow up explanation.
Last week I heard the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, say he was a member of a party and a Government of inclusion which sought to include, not exclude anyone from this marvellous inclusive Government. Deputy Lynch espouses the cause of disadvantaged women but she bolted from the House after she made her cheerleader's speech. I wish she would take up the cause of Army widows instead of bolting from the House after giving three hurrahs to the Minister for Health one week and the Minister for Defence the next. Every Minister gets the thumbs up from Deputy Lynch. What a sunny disposition she has.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is good to have a nice person in the Dáil.
I would not fault her character, but it is a pity she does not fight for the Army widows as she does for other women.
The replies to the parliamentary questions show that in February 1986 a precedent was set in which five Army widows got pensions and I am glad they did. That legal precedent must be taken up. I want an open case with all documentation being made available, including the letters which passed from the then Minister and successive Ministers to the five widows, the basis on which the doctors certificates were produced and the terms of those certificates. There must not be any more hidden agendas about this matter. These 200 women have been denied their proper rights to their spouses' pensions. This is supposed to be a Government of inclusion and it should see fit to give these voiceless women their rights. They are living in various parts of the country including Athlone, Mullingar, Cork and Limerick but they are not a cohesive group; there is not any representative body taking up their case in a coherent fashion.
Until I received a reply to my parliamentary question I was unaware that precedents had been set in February 1986, but if I had known I would have moved much sooner in regard to this matter. I admit successive Governments did not give full consideration to this case. We are told that money is flush now and if that is the case, these women deserve their proper rights.
The age limit for Army recruitment will now be reduced to 22 and if one is a day over the required year one cannot be recruited. The previous recruitment age limit was 27 but persons older than that could be admitted if they had FCA service. That provision has also been removed in the current recruitment campaign. I raised this matter on the Adjournment with the Minister, Deputy Barrett, and he gave me an undertaking that he would review the age limit for recruitment after Christmas. The age limit should be raised to 25. Who can say that a person is old at the age of 25? There are many young people with enormous potential who would greatly enhance the Army and add lustre to what is regarded as a fine career.
I pay tribute to the Army for the work it is doing and for its commitment and integrity. In light of the parliamentary replies I have received I appeal to the Minister of State to examine the precedent set and bring this case to Cabinet so that these 200 forgotten women can get their proper entitlements. I intend asking the Minister and the Minister of State in writing to make public the full disclosures in regard to the precedent set.
I want to refer to some points made by previous speakers. Deputy Lynch seems to have lost her sense of direction because she did not understand the reason people were engaging in scare mongering. She did not believe there was any reason for Army personnel to be concerned. Deputy Lynch must not be living in the real world, even though she lives in close proximity to Collins Barracks in Cork. I saw a wry smile on the Minister of State's face when Deputy Lynch made her contribution. It is now accepted that Fine Gael have three, not two, TDs in Cork North-Central; they must be very happy that Deputy Lynch joins their ranks on every occasion.
They would not be too happy about that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The numbers will rise further.
As Deputy O'Rourke said, she is a beaming light shining down on them and supporting them in everything they do.
It was a meek mannered Deputy Kemmy who contributed to the debate this evening. When he came into the Chamber I expected an explosive contribution but he appears to have had a conversion on the road from Limerick. He merely told us to have a healthy debate.
Fianna Fáil does not have a hidden agenda. Genuine fears are being experienced by Army personnel and that is evident from the difficulties in getting personnel to travel abroad. I have questioned Army personnel on this matter and they have told me about their fears for the future. They do not know where they are going and they do not trust the Government to look after them.
I do not understand the reason Deputy Kemmy said Fianna Fáil was in agreement with the Price Waterhouse report. That report called for the closure of 17 barracks and Fianna Fáil did not support that. On that question, the Minister said there will not be any closure of barracks during the lifetime of this Government. That is an important statement. I recall the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, when he was Minister for Defence, stating on "Morning Ireland" that barrack closures would take place but before the day was out there was a total reversal of that position.
I want to give an example of the reasons Army personnel are concerned about this matter. There are 180 personnel in Ballincollig Barracks in Cork to whom voluntary early retirement has been offered. What will happen if major redundancies occur in the Army? If the Minister is criticised for reducing personnel in a barracks by 50 or 60, he will simply say that the Army hierarchy are the people responsible. There is no long-term future for many of our Army barracks because of the course of action being pursued by the Minister.
Recruitment is now taking place on a five-year basis but at the end of that five years there is no guarantee of continued employment. Does the Minister expect me to believe that these young people will be happy that they have a career in the Army? They will be constantly wondering whether they will be kept on or let go when their five-year term is completed.
The age limit for recruitment is extremely important. The Minister of State will recall that last week this House discussed equality in employment. Age was put forward as being a major issue in terms of equality in employment. Is the Minister of State telling the House that a person of 25, 28 or 30 years of age cannot do as good a job in the Army as a 22 year old? On the one hand the Minister for Equality and Law Reform has introduced equality legislation while, on the other, his Cabinet colleagues are taking action that goes against that equality. That is ironic and totally incorrect.
An issue that is causing major concern is unpaid early retirement. Last August people were told there was no more money available and if they did not sign up by 1 September they could forget about it. People were railroaded into signing up for unpaid early retirement but in October money was suddenly found for approximately 50 more personnel. That money was paid to people who had not taken voluntary unpaid retirement but to people who refused it, many of whom were left without social welfare from 1 September to this day when I raised the matter here. The Minister will provide £1,500 now and another £1,500 at Christmas. It would be fairer to admit that incorrect information was given, to apologise for that and to redress the situation by ensuring that their voluntary early retirement payments will apply from 1 September, not from 1 January. They deserve no less. It would not cost much but it would create much goodwill among people who have served this country well.
My party and I are glad this issue is being debated in the House, and we support the motion. It is time we had a debate on defence policy or the lack of it. Any serving soldier of any rank in today's Army would tell the Minister that morale in the forces is at an all time low. Never, since the foundation of the State, has it been as low as it has been during the past year. There has to be a reason. There appears to be a total breakdown in communication between the Department and those serving in the forces at all levels. Because of that, and because changes are proposed one day and reneged on the next, there is gross uncertainty as to the future of any serving soldier. It is sad that any country should downgrade its Defence Forces in this way. Ireland has good reason to be proud of the manner in which her Defence Forces have served her at all times since the foundation of the State. They are getting a shabby return for their honourable service over the years.
There has been no serious thinking on defence policy since the Emergency during the Second World War at a time when Ireland faced a real and unpredictable external threat to her sovereignty and independence. Since then we have been content to let things happen and to muddle along. Our approach has lacked coherence. We have had a number of reports on the structure of our Defence Forces, the most recent being the Price Waterhouse report from which the efficiency audit group made its recommendations. However, as is characteristic under this Government, we are always one report away from action. We have policy documents on many other areas of public life — this Government has a genius for bringing forward lavishly produced documents setting out the national policy on foreign affairs, broadcasting, education, industry and a host of other areas. We have developed no policy on the future of the Army. That is not to the credit of the Government.
We are less than four years away from the turn of the century and we have no clearly defined defence policy to take our country into the changing circumstances of the new Millennium. This is inexcusable. It is grossly unfair to those currently serving in the Defence Forces. In addition, it does little to enhance the status of the Army as a career for many young persons who might deem it an honour to serve their country as a member of the Army or the Naval service. There is a tendency to treat serving soldiers as if we were still living in the middle of the 19th century. There is huge uncertainty, for example, about those serving in the Defence Forces under the new five-year contract. Some of these people have now served for two years and they are still unclear about the status of their current contracts and the criteria that will be used to determine which of them will be retained for promotion and those to be exited from the Army. That is no way to treat a workforce. One would not get away with it in any other area of the public service. It seems to be good enough for the Army, and that is a disgrace.
There is huge uncertainty also about the basis on which the soldiers are serving. People need to be told which barracks are to be closed and which are to be retained, irrespective of how close or far away the next election is. Soldiers are citizens like everybody else. They have families, mortgages to fund, mouths to feed, bills to pay. They have the same right as any other person in the public service to know where their career is taking them and where they will be in five years. It is a scandal that they have been denied that right. Surely they should be entitled to put forward their own case. They should have some say in negotiating conditions for themselves, but they have never been given a hearing. That also is a scandal. Like any other young citizen, young soldiers should be given some understanding of where their career is taking them and a say in the development of their career. That has been denied them.
I give my solid support to the passionate plea made by Deputy O'Rourke on behalf of Army widows. How we treated Army widows was a disgrace. I am constantly told by Government Deputies from my constituency that the country is awash with money. It is a fact that there is more money in the country now than there has been at any time since I became interested in politics, and that was a long time ago. There is money from Europe and buoyancy in the Exchequer. Are we waiting until these women die so that we can send a sympathy card? The numbers are small but their need is great, and it is an indictment of our priorities that proper provision is not made. It is not as if this has not been asked for; it has. I endorse what Deputy O'Rourke said — she has raised the matter on a number of occasions — if something cannot be done in the current climate of buoyancy in the Revenue, when will it be done? I make a strong appeal to the Minister of State, if he brings no other message, to bring this one to the Minister for Defence on behalf of the Army widows.
In preparing for this debate I did not read the Minister's speech in great detail. To get some insight into this area, because this is not a subject on which I often speak, I read a publication by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled, "Facts about Ireland". That booklet identified four key roles for our Defence Forces as follows:
To defend the State against internal aggression, to assist civil power, to participate in UN peacekeeping missions, [I wish to digress to pay tribute to our soldiers who have served and continue to serve abroad with courage and distinction with the UN forces], and to provide a fisheries protection and drug interdiction service as well as a variety of miscellaneous other duties.
It is strange that the booklet which deals with defence did not mention the concept of Irish neutrality. We cannot have a comprehensive view on the future of the Defence Forces until we have a rational debate as to where we stand in terms of neutrality and where Ireland proposes to position herself in the next century in a vastly changing Europe. We owe it to the great contribution our Defence Forces have made not alone to the domestic situation but to the cause of world peace to debate in this House the whole issue of neutrality and to do so now.
I am pleased to have three minutes in which to respond to some of the points I have listened to with great patience since coming into the Chamber. This is a rerun of a similar drum beaten by Fianna Fáil in recent months to which it did not get the required response. For political expediency and in order to engage in a scaremongering campaign it tabled the same motion for Private Members' time after the expiry of six months. We have been through all this before. How many times has the Minister for Defence to inform the House and the people of the importance of the Defence Forces review and the Government response thereto? It is galling to hear the Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil talk about Army widows in 1986 and in 1987. A selective thought process has been brought to an art by Fianna Fáil in recent times. Is Deputy O'Rourke serious in shedding crocodile tears about what happened in 1986-87? Where was she from 1988-94 when the question of Army widows was on the agenda?
That is not the point.
I am sorry Deputy O'Rourke, the Deputy has only one minute left.
The Deputy has conveniently forgotten and set aside the fact that she was a participant, at a senior level, in some of those Governments during the period about which there was not a word from Fianna Fáil about Army widows because it was not prepared——
Who was the Minister who made the appointments?
One Deputy speaking at a time please.
Who was the Minister in 1986 who set the precedent?
Let us have no interruption
The Deputy does not remember who was Minister in 1986.
The Minister for Defence in 1986 was one of the best Ministers for Defence this country has ever had and Deputy O'Rourke is aware of his performance.
I thank the Deputy for confirming it.
I will be neither shouted nor shot down by Fianna Fáil when it comes to the political point scoring we have heard here on the selective thought process from Fianna Fáil.
That is very good.
How many times must the Minister, Deputy Barrett, make statements, issue press releases and answer at Question Time that there will not be barrack closures? It does not suit Fianna Fáil to believe this.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Power.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
Having listened to contributions from Deputies on the other side, they are engaging in what would be known as argumentum ad hominum. They cannot discuss the subject matter so they attack the individual. Each Deputy has commenced with a typical Pavlovian response: Fianna Fáil is doing this or that.
That is because the motion is so rigid.
I am surprised at Deputy Flanagan carrying on in that fashion because usually he speaks to the subject matter. During the past 15 years I have had the honour of representing the constituency of Cork East. The naval base in Cobh is four or five miles from my home. After assuming office in the 1980s Fianna Fáil invested heavily in the Naval Service because we recognised the need to upgrade it. That investment continued for a number of years. It has become clear in the past number of years that there is a great need for further investment in the Navy in two areas, first, by recruiting new members because the number has fallen from 1,300 to 1,000. Hardly a day passes when I do not have inquiries from the Cobh area concerning recruitment to the Navy. I realise there will be some recruitment in the next week or two but there has been no significant recruitment in the past two years. It will be necessary to have a large intake to the Navy in the next year. Second, there must be investment in new boats and ships. Of the fleet of seven ships which are ageing the number at base at any time is way above the percentage that should be there. An inordinate amount of repairs and maintenance must be carried out on these ships and there is a need for investment in equipment which is not often in dry dock.
The need for investment is greater than ever because the role of the Navy has changed significantly over the years. It is involved in greater fishery protection needs, drugs and arms interception, search and rescue, pollution control, monitoring of the coastline and of the seas in the European Union zone which makes up 16 per cent of the EU area. Will the Minister say if EU funds for the purchase of ships for the Naval service will not be made available because the EU Commission consider the manpower is incapable of running the fleet of seven ships? I am pleased to note the Minister will respond, perhaps by letter, later. It is time a decision was taken to fill the manpower requirement in the Navy and that funds were available to provide proper ships so that the Navy can perform the duties entrusted to it. Another reason for a full complement is that sailors could take time off to be at home with their families. I am aware of sailors, out at sea for weeks on end, who cannot take their leave because of the shortage of numbers and this is causing problems in families. I ask the Minister and the Department of Defence to take note of this.
Other colleagues have expressed concerns regarding the rumours about barracks closures. It is all very well to say there will not be any closures; people believe within their souls there will be closures.
They do not believe them.
People in Fermoy, for example, realise that the number of personnel will continue to shrink due to those taking voluntary early retirement and in a few years' time it will not be economic to keep the barracks open. It is closure by stealth.
When? Next year?
If the Government gets its three or four year budget system into operation it will commit Governments three years in advance. However, that will not happen because it will be out of office by then.
The Deputy is shifting his ground now.
How a Government treats its workers — in this case, the Naval Service, Air Corps and Army and the widows of former members — shows its soul. Their treatment so far by this Government indicates it has no soul.
I am honoured to table this motion on the Defence Forces. I say to those Members who criticised us for tabling it that it shows the importance we place on the Defence Forces and the required reforms. Reform of the Defence Forces was never going to be an easy task but one which was going to require a number of tough decisions.
Anyone expecting a coherent policy from the Government did not have to wait too long to be disappointed. The former Minister, Deputy Coveney, in one of his first interviews said on radio there would be barracks closures. Following a public outcry, he changed his mind within 24 hours and said that no barracks would close during the life time of this Government. That episode, more than anything else, highlighted the lack of an overall strategic plan for our Defence Forces. So much for long-term thinking.
The EAG accepted the analysis of consultants Price Waterhouse that the permanent Defence Forces age profile was too high, that there was an inappropriate top management structure, that the operational effectiveness was impaired by too many small units which are too geographically dispersed, and that there were too many military personnel engaged in duties which could be undertaken by civilians. To address this the EAG made a number of recommendations. These included a policy of continuous recruitment, a severance scheme and the employment of additional civilians to undertake non-military tasks.
In relation to recruitment, the Government has decided that 200 recruits will be enlisted on 13 December this year. If memory serves me correctly, that recruitment drive was announced five or six times by the Minister so he had to deliver at some stage. While I am disappointed at the small number, it is a step in the right direction. Last night, the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, promised 1,000 new entrants into the Permanent Defence Forces during the first three years of the plan. I hope this happens. Since it took so long to recruit 200 I doubt if that promise will be fulfilled.
The Minister has on a number of occasions expressed his satisfaction at the success of the VER scheme and the huge interest shown in it by members. While I can understand the Minister's satisfaction at achieving the target, I am not so sure I agree with him on why it was so successful. I meet Army personnel every day and there are many and varied reasons why people applied for the VER. The lucky ones had job offers, more had become disillusioned with the job and some felt they had no option but to apply for the scheme.
While the Minister said last night that no pressure was put on anyone to apply for the scheme, the truth is there was considerable confusion over the issue. That point was expressed by many delegates at the recent PDFORRA conference in Waterford. The category "C" personnel felt they had no option, given that the EAG report stated the operational effectiveness of the Defence Forces was impaired because there were too many medically unfit personnel. Those people saw the writing on the wall which is why so many of them applied for the scheme.
One of the major criticisms in the Price Waterhouse report was that too many personnel were engaged in housekeeping duties. It proposed that civilians should be taken on to do those tasks. The objective was to have a defence force which was properly structured, well equipped and capable of meeting its roles in the most efficient and effective way. In other words, Price Waterhouse said too many members were carrying out duties more suited to civilians and that civilians should be employed to do those jobs. That would ensure more members were available for operational duties, which sounds like a very sensible and logical conclusion.
The Government's action on the EAG's recommendations is obviously not having the desired effect. There are now fewer people in our Defence Forces and they are being asked to carry out more functions than ever before. Fewer members are available for operational duties, yet the Minister tells us it is the Government's objective to have a leaner, fitter organisation with an enhanced operational capability. If that is what the Government wants it will have to change its policy.
There is a serious imbalance between expenditure on pay and that on infrastructure and equipment. There is no commitment from the Government to reinvest the savings resulting from the VER in equipment and infrastructure. This is vital if we are serious about reforming and reorganising our Defence Forces. The indication so far is that this Government has no intention of carrying out the necessary reforms. It has simply become a cost cutting exercise.
There has been a great deal of hot air and criticism of our tabling this motion. However, if we were honest we would admit that the most contentious decision which will arise from the reform of our Defence Forces will relate to the closure of barracks. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to keep repeating there will be no closures during the first three years of the plan. The Minister knows it is not possible to have Defence Forces with an enhanced operational capability under the present system. We are talking about the long-term future of our Defence Forces and it is important to honestly admit that to them.
Speakers have been very critical of Fianna Fáil tonight. However, the Minister's record is not one of which he can be proud. When the first lot of recruits were given five-year contracts the Minister referred to them as the yellow pack brigade. He has now brought in a similar operation in which soldiers are being recruited under the same conditions. We all now accept that is not a proper way to conduct business and it will have to be changed.
We were very critical on this side of the House of the lack of consultation between the Minister and the representative associations. He criticised us at that stage for scaremongering and said it was not the truth. The truth is that it was only when the representative associations sought the resignation of the Minister that he realised how serious the problem was within the Defence Forces. He then decided to take action and instead of talking to the associations he began to listen to them. I am delighted that change has taken place.
The FCA, which has given tremendous service, celebrated its fiftieth anniversary this year. There was no recognition from the Department of the role played by the FCA or the contribution it has made. The Army apprentice school in Naas, which has done tremendous work, celebrated its fortieth anniversary this year. It was a big occasion but the Minister or the Minister of State did not attend that celebration. They have shown a distinct lack of interest in the Defence Forces and it is little wonder morale is so low.
The Minister is presiding over a crisis in the Defence Forces and the irony is that he is not aware of this. Morale has never been so low and there is great uncertainty about the future. Members of the Defence Forces and their families are very concerned about this issue. They have made an enormous contribution but unfortunately it has not been fully appreciated by the Government. Real reform of the Defence Forces will not take place until the Government is replaced.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Fitzgerald and J. Higgins; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.