Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001

Vol. 2 No. 9

Estimates for Public Services, 2001.

Vote 36 - Department of Defence (Revised).

Vote 37 - Army Pensions

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, and his officials. The committee is considering the Defence Estimates for 2001. A briefing note has been circulated to members. Does the Minister wish to make some opening remarks?

Before the Minister starts, I wish to point out that this is the first Defence Estimate with which I have been involved as Fine Gael spokesperson on defence. I do not wish to start off on a note of contention but the manner in which this meeting has been called and dealt with - this does not relate to the staff of the committee - is singularly inappropriate. It was mid-afternoon yesterday when members received details of the Estimate we are to discuss today. That is treating the committee with contempt, as if it was a rubber stamp. It is reasonable, given the number of staff in the Minister's Department, that the members of this committee should be given at least a few days notice of the details of the Estimate. It is not acceptable that we are treated in this manner. This is a multi-million pound Estimate and we are entitled to have reasonable time to consider the detail of it and get whatever advice or briefings we regard as necessary. In future, regardless of whether I or the Minister is in this position, according to how matters change in the next two or three years, I hope these matters will be dealt with in a different way and that a committee of the House will not be treated in this way. It was originally indicated to me that we would receive a draft of the Minister's speech before this meeting in order that we might have some insight into the detail behind the Estimate. Other members and I have only just received a copy of his speech. I am asking you, Chairman, to give some indication as to how you believe this matter should, in future, be dealt with. I hope what we experienced today is not normal. If it is, it should be changed.

This is the first Defence Estimate to come before us and likely to be the last during the lifetime of this Dáil. I am sure the Minister will address the matter referred to by the Deputy.

I understand the information relating to the Estimates was passed on to the House last Thursday or Friday. It would be quite unique for a ministerial speech to handed around some days in advance. I know of no circumstances in the Dáil in which that happens.

I am pleased to put before the committee today for its consideration the Defence and Army Pensions Estimates for 2001. The combined Estimates come to a total of £701 million which represents a significant amount of Exchequer funds.

The White Paper on Defence published early last year sets out the Government's medium-term strategy on defence covering the period up to 2010 based on the evolving national and international defence and security environment. A key objective of the White Paper was to provide significant additional resources for new equipment and infrastructure and put in place cohesive and well equipped defence forces. To that end, the Government approved the reallocation for investment in equipment and infrastructure of 100% of the pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces together with 100% of the net proceeds from the sale of barracks and other properties. On foot of that decision, we have put in place a programme of investment in equipment and infrastructure unprecedented in terms of its size and scope. For the period up to 2010, expenditure on the programme will be in the region of £300 million. This is on top of the normal level of expenditure on equipment and infrastructural projects.

The strategic focus of the investment programme has two broad aims, first, to ensure the Defence Forces are provided with first class accommodation and facilities and, second, they have available the best possible equipment to enable them to carry out the roles laid down by Government. In that regard it is necessary to prioritise and reconcile the requirements of the Army, the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Reserve Defence Forces within the total resources available. A very important feature of the secure funding framework now in place is that it facilitates a multi-annual budgetary strategy vital to achieving value for money.

I would now like to give the committee details of the main equipment projects in the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service. In the case of the Army, the major procurement project is the contract for the supply of 40 new armoured personnel carriers at a cost of £40 million. The first six of these vehicles arrived in the country yesterday and all 40 will be delivered by January next year. There has been considerable investment in recent years in new vehicles for the Army with over £6 million spent on specialist transport cargo vehicles which are currently deployed in KFOR and in troop carrying vehicles such as 4 X 4s and three tonne trucks. Over £l0 million has been spent on new tactical VHF radios. A further investment programme for the Army estimated at £25 million over the next three years is under way. It includes the purchase of light infantry tactical vehicles; anti-armour weapons; night vision, engineering and field medical equipment. A pistol replacement programme has commenced.

Air Corps capabilities will be augmented through a special £55 million investment programme over the next three years. Special priority is being given to the procurement of new medium lift helicopters. This major investment programme involves the acquisition of two medium lift helicopters, with an option for a third, for search and rescue purposes as well as an option for two medium lift helicopters for general purpose military transport. The tender competition for the helicopters is progressing well. Four companies, Sikorsky from the USA, EH Industries Limited from England, Eurocopter from France and CHC Scotia from Scotland, submitted proposals by the closing date for tenders of 19 April. A comprehensive evaluation is in progress on the proposed helicopters. The evaluation will, of necessity, take some time to complete but we expect to place a contract in the autumn. Another priority equipment requirement for the Air Corps is new fixed wing training aircraft. Proposals are awaited from the military authorities in relation to this and, as soon as they are to hand, I will arrange for my Department to progress the matter as one of urgency.

The Naval Service vessel replacement programme has commenced with the delivery very shortly of the second new state-of-the-art offshore patrol vessel similar to the LE Roisin at a cost of about £20 million. This ship is to be named LE Niamh. A difficulty has arisen in relation to a gearbox for this vessel. This is a contractual matter between the ship builder and the supplier and I understand they are hopeful the vessel will be handed over to my Department next month, well in advance of the original delivery date of September 2001.

Turning to expenditure on building works, the position is that a special reinvestment programme was initiated in 1999 to complement expenditure on the normal range of building and engineering works for the purpose of providing modern living, operational and training accommodation for the Defence Forces. This special programme is mainly centred on the Curragh Camp and Collins Barracks, Cork. The projects already completed or to be completed later this year include the following: Curragh Camp - new swimming pool and gymnasium at a cost of £6 million; ordnance and clothing stores at a cost of £2 million; non-commissioned officers mess at a cost of £2 million; new accommodation at a cost of £3.8 million; new transport technical stores at a cost of £1.8 million; Collins Barracks, Cork - new gymnasium at a cost of £2 million; new dining hall at a cost of £1.7 million; new NCOs mess at a cost of £1.4 million; new stores at a cost of £2.6 million. Major building projects at the Curragh Camp due to be completed next year include a combat support college at a cost of over £5 million, a dining complex and NCOs mess at a cost of £600,000; an ordnance-transport school at a cost of £2.6 million.

From 1999 to 2003 more than £100 million will have been spent on new buildings and upgrading existing buildings throughout the Defence Forces. Expenditure this year will be over £42 million.

The main source of funding for the building programme now in progress is the proceeds arising from the sale of surplus properties. The sale of six barracks identified as surplus to military requirements is being progressed. The barracks in question are located at Fermoy, Ballincollig, Naas, Kildare, Castleblayney and Clancy Barracks, Dublin. The sale of Fitzgerald Camp, Fermoy, to Cork County Council for economic development of the site in conjunction with the IDA has been agreed. The agreed price is £767,000 and the formalities of the sale will be completed in the very near future. The lands will be developed and marketed as a strategic industrial site to attract inward investment.

The former Devoy Barracks, Naas, County Kildare, comprise an area of approximately 22 acres. I agreed to cede seven acres free of charge to Naas Urban District Council and sell one acre to Kildare County Council for £300,000, all for local community purposes. I have also agreed to sell the remaining 14 acres or thereabouts, which are zoned for housing, to Naas UDC for £7 million. The legal formalities to give effect to these agreements are progressing. In relation to Castleblayney, the sale of the property to the North-Eastern Health Board for £600,000 has been agreed and it is anticipated that sale contracts will be signed in the near future. Pending completion of the legal and financial formalities, a caretaker's agreement was completed and the former barracks handed over to the health board last year on foot of it.

A comprehensive Integrated action area plan was commissioned from independent consultants to provide for the future development of the largest of the barracks concerned - Murphy Barracks, Ballincollig, which comprises an area of 138 acres. The plan provides for a wide range of community, amenity, residential and commercial uses for the property. The development of the Murphy Barracks lands will be critical in the future overall development of the town of Ballincollig. My Department submitted the integrated plan to Cork County Council in April last year for consideration in the context of a variation to the existing Cork County development plan. Discussions are ongoing between the council and my Department to determine the best way forward to realise the potential of the integrated plan, while taking account of the aspirations of all parties. It is hoped to bring the matter to a conclusion at an early date.

Magee Barracks, Kildare, is now providing accommodation for asylum seekers. I have also agreed to provide about one acre to the local authority for a temporary halting site for 20 persons for a period of one year. In view of these needs, it has not been possible to arrange for the disposal of the property. However, the matter is being kept under review. Clancy Barracks, Dublin, which comprises 13.65 acres, will be vacated in the near future when alternative accommodation becomes available. Following a tender competition, Hamilton Osborne King was appointed as selling agent. The property has been offered for sale by public tender, the latest date for the receipt of tenders being next Thursday, 14 June.

The foregoing property agreements have also been reached in the sale of 1.07 acres at Arbour Hill to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for £2.5 million, 6.39 acres adjoining Collins Barracks, Cork, to Cork Corporation for £1.2 million, 3.0192 acres at Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick, to Limerick Corporation for £915,000, 1.559 acres at Waterford Barracks to Waterford Corporation for £550,000, 20 acres of the Curragh lands to Kildare County Council for £215,000 to assist with the construction of the Kildare by-pass and 100 married quarters at Orchard Park, Curragh, County Kildare to residents, which will realise approximately £3 million. The prices for the foregoing properties were agreed on the basis of valuations provided by the Valuation Office.

Recently, I announced the sale of some land at Gormanston Camp, County Meath. The precise area to be put on the market will be determined shortly, though the military camp of 57 acres will not be disposed of. Casement Aerodrome is the principal base of the Air Corps and with the withdrawal of aircraft from Gormanston and the relocation of Air Corps Headquarters to Baldonnel, the Air Corps has the basis for better management of its resources. In all, I expect that over £100 million will be realised from the sale of surplus properties over the next couple of years and all of these revenues will be fully reinvested in the Defence Forces.

The White Paper provides for an organisation of 10,500 personnel in the Permanent Defence Force with the option of up to 250 recruits in training at any one time. The Chief of Staff is currently preparing a plan to restructure the PDF in accordance with the Government's decision on overall numbers. My intention is to have the plan finalised and put in place by the end of this year. Arising from the special study on the Air Corps undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCooper and reflecting the policy parameters laid down in the White Paper, Air Corps management has submitted a draft implementation plan to me and I have approved in principle the proposed new Air Corps organisation. This will be put in place following the completion of consultations with the representative associations which are at an advanced stage. The Naval Service has also prepared a detailed implementation plan which I have approved. Implementation is proceeding, including the putting in place of the new organisation provided for in the plan.

The White Paper recognises the importance of the career dimension and provides for the preparation of an updated and very comprehensive Defence Forces integrated personnel management plan to address this and related issues. The Chief of Staff is currently drafting that plan and the process is well advanced. A key feature of the plan will be a continuation of the policy of regular recruitment which is now in place in order to achieve an improved age profile in the Permanent Defence Force. The overall strategy for the development of the reserve Defence Force will be based on the report of the special steering group which reported in 1999. I am pleased that the various recommendations contained in the report have been broadly accepted as providing a general foundation on which the future development of the reserve can be built. Given the dependence of the reserve on voluntary service, I was anxious there be an ongoing process of consultation before proposals are finalised. To facilitate this I published the report of the steering group last year and launched a consultative process to seek the view of members of the reserve in advance of the drawing up of an implementation plan. The implementation of the new structural and organisational changes for the reserve will take about six years to complete.

Over recent months the Defence Forces and Civil Defence volunteers have played an important role in the national effort to combat the threat of foot and mouth disease. Members of the Defence Forces have been assisting civil authorities by operating additional checkpoints along the Border with the Garda Síochána and at Dublin Port. To date the Defence Forces have spent a total of 14,000 man days on the operation. Civil Defence volunteers provided assistance at many centres throughout the country, especially in Dublin and Louth. I avail of this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation for the very valuable contribution of the Defence Forces and of Civil Defence to this vitally important task.

There are at present over 800 members of the Defence Forces serving overseas under the auspices of the United Nations, the EU and the OSCE. Once again I wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution to peacekeeping made by our Defence Forces over several decades. This is an historic year as it marks the closing of a very distinguished and successful chapter in Ireland's record of UN service. I refer, of course, to the fact that the 89th Infantry Battalion now serving in South Lebanon will be the final battalion of the Defence Forces to serve with UNIFIL. Over a period of more than 20 years the Defence Forces have upheld the UN mandate in Lebanon and made a huge contribution to the success of that mission. It is appropriate at this time that we should remember the high price that has been paid by personnel of the Defence Forces on active service with the UN. Eighty two members of the Defence Forces have lost their lives while on overseas service, including 44 personnel on duty in Lebanon. The UNIFIL mission has been a particularly difficult one but, thankfully, the security situation there has greatly improved over the past 12 months or so. Two of the three objectives of the UNIFIL mission have now been achieved. The withdrawal of the Israeli Forces has been confirmed and the Lebanese authorities have been helped to return to the area vacated by the Israelis. The focus of UNIFIL is now on the remaining part of the mandate, which is to restore international peace and security and to prevent any further violence. An observer mission will most likely carry out these duties, and I am sure that, while the battalion now in Lebanon is the last Irish battalion to serve there, members of the Defence Forces will continue to be involved in the UN mission to resolve outstanding issues.

The Government is fully committed to continue contributing actively to UN peacekeeping. Our future contribution will take into account the changing and more complex nature of peacekeeping involving additional tasks such as humanitarian assistance, the protection of human rights and civilian police work. I understand that representatives of the Select Committee are making time available to visit the battalion in South Lebanon on a fact finding mission in the near future and I very much welcome the initiative. I have no doubt committee members will find the visit very informative and will be impressed to see our troops carrying out their tasks in an operational deployment. As agreed, we will have a discussion at a later date on wider international security issues and I will make a further statement to the Select Committee at that time.

Before I conclude on the Estimates, I would like to up-date the Select Committee in regard to compensation claims for hearing loss. By 31 May 2001 a total of 15,746 claims had been received in my Department from current and former members of the Defence Forces in respect of loss of hearing allegedly caused during their military service. Of these, 8,378 claims have been disposed of through out-of-court settlements while 253 claims were the subject of court awards. A further 391 claims were either withdrawn by plaintiffs or dismissed by the courts. That leaves a total of 6,724 claims outstanding at the end of last month. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the leading Army hearing loss case of Hanley, which was delivered in December 1999, my Department, in conjunction with the Chief State Solicitor's Office and in consultation with the Law Society of Ireland, established an early settlement scheme for dealing with the outstanding claims. The scheme operated successfully on a pilot basis during the year 2000 and almost 1,100 claims were settled by way of direct negotiations among solicitors representing plaintiffs, officials of the Chief State Solicitor's Office and my Department.

Given the success of the pilot scheme, it was decided to expand the early settlement scheme in January of this year by appointing five firms of liability loss adjusters to augment the resources of the Chief State Solicitor's Office in conducting settlement negotiations. The scheme has continued to operate successfully and the current position is that by 31 May 2001 a further 1,090 claims had been resolved while settlements have been agreed with plaintiffs' solicitors in a further 217 cases. In addition, negotiations are ongoing or due to commence in a further 1,000 claims. It is the policy of my Department to resolve the vast majority of outstanding claims under the early settlement scheme. In response to an application by the State in the High Court on 25 April 2001 for an adjournment of cases, Mr. Justice Johnson listed cases for two weeks in May and for four weeks commencing this week. Thereafter there will be an adjournment until the term finishes at the end of July. This will allow officials of my Department, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the loss adjusters to put all their energies into the early settlement scheme. I am hopeful that with the co-operation of plaintiffs' solicitors serious inroads can be made into resolving the outstanding claims as quickly as possible. To date a total of £154 million has been paid in respect of hearing loss claims, including almost £48 million in plaintiff's legal costs. The average settlement figure has decreased from a high of £35,000 in 1994 to a current level of about £7,500. When plaintiffs' legal costs are included, the cost of settling the outstanding claims is estimated at about £80 million, however I should say that new claims continue to be received at an average rate of 14 per week.

Details in regard to individual subheads of both the Defence and Army pensions Estimates have been circulated to the Select Committee. Accordingly, I do not propose to comment any further on individual subheads at this stage. I will, of course, be pleased to try answering any queries and assist the Select Committee in every possible way.

Thank you very much Minister. I was remiss in not welcoming a new member of staff to the Select Committee. He is Mr. Pat Neary and I hope, as I am sure we all do, that he will have success in his post.

I welcome the Minister to the Estimates meeting and I also welcome Pat as a staff member of the Select Committee.

I want to deal with issues raised by the Minister and in particular with one issue astonishingly not raised by him. The Minister in his response can clarify why he has in his possession the incorrect information that, as of lunch time yesterday, Mairead McCabe, Clerk to this Select Committee, did not have the briefing document on the Estimate. That document was received by me yesterday afternoon, when I presume it was also seen by other members. I do not wish to delay proceedings unduly on this because I have already made a complaint about it. If the Minister was told the documentation was furnished by Thursday of last week he has been wrongly advised. I ask him to ensure in future that the Select Committee has some days' notice in advance on the detail of the Estimate. I accept the Minister's point that it is not usual for a ministerial speech to be distributed some days in advance and the only reason I raise the matter is that when this Estimates meeting was arranged last week it was indicated to me that there was an additional draft speech or explanation of the Estimates to be provided. That may have been a misunderstanding between committee staff and his Department. At the very least, the main detail of the Estimates should have been received by this committee and its members before the weekend.

I want to begin by joining with the Minister in paying tribute to the tremendous work done by the Defence Forces overseas, particularly the group on our last mission in the Middle East. They will be returning from the duties they have undertaken, most recently on the border between Israel and Lebanon, later this year. They have made a very important contribution to peacekeeping and it is right that the Select Committee should pay tribute to them. Reasons for this committee's decision to visit them were to learn at first hand of the work they have done and to be in a position, as the Defence committee of this House, to express our gratitude to the members of the Defence Forces on duty there. It is also right that we acknowledge the work undertaken by members of the Army in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis and the very long hours worked by them over its entire lease. They dealt very well with members of the public and co-operated with the Garda in the duties in which they were engaged in. Without the work of the Army we would not have been successful in preventing a major outbreak of the disease.

There are a number of issues I wish to raise. One was raised by Deputy Timmins in a Parliamentary Question on the efficiency of the Department and the way it treats our Defence Forces. It was entirely unacceptable that the 2% wage increase under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was paid on time to staff at the Department of Defence but a month late to the Defence Forces. That indicates something is wrong with our priorities and the Defence Forces should not have been treated in that way. It was only when the question tabled by Fine Gael was dealt with on 15 May that any public comment was made by the Minister acknowledging the failure to make the payment on time and indicating when payment with arrears would be made up. On the assumption that we will have similar wage agreements that apply in both the public and private sector in future, it behoves the Minister and the Department to ensure that a similar incident does not occur again. It sends out the wrong message to the Defence Forces as to the esteem in which we hold them and the value we attach to the work they do. It should not have happened in the past and it should not be repeated.

The White Paper envisaged a reduction in the number of Defence Forces personnel and that has essentially been achieved with many members leaving the Defence Forces over the period since it was published. There has not been a similar 10% decrease in the level of staffing in the Department of Defence, as was also envisaged in the White Paper. In being cost effective we cannot selectively reduce the number of members of the Defence Forces while maintaining departmental levels beyond that envisaged by the White Paper.

I find it extraordinary that at this Estimates meeting, which is four days since the outcome of the referendum on the Nice treaty, the Minister did not see fit to make any mention of whether the majority "No" vote in any way impacts on matters relating to the Defence Forces' plans being made for involvement in the rapid reaction force. I know the phrase "rapid reaction force" is not one the Minister likes but it is a brief way of referring to the role our Defence Forces are expected to play in implementing the Petersberg Tasks on an EU co-operative basis with regard to peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions. The referendum on the treaty was fought by those seeking a "No" vote and they have succeeded in obtaining it on the basis that our involvement in the Rapid Reaction Force in some way challenged our neutrality and might create a difficulty for this State in the future. During the course of the referendum debate Ministers were more noticeable by their absence and lack of contribution to public debate than by their real involvement in it.

This meeting on the Estimate gave the Minister an early opportunity to clearly set out Government policy over the next 12 months on involvement with our EU partners in the context of our Defence Forces. He could also have set out whether there is to be any deviation from previous plans, if there is any truth in the suggestion that the "No" vote means that we will cease to be part of the rapid reaction force and if we will cease to co-operate at EU level with other member states on the Petersberg Tasks. Does it mean that we will move away from involvement in those tasks?

The Minister's failure to address that issue is a stark exposure of the total failure of the Government to coherently and comprehensively explain to the people what was involved in the referendum on the treaty. His silence on the issue today is eloquent testimony to the confusion within Government, deriving from the "No" vote. It testifies to the division within it whereby Ministers are falling over themselves to announce to the electorate the reservations they always had about the treaty. We know about the ex post facto public confirmation of a "No" vote from the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

I will stop the Deputy there. A debate on the issue is taking place in the Dáil for two hours, from 6.30 p.m.

There is, but this is relevant.

This is the Defence Estimate.

It is relevant to our defence policy. I am entitled to briefly address this issue.

The Minister of State has been exonerated, by the Taoiseach, for the allegedly important campaign he ran looking for a "Yes" vote while he was secretly going to vote "No". He spoke at a public meeting in Galway, which was addressed by a Green Party Member of this House, and was so eloquent in favour of a "Yes" vote that when he sat down not one person had the remotest idea whether his speech was on the "No" side or not. The chairman of the meeting queried the Minister of State as to which side he was on.

Deputy Shatter, please, that is unfair. Deputy Ó Cuív is not here to defend himself.

I am not interested in whether he is or not.

This is not the time for this.

I expected that at the Estimates meeting for the Department of Defence the Minister for Defence would have clarified where we now stand, and where the Army stands, with regard to co-operative involvement with other EU armies on the Petersberg Tasks.

On a point of order, before I came here this afternoon I was informed that the Select Committee had decided European security and defence would be discussed at another time when I would have an opportunity to deal with it. Were it not for that I had intended dealing comprehensively with that issue today.

Your point is very well taken.

It was my understanding that at the end of the Estimates meeting, and after the Order of Business, the Minister wished the opportunity to deliver a short statement to the Select Committee within a time frame which would ensure no member could respond. That was not acceptable but it did not stop the Minister addressing the issue in the Estimates debate.

That is absolutely false and is deliberately so.

I have to address that issue because it is not the understanding that was agreed. We had hoped there would be an opportunity for a full discussion on the European dimension but, quite obviously, there was not. We have decided to move it to another day. There was no intention to try to compress it into a period of time that was not acceptable to all members.

I take the view that it was an issue the Minister could have addressed in his Estimates speech. He failed to do so.

The Minister made reference to the contract to supply 40 new armoured personnel carriers and stated that the first six arrived yesterday. It is expected that 40 will be delivered by January of next year. I want the Minister to inform us if any special training will be required for their use. There was a suggestion that the Minister intended to order an additional 40 APCs and I would like him to state if that is the case.

Deputy Shatter, would you mind if we allowed Deputy Wall to have an opening statement. The items you mention we can reach as we go through the various subheads of the Defence Estimates.

These are merely issues the Minister referred to in his speech. I am just commenting on them.

The Minister made reference to Air Corps capabilities and to special priority being given to the procurement of new medium lift helicopters. There has been a substantial delay in the acquisition of the required helicopters and our search and rescue capability, particularly in the Waterford area, is inadequate to meet an emergency should one arise. I put it to the Minister that he has been slow to address this area which needs to be given far greater priority. There are only two training aircraft available to the Air Corps and pilots have to queue up for the opportunity to train. The position is totally unacceptable. I want the Minister to explain what he is doing to address this issue and say when we are going to have new training aircraft for the Air Corps.

In his speech the Minister also referred to the provision made by him to cede seven acres of land, free of charge, to Naas Urban District Council for residential purposes. He went on to refer to the sale of lands at Clancy Barracks in Dublin. There is currently a housing crisis in the city which has been worsening progressively on a month by month basis since this Government took office. I do not disagree with the decision made by the Minister but why, if he deemed it appropriate to cede seven acres free to Naas Urban District Council, did he not deem it appropriate to cede some portion of the lands at Clancy Barracks to allow Dublin Corporation to carry out an urgent construction project? Why was it appropriate to cede land at Naas but not at Dublin? Based on the current Government building programme, it would take ten years to address the crisis in Dublin, and that if not a single extra applicant is put on the housing lists in that time, which we all know is not likely to happen.

The Minister made reference to the sale of lands at Gormanston Camp, County Meath, which he announced recently. I have difficulty understanding what he proposes for the camp in the future. He tells us that the precise area to be put on the market will be determined shortly, however the military camp of 57 acres will not be disposed of. Presumably, the Minister proposes that the Air Corps transfers entirely out of Gormanston. To date, he has failed to put on the record what additional facilities are going to be provided to it as a result. I ask him to clarify precisely what he proposes is to be done with the camp in the future and describe what plans exist. I ask him to tell us whether there is some dispute within Government with regard to Gormanston.

I have already paid tribute to members of the Defence Forces for the work they have done, particularly to the UNIFIL contingent. I want the Minister to state if there is a new or alternative mission our Defence Forces are going to involve themselves in and for which plans are being laid. I thought he would have done so today. Perhaps he could say if it is proposed to provide a new mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia and if discussions have taken place in that context. Is it proposed to provide troops for a new mission over the course of the period covered by this Estimate or early next year?

Last year my colleague, Deputy Timmins, raised the accident at Tramore, which has also been raised in parliamentary questions in the Dáil, and the actions needed to ensure matters arising from the investigation are fully and properly addressed. It is now almost two years since the accident and I want the Minister to make known what action has been taken to avoid a similar tragedy in the future and to ensure that we are sufficiently organised to address the consequences of such a tragedy should one occur again.

Reference was also made to the Army deafness claims. I have concerns about the scheme regarding the cases and the slow pace at which matters are being resolved. The Minister made reference to the fact that the courts recently provided for further hearings. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but these proceedings were adjourned for a period to see if general settlements could be entered into. That would avoid further court cases at the High Court, the vast majority of which end up being settled outside the door of the court and mean the taxpayer incurs unnecessary legal costs in fees for counsel. I want the Minister to give further clarification on that issue.

The final issue I will raise at this stage - I will come back to other matters during the discussion on the Estimate - is the fact that no mention was made by the Minister of an ombudsman for the Defence Forces. This is something that has been proposed for a considerable period. There does not appear to be a provision for this in the Minister's Estimates. I am aware discussions are taking place to seek agreement on the provision of an ombudsman for the Defence Forces. I want the Minister to tell us whether he envisages an ombudsman will be put in place during the period to which these Estimates apply.

A Dáil question was put to the Minister concerning the manner in which he was treating the representative association of commissioned officers and the fact that since the last annual delegate conference of that group, the Minister has taken umbrage and refused to meet directly with them to discuss matters they regard as of general concern to the Defence Forces and to seek to resolve difficulties that arise in relation to the Defence Forces. Has the Minister arranged to meet RACO, as he promised to do in the Dáil some weeks ago, should it furnish him with an agenda for a meeting to take place? Has he received an agenda, has he arranged to meet the commissioned officers and have whatever difficulties that arose in his relationship with them now been resolved to the extent that a meeting either has taken place or is being scheduled to take place within the next two to three weeks?

Thank you, Deputy. I welcome Deputy Wall to the committee on behalf of the Labour Party.

I thank you, Chairman, for accepting me as the nominee for Deputy Howlin. I welcome the Minister and his officials. While they are here, I would like to thank the officials for all their assistance over the years. It is not too often they appear across the table from us and I suppose we should express our appreciation when we see them. Also, along with previous speakers, I welcome Pat Neary. We all knew Pat in a different light and it is great to see he has moved on. I am sure he will be as courteous and kind to this committee as he was in his other position.

In relation to the Department of Defence, the White Paper was produced last year and all the relevant sections of the Department would welcome that as a discussion document for ongoing debate. I welcome the White Paper and I am aware that the representative associations, and the ordinary members of the Defence Forces, see it as a marker from which the Defence Forces can go forward in a positive way to carry out the work of the Department of Defence.

On the rapid reaction force, I take the Minister's point that if that matter is to be discussed by the committee at a later stage we need not refer to it today but he might refer in this debate to the current position in that regard. It is important that spokespersons on Defence know the position and the progress that has been made in that area.

As a Deputy for south Kildare and for Kildare in general, there is good news in the report on the progress that has been made in the Curragh, and it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that. I recently visited the Curragh with the Minister and saw at first hand the work being done there. As someone who has been familiar with that area for a long time, I can see there is a major emphasis on improving the Curragh to have it as a central base for the Department of Defence. That is to be welcomed. The proposed new buildings will benefit the members of the Defence Forces in that they will have proper facilities. That will improve the morale in the Defence Forces which I claimed on numerous occasions in Dáil debates was at a low ebb. That building work represents progress and the members of the Defence Forces can at last see we are moving forward.

I want to refer to the national school on the Curragh, which I have mentioned to the Minister on previous occasions. This national school is in urgent need of repair and it would be wrong of me, when we are having a debate on the Estimates, not to ask the Department to do something about that. The other schools in the area have been refurbished, but there is a problem in relation to the school on the Curragh. I am aware some work was done on the school but there is a need for further refurbishment. I acknowledge all the good work that has been done, including the provision of a swimming pool, etc., which will be of major benefit to the area.

On the point raised by Deputy Shatter about the representative bodies, those bodies have a major part to play in the continuing development of the Defence Forces. I will be disappointed if the Minister does not meet either RACO or PDFORRA. I asked a question in the Dáil on numerous occasions about the number of meetings the Minister had with them. If the meeting with RACO has not taken place, we should ensure it takes place at the earliest possible convenience because its importance cannot be over-emphasised. There is a need for constant contact between the Minister and his Department and the representative bodies, both at soldier and officer level. That is of major importance.

I want to refer to a group of people who have retired from the Department of Defence and raise a question about the military service allowance. I have raised this matter with the Minister on a number of occasions in the Dáil. It appears we are moving the goalposts in this area, yet the numbers about whom we are talking are diminishing. The number of people involved cannot increase because we are talking about people who were members of the force between 1974 and 1990 and whose retirement pension does not reflect the military service allowance to which other members of the Defence Forces are entitled. I do not understand, other than for monetary reasons, why this matter cannot be addressed. I cannot believe that members of the Defence Forces who retired after 1990 have the military service allowance included in their pensions while those who retired before 1990 do not. If there was an ombudsman for the Defence Forces, this matter would probably be one of the first items on his or her agenda. These people have served this country well over the years and it is illogical to tell them they are not entitled to the same as those who retired after 1990. There is no reason for this anomaly. I ask the Minister to examine that. The last time I put this question to the Minister in the House he said it was being debated in relation to the recent pension report, but it leaves a stale taste in the mouths of the people who served so well for so long. They are now being victimised in relation to this allowance.

I also raised a question in relation to the recruitment programme. There is a need for us to develop that programme at a fast pace to match developments within the Defence Forces. If we are to make the ultimate gain in terms of the rapid reaction force and other developments in the Defence Forces, the recruitment campaign must be aimed at young men and women leaving school. I have said on numerous occasions that we should maintain constant contact with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the Defence Forces attract their fair share of the young men and women leaving school.

I want to refer to the closure of the apprenticeship school in Naas. Is the Minister satisfied that that was the right decision? It may have been the right decision from a monetary point of view but was it right in terms of the number of apprentices needed in the Defence Forces? Are we in a position to say that we are not losing any of the trades because the role of the craftsman is slowly diminishing? I am concerned about that.

I congratulate the members of the Defence Forces on their efforts during the foot and mouth disease crisis. As previous speakers said, they made a major contribution in ensuring that the number of outbreaks was minimal. All the people with whom I was in contact, especially those in the agriculture sector, were very grateful for that help and the work done by the Department of Defence.

On UN peacekeeping, with all the trouble spots in the world there will be a demand on Ireland which is regarded as one of the leading lights in terms of peacekeeping. Opportunities will arise in the near future to expand our military peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. I am sure the Department and indeed all the Members of the Oireachtas would welcome our continued participation in that regard.

I want to raise a housekeeping matter with the Minister, namely, the sale of Magee Barracks in Kildare. I was of the opinion, as was the local authority and the business sector in Kildare town, that the intention was to park the decision on the land allocated for asylum seekers and the temporary halting site and that discussions would take place with the local authority on the remaining land. Reading the Minister's report today, however, it appears that they have reverted to the original proposal, namely, that nothing will happen until the asylum seekers and the temporary halting site issue have been resolved.

Kildare is an expanding town. We now have the bypass, in which the Department played its part in terms of land acquisition, and it would be wrong to hold up the development of the town. We are parking the issue of the halting site and we could park the decision on the site for asylum seekers so that the rest of the land could be developed. I would appreciate a reply from the Minister in that regard.

A number of representative associations have contacted me about the position on the airstrip at Gormanston. Is it envisaged that it will be closed completely? Will there be a helicopter pad on the strip or can it be protected in terms of the sale of the land?

I welcome the positive aspects of the Estimates. I am sure we will have further debate as we proceed through the particular subheads.

I want to get on to the Vote but I do not wish to deny members a response from the Minister on a number of items. At the conclusion of your response, Minister, perhaps you would then introduce subheads A1 to A7 - administration on Vote 36, Department of Defence.

Thank you, Chairman. Deputy Shatter might have rather unwittingly created a problem for the committee for the future. If I were to address all the issues in my contribution, I would take up all the time because there is so much happening currently in the Department of Defence. The intention was to leave as much time as possible for the committee members to raise questions. A number of important issues were not included in the speech. I propose to continue that policy in the future, notwithstanding the pressure from Deputy Shatter.

I would like to be associated with the welcoming comments to Pat Neary. It is strange that he is being welcomed here. He seems to be part of the nationally displaced for a considerable time. I wish him the best of luck.

My information is that all of the details in relation to the Estimate were delivered to this House by taxi last Friday morning.

I will try to deal with the issues raised as quickly as possible. In relation to the arrangement made with Naas, that was primarily to try to take account of the economic loss which smaller towns suffer when a barracks is closed. There would not be any such problem for Dublin but, as members know, I was in negotiations with the Department of the Environment and Local Government and Dublin Corporation for a year and a half. I was anxious from the very outset, and all of my other sales will prove this, to deal with community interests across the country in terms of the surplus lands in the ownership of the Department of Defence, and my position in that regard was the same.

As to when a reduction will take place in the number of staff, as outlined in the White Paper, the Deputy should appreciate more than others the extent to which the Department faced the challenge on hearing claims. Without increasing our staff we tried to cope with an astronomical problem and if the Deputy is suggesting that we are trying to reduce those numbers more quickly, he will quickly see the trap into which he is falling. We need to deal comprehensively with those claims. I was rather surprised that the Deputy was not happy with the early settlement scheme. We received compliments from around the country on the way the hearing claims have been managed and the way we brought down——

I am happy with that. I am raising the reason the courts were——

——and the speed with which they are being dealt with. The figures speak for themselves. I know the Deputy has considerable experience in legal circles but he cannot quote any case where more than 8,000 claims were dealt with in a few years.

In relation to search and rescue, in which we are very interested, the Deputy knows that is primarily a matter for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. It has already indicated that it intends to upgrade the facilities in Waterford by the end of this year. We are primarily an agent and will be a very willing agent as soon as we are able to acquire the necessary aircraft.

In regard to Gormanston, there are 150 acres there but Deputy Shatter may not know that the decision to move the Air Corps from Baldonnel was taken a number of years ago; it is only being executed now. That decision was taken long before the decision to sell.

I agree with the Deputy about a new mission for our troops. I am favourably disposed to Ethiopia and Eritrea. That matter will come to Government for approval at a later stage. We have a request from the United Nations for approximately 150 or 200 troops, and that matter will probably come before the Dáil at the end of December or early January. I am favourably disposed to that.

A meeting is being arranged with RACO. One of the reasons I am not under pressure from the representative associations, and the Deputy will be aware of this from his discussions with them and also with PDFORRA, is that the acquisition of new equipment, building of new accommodation, upgrading accommodation and dealing with personnel matters are proceeding at a pace never experienced before by the Department. The type of problems RACO and PDFORRA would raise with Ministers three, four, five and six years ago are no longer on the agenda. They have been taken off it.

On the question of an ombudsman, discussions are not finalised with the associations but they are heading towards that end. The Deputy is probably aware that there are minor conflicts between the associations in terms of the scope of the work in which the ombudsman would be involved. However, I expect to bring before the Government any legislative action in this area before the end of this session or very early in the next session.

It is a little unfortunate for Deputy Wall that all the work I am doing in the Curragh is probably showing up other Departments; he now expects me to run another Department also. To be serious, however, there are many pressures in education but a huge building programme is taking place in the primary sector. We are getting rid of all of prefabs and the older dilapidated buildings. I will undertake to help in that regard, as I have done previously, because it is getting more unsightly and it is needed. I agree with the Deputy on that.

The position with regard to Magee is unchanged. I had intended to deal with all of the lands together. I have undertaken to examine the balance of the site to see to what extent we can move. I agree with the Deputy that it is a very integral part of the way Kildare will develop. If it appears that we will have to require accommodation for purposes other than what we originally envisaged, I will move quickly to see what I can do with the balance of the site.

I cannot understand the reason the Deputy raised the old chestnut of Naas apprentice school. It was costing £100,000 to train——

I accept the monetary gain aspect, but is the Minister now satisfied there is——

I assure the Deputy that all the apprentices who were in training at the time have either completed their training or are in the process of completing it to the satisfaction of the military authorities. The reports I received recently from the military authorities, the regional technical colleges, the institutes, FÁS and the other training arrangements that are now being put in place are totally satisfactory.

Considerable progress has been made on the recommendations in the report of the air accident unit. An independent air operation safety audit was concluded in March by international consultants and I expect to have that shortly. An air safety officer position has been established and we have a full-time flight safety officer. All of the recommendations in that report are being put in place, and most of them are already in place.

I have tried to deal with the issues raised as quickly as possible because I know there is a time constraint, so that we can move on to the Estimates proper.

We will deal first with subheads A1 to A7 on administration.

Are there any questions on this?

Deputy Barnes.

I forgot to deal with one question. In relation to the delay in the payment of an instalment and a wage agreement; Deputy Shatter will probably appreciate that this matter was dealt with in the House. I apologise for the delay. Payments to civil servants are centrally agreed. Payments to other sections of the public service, including the military, are the subject of separate negotiations with the Department of Finance, but I have undertaken to try to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the problem which developed this year.

We are now discussing the specific items in the Estimates. I call Deputy Barnes to speak on subheads A1 to A7.

I want to ask a brief question on subhead A7 which deals with consultancy and travel. In the light of the huge task ahead of the Minister and his Department with regard to the fallout from the "No" to Nice vote, which was tied in with fears and confusion about neutrality and a European army, I wonder if the Minister had an opportunity to hear the reasons given by callers to the "Liveline" programme who voted "No", of which tapes were made? Some of the reasons given were the neutrality question but mothers rang up to say they did not want their sons to be conscripted into a European army. These subheads deal with consultancy and travel, particularly with regard to the EU and the Western European Union. In terms of explaining our position vis-à-vis Europe and the rapid reaction force which was mentioned by everybody here, including Deputy Shatter, does the subhead take into consideration the huge task we are facing in terms of allaying the fears expressed by the people?

Is that in relation to travel?

And consultancy. This subhead may need to be examined.

Are you talking about a particular type of consultancy?

We are not very big on consultancy.

It is the giving of information.

Yes, exactly.

So that people understand aspects of Government policy.

In relation to that, yes.

If the consultancy aspect were to arise in this area it would arise for either the Taoiseach's office or the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I accept that there has been confusion. The rapid reaction force and military neutrality issues were raised in the campaign, although they were not necessarily directly connected to the Nice treaty. It would be fair to say, however, that it is up to us to clear up the confusion that exists in that regard, but that is not the only issue. A range of issues were in the public mind. The Nice treaty or our participation in the rapid reaction force do not present a problem in terms of our military neutrality. On our involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks, it would surprise me greatly if the people voted, and I do not believe they did, to withdraw our forces from places like Kosovo where they do such good work and where it is so necessary to be involved. That work is important for boosting the morale of the Defence Forces, and the part we played throughout the world for 40 years. There is a job to be done, however. We need to tease out all these issues to understand the concerns that have been expressed by the people, to respect the democratic verdict and to see to what extent it can be addressed. From what we have heard, however, there are no immediate or easy solutions but to answer the Deputy's question, if we are to have a deeper insight into this area in terms of consultancy, etc., it would not be the remit of my Department but primarily a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We will take all of the questions first and then come back to the Minister. Has the Deputy an additional question?

Part of the difficulty politically for all of us now is that each Minister will have to take responsibility to deal specifically with the fears expressed. The Minister's Department would appear to be a large part of the confusion and perhaps dealing with the problem through the Taoiseach's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs has not proved adequate and may not prove adequate in the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

I thank the Minister for his contribution. During the last Question Time to the Minister, I asked him to consider producing a booklet to explain the Western European Union, the rapid reaction force and Partnership for Peace. A significant number of people across all spectrums of society, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, are not familiar with the way they inter-link or with our position in that regard. Will the Minister give a commitment to produce something along those lines because the debate is moving from one year to another. The majority of people are not familiar with where we stand vis-à-vis our military commitment or otherwise.

With respect to subhead A6, the proposed decentralisation of the Civil Defence branch to Roscrea, have we a total figure for the cost of that and has all the expenditure been placed? Is a section to be relocated to Clonmel and has provision been made for this?

The issues we are now discussing gave rise to confusion in the context of the Nice treaty because of the Minister's failure to set out what our involvement is, and will be in the future, in the PPF and with regard to the Petersberg Tasks. The fact that the Minister still believes this is an issue which should only be dealt with by the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs indicates that the Government still does not understand the extent of the debacle which left the Minister unable to persuade a majority of his own constituents to vote in favour of policies he himself is implementing.

Deputy Shatter is boasting now because of the Dublin South vote.

Why is there such an increase in Miscellaneous Items under subhead A3?

Miscellaneous items include a wide range of things, none of which stands out. They include eye tests, merit awards, press cuttings services, paintings, art works and so on.

With regard to the decentralisation of the Civil Defence to Roscrea, the Office of Public Works which is responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation for the transfer, is in negotiation with the local community. An estimate of what will be required to upgrade the building has been arrived at and there is some discussion as to how that could be scaled down. My hope is that the transfer of about 30 members of the staff can take place at the end of this year or early next year.

In the case of Clonmel, there is a beautiful old and very dilapidated building in the barracks which is being upgraded. A sum of £1 million has been provided for that and military authorities are dealing with the engineering side of that project so that two areas of the Defence Forces, training and the reserve, can be moved there.

Every member of the Government must accept responsibility for the outcome of the Nice treaty referendum. I share that responsibility. As I said to Deputy Barnes, if there was a question of a consultancy that would be a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have my own responsibilities. I have done my best, on a number of occasions, to explain what was involved. Clearly there is further work to be done in this area and we will do our best to ensure that the matter is comprehensively dealt with as we examine the matters in the public mind which led to the decision we have been given.

We have now reached subheads B to F which deal with Defence Forces expenditure.

Is there provision for special payments to members of the Defence Forces who are involved in helping to tackle the foot and mouth crisis? Has the Minister made any arrangement in that regard?

I raised the question of the military service allowance in relation to pension payments. Can the Minister reply to my query?

Do you have a question in relation to that item, Deputy Wall?

May I support Deputy Wall? When in Opposition, the Minister's party leader gave a commitment to deal with pensions. This is a bone of contention with a group of people who feel they have been excluded and forgotten by the State. Will the Minister meet the requirements of this group of people and not hide behind the pensions review group which has produced documentation on this matter?

This issue must be considered by the Government in the context of its consideration of the final report of the commission on public service pensions. The commission did not recommend any concession on the military service allowance case and the Government will make formal decisions on the commission's recommendations when it has completed its consideration.

A special allowance is paid in all cases where the Defence Forces are required to aid the civil powers. We have made all the usual arrangements in the case of the foot and mouth measures. We received representations from PDFORRA and we were able to respond very quickly. Some of the work, particularly in the early days, had to be undertaken by troops who were out at night in freezing conditions and it is proper that we deal with these matters as quickly and as well as we have done.

Subheads G to V deal with defence equipment and various other expenses.

I recently saw a report that the Minister has plans to purchase a second group of 40 armoured personnel carriers. Was that report accurate? If not, is he satisfied that 40 APCs will meet our requirement, considering training requirements at home and our commitments abroad?

There were recent reports that one of the buildings in Clancy Barracks housed some sort of sensitive material or dangerous substance. Can the Minister clarify those reports? If Clancy Barracks is to be sold where will this material be stored?

In relation to subhead H, there seems to be a 48% increase in expenditure on maintenance of aircraft. Will the Minister explain that? Is this increase a consequence of aircraft which should have been replaced not being replaced within a reasonable time? Will the Minister spell out the reason for this substantial increase in expenditure under this subhead?

In relation to the purchase of aircraft, what is the position regarding the Government jet?

I recently heard a report from Britain of helicopters being recalled because of safety concerns. Is the Minister satisfied regarding the safety of helicopters for which he is inviting tenders?

A sum of £154 million has been paid in respect of claims for hearing loss and £48 million in plaintiffs' legal costs. Do plaintiffs' costs include witnesses' expenses?

It is my understanding that the Naval Service is finding it difficult to recruit and, in the context of laden services and the carrying out of services by boats, is under-strength in watch-keeps. On occasions, there are two such watch-keeps as opposed to four on ships going out. Complaints are being made that ships are more frequently in-shore than off-shore and are not doing the job they should be doing with regard to foreign vessels. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.

I appear to get into more trouble buying new equipment for the Defence Forces than the Deputy did when he bought nothing. I am obviously very glad that 40 armoured personnel carriers are coming on stream. They will provide high levels of safety for our troops in undertaking their missions. I hope, towards the end of this year, to be in a position to make an announcement about a further tranche although I cannot say at this stage how many. I am interested in developing a further project in this area and we have an option with the company in that regard as we have in the case of new ships for the Naval Service. I will need to take another look at available finances but I am optimistic that I will be able to order a further tranche towards the end of the year.

Deputy Shatter raised a question earlier about training. The military authorities are very advanced in their preparations for training. Now that the carriers have arrived the opportunity is available to them to develop that on a very comprehensive basis. On the question of costs for the maintenance of craft, clearly we have to be advised of the needs of the Air Corps regarding the maintenance of aircraft at the highest level of safety. I will have no problem in providing whatever finances are necessary to ensure that safety. I look forward to the day when the new aircraft, for which tenders have already been received, will come on stream. I am waiting for the military authorities to make up their minds as to what they will require in that context. I will respond to that request immediately I receive it.

Deputy Shatter also raised a question regarding the Naval Service.

It is a tremendous thing in one sense that we have so much difficulty in recruiting to the Defence Forces. No Government has ever experienced a challenge of this kind. It means there are a variety of options open to our young people which were not previously available. It presents a real challenge to keep up our numbers. I have been in discussion with the military authorities recently to see to what extent we can enhance our current recruitment campaign. We are doing everything we can in this area. The Naval Service has been fantastic in coming up with a number of initiatives to try to address this issue. It is a great challenge facing us and one for which we have waited for all our lifetime.

Is subhead G agreed?

The Minister did not reply to my question about building in Clancy Barracks.

This matter was exaggerated. The items are in containers and will be moved to a new building in the Curragh provided specifically for that purpose. They are in no danger as I am sure the Deputy is well aware.

Is subhead G agreed? Agreed. We now come to deal with subheads W to Z, other services and appropriations-in-aid.

Will the Minister give us a figure for the number of surplus stores in the Department. I recall seeing a report in recent weeks which stated that equipment had been lying around for years.

On the receipts from banks in respect of cash escort services, have representations been made to the banks to increase fees in that regard?

Another old chestnut.

Does the Minister have any information in that regard?

That is primarily a matter for the Minister for Finance. I have made it clear that I am interested in ensuring we are adequately compensated for the facilities we provide in this area. I will undertake to have further discussions with the Minister for Finance in that regard.

Are the subheads agreed? Agreed. We now come to deal with Vote 37 - Army Pensions, subheads A to L. Are the subheads agreed? Agreed. The Clerk to the Committee will forward a message to the Dáil confirming our consideration of the Estimates. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister, his officials and members for their assistance in expediting this matter.

I thank you, Chairman, your staff and my colleagues and opponents alike. We are naturally interested in facilitating you in every way we can with as much information as possible. If there are any outstanding issues on which members feel they would like further detail we will respond. We look forward to coming back to this committee to deal with the European security and defence issue.

Top
Share