Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Lanigan

First, may I welcome the Minister on his first occasion in this House as Minister for Defence? I wish him well in his new duties. The role of the Minister for Defence has changed considerably over the past number of years. I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will bring to the job the type of expertise necessary in the ever changing role which is required of a Minister for Defence. It is not often that we in this House get an opportunity to discuss matters relating to the Department of Defence and, in particular, the Army. It is regrettable that we do not have more changes in legislative matters which would afford Members of the Oireachtas an opportunity to speak about the Army and their role at present. The last substantial change was made in 1954, the Bill giving us the right to send peacekeeping troops overseas was introduced in 1960. Much has happened since 1954 within Army circles and, indeed, quite a considerable amount has happened since 1960.

The role of the Army in Irish life is a quiet one and too often we tend to forget about them. We are not tardy about calling on them when we feel it is necessary for them to come to the aid of the civil powers. On a day to day basis people see the Army as protectors of money going around the country. The Army are more visible outside banks and post offices than in other areas of life in Ireland. However, the role of the Army is not just a protective role of money. Over the past number of years they have played a major part in peacekeeping abroad. I have seen at first hand the excellence of their contribution to peacekeeping forces, particularly in the Lebanon. Anybody who has had any contact with the Army abroad would have to say that they are the most professional of the armies involved in United Nations peacekeeping duties. Their conduct is exemplary. They are welcomed by the residents of the countries where they play a peacekeeping role. As members of the observer corps of the United Nations they go about their business in areas which are extremely difficult. The fact that we have observer corps people in the city of Beirut shows that they are willing to go to areas where many others are not prepared to go.

The role of the Army is a quiet one in cities and towns where we have an army presence. The Army are respected and they play a major role in the social and cultural life where they are stationed. It is very often forgotten that the Army presence in a city or town brings many benefits to the area.

The Bill before us is an accommodating Bill to update certain procedures within the Army particularly the upgrading of fines which were set in 1954. It is not before its time that there should be this type of upgrading. It seems ludicrous that fines imposed in 1954 should not have been changed until 1987. I am glad that, even though there will be an increase in fines, such things as service pay and overseas allowance will not be taken into account when a day's pay is the fine. Indeed, relating fines to a day's pay is probably a reasonable way to go about it. The protection and supervisory role of the Army in our prisons plays a major part in ensuring that the gardaí and the prison officers and people working in prisons are protected to the maximum. It is a bit incongruous that the Army personnel who are guarding these institutions are the worst paid of all the people involved in the protection and regulation of these places. There is no doubt that the duty moneys paid to Army personnel for attendance at prisons is not sufficient. Indeed when one considers the overtime rates prison officers get for attendance at prisons, it is ludicrously low in comparison with payments to the gardaí and prison officers.

The question was raised by Senator Manning of the new imposition of a reduction in rank of a commissioned officer. I think that he is under a misapprehension here. I do not think any consideration is being given to the reduction of a commissioned officer to a non-commissioned rank. I do not think that would be practical but the introduction of a new clause whereby an officer could be demoted in rank among the commissioned ranks is probably an innovation. The provision is there already for the non-commissioned ranks. I do not think it has ever stopped anybody from being promoted again to the rank from which he was demoted or indeed to get promotion over and above the rank from which he was demoted provided he has worked within the rules and regulations of the Army and has operated as best he could within the new arrangements for him.

There is no doubt that the ignominy of a forced resignation of an officer, has created enormous difficulties for a number of people. While at a certain stage, particularly in young officers' careers, they may have done things which they would not do in hindsight, the fact that they were thrown out of the Army puts a pall over their lives. Indeed, I had a letter from America recently from one such person. He feels he was denied the rights he should have been afforded because he was thrown out of the Army under particular conditions. He regrets what he did and, equally, he regrets the fact that he was thrown out of the Army and that he could never again get a post of any responsibility in the State services, and indeed he was precluded from ever again getting a job in the State services. I am glad there is a change in the regulations, in that a time limit is being put on, so that within a reasonably short time after conviction a person will again be eligible for employment in the State sector.

I am not in total agreement with the fine of £100 for a witness who does not agree to pass over documentation to a court martial. The fine is as out-of-line with today's conditions as was the £5 fine which was the maximum that could be imposed as a day's pay in the past. I would like the Minister to see if the fines could be increased substantially if civilian witnesses do not pass documentation over to a court martial.

As regards section 5, I totally agree there must be up-to-date regulations brought in regarding the abuse of drugs. We are extremely glad there has not been any drug-taking in the Army. I am not saying there have not been isolated instances but in any real terms there has not been the incidence of drug-taking we have seen in many armies around the world. The very existence of some armies is threatened because of the fact that drug-taking has become an epidemic. Whatever can be done must be done to protect the Army from the great problems that could arise if there was any increase in drug-taking. The need for providing for the offence arises as the Minister said from the fact that military personnel are armed and are liable for duty at all times. In this regard there should be a possibility of having intensive courses on drugs so that Army officers will be capable of recognising the results of drug-taking among personnel. People who are not well versed in the effects of drug-taking may not realise that others are on drugs.

As regards the new powers concerning aircraft and navigation, it may be essential for owners of lands close by a military establishment to cut down a certain number of trees. I do not want to see trees cut down anywhere but from a safety point of view it may be necessary that this should happen.

Has any thought been given to the fact that around our coast at present naval personnel are coming under increasing harassment from locals in areas where there may be a conflict about fishing rights or about illegal fishing. In quite a number of the seaports, naval personnel have been set upon. In fact, the Garda and the civilian courts have dealt with the perpetrators of these particular instances but too often the fines imposed have been too small. Our naval personnel play a major role for this country and I think that they should have more adequate protection when they come into ports.

The Bill deals with uniforms. We have seen in the past how Army uniforms and Garda uniforms have been worn to perpetrate crimes of an horrendous nature. Steps should be taken to ensure that people who wear these uniforms for such reasons are dealt with in as harsh a manner as possible.

The Bill is relatively non-controversial. It is about time that the Bill came before the House. I commend the Minister for bringing it in so soon at the start of this session of the Oireachtas. I think it goes a long way to bring up-to-date many of the penalties for offences against the military law.

Professor Murphy

I do not think the Seanad will have any difficulty in accepting the Bill. Since it purports to introduce certain reforms and updating — to quote the Minister's speech — the trouble is that it does not go far enough in that perhaps this is an appropriate time for the Government to ask themselves what is the purpose of the Army. We are talking here about measures that have not been amended since the fifties and, as Senator Lanigan said, life and the world has changed very much since then.

I suggest that the role of the Army in this State is no longer what it was when the Army was founded and, indeed, when the Army was expanded to its maximum point during The Emergency. It was then taken for granted that the business of the Army was to defend the State against any aggression, against any invasion though if an invasion had happened during The Emergency it is very problematical as to whether the Army would have been successful. However, this was its purpose as founded and as it has remained. Though the whole scene has changed with the development of nuclear strategy, our Army has in a sense, stood still. There are very few of us now who could envisage a situation where the Army would go into combat to defend the State against hostile forces. It seems that one of the two main functions of the Army now is the absolutely essential one of providing a reservoir of power to the civil Government. I cannot understand the views of some pacifists who dismiss the need altogether for the Army. To avoid chaos it is absolutely essential to have this fall back sanction and, indeed, in the state of semicrisis in which we have been living for much of the State's existence and certainly in the past 17 or 18 years, the Army is absolutely essential. The other main purpose is one that was not even dreamt of in 1954 and to which Senator Lanigan had paid a very complimentary tribute, namely, its role as a peacekeeping force internationally.

Let me say that internally the Army is accepted by the citizens and respected by them but had a struggle to establish itself, if you like, because it was part of the Irish Free State which took a long time to gain complete acceptance and consensus. Our Army had to contend with the existence of another and illegal army which referred to it right throughout the thirties and forties contemptuously as "as the army of chocolate soldiers". We know by now which is the real Army. The role of the Army as a peace keeping force is an important service to the State internationally. If we have a certain status abroad, much of it is due, as Senator Lanigan said, to the admirable way in which the Army discharges its duty.

I am glad the Army is properly subordinate to the civil power and that the Army is non-political. The civil power should be always watchful in this regard. We went through a very bloody experience in this country in order to let the Army know where its place was; it must remember to keep its place. I say this because one hears from time to time talk of Army interest in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and bodies like that and the possibilities of our Army becoming perhaps a component for some other larger defence grouping. We must be extremely watchful about that. In fact, I suggest that the great respect our forces have won abroad as international peacekeepers would be severely damaged should our Army come at any stage to be part of a war machine. I hope, indeed, it will always be our Army, that there will be no other army on the territory of this State. I know these are large matters to discuss in what is a fairly mundane Bill, but the principle remains that it is time for the Government to radically reconsider the role of the Army in this State.

Mr. Bradford

First, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to his new role. He comes from a neighbouring constituency to mine and I hope that some of his success may rub off down my way. I am sure he is in the envious position at the moment of being perhaps the only Minister in the Government who does not have to implement these dreadful things called cutbacks.

I am glad to have been afforded the opportunity to speak on this Bill this morning because it will allow me, at least for a few minutes, to comment on what I would see as the role of our Defence Force in the Ireland of today. To some it may seem that a discussion on a Bill such as this which, in fairness, is not too far-reaching, may be relatively unimportant particularly when you consider the fact that our Army and its military capability, is quite small and, considering the nuclear age in which we live, not very important. While we cannot but admit that the might of our Army will not frighten away the military superpowers of the world, I think we can be quite proud of the fact that since the foundation of this State our Army, in times of peace and trouble, particularly during what we call The Emergency — what other people call World War II — has served us well. As ambassadors of peace, in troubled spots throughout the world, they have been very proud advocates of the Irish path of peaceful progress instead of war and strife. Accordingly, we owe today to our Permanent Defence Force, not just a slap on the back, "a thank you very much Captain" approach, but a full commitment to their future, an offer of the best possible equipment to suit their needs and, most important, whatever is deemed necessary to provide them with the best possible working conditions.

There is no doubt that despite our political role and our military or, more appropriately perhaps, our non-military role remaining the same in world affairs for many decades, our Permanent Defence Force has undergone profound change. Despite our low GNP we have provided our military forces with sufficient funds to enable them to run a very well-equipped, superbly trained force which is perhaps very suitable to the limited military needs of the Irish people. As I have said already, the Army is an outstanding ambassador abroad of our desire for peace in the troubled spots throughout the globe. Despite these unquestioned and unquestionable facts, despite the achievements of other sections of the defence forces, in particular, the Army Equitation School which has brought honour and glory to this country and which I believe was the first body to raise the Irish Tricolour outside of this State, and even the Army Band, the Army has become very well known and famous throughout the world, but there are still many people in this State who would question seriously the role of our Irish Army today and ask whether we need it at all.

The point can be made quite validly that our Army could never hope to stop an invading horde of reds or blues or invaders of whatever colour from wherever they may come. Unfortunately, the size of the budget available to this country and to the Army will never allow us to compete with the military might of some of these countries but even if the budget would allow us to do so I would hope we would not go down that path towards military madness.

The most disappointing comments in regard to our Army, however, come from those who would question the ability and commitment of those who serve within the Defence Forces. In particular, it is very sad to hear comments which would indicate that the Army is really nothing but the last outpost for those who cannot find a job elsewhere. Not only is this very far removed from the truth but it is a gross insult to all those who are prepared to put service to the nation and to peace throughout the world before their own personal safety.

I admit that many of those who are serving as privates in the Army came into that position after being unemployed for quite some time. Many people on the present unemployment register are hoping to — and will — get into the Army at some stage. Qualities such as courage, strength, bravery, determination and discipline which are necessary for a person to serve in the Defence Forces, are at a premium in the Ireland of today. There may be no guarantee of a job for a person having these qualities in some of our more sedate positions so, therefore, let us not question the ability or the commitment of those in our Defence Forces. As was said in the Dáil, they are the supreme professionals, putting their country and others before themselves. How many other so-called professionals would be prepared to do that in the Ireland of today? I do not think there are very many.

I am sure the changes proposed in the Bill are not sending shock waves throughout the Army. In a sense they are quite limited. To the general public they may not even be noticed or commented on. Those of us whose slight worry about our Defence Forces is their seemingly total independent form of judiciary and punishment, we must at least question the need for and the extent of these changes. In general the question must be asked whether the need to increase military fines is an indication of a greater level of petty crime within the ranks. Perhaps the Minister may set that record straight at some stage.

I would be the first to admit that the fines were so small as to render them almost meaningless. While it is welcome that the new range of fines are linked to the level of pay within the forces the new maximum fines could be very harsh in some cases, on those on lower salary scales. However, the new maximum fines need not be implemented; they will only be implemented at the discretion of the judiciary in charge. That is welcome because I presume they will use their commonsense on that matter.

I welcome the provision in section 4 which will allow those dismissed from the forces to at least apply later on for employment in some other State quarter. Ruling these people out totally was very discriminatory.

Section 5 deals with drug related matters and is, I suppose, a reaction to the change of environment in which we live today. We see and hear much on a daily basis about the threat of drug abuse. This problem threatens every group within society, from the poorest to the wealthiest. While this is not a major problem in our Army I am sure other armies throughout the world are finding it a problem. This section will help ensure that where this problem exists it will be stamped out at an early stage. While I am on the question of drug abuse, what is the position regarding alcohol? In fairness, the Army were never considered to be the second Father Matthew Brigade. If there is a problem with regard to alcohol what is the Minister's position on it? Will there be restrictions regarding alcohol? Admittedly, drugs such as cannibis and heroin are more spectacular by name at least and would render quite poor the operations of an Army officer if he were under such an influence but as we know, alcohol could also do the same. I would like clarification on that matter.

Section 7 deals with the need to remove or change any structures causing obstruction, for instance, to army airfields, bases etc. That is very welcome. I hope that any changes taking place or any moves being made by Army personnel as a result of this section will be done so only after full consultation with the people involved. There is no point in moving in on a person's property without full consultation. It is very important that an organisation such as the Defence Forces maintain good relations with the general public.

Section 10 is also very welcome because for far too long many ordinary members such as privates were disadvantaged due to the bad example of a few regarding debt repayments. The regulation to allow for the imprisonment of a non-commissioned officer for non-repayment of a debt will help those who are genuinely committed to paying any debts they may incur and increase any chances they have of getting a loan whenever necessary.

Section 13 which deals with military uniforms is quite brief but I presume it is quite important, particularly because of the position regarding subversives within the State. During the past number of years subversives wearing uniforms that were taken from members of the Garda conducted their own form of checkpoints. The provision here in relation to military uniforms will help ensure that this will not happen with Army personnel, that we will not have any difficulty in sorting out who is who.

The Bill is brief and the changes it proposes to introduce are not too far fetched or too drastic but I am sure they will help strengthen the resolve of the Army towards their work. The Bill will help also to increase public awareness of the work the Army are doing. For far too long we have taken the Army for granted and have not appreciated the position they hold in our system of democracy. As Senator Murphy said earlier, because of the Northern crisis, it is very important to keep an Army in position so that they can defend our democracy if required to do so. That may sound like a slightly dramatic statement, and I hope it will not come into being, but nevertheless it is good to know that we have people such as those in our Defence Forces to fall back on whenever they may be required. Down through the years history has shown that, if required they could do the job more than adequately. I have every confidence in them today. While this Bill will not change things too much, it will certainly help the Army to carry out their duties in a more professional and orderly manner.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I was not aware when this Bill was introduced this morning that Members would avail of the opportunity to make wide ranging comments on the activities of the Army. I would like to be associated with the expressions of congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment. I have no doubt that he will discharge his responsibilities in the very fine way he did as spokesman on agriculture for the then Opposition.

I subscribe to almost everything that has been said this morning by way of praise for the Army. We tend to take them for granted. Perhaps that is a good thing because the profile of the Army is such that they are obliged — and do so quite happily — to take a backseat role in the general running of the country.

We were all conscious of the debate in recent weeks during the power strike when the Minister was under pressure from various Deputies to say he was not in a position to put members of the armed forces into the various power stations. During various industrial crises, successive Ministers have consistently said they did not see the role of the army as that of strike breaking. Notwithstanding that point of view, there is a responsibility on the Department of Defence to provide and devise some strategy whereby at least some minimal form of assistance can be forthcoming when the country is held up to ransom as happened in recent weeks during the ESB strike.

Even though we are looking forward to a period of peace in relation to the activities of our workers the subject needs to be addressed to some degree. Army personnel in this city have been called out during refuse strikes, national bus strikes and so on. If it is permissible to break strikes in some areas I do not see why it should not be permissible in others. The Minister might look at that sometime in the future.

Senator Bradford said the Minister was in the happy position that he did not have to bring down the axe, and did not have to initiate any cuts in his Department. However, I am aware that during the past number of years there has been a form of run down at least in the funding to the FCA. We should never underscore the importance of the role of the FCA particularly in rural communities. The FCA fill a vacuum for young people who might have an interest in military matters and who might be induced to join some other military grouping if their interest in military matters was not serviced by way of introduction to the FCA. The FCA have provided a very useful escape valve for young people who have an interest in military matters and who have an interest in being in the Army in a peripheral way. I am aware of the fine work being done by the FCA in my own area. It would be unfortunate if there was any run down of the FCA. I am aware that some summer camps and so on are being curtailed. Young people look forward to going to these camps and it would be unfortunate if they were run down. I ask the Minister to be mindful of that.

Most of what I would like to say with regard to this Bill has been touched on by previous speakers. Senator Lanigan referred to the difficulty in relation to our Naval personnel. It is a bit disconcerting, to put it mildly, to see our Naval people being harassed on a regular basis in pursuit of what is their statutory obligation. This can be construed only as an attack on our military forces. It is not good enough to try these cases in the local district court where fines of between £50 and £100 are imposed. In the intervening period our Naval personnel are being subjected to the type of threat that unfortunately they cannot respond to and which no doubt, they are very often anxious to respond to. That is something the Minister should look at.

I would like to refer to section 14 which deals with the activities of military aircraft. Now that we have at long last acquired night-flying aircraft and night-flying helicopters I hope we will see these in operation as quickly as possible. A provision should be made to suppress the nonchalant attitude that some people have to calling out an aircraft or search craft at any time of the day or night. A person may decide to go to sea without recognising the risk he is placing himself at but by virtue of his indifference he may also be placing at risk the lives of military personnel who may have to go out in the middle of the night to save him. There are people who do not bother to ensure that their craft is seaworthy. They may not listen to weather forecasts and so on. A few years ago the British RAF Services risked life and limb during the Fastnet race off the south coast when people went to sea in the knowledge that the forecast was such that it was quite dangerous to go. But when they got into difficulties they had no reservations about calling out the RAF and thereby endangering their lives as well as their own. The Minister should consider making some provision for that. If people call out aircraft, especially at night and it is subsequently established that there was no need for them to be out there should be some provision in the Act whereby the people responsible would be prosecuted because apart from the danger to life the costs alone are quite great.

I welcome the increase in fines in the area of misuse of military uniforms. Senator Manning quite rightly said that there is a great interest among young people in military uniforms; it is almost cult at this stage. A fine line has to be drawn somewhere. We have heard the disquiet being expressed by the Garda recently because the new Garda uniforms which are only about a month old have already been copied by some security companies. It is mindboggling to think that the military can make provisions for this and yet the Department of Justice cannot. I find that difficult to reconcile. It is welcome that at least it has been addressed in this case.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick West): I thank the Senators for their interest in the Bill. I appreciate the sentiments they expressed in regard to my appointment. I thank them also for their good wishes in regard to my success in this position.

The many items raised this morning will receive my attention. In the course of my reply I hope to get the opportunity of referring to some of them. I should like also to take this opportunity to wish the Seanad every success in its deliberations on the various matters that will come before it in the future. I wish also to take this opportunity of acknowledging and endorsing the tributes paid by Senators to our Defence Force.

The Bill is an important measure from a military point of view. It contains a number of amendments which are of significance to the Army. Many of the proposals incorporated in the Bill have come from the Army. I would like to offer some further comments on the contents of the Bill and to touch on some points raised by Senators.

As we know, the main objective of military law is to provide for the maintenance of good order and discipline among members of the Defence Force. These are essential attributes in any military force. They are usually maintained by supplementing the ordinary criminal law and the ordinary judicial system with a special code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it. It is, of course, necessary to maintain the operational efficiency of the armed forces.

Military law is contained in the Defence Act, 1954, in several amending Acts, including the Courts Martial Appeals Act, 1983, and the many statutory instruments such as the Defence Force regulations and the rules of procedure made under those Acts from time to time. The Defence Act, 1954 creates a number of offences in relation to military affairs or property which are triable summarily in the District Court. Examples of such offences are, inducing members of the force to desert and the unlawful wearing of military uniform. Such offences are punishable on conviction by the District Court by the imposition of a fine or imprisonment. The less serious offences against military law committed by junior officers, NCOs and privates, is disposed of summarily by authorised officers, commanding officers and subordinate officers. The range and severity of punishments awardable by such officers is strictly limited by law and falls far short of that available to a court martial. Where a case is being dealt with summarily the offender may, if the punishment which the officer trying the charge proposes to impose is a fine or otherwise involves monetary loss, opt for trial by court martial. The options are there.

Courts martial are the military tribunals provided by law for the trial by officers of the Defence Force of persons accused of offences against military law. The finding and sentence of a court martial are not valid unless confirmed by a confirming authority — an officer authorised by the Minister. The provision in the Courts Martial Appeals Act, 1983, of a system of appeal to the court martial appeals court against the findings and sentence of a court martial, and of a scheme of free legal aid, represented a major reform of our system of military law. Apart from the appeal process, a person convicted by a court martial has the right to petition against the sentence of the court martial, the authority to whom the petition is addressed and all petitions may, if the convicted person so wishes, be submitted to the Minister. The Minister, therefore, is empowered to mitigate the punishment awarded or to remit it in whole or in part.

Senator Manning made reference to fines and the increases in fines. It is well to remember that the fines which may be imposed for offences against military law have been in force since 1955. I am sure Senators will agree that there have been changes in the cost of living since then. These fines have become totally unrealistic having regard to the change in the value of money since 1955. For example, the amount of £5 which is the maximum fine which a court martial may impose on a private soldier represented about two weeks' pay in 1956. The maximum fine proposed for a private under the Bill is six days' pay or about £130 in current terms. Fixing fines, therefore, by reference to so many days' pay also means that the amount of the fines will be self-adjusting. The amounts being prescribed are maximum amounts and it will be a matter for the authority concerned to decide on the levels of the fine, etc., within the maximum amount being laid down.

The abuse of drugs which has been referred to by many Senators is one of the scourges of modern society. Thankfully we do not have a problem in this respect in the Defence Forces. Considering that many military duties are performed under arms, the possible use of the drugs in the Defence Forces would be truly alarming and would have the most serious implications. Therefore, it is proposed that the offence should be made a specific and clearly identifiable offence against military law. I am sure the House will agree that this should be done in the context of the Bill and Members in their contributions said this.

Reference was made by Senator Manning to punishment. Punishment of reduction in rank at present may be imposed by a court-martial on a non-commissioned officer. The introduction of a similar penalty in the case of an officer would provide a court-martial with an alternative to the severe punishment of dismissal or of the lesser punishment of forfeiture of seniority. It was felt that there was a considerable gap between those two punishments and the new punishment is an appropriate means of filling this void. In particular circumstances one of the punishments could be too lenient and perhaps the other too severe. It is right that this type of punishment should be introduced. An officer who was reduced in rank under the proposal would of course, continue to be an officer and would have an opportunity to rehabilitate himself. Experience has shown that reduction in rank happens in very exceptional circumstances only.

Senator Manning referred to employment. Present disqualification from State employment arising from dismissal in certain circumstances lasts a lifetime. This applies to employment with the State. In the case of employment in a civilian capacity with the State it is proposed that the disqualification should be modified to seven years and that the Government should have the necessary power to remove that disqualification at any time during the seven years. No change is envisaged in the disqualification from employment in a military capacity. Having examined that aspect of it and discussed it with the relevant military and civil authorities, I have come to the conclusion that this bar should continue.

Reference was made to the lopping of trees and so on. When the Defence Act, 1954, was enacted the Defence Forces had no helicopters. Nowadays military helicopters land at and take off from military installations and other places. Therefore, the necessity may arise to erect certain apparatus on lands or buildings adjacent to such installations to facilitate the helicopter operations. Section 9 of the Bill provides power to do that. Power already exists under section 35 of the 1954 Act to erect and maintain apparatus in the vicinity of military aerodromes.

Senator Manning stated that it is being represented that protection against legal proceedings, which it contained in section 107 of the Defence Act, 1954, works to the disadvantage of members of the permanent Defence Forces in that their credit rating can be adversely affected. This protection is now being modified so as to be available in future to permanent defence personnel only when they are on active service. That is the difference. The protection applies at present to reserve Defence Forces personnel only when they are called out on permanent service. This is the equivalent of active service and no modification is required in this instance.

As I have already stated, in recent years we have had difficulties with regard to lopping of trees on private lands. It is desirable that the Minister should have power to ensure that hazards of this type are removed as quickly as possible. As I explained in my opening address, the landowner will be invited and given the opportunity to do the necessary work himself and will be compensated and paid reasonable expenses. If he is not prepared to do that, the work will be carried out by the Department.

Senator Manning also made reference to equipment. Within the budgetary constraints and with the resources available to the Department, there is a continuous programme of improving the equipment of the Defence Forces and providing them, as far as possible, with up-to-date equipment. This is being done on an ongoing basis. The capability of the Defence Forces to discharge their roles is kept under constant review and changes are made as necessary. For example, the helicopters purchased in recent years will be fully operational within the next six or seven months. That is an example of the up-to-date position with regard to equipment. It is constantly under review and will have to be kept under review because of the sensitive areas in which the Defence Forces are involved.

Senator Lanigan raised the question of pay. The pay of all ranks in the Defence Forces has, over the years, been increased in accordance with the terms of national and public service pay agreements. In addition, pay is increased from time to time in line with grade and special awards in certain areas of the Civil Service. The question of pay is constantly kept under review. In line with national pay agreements, members of the permanent Defence Forces will be adequatley compensated.

Senator Lanigan also mentioned the £100 fine. It only relates to summary trials and not to courts martial. Refusal to produce documents at a court martial puts a person in contempt and liable to a fine of £1,000 or 12 months imprisonment.

Senator Lanigan also made reference to our troops serving with UNIFIL. As I said in the other House, the safety of our troops serving with the United Nations is a matter that is kept under constant review. My Department are in daily contact through the military authorities with the situation in Lebanon and are kept abreast of the position on an ongoing basis. I have asked to be fully appraised daily of the situation in Lebanon. The troops selected for UNIFIL service undergo a very rigorous programme of training designed to assist them in carrying out their peace-keeping duties and to provide for their protection. They are issued with a modern range of weapons and equipment. Having reviewed the recent contingent which went to Lebanon, I am satisfied the training and the weapons and equipment are adequate to ensure their maximum safety consistent with the performance of their duties. We must realise that no peace-keeping operation can be entirely without risk. The Government are continuing to monitor the developments in south Lebanon with a view to taking whatever measures may be necessary at any time to ensure the safety and welfare of our troops. Having met the troops after their recent tour of duty some couple of weeks ago, I know their commitment to peace-keeping operations is total. They see it as a great challenge to their position as soldiers. The role of the Irish Army is very acceptable to the local people in Lebanon. The whole operation within UNIFIL and our peacekeeping operations overseas are matters that are kept under constant review. I am in daily contact with the situation. It will continue to be monitored on a daily basis and we will review the situation from time to time.

Senator Murphy spoke about the role of the Army. He is quite right in saying that the role of the Army is not the same now as it was many years ago. Perhaps the time is now opportune to have a look at the whole Army operation and have a full review of its role in its totality and the place of the Army because the situation is changing. This is something which will be receiving my attention over the next number of months. Senator Murphy outlined his views. I would like to point out that basically the role of the Army is to defend the State. There are other roles which the Army can adopt time to time. Aid to the civil power has assumed a major importance over the past 18 years. Peace-keeping duties have an important place in Army life. There are other areas which I will be looking at. We will have a full review of the role of the Army.

I want to thank Senator Bradford and all the other Senators for their compliments and good wishes to me. Senator Bradford and I come from neighbouring constituencies. I hope we can contribute in whatever way we can. I would be very glad to do what the Senator wants if I were the only Minister not to be subject to cutbacks but unfortunately that is not the case. Senator Bradford also mentioned the reason for the increase in fines. It has nothing at all to do with the level of offences in the Army. It is just that the level of the fines is out-of-date. The Senator also made reference to drunkenness. That is already an offence against military law under section 142 of the 1954 Act.

I share the views of Senator O'Callaghan in regard to the importance of the FCA which has a major role to play in the military context. Unfortunately, due to financial constraints it has been necessary to curtail the period of annual training in recent years. I see the role of the FCA as very important. I will do everything possible to enhance their reputation and their position. I will have an opportunity in coming weeks to visit their summer camps and see the situation myself at first hand.

Senator O'Callaghan also raised the issue of serious attacks on Naval service personnel in the context of fishery protection. These attacks are to be deplored. The punishment is a matter for the ordinary criminal law and I hope that will be attended to.

There were a number of other matters raised during the course of the debate and these will be receiving my attention. Indeed many of them are already receiving my attention. I would like to thank Senators for their expression of appreciation of our Defence Forces whose service at home and indeed abroad is so highly regarded. It is important that we acknowledge that fact publicly when the opportunity arises. I welcome and unreservedly endorse the generous tributes paid to the Defence Forces in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 21 May 1987