I would like to welcome members. I wish to inform the Committee that the Committee of Selection has discharged Deputy Ferris from this Committee and has appointed Deputy Eamon Walsh in substitution.
A suggested timetable for today has been included with the papers before members. This is intended to assist in discharging our business in an efficient manner. However, it is not a rigid timetable and I propose to adopt a flexible approach.
I will not delay the meeting but I wish to put on record that there is much confusion about how these committees will work which should be cleared up. I did not know that this Committee meeting was this morning to discuss the whole area of security and legislation. I accept it is particularly the Defence Vote which the Committee will be considering but we need to clarify when and where we will meet and how we will proceed. This is causing much confusion. Perhaps the Chairman and the Clerk to the Committee might give some thought to that.
I knew where we were meeting. In relation to the information we received this morning, I accept this is the first of the Select Committees to meet and I am sure it is not easy to get everything organised but I sought this information yesterday evening. I presume in future we will not have any difficulty getting the information in time.
I accept the points. This is a new Committee with which we are all endeavouring to come to grips and trying to co-operate. We depend on Departments and others but I assure members that I will ensure every co-operation and assistance is given to them.
Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I now call on the Minister for Defence to make his opening statement.
First, Chairman and Deputies, it is a privilege for me to be here in my capacity as a Minister of the Irish Government being part of a small piece of history in the sense that this is the first time in the history of the Dáil, we have a committee of this type. We are operating under an entirely new procedure. It is my intention to assist both the Chairman, and the members of the Committee, in every respect possible in the sense of openness and transparency. I will give as much information as I can in the context of the security needs and requirements of the Defence portfolio.
This morning's examination of the Defence and Army Pensions Estimates by this Committee is an important first for Dáil Éireann. This is the first occasion on which the new procedures for the consideration of departmental Estimates will be used. I would like to pay tribute to the party Whips who have put a considerable effort into establishing the committee system. I would particularly like to thank my colleague, Deputy Dempsey, the Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at the Department of Defence, who has been of great assistance to me since my appointment and who has played a major role in this needed Dáil reform.
I am certain that the extra time which the new system will make available, together with the opportunity to raise questions in a more open format will be welcomed on all sides of the House. I welcome the opportunity to participate in a more detailed discussion of the Estimates. I am confident that this Committee will make a valuable contribution to more openness and transparency in Government decision-making.
Before dealing with the Estimate provisions, I would like to refer to the review of the roles of the Defence Forces which I am now undertaking as a necessary first step to facilitate a fundamental review of the organisation of the Defence Forces.
The present roles of the Defence Forces were formally set down by the then Minister for Defence in 1981. The primary role was defined as the defence of the State against external aggression. However, in the intervening years, the operational focus of the Defence Forces has been elsewhere. As Deputies can appreciate over the years a different development has taken place and a different focus has emerged in the performance of tasks such as international peacekeeping, in aid to the civil power, in fishery protection and in search and rescue operations. Moreover, the level of resource allocation by successive Governments has in practice been geared towards those tasks.
Since my appointment as Minister for Defence, I have been struck by the divergence between the stated primary role and the actual work of the Defence Forces. The lack of clarity over their role has been unfair to the Defence Forces and it has hindered management planning to the detriment of the overall efficiency.
It is widely acknowledged that there is a need for a fundamental reorganisation of the Defence Forces. However, unless the root and branch review is to be guided by a clear and unambiguous set of objectives for the Defence Forces, it will amount to no more than a sterile and aimless exercise in cost cutting. By the redefinition of roles in modern day conditions with emphasis on the actual tasks of the Defence Forces, it is the Government's intention to facilitate a reorganisation which will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service.
The Defence Forces have served under the flag of the United Nations since 1958. Over the past 34 years, Ireland's international prestige has been greatly enhanced by their outstanding role as international peacekeepers — a point brought home to me once more during my St. Patrick's Day visit to our troops serving in Lebanon. At present, approximately 750 military personnel are serving overseas in 12 or 13 countries — a very substantial commitment to international peacekeeping for a small country like Ireland. We have to keep our position in perspective in this regard and I have no doubt that I will be addressing that point more fully. In other words, where do we serve, when do we serve, how do we serve and what is our commitment.
Wherever they serve, the patience, diplomacy, discipline and military professionalism, of Irish soldiers have won universal acclaim. We are completely dependent for our continuing contribution to international peacekeeping on the willingness of our military personnel to volunteer — and I stress the word "volunteer"— to serve as peacekeepers. I would like to place on record, once again, the appreciation of the Government for the courage and dedication shown by the men and women of the Defence Forces in the cause of peace.
Since the United Nations organisation was founded in 1945, more than 100 major conflicts have resulted in approximately 20 million deaths. The division of the post-war world frequently left the UN powerless to intervene. The impotence of the United Nations in the face of superpower rivalry throughout the Cold War is illustrated by the 279 vetoes exercised by members of the Security Council during that period.
However, the end of the Cold War has transformed the international environment and greatly enhanced the scope for intervention by the UN. As a consequence, the demand for peacekeeping missions has greatly increased. In the 32 year period between 1945 and 1987, 13 peacekeeping operations were established. In the five years which followed, another 13 were established. In a world free from superpower rivalry, the scope for intervention by the United Nations in disputes has broadened and this necessarily has consequences for Ireland and the role which we have traditionally played as peacekeepers.
These issues have been brought to the fore by the situation in Somalia. The United Nations is at present assembling a multinational force known as UNOSOM II to take over from the unified task force comprising armed forces from the United States and other countries on completion of Operation Restore Hope. It is fair to pay tribute to the Americans in that regard; in taking over the country in the circumstances they did they covered over 40 per cent of the territory and I understand they took into possession one-third of the armaments in that blighted nation.
The mandate of the new force is broader than any in which we have previously participated and includes a role in enforcing peace. The Government will shortly make a formal response to the United Nations' request for Irish participation. In that regard I might add, that not only will the Government make a response, it will also make a decision. That decision will be brought to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas, who in the final analysis have to take a decision based on the principle of collectivism and collective responsibility.
It is my belief that the Irish people, who have responded so generously to the cry for help from the people of Somalia, fully support our participation in UNOSOM. I visited Somalia on two occasions and the scale of human suffering inflicted on innocent men, women and children defies description. Armed forces from the United States, acting with contingents from other countries, have succeeded in stabilising the situation. However, a longer term commitment is required if a lasting peace is to be restored and the shattered economic infrastructure in Somalia rebuilt.
I am convinced that public opinion would be critical of any attempt to obstruct our participation in UNOSOM because of fears concerning our neutrality. Neutrality and isolationism are two different things. Standing on the sidelines while an entire people starve is not a moral posture. This Committee will have a full opportunity of discussing all of the implications of participation in UNOSOM assuming a positive response by the Government to the UN request.
Before leaving the area of peacekeeping, I would like to refer to speculation concerning the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Fourteen personnel of the Defence Forces are serving in a traditional peacekeeping role with the United Nations and European Community missions. The tradegy of the war in Bosnia has provoked a world wide debate on the role of the United Nations and the possibility of military intervention. There has been some speculation in the news media about a possible Irish involvement. I would like to make a number of observations in that regard.
The Government has not received any request from any quarter to participate in any military intervention in Bosnia. Accordingly, any concerns about the possible implications for this country of a UN mission to Bosnia are based on speculation and hypothesis. We have not been asked for troops. At present we are not anticipating a request. Should such a request be received in the future, it will be considered in the light of the circumstances which obtain at that time. Among the factors which the Government would consider would be the large numbers already serving overseas. The Defence Forces must give priority to the provision of aid to the civil power, including Border patrols, and remain ready to deal with any contingency which might arise. We might keep in mind that the Defence Forces comprise of between 12,000 and 13,000 personnel. There is a limit to the number of personnel that can be spared for overseas service. I wish to emphasise that the proposed amendments to the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1960, would not affect the requirement for a resolution of the Dáil before an armed contingent of 12 or more Defence Forces personnel could be sent abroad on any new mission.
The world has changed dramatically over the past few years. In particular, as the United Nations finally grasps the opportunity to act as its founders intended, we cannot attach conditions to our membership and participation in peacekeeping which ignore the new realities of the 1990s. We should remember that Ireland's neutrality has not been affected or diminished in any way by our participation in international forces operating under the United Nations flag in the past. If anything, it has been enhanced. In this regard, it is important to remember that the United Nations Charter of 1945 contains Chapter 7 which deals with peace enforcement. We have been members of the United Nations for many years with that chapter extant and at no time has our membership of the United Nations in the context of Chapter 7 been raised or questioned. I agree that Chapter 7 is only being brought into operation now.
Over the next four years, the direction of Government will be set by the provisions of the Programme for a Partnership Government. In the Defence area, we are committed to equipping the Defence Forces to carry out their principal missions both at home and overseas; to expanding our fisheries surveillance capacity in conjunction with the European Community and to developing the capacity of the Defence Forces to assist the community. We are also determined to continue to improve the conditions of service of the men and women who serve in the Defence Forces.
The Defence Estimate for the year 1993 is for a gross sum of £355 million — an increase of more than £7 million on the 1992 figure. The bulk of the Estimate, £285.6 million or approximately 80 per cent, provides for pay and allowances. This represents an increase of just over £11 million over the 1992 outturn. The Estimate is based on an average total strength of 12,901 in the Defence Forces comprising 1,580 officers, 56 cadets, 65 members of the nursing service and 11,200 other ranks. Provision is also made for the training of approximately 9,000 FCA and Slua Muirí personnel.
Non-pay expenditure in the sum of £69.6 million is provided in 24 subheads. members of the Committee have been provided with details of the subheads in advance. As we will be considering these provisions individually later on in today's proceedings, I do not intend to dwell upon them now. I would, however, draw the Deputies' attention to the provision of £2.067 million for Civil Defence.
The Civil Defence organisation runs on the voluntary and unpaid service of thousands of dedicated volunteers throughout Ireland. Originally established to assist in protecting the civil population in wartime, the organisation has developed into a multi purpose community support service. Civil Defence volunteers are trained in a variety of skills including fire fighting, first aid, rescue and welfare. These skills are routinely placed at the disposal of local authorities. For example, Civil Defence volunteers frequently provide crowd control and first aid at large public events. During the past year, Civil Defence volunteers have assisted in the care of refugees from the former Yugoslavia.
In 1992, a new development programme, entitled Towards 2000, was adopted as a blueprint for the coming years. My colleague, the Minister of State who has special responsibility for Civil Defence will be pleased to brief the Committee on this important development and any other matters which may arise during the course of today's discussions.
The last item in the Estimate for Defence — Appropriations-in-Aid — is an estimate of the revenue which will be received by the Department in the course of 1993. Income arises from a number of sources including the sale of surplus property, assistance from the European Community in respect of the costs of fishery protection — principally the CASA aircraft at present under construction — and payments from the banks for cash escorts. We have accepted delivery of a used aircraft in 1991 and we hope to take delivery of two new craft in 1994.
Provision is also made for reimbursement from the United Nations for the costs of Irish troops serving with UN peacekeeping missions. The present situation with regard to the financing of peacekeeping missions is less than satisfactory; payments in respect of UNIFIL are constantly in arrears. Within the past few weeks a payment of approximately £1.75 million has been received. However, almost £13 million remains outstanding. In this regard the United Nations intends repaying its debt over a period of five years on a phased basis and this will be helpful. It is wrong that a small country with limited financial resources should have to carry debts of this magnitude in respect of international peacekeeping. I have written to the Secretary General of the United Nations to express my grave concern at this situation. It remains my intention to travel to the United Nations in New York later this year to discuss our role within the United Nations. I intend to use this occasion to press once again for action on the question of the UN's debt to Ireland.
I would now like to turn to the Army Pensions Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1993 which is for a net sum of £51,790,000 representing an increase of £2,360,000 or 5 per cent on the 1992 outturn.
The bulk of expenditure from the Estimate falls under subhead E1 and covers pensions and gratuities granted under the Defence Forces pensions, schemes to former members of the Permanent Defence Force and their dependants. These items account for 83 per cent of the total Estimate with approximately 6,520 pensioners.
All pensions and allowances are being increased from 1 January and 1 December 1993, in line with the pay increases from those dates under the modified terms of the agreement on pay and conditions associated with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Exceptionally and in line with similar arrangements applicable elsewhere in the public service, retirement gratuities and other once-off lump sum payments are being increased from 1 January 1993, as if the full pay increase due under theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress has been paid from that date. Moreover, the full 3.75 per cent increase is being applied from 1 January to the pensions and allowances payable to veterans of the War of Independence and the dependants of deceased veterans.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the surviving veterans who are in a special category. As the events in which they were involved took place more than 70 years ago, there may be a tendency to forget them. This would be a mistake and as a nation, we should not overlook the sacrifices which these veterans had to make on our behalf in the period leading up to the foundation of the State.
The number of military service pensioners provided for is 203. In addition there are 517 recipients of special allowances under the Army Pensions Acts as well as 4,596 dependants. The decline in the numbers of these categories of pensioners is reflected in the provisions included in the Estimate.
I would like to conclude by thanking the members of the Committee for their attention. I will be pleased to answer any questions which Members wish to raise on the Estimates during the course of the day, keeping in mind that I am not omniscient, and I may not have answers to all the questions. If I cannot answer a question raised, I will communicate with the Deputy concerned.
As this is the first opportunity since I was appointed spokesman on Defence and the Marine to sit down formally with my constituency colleague, Minister Andrews, I wish him well in his portfolio.
I wish to thank the Deputy. May I return those congratulations on the Deputy's appointment?
Before addressing the Estimate I wish to express the hope that in the near future the Government will come to realise the valuable work this Committee could do if it was authorised to debate Estimates in advance of the financial year. That would permit members and parties to put forward alternative expenditure proposals within an overall level of expenditure.
Today we are discussing the Estimates for 1993, nearly half way through the year when a large percentage of the moneys allocated have been spent. That appears to be a futile exercise. As we are in the process of reviewing the way we do our business I would ask the Minister and the Government Chief Whip to take this point on board and examine ways of allowing committees to debate the Government's proposals in advance so that we can have a real input. I recognise that the Government's responsibility is to set a level of public expenditure it can afford in a particular year. While debating Estimates is an opportunity for all of us to get information, ask the Minister questions and see where money is being spent, the work of this Committee would be more effective if we were now debating next year's Estimate for the Department of Defence.
In addressing the Defence Estimate we must ask what is the future role for the Defence Forces. I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister for Defence that he intends carrying out a major review of the structure and roles of the Defence Forces. I remind the House that in 1988 an efficiency audit group carried out a major examination of both the civil and military branches of the Department of Defence and within the Defence Forces. What happened to the recommendations made by this group?
Does the Government intend publishing a White Paper on the future role of the Defence Forces? We cannot ignore the changing world we live in and the new demands and challenges that face Ireland today and will in the future as members of the European Community. We cannot ignore the increasing demands on the United Nations to involve itself more as peacekeepers and peace enforcers in various parts of the world. Are we prepared to supply our share of troops to participate in these extended activities and, if so, to what extent? We cannot ignore the ongoing problems in Northern Ireland and the necessity to provide military assistance to the Garda Síochána in patrolling the Border areas and the many other activities associated with the problem of dealing with subversives.
The Maastricht Treaty provides for an inter-governmental conference to be held in 1996 to discuss a common defence policy. In view of this important future development it is vital that we begin to develop a policy on the future role of the Irish Army within Europe and internationally. These are only some of the reasons why the Government should publish a White Paper in the near future so that all of us will have an opportunity of stating our positions on the challenges we face.
The Minister has indicated that Irish troops may be involved in peace enforcement, as distinct from peacekeeping operations with the United Nations in the near future. Changes will have to be made to the Defence Acts to allow this to happen. Those who have seen on our television screens the horrific acts of murder against the Moslem community in Bosnia and the starving people in Somalia realise that peacekeeping needs the threat of enforcement in the background in order to be credible. The Fine Gael Party will support a change in legislation to allow this. However, recognising the magnificent and well-earned reputation built up by Irish troops in the UN as peacekeepers, and anxious that this reputation be retained as far as possible, we will be insisting that each request by the UN for Irish troops to act as peacekeepers and peace enforcers must come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval before our troops are allowed to participate in such missions.
The 1993 Estimates inform us that there is a total strength of 12,901 in the Defence Forces. The figure has been reducing over the past couple of years, yet the demands on serving personnel seems to be increasing. The establishment figure for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service is 17,977, whereas the average strength is more than 5,000 less. It is important that the Minister launch a new recruiting campaign as a matter of urgency. I read recently that if the United Nations requested a batallion of some 500 additional Irish troops to be sent to Cyprus to replace the Canadian forces at present stationed there, that would place considerable strain on the already stretched resources of the Defence Forces. While, obviously, there would be some cost to the Government in recruiting additional personnel, given that service with the United Nations, forces results in payments from the United Nations to the State for the costs involved, surely the Minister would agree that recruitment to the Defence Forces would be a way of taking significant numbers of people, who want to join the Defence Forces, off the unemployment register as well as expanding our valuable role in international peacekeeping. I recognise that the Minister is having problems with the United Nations in regard to payments. That is an administrative matter that needs to be dealt with quickly. The principle of extending our forces to engage in more peacekeeping activities throughout the world is a way not only of playing a major role in peacekeeping internationally but also of dealing with our massive unemployment problem.
In addition to the international role played by the members of the Defence Forces we must also take into account the considerable stress and strain placed on those members, as well as on their spouses and children, involved in Border duties. We must ensure at all times that we have sufficient personnel available to assist the Garda in the fight against terrorism. Even though it is costing the taxpayer a considerable sum of money for the carrying out of this important role, it is necessary that we have sufficient troops available at all times to carry out that very important function.
The Minister should bring us up to date on the role of women in the Defence Forces. It is important to remove all restrictions to allow women to serve in all areas of the Defence Forces and to allow them to partake in all military activities, including service abroad and peacekeeping activities. Repeatedly in classes for cadets and regular soldiers female participants have excelled themselves and it is unacceptable that there should be any restrictions on them which would have the effect of stifling their abilities.
Irish troops have a great tradition of peacekeeping activities in the United Nations and have served throughout the world in that capacity. The reputation they have built up provides us with a great opportunity to train others who wish to participate in peacekeeping activities. Many Eastern European and African countries have expressed an interest in participating in UN activities and this affords us the opportunity of developing a major training school here in Ireland which would also generate revenue for the country. The Minister should report on the progress, if any, in establishing such a training school.
Members of the Naval Service play a major role in the protection of our maritime resources and, despite the limited resources available to that service, it has been extremely successful. However, in view of the continuing invasion of our fishing waters, it is important that additional resources be made available to the Naval Service to enable it to carry out the duties assigned to it. Since the enactment of the Single European Act on 1 January last, I can envisage a very important role for the Naval Service in preventing the importation of drugs, in association with the Garda Síochána, into this country. Recently there has been considerable evidence of an increase in the illegal importation of drugs through our ports. There is no need for me to outline the damage being caused by the increasing use of drugs and if our Naval Service can play a role in preventing quantities of these drugs reaching our shores, then it must be given the resources to do so.
In addition, the activities of subversives in importing arms and explosives into this country by sea is causing death and destruction in Northern Ireland. It is frightening to read of the quantities of explosives that appear to be in the possession of the IRA and which, I have no doubt, were brought into this country by sea. There is only so much that the Naval Service can do with its limited resources. It is important, therefore, that these resources are increased. In this regard, will the Minister tell us if the EC is making funds available not only for fishery protection but also for the other activities which the Naval Service should be able to undertake, not alone on behalf of this country but on behalf of the EC.
As there are only 15 minutes available to me I intend to deal with other matters relating to the Defence Estimate during the course of the question and answer session.
On Army pensions, will the Minister immediately deal with the problem facing a few hundred widows who are in an extremely difficult position because their spouses opted out of the pension scheme when they were given the opportunity to do so some 15 years ago. This has resulted in these widows being left without any pensions. They did not realise at the time that their husbands had taken such a decision and they are now paying the price for this. I appeal to the Minister, and the Government, on compassionate grounds to ensure that these cases are dealt with sympathetically and that steps are taken to prevent such a situation arising in the future. Will the Minister consider introducing a proper death-in-service benefit and, indeed, death-in-retirement benefit for spouses? I am sure this could be funded through the private insurance market at a relatively low cost.
At the outset I welcome the increase in the Defence Estimate for the coming year. However, there are a number of points I wish to make about urgent domestic and international issues facing the Defence Forces. On the domestic front we must strive to recruit extra personnel to the Defence Forces in order to adjust the age profile and bring our forces into line with most other European armies. On the international front, we must face up to the new demands for peacekeeping in many parts of the world. Decisions will have to be taken in the context of our obligations to the United Nations in trouble spots such as Somalia and Bosnia. Our Defence Forces have a proud record of overseas service with the United Nations in peacekeeping roles throughout the world. Many members of the Defence Forces gave their lives to preserve the peace of behalf of the community of nations. At present our forces are on duty in potential flash points like the Lebanon and Somalia.
Keeping the peace throughout the world is not only a very complex political issue, it is also a costly affair. Will the Minister press for prompt payment of United Nations' arrears owed to this country? Although it is not possible to put a price on peacekeeping, the powerful nations who control most of the world's economic wealth must recognise the vital contribution of small countries like Ireland who readily take part in United Nations' missions. Therefore, there is an onus on the super powers to ensure that payments are made to the Irish Government for the participation of our Defence Forces in UN operations overseas.
With the current debate on the extension of the peacekeeping role into other more front line activities, such as peace enforcement, it is time to review the strength of the Defence Forces in the light of the experience of modern European armies. It is no secret that the age profile of the Defence Forces is not in line with most other European armies. An urgent recruitment campaign by the Minister would have a twofold beneficial outcome. First, it would increase the strength of the Defence Forces and lower the age profile. Secondly, it would open up careers to many young people who now see the Defence Forces as a promising career option.
I am disappointed to note from the Estimate that in real terms the numbers show a decrease. The Estimate shows a decrease in the provision for the number of cadets. There is a drop of nine cadet places in the current year and surely this must be regarded as a backward step. At a time when we are facing enormous difficulties on the employment front it must be a source of regret that the Defence Forces are not opening up more places to young cadets and private soldiers.
It is also a source of regret to me that there is no provision to increase the number of civilian employees within the Defence Forces. I do not wish to be cynical, but the highest percentage increase in the Estimate seems to be for the provision of consultancy services. In fact, there is a 67 per cent increase in the provision for consultancy services. Will the Minister inform the Committee in greater detail of the service provided by these consultants?
The provision for increases in pay and conditions is to be welcomed. I am sure the Defence Forces representative association will have their own views on these proposals. For too long the rates of pay and, indeed, the working conditions of the members of the Defence Forces lagged behind generally accepted and recognised standards. However, the great progress of recent years is a tribute to the spirit of consultation and democracy which is now more evident in many parts of Irish life.
The role of the Defence Forces has greatly expanded over the past two decades, caused to a considerable extent by the situation in Northern Ireland which continues to be a drain on the financial and manpower resources of the Government. The Defence Forces aid the civil power in many cases; for example, many soldiers are on Border duty and they are also involved in assisting the Garda Síochána on prisoner and cash escorts.
The latter points raise issues of urgent concern to all politicians involved in the drafting of new legislation. At a time when crime is rampant it is obvious there is urgent need for additional prison places. It is fashionable to propose the privatisation of prisons and prisoner escorts. However, we should examine the experience of such a move in Britain recently. In a short time the law has become a laughing stock because of the many escapes of prisoners being escorted by private companies. We should consider carefully all the implications involved in pursuing similar policies. Already there is a serious questioning of the law in many parts of Ireland where whole communities now live in fear of criminals who seemingly are released early from prison to continue their reign of terror.
The Northern situation will continue to draw on the resources of the Defence Forces. It is imperative, therefore, that talks aimed at finding common political ground towards a solution be resumed without delay.
There are other international issues which focus attention on the future role of the Defence Forces. As we move towards a more united Europe the issue of a new European Army will arise and changes in our Constitution will have to be considered to meet these new situations. However, there are even more pressing issues, such as our ability to protect the nation's fishing grounds from the predators who invade them from Eastern Europe and other countries. The Air Corps and Naval Service must be upgraded to meet the challenge of more sophisticated criminals such as the international drug dealers who use Ireland as a dropping off point in their illegal and deadly trade. The foreign trawlers who hunt down the valuable fishing stocks in Irish waters must be brought to justice, as must the sharp-suited drug dealers who stroll around our airports.
While we all welcome a new and united Europe we must also be aware of the dangers such a unity will present for the smaller more open countries like Ireland. We are on the edge of Europe but we must not be isolated. The Defence Forces have a crucial role to play in our national life. We are all proud when we are recognised by international peacekeeping organisations such as the United Nations. Our Defence Forces reflect our national pride and it is right that we invest in their future.
I welcome the meeting of this Committee and congratulate the representatives of all the parties in the Dáil for their work in establishing these committees and, indeed, in bringing the Dáil into the 20th century if not the 21st century in terms of the way we do our business. We are at an experimental stage at this point and there may well be adjustments to be made in the course of time. It is a very hopeful sign that we have had the capacity to make these changes. I have long been critical of the way we conduct our business and for that reason it is right that I should congratulate the Government Chief Whip for his work in bringing about the changes that are taking place today. It should not go without comment that we are meeting in the Seanad chamber which is one of the most beautiful rooms in Leinster House.
This Committee should address today, and the Minister has already adverted to it, the changing role of the Defence Forces. It is a change which has occurred almost unnoticed. As the Minister said, in 1981 the role of the Defence Forces was declared to be that of defending this State from outside aggression. Clearly the role has been more one of involvement in international peacekeeping, and, indeed, peacekeeping at home also. It should not be forgotten that the Defence Forces have played a very important role over the past 25 years in defending this State against aggression, internally and externally. That is something we should be proud of.
May I ask the Minister whether the sub-committee of this Committee will be involved in a revision of the stated aims of the Defence Forces? Will we be consulted on this or will it be a matter for internal discussion between the Minister and the Government with, presumably, the involvement of the Council of Defence? This issue has become important in the light of the Minister's declaration that he is considering changing the Act to enable the Irish Army to become involved in peace-enforcement operations with the United Nations. That brings home to us forcibly the changes that have occurred in the world, not just how the role of the Army has been redefined in practice but how the world has also changed.
I would quibble with the Minister when he says that super power rivalries no longer exist since the Cold War ended as that is not the case. The major powers are still rivals in the world. The former protagonists in the Cold War are no longer protagonists in the same sense as they were four or five years ago yet this should not blind us to the fact that they are still major powers with conflicting self interests in many cases and with concerns about spheres of influence outside of their own borders. It is important to bear this in mind when considering any role the Army might have in peace-enforcement because the last thing we want as far as Ireland or any country participating in enforcement operations is concerned, is to be seen by the conflicting forces, countries or states as being pawns of any one power or another.
This brings me to the question of the urgent need for a reform of the United Nations, how it does its business and also its role in being aware of likely trouble spots emerging and developing. There is an undue preponderance of major powers who, as things stand, effectively control the Security Council and their interests predominate on that body. While it could be argued that this matter is one for the foreign affairs committee it is relevant when we are discussing the Irish Army and its role in peace-enforcement.
Like the majority of Irish people I am intensely proud of the Army's role in peacekeeping operations. It should not be forgotten that the Army's reputation and our pride in their role is based on peacekeeping and any move from that role to one of peace-enforcement should be carefully considered in terms of its impact on the support for the Army here or abroad. Given the size of our Army there have been considerable casualties among its personnel in that role of peacekeeping. Peace-enforcement could result in a much higher casualty rate which might have an impact on how people view the Army's role internationally.
The point the Minister made in regard to neutrality is, perhaps, more correctly in the ambit of the foreign affairs committee, but since we are discussing Defence and the role of the Army it is an issue we should address. For a considerable time I argued that we could no longer pursue a policy of neutrality in the traditional way. Traditional neutrality, essentially, meant not participating in military alliances and not taking sides on major international issues because we were "neutral". The change in the world order, the change in international relationships and the increasing demands on the United Nations clearly brings that question to the fore yet again.
This issue should not get bogged down in an ignorant debate about whether one is pro- or anti-neutrality. It has to be about whether one is pro- or anti-peace, for or against trying to play a role in establishing a world order based on the defence of fundamental human rights and where poverty in a huge part of the world will not be the spark that causes conflict. Examining the conflicts around the world one finds that the violation of human rights and poverty are probably fundamental to most of them. It is a debate of that nature which we need in relation to Ireland's role in the future.
There has been a clamour for increased United Nations military action in Bosnia. The Minister indicated this morning that the question of involvement does not arise for Ireland since we have not been asked to participate. Strictly speaking that is true except if an invitation arrives on the Minister's desk tomorrow and then the question arises quickly. We should be discussing our attitude to such an eventuality now rather than waiting until we face a "yes" or "no" answer. I would like the Minister to address that question and indicate the criteria he would use in considering such an invitation and, for instance, how the difference between peacekeeping and peace-enforcement would be defined. It is not a black and white issue and there will inevitably be grey areas.
I wish to make one or two further points on the Bosnia-Herzegovina situation. The question of increased UN military action in that area should be approached with extreme caution. A couple of years ago when we were deciding to send observers to the former Yugoslavia I warned that we would, perhaps, regret that a number of states outside of Yugoslavia pushed hard for the break-up of that federation, and there would be claims and counter-claims from various states, both internally and externally, leading to a severe problem of ethnic groups seeking to establish wider areas for themselves. One of the difficulties I have with the Vance-Owen plan is that it seeks to establish ethnicly based provinces which inevitably create pressure to realign borders, or increase territorial areas and so forth. Rather than talking about a political or military solution we should be looking for a political solution backed by military power. Given the nature of the conflict the dominant forces in it are not likely to respond to being asked nicely to please revert to their original borders. Rather than abandoning the search for a political solution and assuming that the Vance-Owen plan is likely to fail, we should consider the establishment of an international civil authority in Bosnia. This has been proposed by progressive forces in that area for many years as an alternative to the division of the country into ethnic provinces. I will conclude my contribution at this stage and look forward to the question and answer period we will have shortly.
Before we move on to the question and answer session, I would like to remind members that they may, if they wish, remain seated while they are speaking. As we move on to the question and answer session on the subheads——
Would you like me to respond to some of the more important points? It may clarify issues and help the Committee.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to make a few points arising out of the Deputies' contributions, particularly the suggestion by Deputy Barrett, the Fine Gael spokesperson on Defence, in relation to the White Paper on the future role of the Permanent Defence Force. It is a very good idea and I am anxious to consider it. A future defence role for the EC will be decided unanimously at the intergovernmental conference in 1996, provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. Ireland is not a member of any alliance and it is not intended that Ireland will become a member of any alliance. Nevertheless, we will participate as observers in this conference just as we continue to be observers at meetings of the Western European Union.
I am very grateful to Fine Gael for their proposed support in the event of the Government deciding on a future role for the Defence Forces in peacekeeping and peace-enforcement situations. This support is appreciated in advance and reinforces my opinion that this is the direction in which the Defence Forces should be going. If Ireland does not take up the invitation under the new mandate in UNOSOM II, to redirect the thrust from peacekeeping to peace-making or peace-enforcement, we will be sidelined as a nation in the area of peacekeeping. I accept the point made by Deputy De Rossa that although the Cold War is over, the big powers have their agenda. However, in the meantime those and other powers are queuing up within the United Nations to become part of the peacekeeping, peace-making and peace-enforcement force. Unless we take up this challenge we will not be part of this force in the future. I am taking account, Mr. Chairman, of the role played by the Irish Army in peacekeeping over the last 30 years. It would be a great tragedy for this country and for the Defence Forces, in particular, if we were not part of such a force.
The illegal importation of drugs was mentioned by Deputy Barrett in his worthy contribution. He suggested that the Naval Service could have a role in this regard. Such a role, which would be in aid of the civil power and an adjunct to its fishery protection role, should be looked at positively.
Vote 37 deals with the very important issue of widows' pensions and the question of opting out. I understand that the people who opted out did so twice. Although I look at this problem sympathetically, I am not hopeful of a solution. If the Deputy has any suggestions which could help me to resolve this problem I would be glad to discuss them.
On the question of new recruitment, I would like to open up the floodgates in this regard. The establishment figure of 18,000 is only a notional one, the number of Army, Navy and Air Corps personnel stands at 12,901 at the moment. There is a very important case to be made for recruitment but we are bound by financial exigencies and restraints. If the finance became available in the morning I would be the first to open up a recruitment drive. I am not certain that a recruitment drive is necessary because, as the Deputy is aware through the Chairman, thousands of people are willing and able to join the Army at this time. The age profile of the Army, Navy and Air Corps has risen considerably because fewer people are now leaving the Defence Forces than in the past due to the improved pay and conditions which resulted from the implementation of the recommendations of the 1981 Gleeson report.
We can address the role of women in more detail. There is no barrier to women joining any unit of the Defence Forces, whether it is the Army, the Air Corps or the Naval Service. I visited Lebanon and saw women soldiers serving proudly and bravely there in the same circumstances as the male soldiers. I was very pleased and proud to see them. The problem was only identified in 1980. Only 0.91 per cent of the members of the Defence Forces are women. This position is not satisfactory but it is being addressed. A small committee is looking at the involvement of women in the Naval Service. The logistic difficulty of converting ships to the needs of women is being addressed. There is no bar whatever in the context of the Air Corps.
Deputy De Rossa asked if this Committee would be involved in the revision or review of the stated aims of the Defence Forces. This should be looked at very seriously. Before making any decisions on this matter, I will put my views, through the Chairman, to the Committee or any sub-committee which may evolve from it. We have a shared obligation to improve the condition of the Defence Forces.
A very interesting document on the future peacekeeping role of the United Nations, An Agenda for Peace, was produced by Boutros Boutros Ghali, the Secretary General of the UN. This document sets out his philosophy as Secretary General of the United Nations. If the Deputy and other members would like me to make copies available to them I will be glad to do so. It sets out the role Boutros Boutros Ghali intends for the United Nations and people like ourselves in that context. The question of neutrality was raised and that is more proper to the Committee under the aegis of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have my own views ideas on this matter but I do not see peace-enforcement in any way impinging on our neutrality.
That matter of consultancies was raised by Deputy Clohessy. Computerisation of the Department is being considered but no consultant has been appointed. That is made clear in the 1993 Estimate, but if and when a consultant is appointed, I will bring it to the attention of the Deputy and the Committee if it is so desired. I wanted to make this general statement in advance of anything Deputies wish to raise.
I am sure those comments will be helpful to the Members of the Committee in their contributions. There are quite a number of subheads. Section A has seven. Therefore, I will call out each subhead as we come to it. I will take questions from members and then return to the Minister or Minister of State for answers.
In regard to subhead A.2 — Travel and Subsistence — there is an interesting note at the top of the second page relating to the increased travelling expenses on fishery protection matters. This is a most important area of the Department's work. It is good to see that we hope to receive £3.9 million from the European Community in respect of fishery protection costs.
The Minister may not have one figure relating to fishery protection that I would like to have. It is not the responsibility of his Department, but would the Minister have an approximate figure for State receipts from fishery fines, maritime fishery fines and receipts from the confiscation of vessels, gear and equipment? That should be an interesting figure and would give further justification to the work of the fishery protection service.
I do not have the figure relating to fines but I can certainly supply it to the Deputy when it becomes available to me. The role played by the courts in relation to fines is very important. Nevertheless, the fines are not severe enough. Currently, catch and gear may be confiscated and the maximum fine under the Act is £100,000. Unfortunately, the average fine is around £30,000. There is also a suggestion that, in addition to confiscation of catch and gear and a fine, the boat should be confiscated. That is being examined seriously.
The law says that for the first transgression in our waters a foreign vessel cannot be confiscated but on the second occasion it may be. Foreign vessels evade that by changing the ownership of the vessel or the number on the register of vessels. These technical ways of evading the law are at present being addressed by the Department of the Marine. I take Deputy Lenihan's point. The question of fines will also be examined.
The Secretary of the Department has just given me a figure from the Revised Estimates for Public Services, 1993, for proceeds from fines and forfeitures in respect of fishery offences. The provisional outturn for 1992 was £1,261,000 and the Estimate to date for 1993 is £545,000. The Deputy will appreciate that my point about underfining is relevant in that context. As I said, the maximum fine is £100,000 and that unfortunately is not being applied. Nobody has explained that to me but I am sure that will be done after these deliberations.
Could the Minister give a breakdown on the figures for foreign travel in the EC for which there is an increase from £22,000 to £40,000? The note indicates that the increase is mainly attributable to increased travelling expenses in relation to Department of Defence fishery protection matters. The Minister also has responsibility for the Department of the Marine. Could he indicate what meetings he attends at EC level as Minister for Defence which do not relate to fishery protection?
A number of members wish to ask questions. Instead of having a response to each individual member we may take a number of questions and then allow the Minister to reply.
I may not remember each question if I am asked too many of them.
I am trying to be helpful to the members because if you reply to every individual, we will never get through all the questions.
I will just answer that one. I do not attend any European Community defence meetings. That would be a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Ireland now has observer status with the Western European Union and on three or four occasions we have taken up such an invitation and officially became observers. In relation to EC defence matters generally, I understand that officials from the Department visit Brussels and elsewhere from time to time and that is the reason for the figures so set out.
In relation to the fishery problem, I have a question on a point of procedure. From what has been said, clearly our present legislation is inadequate to cope with the ingenuity of the poachers. Many secret holds have been discovered in trawlers near Castletownbere only after an intense five or six hours examination by inspecting officers. Will the Minister devise a procedure so that we as a Committee could highlight a need for a substantial change in the law and substantially increased penalties, particularly for those involved in ingenious flouting of the law in the manner I described?
In relation to foreign travel the Minister mentioned his intention to travel to the United Nations in New York later this year to discuss our role with the UN and the outstanding moneys due to Ireland. The general public and many of us in the Oireachtas do not understand why, year after year, we fulfil our obligations and responsibilities to the UN and yet, a huge debt remains which never seems to be cleared. Will the Minister indicate how this arose and why it is being allowed to continue to the point where now almost £13 million is owed to us? We are a small member state of the United Nations, discharging our peacekeeping obligations as best we can.
We have five or six speakers. I will allow two or three speakers to make their contributions and then the Minister can respond.
On a point of order, we are discussing the subheads. The last question was a general one on the Minister's speech which will be discussed when we resume at 2 p.m. for questions and answers. At this rate we will not get through the various subheads. I ask the Chair to differentiate between each subhead and the general policy from the Minister's earlier statement in order to get the business done.
We said at the outset that it is important to have co-operation. It is a new system and we are endeavouring to extract information from the Minister. In order to assist the Minister, it is important that we discuss only the subheads before us. I appeal to members to keep to the relevant issues and we will have a fruitful discussion.
In response to Deputy Briscoe, may I say that I raised my point in the context of foreign travel. The Minister is going to the United Nations to discuss this issue. In that context I feel it is a legitimate point.
The issues of secret holds on board fishing ships and of fines were raised by Deputy Lenihan. There should be a compulsory confiscation of ships which have secret holds. Our personnel experience extreme difficulty and trouble in rough seas while searching for these holds. Therefore, the people involved should not be given a second chance.
Regarding travel and membership by way of observer status at Western European Union, can the Minister say whether it has been, is or will be his intention to accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, to these meetings, because Western European Union conferences are attended both by Ministers for Defence and Ministers for Foreign Affairs?
In view of what the Minister has outlined regarding foreign trawlers and fishing ships playing ducks and drakes at sea by changing numbers, etc., is there an international law which forbids us from confiscating ships the first time they commit an offence? Have we any power to change that rule in order to prevent them from making fools of us?
Are we restricted to the first heading or may we discuss any of the headings?
The second heading.
Are we not allowed to discuss any heading?
It will be more fruitful to discuss the subheads.
I will wait for an appropriate heading.
Perhaps I could pursue a little further one point, already raised and replied to, regarding our status as an observer at the Western European Union. What is the nature of our representation at these meetings? Are we represented by civil servants or military personnel? What is the nature of the participation? Are we allowed to contribute verbally at these meetings or do we sit there and not say anything? I would also like to know what happened at the three meetings at which we had observer status.
In view of the problems which arise in regard to fishery protection, does the Minister intend making a recommendation to the Government?
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised two points. First the question of the secret holds and, secondly, our role with the United Nations and the outstanding debt due to Ireland, the amount of money outstanding year after year. The question of the secret holds is relevant to the point which Deputy Barrett made about drugs. I understand that a number of Spanish trawlers have been apprehended and a number of secret holds have been discovered in them in which there were fish. I do not want to offend the Spanish Government, nor would I suggest that Spanish fishermen are in the drug running business but there is that potential. As I say, I am not making allegations against the Spanish fishermen but that potential exists. This is something on which the naval and maritime services will be keeping a close eye. I assure the Committee that this will be the case.
The outstanding debt is unacceptable. It relates to Ireland's involvement in UNIFIL in Lebanon and with UNICEF in Cyprus. A total of almost £13 million is outstanding. A sum of money has been paid in the last number of weeks, arising out of our continued representations in this regard. Again, one does not want to have the reputation of a country which goes to the United Nations with a begging bowl or a poor mouth attitude. Deputies will appreciate this fact and it is something I would be conscious of. I have written to Boutros Boutros Ghali concerning the matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, supports my intention to visit New York to address this and other issues with Boutros Boutros Ghali. It would be acceptable to go to New York looking for money, but not to come back empty-handed. I do not want that to happen. I want an undertaking that it will be paid within a certain period.
The problem has been that the United States and Russia have failed to honour their contribution commitments. In fairness to the United States, they have promised a five year package. Over those five years they will discharge their contribution commitment to the United Nations. The Russian contribution is a different matter. With the greatest respect, the break-up of the Soviet Union suggests that we cannot look forward to Russian contributions immediately. It is also my intention to seek Government approval — I have made the decision myself — to appoint an Army officer to oversee the Defence Forces' role in the United Nations in New York. In other words, a full-time Army officer will be appointed to keep an eye on what is good or bad for Ireland. This is in addition to the excellent diplomatic input by the Department of Foreign Affairs at the United Nations in New York.
I will consider Deputy Collins's points about secret holds, compulsory confiscation and the "no second chance" principle. Deputy Collins visited the Western European Union as Minister for Foreign Affairs on a couple of occasions. That is now being formalised and we are observers at the Western European Union.
While there is no provision for me to accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Western European Union, it is something I will consider. However, I am not certain whether it is necessary to have two Ministers there in an observer status. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs deputed me to go on his behalf, or I deputed him to go on my behalf, so be it. I would be delighted to represent the country at such a meeting.
In reply to Deputy Browne the question of confiscation or otherwise is not a matter of international law. It is a domestic law and one we are looking at in the Department of the Marine. I wish to speak for a moment as Minister for the Marine and I will then continue in my capacity as Minister for Defence. The Department of the Marine are looking at this problem and the question of confiscation for a first rather than a second offence in order to overcome fraudulence where names are transferred. They are also looking at the question of ownership.
Deputy McDowell made a point about observer status and officials attending the Western European Union. Officials do attend the Western European Union but it is only the Minister who would attend officially on the part of the Government. Officials assist in the setting up of a governmental visit in the context of our obligations under the Western European Union.
Deputy Foley raised a point about legislation. There is no problem in relation to legislation. We are dealing with that matter and we hope to have it resolved in the near future. It is a serious problem and it is unfair. As Deputy Barrett said, it could put our Naval Service in considerable danger. However, they have never been found wanting in relation to their service and I take Deputy Barrett's point in that regard.
The money owed by the United Nations is considerable. I do not know if the Minister mentioned the exact amount of interest. Does the Minister know how much it is costing his Department each year?
Does the Minister know or could he find out whether boats in which secret holds have been discovered by the Naval Service had been given EC grant-aid?
Regarding moneys owed by the UN, are we at greater disadvantage vis-�-vis other countries? How do we fit into the comparative picture in terms of service to UNIFIL and outstanding moneys?
Given the existence of the Single European Act, perhaps we could think as Europeans when dealing with ships breaking our laws in relation to illegal fishing, drugs, etc. Our laws should reflect that. I suggest that the Minister when amending the law should seek back-up from European legislation. If a vessel breaches the law in terms of our fishing rights and manages to escape the Naval Service, we must act as a community and other member states should assist us in apprehending those who broke our law.
Regarding maritime law, it is difficult to draw boundaries and the same applies to drugs and explosives. The Minister should have the support of all parties and of the people generally if a law was in place to enable us to stamp out drug importation, the illegal importation of explosives and the continuous breaching of our fishing rights. This matter should be raised at European level. I do not begrudge the Minister the subhead amount for foreign travel. He has a lot of work to do in Europe. The Minister could spend time in Europe ensuring that European legislation helps us in this area.
In relation to the moneys owed by the United Nations, the Minister said that £13 million is outstanding. This is a considerable amount of money given the small number of soldiers abroad. He indicated that this matter would be resolved over the next five years. Is the Minister happy that this situation will be addressed within that period?
My point is more mundane than the other ones raised. Perhaps the Minister could look at the question of improving communications with our troops abroad. Sometimes there are radio link-ups between soldiers serving abroad and their relatives at home. As Mayor of Limerick I took part in one such link-up. Radio Éireann does a special programme in which messages from people abroad are recorded for those at home. In the Department of Foreign Affairs there is a daily practice of sending a brief to our diplomatic service abroad. This is a useful document. The Department of Defence could copy that practice and send a daily brief containing a summary of news, similar to that collected by the Department of Foreign Affairs, to our troops abroad. It could be photocopied and distributed to our troops. This would create a tangible link between home and abroad.
In relation to the point made by Deputy Kemmy, this is being done by the Department. I was impressed when I was in Lebanon to receive the daily digest. It even contained local football results and it is better than the daily brief issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have suggested to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he should copy it.
If I may take a composite view of the question raised by Deputy Power, Deputy Eoin Ryan, and touched on by Deputy Liam Fitzgerald, the amount owed, as I have already stated, is £15 million. Deputy Ryan made the point in relation to interest owed on that amount. It is a flat sum and there is no interest on the amount of money owed. The only solution to the problem is for payment to be made and for the United Nations to face up to its responsibilities in this regard.
Deputy Barrett made a good point in relation to European Community law backing up domestic legislation. It is something I will address when the matter arises. Perhaps it is a matter about which I could take the initiative. Ireland could lead on this issue. Ireland could take the lead on a number of issues but it does not do so. We fail to identify areas where we can, may, must and should lead. This issue must be addressed.
Deputy Dempsey has answered Deputy Kemmy's question. Regarding Deputy Clohessy's question, EC aid exists but it is not directed to the construction of secret holds. These holds are constructed by the captains or owners of vessels by way of subterfuge and fraudulence. It is wrong and contrary to the rules of the European Community.
An area identified by a number of Deputies concerns a tightening up of our laws with the support of Europe. This will be done in the future.
We will now discuss subhead A.3 — Incidential Expenses.
I wish to ask the Minister about training and development. The Defence Forces utilise certain buildings from time to time and these are neglected for the remainder of the year. In Lahinch which is in my constituency, the Defence Forces have a complex which has fallen into neglect. It could be used for staff training and development. As this is the first meeting of this Committee, and I note that the Department Secretary is quite dexterous at giving information to the Minister, could the Minister indicate whether they have considered training and development in places other than in normal barracks, such as Lahinch? There is an economic factor involved. Although now discontinued for some time, when the FCA trained in Lahinch there was a huge economic impact locally. When the Department of Defence decided to stop the training there it lead to a reduction in economic activity. From a local employment point of view would it be possible for the Department to consider establishing new training units in places like Lahinch?
Under this subhead, would the Minister consider expanding the Army apprenticeship scheme? We are all well aware that the FÁS apprenticeship scheme is totally inadequate to meet the demands of our young population for skills and careers. The Army could do with them and it would provide gainful employment. It would also help young people to develop their God given skills and abilities. In recent times the Army has sought apprentices and all of us have been inundated with inquiries from young people who are anxious to make something of their lives. The difficulty with the FÁS scheme is that young people cannot get sponsors. Why does the Army not sponsor them, gain the benefits and do whatever financial book-keeping is necessary with the Department of Labour who used handle it? I am not sure who handles it now but perhaps somebody could open a door for many young people who would willingly avail of apprenticeships. They would then be in a position after a short number of years to contribute considerably to the community in general.
I read recently where changes were being made to the rules and regulations associated with the European Social Fund. I think I am correct in saying that funds will be made available to retrain people, such as members of the Defence Forces, who serve a certain period but who, inevitably, will go into the labour market. I ask the Minister to endeavour to secure some funds from the European Social Fund to make more courses available to members of the Defence Forces who are coming up to the end of their period of service, so that they can be trained for ongoing employment within the community. There is no reason why Social Funds should not be used for that purpose and the sum of £70,000 for training is relatively small. I accept that there are financial constraints but if we can use European money in this way it would be worthwhile and I think it is within the rules and regulations to do so.
In relation to staff training and development, to what extent does the allocation reflect a change of approach in view of the changing role of the Army, both internally and abroad? Could the Minister identify the specific areas?
I support the point made by Deputy Collins in relation to the Army apprenticeships. I am familiar with the apprentice scheme in Naas and I have to say the training there is top class. We are getting very good value for money spent in that area and the point made by Deputy Collins is one that should be seriously considered.
Brussels will pay for it.
Will there be an intake of cadet pilots for training?
Regarding people who leave the Army, could the Minister ensure that those who leave after serving the country would at least be treated fairly? For example, a person who served in the medical corps in the Army applied for a post as an ambulance driver and I was dismayed to find that he was not even called for interview. He served for 21 years in the Army, Medical Corps and I was told on educational grounds he was not interviewed. Medical experience would be far more important for an ambulance driver than an honours BA.
Training and managerial skills should begin at the top in all services and not just at the bottom. There is a need to reflect the changing world and trouble spots and ensure that officers are well briefed in any situation. Recently I was impressed with Comdt. Colm Doyle when he came back from Bosnia. He handled a most difficult and tricky subject very capably. It is quite difficult, even for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to answer questions on the Owen-Vance formula. I thought Comdt. Doyle did very well and I would like that reflected across the board at the top level. When Army officers retire I am often amazed to hear some of the ideas they had and I often feel that it was good they did not get a chance to implement them when they were serving. However, I was impressed in this case and I would like to see officers being given a chance to advice us on how they feel about a situation on the ground. I learned a good deal from what Comdt. Doyle said about Bosnia. I would like this reflected across the board about other trouble spots where our officers are serving. I would like to see a different kind of training and different managerial skills being given in the Army of the future.
I agree with Deputy Kemmy that Comdt. Doyle from time to time, and particularly on "Morning Ireland", has been very helpful in broadening our knowledge about what was happening in Bosnia. It is something that I have encouraged since I came to my position as Minister for Defence. I have encouraged Army officers, who are involved in dangerous locations where their courage is put to the test, to let us know first hand what is happening there and I will continue to do so. I appreciate the Deputy's praise of Comdt. Doyle.
Deputy Carey made the point that the Secretary of the Department was readily handing me notes. That is what he is here for, but 90 per cent of the time I can do it myself Deputy. What we are talking about now should be proper to the Public Accounts Committee and the Secretary of the Department should be dealing with it there. On the basis that my obligations are policy driven and politically driven one can appreciate that numeracy in this regard would be at the fingertips of my excellent secretaries.
Regarding training and development in Lahinch, this is a local point and I have no doubt the Deputy must be from that constituency. The FCA particularly have a role to play there and elsewhere, not only in urban areas but in rural Ireland in general. It is something that could be examined in the context of the Deputy's contribution and I welcome his remarks.
Deputy Collins made a point, supported by Deputy Power, about the apprenticeship scheme and the question of its expansion. There is nothing that I would like to do more than to expand the apprenticeship scheme throughout the Defence Forces but we are constrained by the financial realities of the time. He mentioned FÁS and the review of the Army apprentice school and I have a note here that a review of the Army apprentice scheme was carried out in consultation with FÁS in 1992. The purpose of the review was to consider how best the Defence Forces current and future requirements for tradesmen and technicians might be met. Recommendations regarding the future training arrangements for Army apprentices are, at present, under consideration. The Committee will agree, and it is generally accepted from the tone of the contributions that the finished product coming from the various apprenticeship schemes throughout the Defence Forces is superb. At the end of the day we have a tradesman or a tradeswoman who would be hard to beat in the context of the training they have received.
Deputy Barrett made an observation in relation to the European Social Fund and the retraining of members returning to the labour market after serving a long time in the Army, Navy or Air Corps. I will endeavour to get funds for this. I am not certain if they are open to the Defence Forces but I imagine it is worth a shot.
Deputy Eoin Ryan raised the question of pilot cadet training and if there will be an induction of pilots. The answer to that question is yes. That matter is being dealt with and will be resolved some time in September, subject to correction.
Deputy Liam Fitzgerald raised the question of training and development and I have answered that relatively peripherally, if not at any great depth.
The timetable indicates that at 12.30 p.m., we move on to Army Pensions. I suggest that we continue with Vote 36 and deal with Army pensions in the afternoon. Agreed.
In regard to subhead A.4 — Postal and Telecommunications Services — could the Minister indicate if there is an up to date telephone communication network throughout the Army barracks whereby calls may not necessarily be clocked by Telecom Éireann?
Before responding to the Deputy's question I should say that subhead A relates to the Civil Service, while subhead B deals with the Defence Forces and all matters related thereto. The answer to the Deputy's question, which is not applicable to this subhead, is yes. There is a modern and efficient telecommunications system set up and running.
I want to ask a question in relation to subhead A.5 — Office Machinery and other Office Supplies. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding in the way it is presented, but there are two references to photocopying and office equipment as subhead M also refers to them. Is there a difference between the two subheads? Also, is there any information available on the type of contact used to acquire the service externally? Are there a number of them, or is there one covering the whole of the Army?
On subhead A.5 (1), relating to photocopying equipment, we are advised that the increased level in 1993 will replace the departmental photocopiers. What tendering process has been examined towards a leasing arrangement, rather than a purchasing one?
Subhead A relates to the Civil Service and subhead B to the Army, Navy and Air Corps. In the Army, Navy or Air Corps context it is better to own your equipment. The standard of maintenance is incredible throughout the Defence Forces. We have 30 year old helicopters that are still in use. To keep them flying they have been revamped from top to bottom. Therefore, I would prefer to purchase, rather than tender or lease, although Deputy Barrett and others in the business world would be more philosophical about whether it is important or financially more advantageous to do this.
Deputy Walsh raised the question of the difference between the Army and the Civil Service subhead. I will deal with that at a later stage.
May I ask the Minister, in relation to, subhead A.6 — Office Premises Expenses — if there are any proposals in his Department to divest itself of any of its existing office buildings, or to purchase any new ones? May I also ask the Minister for his views on the recent suggestion, in the newspapers that some smaller barracks may be closed down? Could I also suggest to the Minister something I have already proposed to the Minister for Justice, that some of the barracks which are to be closed down could be used, in view of the crime problem and the lack of space in the prison service, as prisons for those convicted in the courts? We are all aware of the difficulties of the "revolving door" syndrome. This may be an ideal opportunity for the Department of Defence and the Minister to make a name for themselves.
Did the Deputy say that I should make a name for myself?
You have already.
The closing down of barracks and the matter of "revolving door" justice would be for the Department of Justice and the Minister for Justice. If the Minister addressed this matter with me, I would be glad to discuss the matter with her. It is a good point and it could be examined to the advantage of the situation we all seek to remedy.
In 1988, Griffith Barracks was vacated and handed over to the Office of Public Works and Collins Barracks is being vacated at present. Throughout the briefing, much mention was made of Cathal Brugha and McKee Barracks. It is better to own your equipment. They are being refurbished and reinstated to a great degree, so as to take care of those transferred from the closure of Collins Barracks. That has lead to additional expenditure.
There has been much publicity about Collins Barracks and many environmental correspondents of leading national newspapers have addressed the issue. There was tender for Collins Barracks in March of this year. Only three tenders were received and none of them measured up to the tender figure. They were much less than the amount sought by the Department. The matter was then raised at Government level and it is now with the Department of Finance. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Education are discussing a future role of the barracks. It is one of the oldest occupied barracks in Europe. It was built in 1701. The Dublin Institute of Technology is also looking at what role it might play in the context of its renewed occupancy. The National Museum might be transferred to it, to the great advantage of many of the artifacts which are in the museum and are not on public display because of lack of space. It will also be very accessible. I take the view that the museums, the Natural History Museum and the National Museum, are inaccessible to the ordinary citizen. Inevitably, if one parks in Kildare Street one is moved on because of the sacredness of Leinster House and the requirement not to park in its vicinity. These are good ideas and they should be examined in the context of Collins Barracks. On the question of the closure of other barracks, there are no proposals before me for such closures. I have no doubt I will get them in due course.
On the matter of the divesting of office buildings, also in the Dublin area we have Coláiste Caoimhín, Parkgate, which was originally the headquarters of the Defence Forces, Park House, which is occupied on a temporary lease arrangement basis; we have Ratra House in the Phoenix Park, which is a Civil Defence school and we have Renmore a new building, erected by the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy, and which is occupied by 180 civil servants. In relation to Coláiste Caoimhín, it is our intention to return to Parkgate Street when refurbishment has been completed as headquarters for the Civil Service. That would make Coláiste Caoimhín available for public tender. We may put it up for sale.
Important points were raised by Deputy Dermot Ahern. I hope I have covered the three areas adequately. On the question of the closure of barracks in the future. As I said, there is nothing before me and no decisions have been made in relation to any proposal.
I want to bring to the notice of members that we have strayed a long way from office premises and expenses.
The Minister anticipated my question. The time is opportune now to incorporate a military history museum in Collins Barracks as part of the refurbishment of the barracks. A military history society has been there for three decades — it produces an excellent magazine, The Irish Sword— and the society would be glad to help with that work as would ONE.
In Limerick, where we recently celebrated Treaty 300, the local barracks is Sarsfield Barracks and they have a great deal of memorabilia about that time, including paintings and statutes of Sarsfield. However, it is not accessible to the public, apart from open days and to public representatives such as ourselves. It is important that a museum should be open to the public, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose. We have a rich heritage which should be reflected in a museum, open to the public. I support the Minister's ideas.
Thank you.
I support the retaining of Collins Barracks. Dublin City Council listed many of the buildings which is why it has not been sold or pulled down. A museum is a good idea but for that part of Dublin and for the barracks itself, a mixture of a museum and a college would be good, especially if it included residential accommodation. I hope the Department will look at that. This is not only a financial matter, there is a social responsibility for that part of the city and also the historic importance of the buildings.
It was suggested several years ago that members of the Defence Forces who were living in houses, for example, in Cathal Brugha Barracks, could buy them. Has the Minister or his Department examined that, because they have not yet been given a definite answer? Many families have raised this matter with me. I would like the Minister to give us some information on whether that has been decided.
I want to amplify the point in relation to the closed barracks. I know the Minister is aware that the Curragh barracks formerly had a jail which was closed some time ago. Such places would be ideal for housing prisoners and would be secure if they were used for this purpose. In view of the lack of prison space, perhaps the Minister would take the matter up with the Minister for Justice, to whom I have written about this.
In relation to Deputy Kemmy's point, there is in Limerick a married quarters a short distance from the post itself which has been closed for many years. Some use should be made of that building. It is a beautiful cut stone building which would be ideal for a military museum.
What is the name of the building?
I am talking about the married quarters in Sarsfield Barracks.
I welcome the Minister's comments in relation to Collins Barracks. Could the Minister clarify that the tenders to which he referred are now defunct? Secondly, when would this suggestion made about the museum come to fruition if it is to be pursued and how would it be pursued?
In relation to the tenders for Collins Barracks, that time limit has expired and no further tendering will be sought. The principle is that it be dealt with by the Department of Finance. The decision to enter into discussions between the Minister for Education, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, and the Dublin Institute of Technology, remains. The question of a museum is very open. In fact, the Taoiseach suggested that a military museum, as mentioned by Deputy Kemmy, and a folk museum might also be included in this outstanding building of historic merit.
In relation to the point raised by Deputy Clohessy about the married quarters in Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick, I will examine the matter. I appreciate the Deputy's point of view. It is not an unreasonable suggestion. I will correspond with the Deputy on the matter.
Deputy Dermot Ahern raised, for the second time, the question of the prison problem. I have undertaken to address this issue with the Minister for Justice. I am not sure whether it would find favour with her and her Department but certainly it is something which should be examined. It is not an unreasonable suggestion. Deputy Eoin Ryan said the idea of a museum is a good one.
On the question of the purchase of houses in Cathal Brugha Barracks, I understand that a board has been established to examine the whole issue of married quarters and is due to make its recommendations to me on 31 July. As a matter of practice the opportunity should be given to the families living in these quarters to purchase these houses if it is practical, because a term in the Army runs out after a certain period of service. The problem would be who occupies the premises thereafter. I will investigate that because it is important that people own their homes. Local authorities also have an obligation to house Army personnel. The same rules apply to Army personnel as to the ordinary citizen.
The matter of social responsibility was raised by Deputy Eoin Ryan and I accept his point. Deputy Kemmy raised the question of a military history museum and I know he has a special interest in this area. It is something we are seriously considering in the context of Collins Barracks.
I am delighted to be here today. Like Deputy De Rossa I spent three years in the Seanad and I am glad to be back in this Chamber for a day, although I hope it will be only for a day. In regard to Border duty allowances — which come under subhead C — I appreciate that there is now an organisation concerned about the Army and their rights. However, for some years there was a substantial difference in the Border duty allowances for members of the two security forces along the Border. I compliment the security forces on the work they are doing because we often take them for granted. The two security forces work in conjunction and they have been doing a good job for the State, yet there has been a disparity in their respective allowances. Can the Minister clarify if there has been any improvement and whether the security forces allowances have come closer together?
I would like to support the previous speaker on that point. As somebody who lives within two or three miles of the Border I am acutely aware of the difficulties experienced by Army personnel there. It is a constant gripe with people in the Army on Border duty, that, in effect, they are paid a lot less than their counterparts in the Garda Síochána.
I appreciate the difficulties involved. I know some efforts have been made in the last number of years to increase the Border duty allowance for Army personnel but it is still short of the allowance for their counterparts' in the Garda Síochána. In all fairness, some effort should be made to show the State's appreciation for the excellent work these people do on the Border.
I appreciate the remarks that have been made about the Army and their service in Border areas. As the Committee will be aware, there are over 1,000 of our Defence Forces stationed along the Border in aid of the civil power.
On the question of allowances generally, there must be 20 or 30 different categories of allowances — there are band instructors' allowances, Irish language teaching allowances, grooms' allowances, diving allowances, etc. The one we have been asked to deal with is the Border duty allowances paid on a weekly basis. This allowance is payable to all personnel assigned to Border units as follows: officers receive £44.58 weekly; NCOs and privates receive £39.01. I am sure I will be enlightened on how those figures were arrived at after this discussion.
The disparity between the allowances given to the Defence Forces and to the Garda Síochána was raised by Deputy Ahern and Deputy John Ryan. Although, I suspect it is not an adequate answer to the question, there are different rules for the two security forces, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. Through the various organisations like RACO, the officers organisation and PDFORA, the place to address this undoubted disparity between the two forces may be at conciliation and arbitration, a scheme I implemented last March.
It would be wonderful for this country if the Border did not have to be guarded in the manner in which it is. The latest figure for guarding the Border is £133 million annually. It would be a marvellous saving if the organisations representing themselves as orange or green would get off the backs of the people, both North and South, and allow us to return to a peaceful island. Unfortunately, that is not the reality and there is this high cost to the taxpayer on an annual basis. I understand the Department of Defence are paying between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of that annual figure of £133 million, which is, no doubt, increasing. The Committee can see the drain on finances and, indeed, the drain on manpower, and will appreciate, if we did not have to man the Border with over 1,000 Defence Forces personnel, what we could do in the peacekeeping area internationally.
I understand that there is some difficulty in relation to the way in which the rostering of Army personnel on Border duty takes place. I often get complaints from families with members in the Army that the soldiers are on duty for quite considerable periods on the Border and do not get home for a considerable period of time, and that their families do not know where they are in the meantime. This is a source of grave complaint in light of the difficult job that soldiers on the Border have to do — perhaps staying in culverts for quite a long time — compared with their counterparts in the Garda.
I appreciate the Minister's response.
It is not an adequate response; I appreciate that.
He indicated that there are different rules pertaining to the two security forces, but they have the same role to play. A soldier lying in a ditch on the Border and a Garda enduring the same conditions are doing the same job. I think the rules should be updated to ensure that the Army is recognised as performing the same duty as the Garda in the defence of our country and security. I appeal to the Minister to proceed on those lines.
I would like to endorse what the Minister said about the high cost of security on the Border: £133 million is a shocking amount of money, it is a haemorrhage that our society cannot afford. If this money could be used for productive purposes in society it would bring about a tremendous transformation in our everyday lives. The Minister is being conservative in his estimate of £133 million. If one adds to that the lost revenue in tourism, industrial development and other costs it would be double that amount. The sad thing is that at least one set of people who are causing us that loss say how much they love Ireland. They say they are fighting for Ireland but what they are doing is shooting Ireland in the head every day, destroying our economy and our basis for building up an island here that we can be proud of. I hope the Minister's remarks will get some coverage, if they are emphasised it will have a good effect on public opinion. These people are no friends of Ireland; they are its worst enemies at the present time and they are doing terrible damage to our economy and to the population on both sides of the Border.
It is difficult to tamper with about 15 or 16 of the allowances the Minister mentioned. One consideration the Minister might use for guidance is this. Years ago status claims were fashionable in industrial relations but they are now no longer considered. Claims for disturbance money when people were being moved have also been phased out. If some of the allowances could be amalgamated it would be a good thing for everybody concerned.
Some of my colleagues made points about the disparity between the allowances for gardaí and those for Army personnel on the Border. Both forces are doing dirty, dangerous work and this disparity should not exist. We should treat both forces the same way. I know this is difficult for the Minister because of traditional differences, but in this case the disparity is not warranted. I would like to see these being phased out over a period of time.
I wish to raise two points with the Minister. First, if a female member of the Defence Forces was working alongside a male member of the Garda Síochána and there was a disparity in payments would the Minister not be obliged to comply with the equality in pay legislation in those circumstances and does this not highlight the injustice that is being done to the Defence Forces in these circumstances?
Secondly, could the Minister provide us with more details of the £133 million that he referred to as the cost of patrolling the Border? Would he indicate whether that is the net cost of Border duty as distinct from the cost of duty in other parts of the country or, indeed, of peace-keeking duties in other parts of the world? The Minister mentioned that some proportion of this £133 million will be met by Irish taxpayers. Could he indicate what he meant by that?
I said 40 per cent of this figure is paid by the Department of Defence.
As a first time contributor, I welcome the fact that we are dealing with Estimates in this way. I will reserve my view as to how well these committees function, as no doubt, will all of us over the coming months. Like Deputy Kemmy and others I support the Minister in his statement that the people who invoke the name of this country for campaigns of violence and murder have no support in this House or from the overwhelming majority of Irish people. It is a tragedy that these sums of money are being expended to try to maintain security when this money could otherwise be used for the economic advancement of people, both North and South.
In the context of the role the Defence Forces play on the Border, I wish to ask the Minister a very specific question. We are all concerned that the Defence Forces should be as effective as possible in combating subversive violence. The armed forces, the RUC and the British Army should co-operate as much as possible in seeking to end the campaign of violence. It has been brought to my attention that because of the archaic way in which we deal with these matters communications between our Defence Forces and the British Army are not as good as they should be. If, for example, the British Army learn that a group of armed subversives are about to cross the Border they cannot directly communicate that information to the Irish Army. They must tell the RUC, who tell the Garda Síochána, who then tell the Defence Forces. By the time that communication has been received the people the Defence Forces are trying to capture and bring before the courts have long since gone.
The reverse equally applies: if our Defence Forces learn that violent people are in the Border region with rockets, arms and explosives and if they know, for example, that there is a British Army patrol group in the vicinity, our Defence Forces cannot communicate directly with the British armed forces. They must tell the Garda Síochána, who tell the RUC, who then tell the British Army. I do not know whether any member of the British Army, the RUC, or any civilian has ever lost his life due to the circuitous nature of these communications. Would the Minister comment on this state of affairs? If that situation has changed perhaps the Minister would tell us. If it has not changed I ask the Minister to do something in that regard. I do not suggest that the Minister has any reservations about the commitment to bring the campaign of violence to an end. We should not retain artificial barriers which prevent direct communications between the defence forces.
Before I call the Minister, I wish to remind the Committee that we agreed to conclude the Defence Vote at 1 p.m. We will have a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and we will deal with Vote 37, Army Pensions, in the afternoon. Is that agreed? Agreed.
If there are some outstanding matters relating to Vote 36 could we deal with them? There is much to be discussed under Vote 37.
If there is anything that Deputy Barrett feels has not been adequately responded to, let me have a note of it and I will give whatever additional information I can to the Committee.
As we are going through each item there has to be a comment. It would be better if people raised main points now and then went through other matters later because we are not going to get through the work. We have covered only five or six items so far.
I made the point earlier that we would try to keep proceedings brief in everybody's interests. Unfortunately, because the debate went so well — I must compliment members, and particularly the Minister, for being so forthcoming — time has caught up with us. In the afternoon we will deal with pensions and if there are questions then I am sure the Minister will accommodate us as best he can. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Thank you, Chairman. I will raise the points again from the last contributor to the first. Deputy Shatter made the point about the role of the Army in the context of contact with the British Army. He is right. There is no contact between the British and Irish Armies. In the Gleeson report to the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces, dated 31 July 1990 it states in paragraph 3.7.27:
One of the major roles assigned to the defence forces, the provision of aid to the civil power necessarily involves contact on a regular basis between defence forces personnel and members of the Gardaí. However, the great majority of military personnel and Gardaí are engaged in duties which are quite dissimilar. The essence of the comparability principle is that the work should be broadly comparable in most aspects. This is not so as between the Gardaí and the military.
That is an independent assessment of the comparability principle. The Deputies may have a different point of view and I believe they do. Deputies Lenihan and Collins and others who, like myself, have operated the Anglo-Irish Agreement realise that there is considerable co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. No lives have been lost as far as I know but I am only speculating and I cannot be certain about that.
Our Army is in a peculiar situation in relation to the Garda Síochána. It is important to remember that the Army acts in aid of the civil power — the Garda — and it takes — I do not say this as a diminution in any way of the Army's role — a secondary role in the context of its relationship with the Garda Síochána. This is a very important role to play. Nevertheless the Army is subject to the civil power and is in aid thereof. There is a certain circuituosness, as Deputy Shatter says, but that is the way the system operates.
It should be changed.
That is a point of view and one would have to be very careful of it in the context of this island and in the context of the Border. Deputy Kemmy mentioned the large amount of money spent on Border security and he made the point that the money spent on Border security could be spent on other areas, for example on tourism. He spoke about the amalgamation of the allowances, which is a fair point and something I would like to address. He paid tribute to the Army and Garda and I would like to be associated with that tribute. They do a marvellous job on behalf of this country in very difficult and dangerous conditions.
Deputy John Ryan made the point that there is a definite disparity and I do not deny that. If you refer to the Gleeson report you will see that the comparity principle and lack of comparability is actually supported by Gleeson. Deputy Dermot Ahern spoke about the different rules which apply to the Garda. There are different rules for the Garda and for the Defence Forces but they have a common objective to contain terrorism and all its works and pomps.
Deputy De Rossa raised the question of female members working alongside male members of the Garda Síochána. They have different roles and I am certain that if female members were operating alongside male members of the Garda Síochána that would be a different situation. I pointed out that in relation to the expenditure of £133 million annually for Border security, 40 per cent of that is provided by the Department of Defence. Deputy John Ryan made a similar point.
As agreed this morning, we will now discuss the Vote for Army Pensions.
I had a question to the Minister in the Dáil some weeks ago about pensions and compensation for people injured in the course of training or on duty. As I understand it, there is an informal way of dealing with this in the sense that there is no fixed procedure for compensation. In many instances people have to go to court in order to get compensation for injuries. I am not fully au fait with the issue but as I understand it there are some circumstances in which a member of the Defence Forces must take — or their surviving relatives must take — legal action in order to get compensation.
I understand that Deputy De Rossa is speaking about injuries in the course of Army service. Is that correct?
Yes.
In those circumstances, there would be litigation in the ordinary way. There would be a civil liability aspect and that individual would be entitled to sue on the grounds of the accident. As a nation we are becoming more litigation minded. There would be no difficulty about that as far as the injured individual is concerned.
Regarding the death of an individual, again there is a dependency element under the Civil Liability Act, 1961 so there is compensation for injuries if they are sustained by an action founded on negligence in the ordinary common law sense of that word and, as far as death is concerned, there is an opportunity to raise that matter under the Civil Liability Act, 1961 based on a dependency element. I understand the figure is something like £7,500 or £13,000-£14,000 maximum. In the ordinary way, if an individual is injured at work a civil remedy is open to him, if he can prove negligence.
I do not think Deputy De Rossa was speaking about the Army Pensions Board specifically. The Army Pensions Board reports to the Minister on application for wound and disability pensions under the Army Pensions Act, 1937. It assesses the degree of disability and determines whether the disability is attributable to military service, which should not be too difficult to identify. The findings of the board regarding attributability are final and conclusive and binding on all members and tribunals. The board itself may, under section 47 of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, review its findings on receipt of fresh evidence. In fairness to the Deputy, I do not think that is what he was asking. I think the first answer is the one he was seeking.
May I appeal to members to confine questions to the subheads? Later there will be an opportunity to ask specific questions.
In regard to subhead C. — Allowances and Gratuities to Dependants, etc. — I am fascinated by the number of dependants, 5,012, of veterans of the War of Independence, which was 70 years ago. Although there has been an Army since then there are only 583 dependants of former Army personnel. Does that mean that we are neglecting the dependants of Army personnel in view of the fact that the Army has been in existence for 70 years? Should the numbers not be the other way round?
Those serving in the Army would be much younger than the veterans of the War of Independence and, consequently, the widows would be younger. The 5,012 referred to would be the widows of the dependants of veterans of the War of Independence. It is an unusually high figure, I see the Deputy's point, but it is based on the information to hand and cannot be calculated otherwise.
It is not so much that I am questioning the high figure——
I understand the Deputy's point that the figure is unusual and I do not disagree with it. In light of the time factor involved it seems unusual that we should still have to foot the bill today. This is not three card trickery, these are the figures and they are based on ascertainable facts.
Might I suggest to the Minister that inadequate provision is made for members of the Defence Forces who are injured or for the wives and families of those who may be killed abroad. I raise this question as the issue has been brought to my attention. Is the Minister satisfied that the widows and families of Army personnel are looked after in the event of a tragedy occurring?
As the Deputy knows, grief is in question here. For example, since the Army have participated in UNIFIL, 34 personnel have been killed, 16 in action and 18 through accidents. The remains of one of those killed have not been discovered. It is difficult to quantify grief. With regard to the Deputy's point as to whether we are doing enough for the widows of personnel who have been killed during service in the Army, it is difficult to say that we are, yet it is difficult to say that we are not. I accept that grief is involved, and we must see if we can do anything to maintain the widow in the position she was in during her married life. Obviously, that cannot be done unless the widow remarries and tries to recreate her happiness and one can appreciate that would be difficult to do.
Therefore, we must try, as far as is practicable, to create a situation for the widow in which her daily life is made easier for her. In doing that we might give her compensation. Whether that compensation is adequate depends on the individual's point of view or attitude to her grief. It is difficult to answer. It is a very emotive question and the answer must be based on emotion. The people involved are deeply hurt and I cannot quantify that hurt.
May I make a point in relation to this Estimate and other Estimates under particular subheads? It strikes me that the provisions made for dependent spouses and children are very limited, as members of the Oireachtas found out when we introduced a voluntary scheme. Both in relation to death in service benefit or death in retirement benefit for spouses of deceased Defence Force members, a proper insurance scheme could help greatly. Why does the State have to carry the risk when they could be insured privately? If not the National Treasury Agency could organise the funding of a pension and death in service arrangement whereby each year each Department could pay a contribution towards funding a proper scheme rather than waiting to find money in the Estimates to pay lump sums to individuals. Going through all the Estimates, it seems that we pay pensions and death in service lump sums out of current expenditure. We now have the National Treasury Agency and I am certain that the skill and ability is there to organise a proper, funded scheme to which each Department would make a contribution each year depending on the risks involved. This would avoid having to make ex gratia payments in particular cases.
There should be a multiple-of-salary lump sum death in service payment payable to the dependent spouse as in the private sector. It might be funded through the normal pension arrangements and would be relatively cheap to underwrite, especially, with the large numbers involved in the public service. I suggest that it could be underwritten quite reasonably if it were done on a proper actuarial basis.
I ask the Minister to raise this matter with his colleagues, particularly with the Minister for Finance, to see if we could get away from having to fund both pensions and death lump sums out of current expenditure on an annual basis.
The Deputy has made a valuable contribution to this area. The problem in relation to Army pensions is that at present we are bound by statute, but that is not a problem if there is a will in the Oireachtas to change the law. Considering the Deputy's expertise, apart from his role as a Dáil Deputy, I will take his suggestion on board and have it examined. The point he makes seems simple in its presentation. Whether it is simple in its operation is a different question, but it is something I would be anxious to look at.
As regards the summary of financial benefits payable in respect of the death of a member of the Permanent Defence Force, for example, somebody who is killed in the course of his duty, a gratuity of one year's pay is payable under the Defence Forces pensions schemes. If the deceased leaves a widow and/or children, allowances are payable under the terms of the Army Pensions Act, 1980. The allowances are as follows: a widow gets 50 per cent of the deceased's annual pay; the allowance for each child, up to a maximum of three, is 13.3 per cent of the deceased's annual pay if the mother is alive and 26.6 per cent if the mother is dead. If the deceased is killed while serving with the United Nations an additional ex gratia lump sum is payable to his dependants. That sum at present stands at about £40,869 with effect from 1 January 1993. The figures are all set out in the document before me, perhaps I should let members of the Committee have a copy of it. I do not want to go through the whole list because it would take up too much time.
To refer back to Deputy Callely's point, how does one place a monetary value on the death of one's husband? It cannot be done in any other way in the circumstances. As far as the amounts are concerned, they are not bad but they are not great either.
That is in relation to somebody killed while in the service but I am not only talking about those who are killed while serving but also about those who die of natural causes while in the service. That is the real problem. We make provisions in the Finance Acts for employers to pay a lump sum amounting to four times annual salary to the dependants of those who die while in service, from private pension funds. We encourage the private sector to provide these benefits because the more one provides them the less dependent people will be on the State. We should apply the same principles in the public service and underwrite such a scheme on a normal basis. I am not saying that one should have to go to a private insurance company but there is no reason why the National Treasury Management Agency cannot manage a fund for both death in service and death in retirement and fund pensions on a proper actuarial basis. Other aspects, such as enabling people to make voluntary contributions to top up their pensions, or allowing them to take more life cover, could then be introduced. We want to ensure that the dependants, whether they are widows or children, of those who are killed in action or die from natural causes while in the service of the State are properly looked after and do not become totally dependent on the State.
Earlier I asked the Minister to look compassionately at the case of a few hundred widows whose husbands opted out of a pension scheme. I assume they were not aware of the consequences of this at the time. There are women who have no money because their husbands, rightly or wrongly, opted out of a pensions scheme 15 years or so ago. This should not be tolerated; we have a moral responsibility to widows and children to underwrite a scheme that ensures they have proper protection if something happens to their spouses in the course of their working lives. Such a scheme is extremely common in the private sector and I fail to see why one should not also apply in the public sector.
I realise this is a difficult and sensitive subject for the Minister because death is never easy, it is nearly always painful. If the death of a soldier takes place during a peacekeeping operation it is even more traumatic and painful for the family of the soldier concerned. Such a death results in much media coverage and an investigation into why the soldier died. It puts the Minister in a very difficult position. On the other hand, every year building workers are killed, far more of them are killed annually than soldiers, and their deaths do not merit any such consideration. The only publicity given to their deaths is a paragraph in the newspapers if they are lucky, and sometimes a sentence or two on radio and television. The Minister must strike a balance between those kinds of situations.
It may be helpful for the Minister to examine how widows of soldiers killed on overseas duties are assisted in other countries, especially in other member states of the EC, and countries with greater experience than we have of peacekeeping — although we have been involved in peacekeeping operations for a long time now, since the Congo. That might give the Minister some guidance or criterion by which we could judge how we assist such widows.
I do not want to push the Minister into making any decision today on this matter as I understand he must study it carefully. It is an emotive matter and puts him in an invidious position. When a death occurs all the Minister can do is call to see the widow concerned and express his sympathy on behalf of the Irish people. Nobody can understand the pain suffered by the loss of a breadwinner, a partner or father. The Minister is right in saying it is very difficult to try to quantify that loss in monetary terms. All one can do is be civilised, humane and compassionate. However, a guide might be to look at how other countries tackle this problem.
The Minister spoke with compassion of those unfortunate young men who died in Lebanon and he also mentioned in passing Corporal Joyce, whose body was never recovered. Are there ongoing inquiries into this case, are the files on this closed or is there a continuing possibility of recovering the man's body so that it can be brought back to be buried in Ireland?
The bereaved of Corporal Joyce are suffering from a double grief in that not only is he dead but his remains have not been recovered. All the gratuities have been paid to the family. The answer to Deputy Briscoe's question is that inquiries are still being made but I do not want to suggest that a 24-hour a day investigation is taking place.
I will return to Deputy Barrett's suggestion because it is worthy of reply. I agree with the point made by Deputy Kemmy about the death of building workers. The way these things are dealt with is extraordinary. It is worth examining how other countries deal with these matters. I understand that the Minister of State may shortly visit the Antipodes. New Zealand has a defence force operation similar to ours. He might examine their scheme in relation to awards for widows whose husbands have been killed in the course of duty or have died from natural causes having served out their time in the Army and for which the widows are receiving pensions.
I must return to Deputy Barrett because his contribution is substantive and substantial. I bow to his expertise in this matter. I will look at his proposal in relation to the National Treasury Management Agency. There are many pension schemes in the Army and in the interests of efficiency they might all be brought together, but there are, of course, different pensions for different situations. I take the Deputy's views seriously. I certainly will have them examined and I will report the outcome of my examination to the Deputy.
I would like to place on record details of the contributory pension schemes for widows and children of officers, NCOs and Privates. A contributory pension scheme similar to the scheme for civil servants was introduced in January 1971, effective from July 1968, for widows and children of officers. Those already serving were given the choice of joining or contracting out of the scheme. That is another point Deputy Barrett and others have made. Membership is mandatory for all officers commissioned after 1 January 1971. It applies to widows and children of those members of the scheme who die in service or who die after retirement, provided they were in receipt of retirement pay at the date of death. A non-contributory pension is payable to the widow and children of an officer who is not eligible to participate in the contributory pension scheme that existed before 1968. This pension is applicable where an officer died in service prior to 1968, or retired voluntarily prior to 1968 with 20 years service or more.
There is also a contributory scheme for the spouses and children of non-commissioned officers and members of the so-called "other ranks". I do not like the expression "other ranks" and I intend to look at it. A somewhat similar contributory pension scheme for widows and children of non-commissioned officers and privates was introduced in January 1978, effective from June 1977. Those already serving were given the choice of joining or contracting out of the scheme. Membership is mandatory for all recruits after 1 February 1978 and it applies to the widows and children of members of the scheme who die in service or who die after retirement, provided they were in receipt of a pension at the date of the death.
The suggested time for debate on the pension subheads was half an hour. That should finish at approximately 2.45 p.m. We should then start the question and answer section. If the Committee wishes, it can continue dealing with subheads. Going on the suggested timetable we would have questions and answers from now until 3.20.
I have a question on subhead G., which relates to special allowances. We pay such allowances to veterans of the War of Independence. Their number is declining, with 740 veterans provided for in the Estimate for the coming year. The War of Independence ended 70 years ago and these people are now in their eighties or nineties. It is antediluvian to means test such payments in 1993.
I ask the Minister to examine this matter. The 740 people concerned are being paid at varying rates. The Minister should consider the bureaucracy involved in searching the country for a declining number of veterans of the War of Independence and seeking to apply varying rates of special allowances. Why not abolish the means test and pay what will be a diminishing figure over the next five years to the remaining veterans?
Under subhead D, which relates to pensions, I wish to raise the matter of the veterans of 1916. I could not agree more with Deputy Lenihan. Three years ago I raised the case of a 1916 veteran who fought in Boland's Mills with Éamon de Valera. He was refused a free telephone and free fuel because his daughter-in-law, who was working by day, was regarded as disqualifying him. Nobody else lived in the house. Mr. Haughey cut through red tape to see that the veteran received justice. That is to his eternal credit.
At that time only seven 1916 veterans were alive. The Minister should make a special effort to find out how these people are situated. They deserve anything we can give them beyond the usual allowances. It would be a good idea to bring them together for lunch some day.
I asked RTE to interview the man I mentioned. I was at his 98th birthday party three weeks ago. He could recite the "The Boys of the Old Brigade" and he is still quite articulate. RTE showed no interest in this man. They did not see the significance of a survivor of 1916 appearing before young people learning history. If he had written a book on how to be a sex maniac at 98 he would have been interviewed by several people.
I make a special plea for the survivors of 1916. There may be only about three of them alive today, given that there were only seven three years ago.
I have a question under subhead K. How much is the funeral grant in respect of deceased special allowance holders? Is it static or does it allow for inflation? Does it pay the whole cost of the funeral?
Would I be in order to ask a question in relation to Vote 36?
We will let the Minister answer the questions asked and then return to it.
The funeral grant is £300. It costs more than that to bury people now and perhaps the figure could be increased substantially.
Deputy Lenihan has made a compassionate and articulate plea for veterans of the War of Independence. The allowances are means tested and are payable to veterans who are in needy circumstances. I will examine this issue carefully. In the final analysis, it might cost in the region of £500,000 a year, a figure which would diminish.
It might be worth while for the nation to pay tribute by way of this obscene thing called "financial benefit", as far as that can put people in a position of security. Deputy Lenihan was a respected predecessor of mine in the Department and would appreciate and understand this position more than most and probably more than I because I am not there long enough to understand the intricacies of the matter. Nevertheless, I appreciate the problem. I will return to the Deputy when I have the matter investigated.
Deputy Browne is correct about the veterans of 1916. I understand there are only two veterans still alive. There is no means test for their pension but unfortunately there is a means test for the allowance, which is extraordinary. If I can say to Deputy Browne there will no longer be a means test for the special allowance, there will not be. The Deputy has achieved that much today because tomorrow I will say these people are not to be means tested on their special allowances. I would be honoured and flattered to be in the same category as Mr. Haughey.
I do not see a reference to the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen and Women. The Dublin branches are very active and recently established a centre. I would like to know if any applications are currently before the Department in relation to assistance for the ONE. They are making an important contribution in assisting retired ex-servicemen, some of whom were homeless, or in poor circumstances. The organisation rallied around them in recent years. The Minister and his officials are aware of this. The ONE gave back to former soldiers their sense of respectability.
I met the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen and Women in the recent past. We had a long meeting and some hospitality afterwards. They are great, understanding people. We are contributing towards the small refuge — for the want of a better word — they are building and which they will maintain, and we will continue to contribute to it. This accommodation is for ex-servicemen who are down on their luck. The work is being done by people who are better off than their fellow soldiers. I will endeavour to ensure that this subvention continues and that any assistance we can give will be forthcoming.
In relation to subhead Z, which deals with cash escorts, we will receive £1.5 million from the banks this year, the same amount that we received last year. To my knowledge, not 1p has gone astray when the Defence Forces have been escorting this money throughout the country. It is an invaluable service and it has saved the banks a fortune. Is it possible to extract more money from the banks for this service? If the boot was on the other foot, we would be paying the banks. We pay a high price for any service which the banks provide. They are getting good value for money.
The figure is £2 million, not £1.5 million. In 1992 the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, approached the associated banks who, out of a sense of generosity or whatever banks have in their hearts——
Their vaults.
——produced £2 million. That same figure has been set out in the 1993 budget; £1.5 million goes to the Department of Defence and the remaining £0.5 million to the Department of Justice. That is how it is split.
How did the Minister arrive at that figure?
I assume it was based on a graduated scale for the amount of cash carried. There have been few or no robberies, as pointed out by Deputy Power, during the transport of cash since the Army came to the assistance of the Garda under the heading, "in aid of the civil power". As far as cash escorts are concerned, two gardaí must be present for the duration of the escort. I do not know how the £2 million was arrived at. I can get the rationale for the Deputy if such a rationale exists.
Has the Minister received any requests from the national ex-servicemen in Limerick, Clonmel and Cork for premises where retired members of the Defence Forces could meet?
I have not, but I would be glad to address that matter because I will give any help I can, within my budgetary allowance.
I have a number of requests which I will forward to the Minister.
I would be glad if Deputy Clohessy would raise the issues with me and I will correspond with him on the matter.
As Deputy Liam Fitzgerald said, the national ex-servicemen do tremendous work for the less well off soldiers.
I support my colleague, Deputy Clohessy, about the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen and the work they are doing. I know the Minister is not Santa Claus and he does not have money to give to ONE or anybody else. ONE has raised money to erect memorials in Perry Square, in Limerick city centre, to soldiers who died in peacekeeping operations. The most important point is that they work in close harmony with the Royal British Legion. They come together in an ecumenical manner at various times, as I witnessed when Mayor of Limerick city. I was pleased to see that old animosities had gone. They have done tremendous fund raising work for charity and have come together at annual commemorations and on Rememberance Day on 11 November. All the functions are organised by the ONE. It is a good spirit to inculcate in people. There is an old saying, "old soldiers never die, they only fade away" and it is important that they fade away in a peaceful and humane way, as they are doing. We should support that spirit because in the past antagonism was too prevalent in our society. The coming together of these two groups, the ONE and the Royal British Legion, in Limerick should be commended.
I take Deputy Clohessy and Deputy Kemmy's points. The ONE is a marvellous organisation consisting of great people. These people made their contribution to the country through the Defence Forces and the State should have an extra obligation to them if they are down on their luck. I am not, unfortunately, as Deputy Kemmy fairly points out, in the business of waving a magic wand. I do not have a limitless pot of cash. In spirit, I strongly support ONE for what they seek to do in the various locations mentioned by Deputy Clohessy and Deputy Kemmy and, more particularly, in the Limerick area. I concede that they do tremendous work.
The Minister has buildings.
The problem is that buildings have to be put in order and that also requires money, which is not available at the moment. I assure the Deputies that it is something I will seriously address.
Since the ONE is a voluntary organisation and the Minister has extreme budgetary constraints, would it not be possible to introduce FÁS schemes to improve buildings for voluntary organisations, as FÁS is interested in projects of that kind?
I agree with that and I will take it into consideration. If there is any Army building in which I can house these people so that they can give the type of service which the Dublin ONE are about to give, I would be glad to use it. Some Army barracks are pre-1922 and are dangerous.
I am aware of a number of buildings in the Curragh Camp which are not being used at present. For a reasonable cost, these could be converted into small apartments for ex-soldiers. It is a big problem in County Kildare. They are on the housing list along with other people who are in need of housing. On the one hand, we say that we appreciate our Defence Forces, but the reality is that when many of them retire they are lost. They enter a different life. It is a new beginning and some of them find it difficult to cope with this new situation. We have buildings and although improvements will cost money it is something we should seriously consider. It is one real way to show our appreciation to the people who carried the flag for the country.
I agree it is a way to show our appreciation. I appreciate that the people of County Kildare are concerned about the condition of parts of the Curragh Camp. The buildings in which some of our soldiers' families are living in are disgraceful. During my last visit there I publicly apologised for the fact that they had to live in these poor conditions. I excused myself to them on the basis of insufficient resources. I am seized of the problem in the Curragh and I agree that a lot can be done with a little money. However, given the condition of some of the houses in the Curragh a lot needs to be done with a lot of money. Unfortunately, that is the situation in the Curragh. I have seen it at first hand and I did not like what I saw.
May I remind Members that if there are questions on subjects which have not been covered they might put them to the Minister before we move on to the concluding statements.
May I ask the Minister for his views on subhead X which deals with the Equitation School? When I was young I lived beside a relation of Colonel Dan Corry, who played a leading role in the Equitation School and Captain Michael Tubridy, who became a local hero. The Equitation School has done a considerably amount of work exhibiting the skills of Irish horses.
The sum of £130,000, which has been allocated is a small sum to allow for the purchase of top class horses. I do not mind if horses are purchased in Ireland by Mr. Paul Darragh or other civil riders, but if they are going abroad I hope the Minister's heart is in the right place, even if money is not as plentiful as he would like. Good Irish horses should be bought for the Army so that they can travel the world and show that they are the best in the world.
The Equitation School is located in McKee Barracks. Colonel Campion is in charge of the school and we are aware of his reputation in this area. He works with two commandants, two captains, four lieutenants, 14 NCOs and 33 privates. The annual pay cost is estimated to be approximately £800,000. I visited the Equitation School, although, unlike my constituency colleague, Deputy Barrett, I do not have a serious interest in horses. They are, like our soldiers abroad, if I may draw an invidious comparison, probably our greatest diplomats. Equally, the soldiers sitting on these horses at shows abroad are some of our greatest diplomats and they have the additional bonus of showing off the horse, a fabulous product from this country.
The Equitation School was set up in 1926 to advertise the Irish non-thoroughbred horse abroad. The school has accomplished this task with considerable distinction through the years, through its participation in equitation events at home and abroad. It has successfully promoted the quality of the Irish horse, both thoroughbred and non-thoroughbred.
In the Estimate for 1993 the following sums have been allocated: the purchase of horses, £130,000; maintenance of horses, £100,000; expenses of equitation teams at home and at foreign shows, £95,000. We have five international showjumpers, 18 national showjumpers, four event horses and 20 other horses, including student standard and retired horses. In 1992 the school participated in 12 international and 48 local shows.
When I visited the school I was impressed at the condition of the school and the display of skills. However, I believe the school is under-utilised. I have sought the advice and guidance of my friend and colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh. He is looking at the Equitation School in his capacity as Minister for Agriculture with a view to obtaining additional finance, because if finance is available experts will be able to identify a good horse and then purchase it. The Minister is anxious to procure additional horses.
Another area of interest is the question of sponsorship for the Equitation School. I do not know if that has been addressed in any great depth. It was tried before but was not successful. It is an area which must be addressed. The Equitation School is a shop window for the Irish horse. To return to the point made by Deputy Power and Deputy Fitzgerald, it is all right to say we are concerned. Concern is one thing, but reality is another. We would like to be able to transfer our concern into something meaningful for the country and it is something which I am concerned about.
The Gleeson report made recommendations with regard to pay and conditions being incremented. A number of recommendations in that report relate to what the Minister said in his opening statement about the need for a fundamental reorganisation of the Defence Forces. One recommendation relates to the establishment strength which numbers 18,000 as against their real strength of 13,000. The whole structure of the Army is based on a promotion system and the allocation of personnel resources related to a strength of 18,000. That is fictional, it is only notional. Perhaps the Minister would give us some information on this matter. It is important that a realistic assessment of the real strength of the Army be undertaken. The figure will not be 18,000. The real figure is approximately 13,000. We must restructure a mobile and efficient Army on the basis of 13,000 to 14,000, which relates to the real strength and potential strength of the Army.
Also, would the Minister outline how the two representative associations, PDFORA and RACO are progressing? How are they fitting into the scheme of things, vis-�-vis relations in the Defence Forces?
I will leave the first part of the Deputy's question to the Minister of State at the Department of Defence who is involved in the efficiency audit group report. He will be able to provide information in relation to the points raised by Deputy Lenihan.
In relation to RACO, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers and PDFORA, the Permanent Defence Force and other Ranks Association, I am glad to say I have met both organisations. I have found each organisation to be highly professional, efficient and concerned on behalf of the people they represent. They are working well and will continue to work well. I will help and assist them in whatevery way I can.
I realise Deputy Lenihan was the author of both organisations and I pay tribute to him in this regard. He set up these organisations to represent the democratic rights of the people they represent in the Army, the officers and men. The Minister and the Department support both organisations. The secretary of RACO is a full-time secretary. The secretaries of both organisations are given time off with pay over a number of years. They are also given facilities. PDFORA has facilities in Capel Street. The sum paid by the Department of Defence was £54,000. The office for RACO is located in Park House and these facilities are provided by the Minister for Defence to ensure that these organisations operate effectively and efficiently.
In relation to the question about the Gleeson Commission and the review of the role of the Defence Forces, the Deputy will be aware, as he had a more than detailed interest in the Gleeson report when it was commissioned, that at this stage about three-quarters of the recommendations have been implemented. Those that remain to be implemented are in the area of the review of the role of the Defence Forces to which the Minister referred earlier. In its own way, that is tied up with the efficiency audit group and both Gleeson and the EAG are coming together at this stage. The efficiency audit group made a number of recommendations having discussed and studied the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The major areas it considered were the implementation of the proposals to give greater financial delegation to the military authorities, subject to the Secretary of the Department of Defence continuing in his role as Accounting Officer, and an examination of the recommendation of the second working group which relates to the Defence Forces specifically and their administrative systems.
The next stage of the process is for the Minister to bring to the Government an up to date statement of the roles to be assigned to the Defence Forces and for the Government to decide their priorities in this regard. When that has been put through Government it will come under the aegis of the EAG and we will be considering a radical overhaul of the Defence Forces structures. We will have to decide whether the establishment figure should remain at 18,000 or whether it should be 12,000 or 11,000 or 13,000 and the Defence Forces will be structured so as to meet the reality on the ground rather than the notional figure that exists at the moment. I expect that the review of the roles will take place quite soon and immediately after that the question of the structures will be examined in detail under the aegis of the efficiency audit group.
There are a number of points I wish to raise, some of which relate to the Estimate. Perhaps one of the points should be addressed to the Minister of State and perhaps he could give us a general view of the contents of the Towards 2000 document in relation to Civil Defence. A question was raised last year in the House regarding the strategic planning cell or unit which, it was reported, was examining the relationship that might evolve between the Defence Forces and the Western European Union and CSCE. Could a report of that investigation be made available to the Committee in view of the Minister's promise today that the Committee would be consulted about the developing role of the Defence Forces in peacekeeping and peace-enforcement?
In relation to a number of specifics in the Estimate I understand from reports that the dental services, for instance, within the Defence Forces are very poor. Only one of ten dental surgeries is operable and quite a significant amount of money is being spent on having services carried out outside the Defence Forces. It is argued that this costs more than it would to replace the equipment in the Army's own dental surgeries.
It is estimated that approximately 70 per cent of the accommodation for Defence Forces personnel is substandard. I am not sure where that estimate came from, but have the Department studied the accommodation available and the extent to which it is substandard? Is there any plan to upgrade that accommodation? The Minister spoke earlier about the money due from the United Nations. Would it be possible to earmark that money for improvements in areas like accommodation and services rather than having it thrown into the bucket for accounting purposes? Perhaps any additional funds which might become available could be used for improving conditions for Defence Forces personnel.
I wish to make two final points. According to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1991, which was published late last year, considerable concern was expressed about the stores of the Defence Forces, the costs involved, the amount of material kept and the lack of any serious audit of the material kept. It was suggested that a just-in-time strategy should be investigated with a view to reducing the cost of maintaining stores. Has there been any development in that area? Finally, there is a considerable amount of money in the Estimate this year, £33.8 million, for the supply of oil for the Army, the Navy and the Air Corps. In what way is that oil supply bought? Is it put out for competitive tendering? For instance, do the Defence Forces have to pay the same duty on oils as ordinary citizens have to pay?
There are questions for both the Minister and the Minister of State.
I thank the Deputy for referring to the Civil Defence which is one of my areas of responsibility. I will not give a lengthy response but I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Civil Defence for the very active role they have played over the past 12 months and, indeed, prior to that, but specifically over the last 12 months in relation to the care of the homeless and of the refugees from Bosnia. The Civil Defence showed itself capable of meeting the challenge and it dealt with it very successfully. I take this opportunity to pay public tribute to it.
In relation to the specific question that the Deputy raised about the Towards 2000 document, basically the Civil Defence was set up as a civil arm to assist people in war time. It was geared mainly towards the eventuality of a nuclear war and tackling the situation regarding fallout and so on. Thankfully, over the last number of years that threat has diminished and rather than have the Civil Defence geared towards what we hope is a non-existent threat of nuclear war I decided that we would consider developing a new policy for Civil Defence. This would give the Civil Defence a peace time role of assisting both civil and local authorities, as well as the Garda in cases of emergency or in other circumstances in which they could be of some help. The Civil Defence should play a large role in these areas where the accumulation of expertise is important. They can steward large events, develop a response to flooding and environmental problems — including radiological ones — and major emergencies. We strive to have them as an integral part of any emergency plan in each local authority area. If possible, I am also anxious to develop an overseas assistance response where experts here could help alleviate emergencies overseas.
I would also like to see developed a response to river, lake and coastal areas search and recovery and blizzard conditions, thus broadening the capability of the Civil Defence in the whole area of rescue. I do not believe in having clones of the Civil Defence in each county because obviously the needs of Kerry, for example, are obviously different from those of Dublin.
Yachting experiences in Kerry.
Within these 12 broad programmes, each Civil Defence unit could decide what their priorities in their development programme should be in each local authority area. I take the opportunity to praise in the Civil Defence personnel for the way they have responded to what is a very big change. I have no doubt that by the year 2000, we will have a very efficient and effective Civil Defence backing up the civil powers.
Deputy De Rossa has asked if duties are paid on oil for the Navy, Army and Air Corps and are they put out for tender. The answer is yes to both questions. Public tenders are invited for oil.
The question of the Army dental service was brought up in a press report. It was investigated by the office of the Deputy Adjutant General. It found that nine out of ten dental surgeries are fully serviceable, but after a burglary in July 1992, the dental surgery in the Curragh Military Hospital has provided a limited service only. Between July 1992 and March 1993, £25,000 approximately has been paid to civilian dentists in the Curragh Command area, Counties Kildare, Kilkenny, Laois, Carlow, Wexford and Waterford city. A proportion of this amount was paid in respect of services provided prior to July 1992. As indicated by the Deputy Adjutant General, it is not possible to quantify the exact amount spent on referrals to civilian dentists in the Curragh Command which would have been directly attributable to the break in. However, while the establishment for dental officers in the Defence Forces is 13, there are only eight full-time dental officers and one is on UNIFIL service. Therefore, it is not possible to cater for all barracks and posts and certain specialist treatment is not provided by dental officers. A total of £140,000 approximately, was spent on civilian dental treatment in 1992 for members of the Defence Forces. There was £25,000 approximately, spent on personnel attached to the Curragh Camp.
On the question of construction, Deputy De Rossa will be aware that the Department of Defence has been pursuing a programme of construction and refurbishment to try to provide the Defence Forces with accommodation suitable to the needs of a modern military organisation and to bring some of the housing up to modern living standards. Some of the living standards are inadequate. The properties and buildings owned by the Department and used by the Defence Forces are extensive in scale.
As Deputy Lenihan has pointed out, the nominal establishment figure for the Defence Forces is 18,000, while the present complement is just under 13,000. These barracks, inherited in 1922, were built for numbers which are not there any more and the conditions of some of them have deteriorated for want of use. There is a potential capacity to provide living accommodation for 11,000 personnel. Approximately 7,800 places are graded as either emergency or substandard, which illustrates the enormity of the problem. Even some of the remaining acceptable places are not adequate either.
Of the soldiers living in barracks on a permanent basis, 430 are formally relieved of the obligation to pay the normal accommodation charges because their quarters are officially recognised as being below an acceptable standard. Deductions are being made from 837 soldiers in respect of quarters. Since 1987, over £25 million has been invested in new construction and major refurbishment works. I have a list of the major projects undertaken in that period and I can give it to the Deputy if he so wishes. Better still, I can put the details on the record of the Committee. In the earlier part of my responses to various queries raised by Deputies I dealt with the abandoning of Collins Barracks and the consequent spin-off effect on McKee and Cathal Brugha Barracks.
At the start of his contribution, Deputy De Rossa raised the question of the developing role of the Army. As I indicated to him, I have undertaken to return to the Committee with up to date information in that regard and I will keep in contact with the Committee concerning any proposed or new changes we may make. I assure the Deputy that I will honour my word in that regard.
Let me just remind the Committee that the time for questions and answers is now exhausted, but we will take brief questions from three members who have just indicated.
I would like to be associated with the tributes to the Civil Defence. They are an organisation that deserve a great deal of credit. The community has gained many benefits from this valuable organisation. The Minister called it a multi-purpose community support service and it certainly is multi-purpose. I did not realise the range of their activities.
I wish to ask a few brief questions. First, is the Minister considering an improvement in the image of the Civil Defence only because in previous times, it was associated with nuclear war? Secondly, does the uniform contribute to the year 2000 image that we are looking towards? Finally, is it planned to expand or maintain its role or has rationalisation been considered? Those are questions to be borne in mind.
My question concerns health. A slight anomaly exists in that the families of people who stay in the Curragh receive free medical care but the families of those who commute from Carlow or Kilkenny, for example, do not. Is there any possibility of merging the two systems?
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work of the Civil Defence and to say that I intended to ask the Minister, as Deputy De Rossa did, if he saw any relevance for the Civil Defence today, but he answered that quite adequately. What are the numbers in the Civil Defence at present and is there any pattern of growth because of the changing nature of the role of Civil Defence? I see the Civil Defence programme, "Towards 2000", as an opportunity to modernise and improve the image of Civil Defence.
Part of the "Towards 2000" programme and part of my programme since becoming Minister of State has been to have the Civil Defence improve their image. They do great work and are well appreciated in the community. We are improving the uniforms and providing them with better equipment. We are also using internal newsletters to get our message across.
It is my intention that when the development plans are submitted, we will begin a recruitment drive in each of the local authority areas. I would like to see a full-time civil defence officer in each local authority area as they have worked very well in the counties which have them. I am not disparaging any of the part-time Civil Defence officers who have done a great job but it seems to be more effective to have full-time officers.
The Civil Defence has been awaiting insignia and so on, for a long time and I am glad to say in my other role as Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, which has responsibility for the GSA, that we have managed to clear some of the log-jam and those insignia will be made available. There are about 14,000 volunteers in the Civil Defence, of which about 8,000 are active on a weekly basis. The other 6,000 are available in emergencies and for call-up.
There are areas where the Civil Defence needs to be improved and where it is very weak. When the development plans are submitted we will address the position very positively. I am pleased that members of the Committee are interested in that area and I will extend an invitation to them to visit the Civil Defence school, perhaps over the next few months.
The Minister of State made a very good point in the latter part of his contribution. If any members of the Committee would like a tour of any of the facilities open to the Department of Defence or under my remit, I would be glad to arrange such visits. If they would like any information or briefing from any units of the Army, Air Corps or the Navy, this will also be made available. To make the Committee work and to add to its fund of knowledge, I would like to extend the full range of what is available to me in the Department of Defence, to members of the Committee.
To return to Deputy Browne's point about the Medical Corps, it is interesting to note what the report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces says about the Deputy's point about the Curragh. As there is a hospital in the Curragh the people living there have hospital facilities available to them. People not living in the Curragh do not necessarily have those facilities available to them. The Gleeson report made an interesting point in section 5.8.10:
The medical corps is not organised or equipped to provide general medical services to the dependants of military personnel. To extend arrangements similar to those in operation at the out-patients clinic at the Curragh Military Hospital to the dependants of enlisted personnel in other areas would require additional medical staff, accommodation and facilities. This would duplicate facilities already available in civilian hospitals, would give rise to considerable extra costs and would not, in the commission's view, be justified.
Deputy Browne has a different point of view from that of Gleeson and either may be right.
Are the Army people serving in the Curragh and who live in Carlow or Wicklow saving the Army money by so doing and therefore are they being doubly penalised by paying for a doctor at night if their spouses or children are sick?
There is an anomaly there which I will investigate.
Could we have the concluding statement of Fine Gael from Deputy Barrett? There has been so much talk during the day there may not be much left to say.
I stayed quiet for the last few minutes as I knew I would have the opportunity to make a few final comments. On behalf of the Fine Gael Party I found this exercise extremely useful and I want to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials of the Department for the information which they provided. I wish other committees the same success in dealing with Estimates. I would like to pay tribute to the chairman. It is the first time anybody has had the experience of chairing this type of sitting and he approached it in the correct manner and we achieved our objective.
In relation to the Equitation School, like my colleague, Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)I have an interest in this and the Minister has stated he also has an interest in seeing that the school not only continues but develops. If a jumping team wearing the Irish Army uniform is sent abroad they must have the best horses available. Army personnel with bad horses, representing Ireland abroad, are not doing the job they could for this country. For that reason, it is vitally important that the Equitation School be supported. They are carrying the Irish flag and are representing the Irish horse breeding industry. The figure in the Estimate is £130,000 for the purchase of horses. I would ask the Minister to be conscious of the fact that we must have good horses if we are to have an Equitation School.
The Minister made the point that the Department of Agriculture has a major role to play in this area because it is responsible for the development of the horse breeding industry. There is no better way of displaying the quality of our horses than to have members of the Defence Forces jumping abroad, displaying the quality of half-bred horses in this country. There is much discussion about replacement industry or replacing agriculture in various parts of the country. One of the things we can do, and have done successfully for centuries, is breed horses.
While there may be an oversupply of milk or whatever, within the EC, Irish horses are unique and we should develop that industry. I believe the Equitation School is the ideal way of promoting the half-bred industry as well as promoting Ireland abroad. The State spends a great deal of money through various agencies such as Bord Fáilte promoting this country and some of that money would do more good if it was put into the Equitation School than many of the brochures left lying around after receptions trying to promote Ireland in various parts of the world. I support the continuation and expansion of the Equitation School as an essential role of the Department of Defence.
In relation to the accommodation of members of the Defence Forces, I share the Minister's view that much of it is an absolute disgrace. The State is asking people to live in terrible conditions. It will cost money to replace these dwellings which are, in my view, unfit for human habitation. It always strikes me that — and I was in Government for four and a half years — the State is in the habit of doing things in the same old way all the time and it is very hard to get out of it. There must be other ways and means of providing accommodation so that the State does not have to produce a large sum of money in one year to build or redevelop a large number of units. University College, Dublin, was able to provide accommodation for students through a scheme it produced itself with private sector involvement. The rural housing development programme was developed by Father Harry Bohan, who I understand some years ago was interested in the Defence Forces. Could similar schemes not be used to do something about replacing the terrible accommodation people are expected to live in? Let us use the skills and imagination of outside people who have been successful in development work, whether it is in relation to housing or otherwise.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the Civil Defence. I had the pleasure and honour at one stage of being responsible for Civil Defence, like the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey. Civil Defence has suffered from the Department of Finance continually suggesting its abolition when the Estimates are debated at Cabinet every year. Over the years, that has led to a lack of confidence in the development of Civil Defence. It is significant that we learnt here this afternoon that at present there are 14,000 members of the Civil Defence. That number, combined with 9,000 in the FCA, means that 23,000 people are voluntarily serving their country in ways that the State could not otherwise afford.
We should support these people, and if we had more people involved in voluntary effort, doing the sort of work that Civil Defence and the FCA do on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, this country would be better off. We keep on talking about the cost of keeping one young person in Trinity House at £60,000 a year, but when it comes to doing something to promote Civil Defence and voluntary participation by members of the public in serving their country, there is no money for it. It is a question of priorities. It is important that the Minister of State has said he will be producing a policy document in the future in relation to the role of Civil Defence. It is also important that the State decides once and for all that it wants Civil Defence and that there is a role for 14,000 people to play.
I ask the Minister to outline in a few short sentences in his closing remarks whether he has any proposals to review also the role of the FCA and decide what its function will be within the new Europe and within the new structures of the Defence Forces. It is important, if people are asked to enlist on a voluntary basis, that they are supported and see they are wanted and respected. They will then be proud of the uniform they are wearing.
We did not get much time to debate the Navy and the Air Corps, unfortunately. That shows we were having a productive morning, but I hope the fact that we have not discussed them properly does not suggest any less respect for either of those two arms of the Defence Forces, because they play an important role. It should be noted from the Estimate that the Naval Service has seven ships available to it to perform a massive and expanding role. I understand the EC is now contributing up to 50 per cent for vessels, or aircraft, for fishery protection. However, as I said this morning in my opening contribution, I see the role of the Naval Service and of the Air Corps as going far beyond fishery protection in a European context. We should endeavour to get more funds through the expansion of the Naval Service's role within Europe so that we can have a proper fleet doing a proper job, not only on behalf of Irish citizens but on behalf of European citizens.
I am delighted to hear that there is a good working relationship between the Minister and his Department and the associations representing the officers, NCOs and privates. It is important that those associations are respected. There is a positive and constructive role for them to play. I am pleased to hear there is regular communication and contact with them and I believe that any fears that may have existed prior to their establishment have proved to be wrong. We must pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Lenihan, for having the nerve to take that enormous step and allow the setting up of these associations. They will do a lot of good for the Defence Forces in the long term.
Today's experiment has been successful in many ways. Perhaps the meeting will be arranged in a slightly different way next time. The seating arrangements certainly need to be improved and perhaps the chairman should be sitting in the main chair rather than to the right of it. After all, we are a Committee of the House and I believe we should be respected as a Committee of the House.
In relation to the point Deputy Barrett made about not having discussed the Air Corps or the Naval Service sufficiently, perhaps the Committee should structure its examination of the Estimate differently the next time, perhaps, setting aside a period of discussion for each of the three services concerned so that there will be adequate attention given to all of them. In the nature of things, if one begins with one particular area one tends to use all the time on that area.
I wanted to respond to some of the points the Minister made during the course of the day, as a part of the ongoing debate started here. I asked the Minister about the strategic planning cell or unit the Defence Forces established early last year which — I understand from replies in the Dáil last year by the then Minister, former Deputy Wilson — was looking into the relationship of the Defence Forces to the Western European Union; their role in relation to Northern Ireland; their relationship to the CSCE and so on. I presume the outcome of their studies will be part of the review of the role of the Defence Forces. I appreciate that the Minister has said he will come back to the Committee to brief it in relation to developments in that area.
I also welcome the Minister's commitment to produce a discussion document on the development of the Defence Forces. Perhaps a Green Paper, to begin with, might be more useful than a White Paper. I think the White Paper is intended to be an expression of Government policy decisions, whereas the Green Paper is the discussion document. Perhaps that is what the Minister meant.
I have a copy of the Minister's reference to the document produced by Boutrus Boutrus Ghali last year on the developing role of the United Nations. It would be useful to have that circulated to the Committee for consideration.
In relation to the Minister's comments as to whether we should engage in peace-enforcement duties on behalf of the United Nations, I still have reservations about that. I am not in any way reluctant to have Ireland involved in international relations or involved with the military role which the United Nations has and to a significant extent will increasingly have, but I caution the view that we should accept an enforcement role for our Defence Forces on the basis that to do anything less would be seen in some way as to be as less than honourable or would reduce our standing in any way in the eyes of the world.
There is an honourable role for the Defence Forces to decide that the part they would play would be in peacekeeping and only in peacekeeping. I am not arguing an absolute position here; I am simply saying that it should not be seen as a choice between one or the other, and that in not going for a peace-enforcement role is in some way of lesser stature or standing in the world. Our reputation has been built on the basis of peacekeeping and the fact that the Defence Forces are prepared to stand between conflicting forces elsewhere in the world and take what is coming to them in the interests of peace and only open fire as a last resort. There may well be need for the United Nations to consider a division between forces that would act in a peace-enforcement role and those which would act in a peacekeeping role, because it would be difficult to foresee a situation where a particular unit could today act in an aggressive way and the following day or week act as peacekeepers. This needs to be discussed in greater detail. That is basically what I am arguing for. There should be more discussion, more debate, and less concern that we might be seen to be reluctant or dragging our feet. We want to ensure that the right thing is done for the right reasons, rather than simply going along with the generally accepted view.
In relation to peace-enforcement, and any decision we might make — I say we might make because it will be a decision of the Dáil — we should lay down at least one particular marker. That is, that any actions we will be engaged in would be under the auspices and control of the United Nations. As everybody here knows, I opposed very strongly the Gulf War. There is no doubt in my mind — and it has been confirmed to me since that event — that that was not a peace-making or a peace-enforcing exercise; it was a war. It was done under the auspices of the United Nations, but the United Nations has absolutely no control over it. The then Secretary General said on television that he had no knowledge of the actions that had been taken the night before until he had seen them on television.
It would not be acceptable for Irish Defence Forces to be in such a situation. We would have to ensure that the nature of actions to be adopted by the United Nations in such a situation would be within strict limits. The appalling spectacle of the forces in the Gulf bombing and killing thousands of conscript Iraqi soldiers who were in retreat and seeking to surrender at the end of that war is not something we should encourage or close our eyes to. We must ensure that this does not happen in our name. That type of situation is unacceptable and if international military action is required and if we are to be involved in it, it must be under not just the auspices of the United Nations but under the effective control of the United Nations.
Before the Minister comes in, I intended to refer to the Army bands. It would be wrong not to mention the work done by the Army bands. The Minister mentioned the showcase that the equestrian section is in competing internationally and I agree with him. The Army bands, however, could have a more expanded role at local level. They should not only play at civic functions but also at public functions. They would also be good ambassadors. Because it is an important day for us in the history of the Dáil, it would be wrong of us to let it pass without paying tribute to the work of the bands.
I support Deputy Kemmy's statement in regard to the music section of the Defence Forces, and the Army band in particular. It has given great joy to many people over the years, and I would like to think that the pleasure given will continue for years to come. I add my tribute to that of Deputy Kemmy.
Regarding the question of accommodation, as raised by Deputy Barrett, we might consider providing housing through the Government's social housing policy. That is an area at which we might look in the context of the substandard accommodation that exists for the Defence Forces. Of course, there are barracks where the standand is not bad at all. O'Neill Barracks in Cavan is a new barracks, and it is a pleasure to visit a barracks of that nature. It is a marvellous barracks and it is a great credit to the Minister of the day who initiated it. It is an outstanding facility.
The re-examination of the role of the FCA was raised by Deputy Barrett. It is my intention to include that in the efficiency audit group's examination. I join with the principal speakers on behalf of the various parties in thanking you, Chairman, for the manner in which you chaired this Committee. My belief is that the Committee system is very important to the future of the Oireachtas and Dáil Éireann specifically. I may find myself asking questions from over there next year or the year after, and you may find yourselves being questioned over here. In the interests of future development of the efficient running of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is very important that these committees are seen to work. I believe that we have made a new beginning here today. I pay tribute to the principal spokesmen and the other Deputies, of whatever party, who contributed. It is to everybody's advantage to make the committee system work.
I would like to express my thanks to you, Chairman, and to the members of the Committee for the many interesting and informative contributions made during today's discussions on the Defence and Army Pensions Votes. I would particularly like to record my appreciation for the positive and constructive atmosphere in which all of the questions have been raised.
I said at the beginning that I believe the new Select Committee, and the committee system generally will make a positive contribution to a greater degree of openness and transparency in Government decision-making and to the betterment of Government generally.
I look forward to liaising with the Committee in the future. Both myself and the Minister of State have attempted to answer openly all the inquiries which have been raised even though we do not pretend to be omniscient or the font of all wisdom.
I am pleased that during the course of our discussion Deputies took the opportunity to record their appreciation of the dedication, professionalism and courage displayed by the Defence Forces in the performance of their duties at home and overseas. I am delighted that today's debate has provided us with an opportunity to remind the public of the important work carried out by the Defence Forces in the service of the nation.
Time does not permit me to refer to the wide variety of questions and issues which have been raised. However, as a number of Deputies have raised the question of recruitment and the age profile of the Defence Forces, there are a few points I wish to make in summary. Over recent years the strength of the Defence Forces has remained fairly stable, in or around 13,000. However, since the publication of the Gleeson report and the implementation of increases in pay which is recommended, the rate at which people are leaving the Defence Forces has quite literally, and latterly collapsed. Obviously, with fewer people leaving, the scope for recruitment within the limits of a fixed budget is very limited.
I take the point made by Deputy Lenihan that the nominal establishment figure is 18,000 and, relating that to the 13,000 already quoted, one might query my last remark. The question of recruitment is being kept under review in the light of the numbers leaving and the operational demands on the Defence Forces. I believe that the operational demands on the Defence Forces will become significantly greater with an extended role in our peacekeeping mission abroad under the United Nations. So this year we will be taking on apprentices for the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. Later in the year I expect there will be a limited intake of recruits for priority areas, such as the Naval Service. Deputy Barrett, as the spokesman for the main Opposition party, made the point that whilst we were referring more particularly to the Army, we must not forget the role played by the Air Corps and the Navy in the service of the country. That is important and perhaps on some other occasion we will be able to discuss in more detail the services provided by those two arms of the Defence Forces.
There will shortly be a competition for the award of cadetships. Details are now being finalised and cadets will be allocated to the various areas of the Defence Forces on the basis of need. I would like to clarify the position in regard to the Air Corps. Since 1989, when the embargo on early retirement by Air Corps pilots was introduced, a total of 45 Air Corps cadetships have been awarded. Because of the increase in the number of pilots in the Air Corps I have recently been able to end the embargo on the early retirement of pilots. As you know, up to 1989 there was no such embargo but for some reason or other it was introduced. That embargo has now been lifted. As there are sufficient pilots it is unlikely that it will be necessary to allocate cadets to the Air Corps following this year's competition.
To conclude, I would like to thank Deputy Wallace for the manner in which he conducted the proceedings, and the Committee for the many useful suggestions which have been made today. I found the discussion more useful and informative. I would like to record again my appreciation for the positive and constructive manner in which the various topics have been raised.
Thank you, Minister. That concludes our consideration of the Defence Estimates. I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Committee for the very constructive manner in which they put their questions, as well as to both Ministers for the manner in which they responded. They were as open and as helpful as possible to us at this first meeting of the Committee. I would also like to thank the officials of the Department and I have no doubt that they learned something. There were many more things which we would like to have said but time ran out. I am sure we can only benefit from this debate and the contributions that were made.
It is proposed that the Committee should meet again next Friday, 14 May, to consider the Estimates involved in Equality and Law Reform. I will also ensure that briefing material is made available to members as quickly as possible. Is that agreed?
Can you make sure that arrangement does not clash with the Joint Services Committee on 14 May?
Will we agree to meet next Friday because we are dependent on Ministers being available? Estimates have to be finished by a certain time, so I would ask for the agreement of the Committee to meet again next Friday. Agreed.
The Committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14 May 1993.
