Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 May 1994

Vote 36 — (Revised Estimates).

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Dempsey, the Secretary of the Department, Mr. Seán Brosnan, and their officials.

A suggested timetable has been circulated. This timetable has been discussed and agreed with the convenors and Whips. Its purpose is to permit the committee to have a more focused debate and to ensure that all Subheads of the Votes before us receive due consideration. It is proposed that we conclude our formal consideration of the Estimate at 4.30 p.m. this afternoon. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

Today the Select Committee must consider the Revised Estimates for Defence — Vote 36 and the Estimate for Army Pensions — Vote 37.

The 1994 Estimate in respect of Vote 36—Defence—is for a sum not exceeding £354,229,000, a rise of 6 per cent on that of last year. The Estimate in respect of Vote 37—Army Pensions — is for a sum not exceeding £52,975,000 representing a 6 per cent rise on the previous year. These are substantial sums by any standards. I am sure the committee is anxious to give them the fullest consideration. I look forward to a constructive and informative debate.

Without further ado I call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Andrews)

I am pleased to appear before this committee again in my capacity as Minister for Defence. Last year, our first opportunity to debate the Defence and Army Pensions Estimates under the committee system proved to be a very valuable and worthwhile exercise. The Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and I will be happy to provide the committee with whatever assistance they may require in their consideration of the 1994 Estimates for Defence and Army Pensions.

I shall begin by reviewing some of the important developments taking place in the Defence Forces which may be to the advantage of the committee.

A little over a year ago, the Government decided to undertake a major initiative to prepare the Defence Forces for the years ahead. As a first step, the roles of the Defence Forces—which had remained unchanged since 1981 — were updated to take account of the realities of the nineties. The stated primary role, defence against external aggression, had begun to look increasingly incongruous in the light of both the changed international environment and the day to day work of the Defence Forces. In June last year, the Minister of State addressed this committee on the review of the roles. The Government approved a revised statement of roles for the Defence Forces in September 1993. The operational roles of the Defence Forces have remained fundamentally unchanged, reflecting the tasks undertaken by the Defence Forces on a day to day basis. However, the contingency role has been redefined so as to reflect more accurately and realistically the priorities and functions of the Defence Forecs, having regard to the current security situation both internally and worldwide.

As a second stage in the review process, the Government requested the Efficiency Audit Group to undertake a fundamental review of the organisation, structures and deployment of the Defence Forces based on a revision of the roles. To conduct this stage of the review, a firm of professional management consultants, Messrs. Price Waterhouse, assisted by a number of international military experts, were engaged under the aegis of the Taoiseach's Department. The consultants commenced work in January and are expected to report to the EAG before the end of next month.

The range of issues to be considered by the consultant is not new. The Gleeson report, published in 1990, identified a number of shortcomings in the organisation of the Defence Forces. In particular, the report highlighted the excessive number of expensively trained military personnel working in administrative and support areas and suggested that there might be scope for the elimination of duplication within the military organisation. There is also need to take a fundamental look at the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces with a view to ensuring that they are focused on operational tasks and that maximum use is made of their most valuable resource — trained personnel. Reform and reorganisation are necessary, not only to provide increased efficiency and effectiveness: they are also a positive development for those who choose a career in the Defence Forces.

While the report of the Efficiency Audit Group is not yet available, it is likely that its conclusions will form the basis for a long term programme of change and development of the Defence Forces. The emphasis of any programme adopted by the Government will be on enhancing the effectiveness of the military organisation to perform the important roles assigned to it by Government. The Defence Forces of the future should be provided with appropriate resources in terms of staff and equipment. Having been given a clear statement of roles, the review process is designed to ensure that the Defence Forces will be provided with the appropriate means to carry them out. This is not a cost cutting exercise. The intention is to obtain optimum benefit from the use of available resources.

Given the important roles of the Defence Forces, the Government has been mindful of the need to ensure their full participation in the review process. To that end, a steering group established by the EAG to oversee the review includes high level military representation. Defence Forces personnel have worked with the consultants in the course of the review. The associations representing military personnel have been afforded the opportunity of making submissions to the EAG and meeting with the consultants to discuss matters of concern to them. In summary, every care has taken to ensure that the Defence Forces have a substantial input into the review process.

While much work remains to be done in terms of reorganisation of the Defence Forces, I would like to remind the committee that a number of important changes have already taken place. The Efficiency Audit Group has completed two reports in the defence area dealing with the civil branches of the Department of Defence and administration in the Defence Forces. Arising from these reports, the Government has approved the implementation of proposals to give greater financial authority to the military authorities; control and responsibility for seven subheads in the procurement area have been assigned to the military authorities with effect from January of this year. The question of delegating additional subheads to the military authorities will be addressed in the light of experience gained in 1994 and in the forthcoming EAG report.

There has been positive action in other areas. Earlier this year I was very pleased to be in a position to announce a recruitment drive for the Permanent Defence Force which marks a first step towards addressing the rising age profile of military personnel which has become a cause for concern. Five hundred personnel are being enlisted — 420 to the Army and Air Corps and 80 to the Naval Service. These recruits are being enlisted for a fixed period, extended from three to five years following discussions with the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Association — PDFORRA. They will receive pay and allowances on the same basis as existing personnel. They will also have the same opportunities to undergo training courses and to serve overseas.

The fixed term contracts will allow greater scope for regular intakes of new recruits and thus contribute to a lowering of the age profile of non-commissioned personnel. The average age of privates in the Permanent Defence Force has risen from 24 in 1981 to over 31 years now. The Defence Forces need a regular injection of "young blood" to maintain their operational effectiveness, and fixed term contracts are a step in the right direction.

Without the past week, Deputies will have seen advertisements in newspapers inviting applications for the 1994 intake of cadets. The exact number to be appointed is being discussed and is openended but I hope there will be a considerable number of cadets at the end of the day. For the first time in the history of our Naval Service, women are eligible to compete on an equal basis for cadetships. This should have been possible years ago, but I am pleased that women are now eligible to compete on an equal basis for cadetships in the Defence Forces.

I am pleased to announce that the distinctive and separate uniform for the Air Corps will be available later this year. All Deputies and Senators will agree that since the foundation of the State effectively the Air Corps has been wearing an Army uniform. My view, supported by the Secretary of the Department and by Defence Forces generally, was that a new departure in this area was required to give the Air Corps a distinctiveness and a separateness in a uniform and presentation context. I saw models of the proposed blue uniform. The people who modelled the uniform were very satisfied with it and the general public will also be satisfied with the appearance of the Air Corps when the uniform is worn.

On Wednesday last, the subject of Irish military participation in United Nations missions was debated in the Dáil as a separate and specific matter, as is required under statute. As I indicated then, the Government remains committed to the principle of military participation in United Nations operations in the cause of international peace. Consistent with the safety of our troops, which is an overriding consideration, this commitment will continue, representing a practical and exemplary manifestation of our support for the highest ideals of the United Nations.

I pay tribute to the Defence Forces who have participated in peacekeeping operations since 1958. They have done so worldwide in a very brave and courageous fashion, and from time to time they were required to lay down their lives in the defence of international peace.

I will now highlight briefly some of the principal features of the Defence Estimate. The 1994 Estimate is for a gross sum of £372.479 million — an incrase of more than £17 million on the 1993 figure. Pay and allowances for the Defence Forces account for £289 million, or approximately 80 per cent of the Estimate. The net sum required for 1994 is £354.229 million. That estimate is based on an average total strength of 12,980 in the Defence Forces, comprising 1,560 officers, 11,300 non-commissioned officers and privates, 55 cadets and 65 members of the Nursing Services. Provision is also made for the training of approximately 9,000 FCA and Slua Muirí personnel.

Non-pay expenditure totalling £70.7 million is detailed in 21 subheads. A brief synopsis of the subheads has been circulated to Members of the committee. Almost £20 million of the non-pay element will be used towards the purchase and maintenance of aircraft and related equipment. Later this year two new purpose built maritime patrol aircraft, CASA CN 235's, will be delivered to the Air Corps. These aircraft, which are 50 per cent funded by the European Union, will be used primarily for fishery protection duties. The introduction of the CASAs and the continuing excellent work being done by our seven Naval Service fishery protection vessels will ensure that our valuable natural resources are adequately protected and we are capable of fulfilling the obligations incumbent on us as a member of the European Union.

I pay tribute to the various elements of the Defence Forces — Army, Air Corps and Naval Service and the Reserve Defence Force — for their work at home and abroad. Irish troops serving overseas have attracted commendation and acclaim for the consistently high standards they have maintained over the years as peacekeepers, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. Their proud record redounds to the credit of our country and they deserve our congratulations. I know the committee will join with me in paying tribute to them.

The day-to-day operation of seven of the non-pay subheads is now the responsibility of the military authorities. The subheads are subhead I — mechanical transport; subhead N — clothing; subhead O — provisions; subhead T — petrol and oils; subhead U — transportation; part of subhead X — equitation and subhead Y — military educational courses and visits. The total amount involved in these subheads is £17.3 million. In addition, responsibility for allowances amounting to £27.9 million has been delegated to the military authorities.

The army pensions Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1994 is for a gross sum of £55.76 million, the net figure being £52.98 million. This figure represents an increase on last year's outturn of approximately 6 per cent. Details of this Estimate have also been circulated to committee members. Almost 91 per cent of the Estimate will be spent on service pensions and retirement and death gratuities for former Defence Forces personnel and also for pensions and allowances payable to spouses and children of personnel.Approximately 7,850 former members and their dependants are involved.

That concludes my overview of the Estimates. Both the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey and I will be pleased to assist the members of the Committee in addressing any questions they may have on the Estimates. If the information is not readily available now I will undertake to give them information subsequently.

Mr. Bradford

I wish to raise some relevant points and receive a clear response. During the past month or so the Minister has taken Questions Time on two occasions and the annual report under the Defence (Amendment) Act was debated last week. I might therefore harrow ground that has been ploughed already.

I am glad to note the efficiency audit group who have been working since January will report within the next month or so. The Defence Forces await with interest the outcome of its deliberations. The Minister has stated that its report should not result in cost cuts, for the sake of it, but in a more streamlined force better equipped to face the challenges of the nineties. While the Defence Forces have carried out their duties in an exemplary fashion the question of funding needed to be addressed. I hope that, as a result of the report of the efficiency audit group, any extra resources required for training or equipment will be made available by the Department of Finance. Money has not been wasted by the Defence Forces in recent decades.

Earlier this year the Minister announced the recruitment of 500 personnel. While the five year fixed contract which has been debated ad nauseam in the Dáil, is an improvement on the initial offer of a three year contract — I congratulate PDFORRA on its success — it will not allow recruits to pursue a career in the Army. They are being offered a five year job. Some weeks ago when we raised the question of the number of applicants who might eventually be offered a permanent contract in the Defence Forces the Minister replied that he would review the matter after five years and that a certain number would be offered fixed term contracts. I would hope the majority will be offered permanent contracts because there is a need to ensure people will be able to pursue a career in the Army rather than short term employment. I hope some progress will be made in that regard.

Due to the lack of a recruitment policy in recent years there are few promotion opportunities. When we teased this matter out recently in the Dáil the Minister expressed the view that there was a reasonable number but if there is a low intake of new recruits difficulties will be encountered. If people are to view a career in the Army fulfilling there must be promotional opportunities. This issue has been the source of strife. I would like to know the Minister's views on it.

I am glad to note that cadet recruitment will recommence. The point has been made on a number of occasions that while the number of places is always limited, the applicants who are successful tend to come from within the forces. I realise there is open competition and interviews take place, but some people feel that the forces are a closed shop. When there are small numbers that amounts, in a sense, to a closed shop. However, I would like the Minister to outline recruitment policy and assure us that it is transparent, fair and open and that one does not have to have nine or ten uncles in the Army to get a place in the cadets. People are asking me about that and, therefore, I am asking the Minister.

It was suggested to me recently that graduates should be recruited to the force —to date I have not had the opportunity to raise it by way of Dáil question. I was given to understand that cadets recruited in the ordinary way sometimes go to college for a number of years, get a qualification and come back to the Army. It was pointed out that they miss the most important and most formative years of an Army career. It was suggested that we should consider instituting a graduate recruitment programme so that people joining the Army would already have an education qualification and would not go on education leave for two, three or four years. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that suggestion.

I also would like to be associated with the Minister's tributes the people who have served overseas, not just during the past 12 months but since the late 1950s. I note again the Minister's strong statement of the Government's commitment to its international and UN obligations. In that context we may in future debate the question of peace keeping and peace enforcement. My party is strongly committed to the concept of peace enforcement where necessary. Where people are sent on peace enforcement missions by the Department and go on behalf of the Irish people and at the behest of the Oireachtas, I feel slightly uncomfortable about the the Minister's expressing reservations about peace enforcement. This is a valid, political and personal view even for a Member of the Oireachtas but for a Minister for Defence to express that view when Irish troops are serving on peace enforcement duties is not ideal. I respect the Minister's opinion but I feel slightly uncomfortable with it. It may come up for debate on another day.

The Minister mentioned extra equipment for the Naval Service, in particular, the CASAs which will be made available. As Minister for the Marine, the Minister will have to concede that recent decisions taken in Luxembourg will create an ever increasing demand on fishery protection vessels to secure the Irish fishing industry. There will certainly be a need to increase the resources of the Naval Service and to improve the equipment which they use to protect Irish waters. Although I welcome the extra equipment and expenditure the Minister is committing, does he agree that extra resources and equipment will be needed in 1994-96 and onwards because of increased fishing of our waters by foreign boats?

Although the Minister has not mentioned it here, he has informed us on a number of occasions that there will be further expenditure on the naval base at Haulbowline. As a Deputy for the constituency where that base is situated, I welcome the proposed expenditure. I again restate the case for situating the official headquarters of the Naval Servcie at Haulbowline. It appears that the number of personnel involved in any such change would be minimal so I hope the Minister can make some progress.

The Estimate mentions the sail training vessel. The Minister is probably aware of a recent case where a vessel fishing illegally was confiscated and the judge strongly recommended that the vessel should be made available to provide a service similar to that being provided by the Asgard. Does the Minister intend to make any progress on that because, although great work has been done by all involved with the Asgard sail training vessel there is need for another vessel. Hundreds of people would benefit from the provision of such a vessel and as there is a vessel which can be taken over by the Minister's Department he should progress that proposal.

Mr. Clohessy

I join with the Minister in complimenting the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Force on their performance over many years, especially since overseas duties were assumed in the 1950s. They are regarded by all and sundry as a peace keeping force in any country they have served in since the Congo campaign. I also pay tribute to the sea and air search and rescue units around the coast, and to the Naval Service on the marvellous work it has done over the years, especially as there is pressure on them now.

I am pleased also with the Minister's new recruitment campaign. It has helped to bring down the average age of soldiers. Everybody would admit that the average age of Irish soldiers at 31 years is high when compared with that of the troops who served in the Gulf War whose average age was between 20 and 21 years. Younger soldiers better suited to overseas duties, will be wanted more and more in the future.

I agree with the Minister's Estimate in many respects. It contains a number of important provisions. I will focus on some areas which are causing public concern. In addition to unemployment, one of the greatest social problems facing our country is drugs abuse by young people. I do not have to spell out the grave social consequences of drug abuse to the Members of this House. Everyday we see the lives of countless young people being ruined. The future holds only misery and despair for them and they exist only for drugs. They are zombie-like, craving a substance which offers them an escape into a more acceptable world. In many cases death is the only escape. While young lives are being wrecked we cannot ignore the scale of drug pushing in our society. It is an easy way for faceless men in well -cut business suits and armed men wearing masks to make money. The social implications for our society are great. We are in danger of creating a generation of drug dependent young people the sole aim of whose short lives is to steal and plunder to raise money for drugs. Their activities are reflected in the crime figures.

It is no secret that the south west coast is now the prime area for importing drugs. The recent drug finds are only the tip of the iceberg. Vast profits are being made from illegal drug dealing and this ensures that faceless barons will continue in the vile peddling of drugs to young people. As we debate the Defence Estimate, I put it to this House that drug barons are posing a threat to the security of the State. The shadowy activities of these international crime godfathers must be classed as offences to be targeted by our Defence Forces. Let us recognise that as a small maritime nation, we do not possess the sophisticated equipment or other resources to tackle this problem alone. We have to be honest and admit that the facilities available to our Defence Forces lag behind those available to drug barons. My colleagues and I have stressed on many occasions that the drug barons are winning the battle off the Cork coast.

We must focus on the fact that military vessels are not up to the standard of those used by drug barons. Our forces are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. The time has come to unleash the full force of our Army and Naval Service. The threat we face is too grave for us to hide behind our national pride. We ask the European Union for funding to build new roads for job creation, and tourism development, yet we do not ask for assistance to protect our most valuable resource — our young people — from this great threat. We need the assistance of the European Union to upgrade our Naval Service to take on the drug gangs.

I pay tribute to the brave men and women in the Naval Service who have carried out their tasks with dedication and commitment. However, bravery and courage must be backed by resources and equipment. Our Naval Service must be allocated additional finance to increase the fleet and provide fast interceptor craft for use off the south coast. This problem will not go away if we turn a blind eye to it. The drug gangs will continue to target our country because of the great profits from their evil trade. There is money in dealing out death and misery to a generation of our young people. We have to say "stop". There is a case for basing a special anti-drug force in the south and we must make the EU fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. In the days of Community wide policing and intelligence co-operation we must consider inviting the EU to base a force here that will work closely with our Defence Forces.

Combating the drug problem is not the sole responsibility of one force. While it is accepted that the frontline force in the fight against illegal drugs is the Garda Síochána, the drug trade is a far more sophisticated operation than what gardaí see on the streets every day. The gardaí are at the end of the chain. They are confronted with the human misery, human wrecks reduced to stealing, begging or to prostitution in order to survive. Much is being said about the fight against crime and drug abuse accounts for a significant amount of our crime. Cutting the flow of illegal drugs into the country would eliminate a certain amount of crime which would result in considerable savings to the State and more importantly reduce the danger to vulnerable young people.

We need, to co-ordinate our efforts as some Garda operations have been bungled. It is no secret that the lack of clear policy guidelines has resulted in some suspects going free. Tension between elements of our security services must be ended. I know of a case in the Shannon Estuary where gardaí were not made aware of a customs operation and when they investigated suspects, they found they were customs officers watching a ship. This lack of a co-ordinated policy is bound to be to our disadvantage. We must sort out this "Keystone Cops" approach before any more suspects flee our country laughing all the way to the bank.

We often have been told that the first line of defence is the reserve force who play an important role in the Defence Force establishment. The evidence is that the FCA is being ignored and being treated as the Cinderella of the Defence Forces. It is not being taken seriously by decision makers. I am concerned about the reports that FCA training has been cut and that recruits have to purchase their own equipment from bargain stores around the country. Will the Minister assure this House that the role of the FCA will not be downgraded. There are many local or regional forces similar to the FCA in EU member states and membership of these organisations is looked upon with pride because of the high esteem in which they are held. These forces are provided with the best modern equipment and training and stand in readiness as a line of defence.

There are more immediate clear benefits from membership of a defence force. The character building so necessary for the modern generation is one of the beneficial side effects of being involved. Young people are subject to military discipline; they are involved in teamwork and are part of an organisation where qualities such as leadership are instilled and appreciated. Local forces are also less expensive to run and train. Perhaps a few years in a force such as the FCA would benefit many young men and women and provide them with outlet for their high energy and youthful questioning. The concept of national service is a worldwide phenomenon that is not widely accepted here. The reasons are perhaps interesting: it has something to do with the role of conscription in our recent history and we feel forces like the FCA are too militaristic and limit individual freedom. In these days of scarce employment opportunities for young people, should we not encourage them to consider joining the FCA even for a limited time in order to train to tackle the challenge to go out into the world and make their own way?

While I appreciate that the Government is preparing a White Paper on the implications of an EU defence policy or the emergence of a new collective security system, we must not ignore forces such as the FCA in a move towards a Community wide approach. The FCA has a role to play, will the Minister ensure that the force is allowed adequate resources to fulfil its obligations? It is a retrograde step to deprive the FCA of funds and resources. The force has a proud record especially in rural Ireland and while it is not fashionable or politically correct to emphasise local defence, we should encourage the volunteer willing to give up his or her time to serve in the force.

Will the Minister examine unwanted military property and land with a view to selling it so that the funds from the sale of can be used to improve facilities for the members of the Defence Forces? For example, in Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick, the former married quarters is now lying unused — a fine cut stone structure of imposing design. Surely a local use could be found for it. The building could be restored for use as a school, for handicapped children or as a residential centre for children with disabilities. Married quarters are no longer required and vast tracts of prime land could be put to better use without adversely affecting the efficency of our Defence Forces. We must never allow our Defence Forces to be run down even if the current trend is towards a collective security and defence system. Our Defence forces have a major role to play in keeping peace and we are proud of their performance.

Proinsias De Rossa

I thank the Minister for his speech and for identifying a number of issues other than the specific issues relating to the Estimates which he believes are of importance to this committee. The concerns of the Legislation and Security Committee are not only what it costs to run the Defence Forces but also policy and the role of the Defence Forces. We seem to have bitterly ignored the fact that the Defence Forces were redefined in a manner — I will refer in a moment to the actual redefinition — which to say the least ignored the r�le of this committee, and the Dáil in examining any new r�les for them. It is a political question and not one of logistics, the size of the army etc. At the time I expressed concern that the announcement of the new r�le for the Defence Forces was made in September when the Dáil was in recess, and that no provision had been made for a debate on this issue.

I want to set that point in the context of what I regard as the developing of close connections between the r�le our Defence Forces should have and how our place in the world vis-�-vis our foreign policy develops and is being reviewed. The Maastricht Treaty provides that “The European Union is to assert its identity on the international scene through the implementation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy which might in time lead to a common defence”. It also states that “The European Union shall rely on the Western European Union to implement defence aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy”. When I referred to these matters a few days ago in the Dáil during the debate on the report of the peace keeping role of the Army the Minister dismissed most of what I said on the basis that they were foreign policy matters. Given my quotations from the Maastricht Treaty, this Committee cannot ignore foreign policy matters. The review of the Maastricht Treaty over the next couple of years to see how a defence policy and common defence, which is the practical construction of whatever form of co-operation may exist between the defence forces of the member states of the European Union, may evolve clearly has a very direct relevance for this committee.

There are a number of key questions which the architects of the Maastricht Treaty and the Minister have not answered in a straightforward manner. What does a common defence policy mean in practice for the Defence Forces and under what circumstances might it lead to common defence? At what point does the defence of democracy become offensive and at what point are we expected to condone armed intervention by the European Union or its agents in the affairs of other states or regions? This question is criticial in view of the circumstances in, for example, Bosnia. Given that the Western European Union is essentially the European pillar of NATO, is it possible for us to reconcile participation in the Common Foreign and Security Policy and its relationship with the Western European Union with what I would describe as the traditional neutral stance of this State and the traditional role of our Defence Forces as a peace keeper or a peace maker.

These questions are important in the context of the current review of the Defence Forces by the EAG and whether it will take into account the possible involvement of the Defence Forces in some type of European defence policy —common defence. We cannot blithely ignore these issues which one way or the other will have to be faced by the Government at an early date. They should not be skipped over by simple announcements or amendments, as happened six to eight months ago when we amended the Defence Act to enable troops to become involved in peace enforcement missions. I welcome the change in the mandate of the Irish Defence Forces in Somalia from peace enforcement to peace-keeping. Despite my criticisms of the Minister on this issue, I welcome his clear preference for a peace-keeping role for the Defence Forces.

We are not in a position to address those issues today but I ask the Chairman to arrange time for a debate on them some time in the future so that we do not present the public with political decisions at the last minute. The Department of Foreign Affairs is preparing for the publication of a White Paper. In this context to what extent do the Minister for Defence or his Department intend to contribute to the White Paper on foreign policy. I would argue very strongly that it is no longer possible to separate the role of our Defence Forces and our foreign policy, given the nature of the Maastricht Treaty which we ratified.

Although the September announcement of the change in role for the Defence Forces was covered to some extent by the media, it passed unremarked in this House. There have been remarkable changes in the role of the Defence Forces from their original role which was to defend the State against external aggression. The word "external" has been dropped. The reasons for this is simple—what external aggression are we to face? I presume this does not mean that we will not defend ourselves against external aggression? However, this leaves the way open for defence from internal aggression. This is significant if one takes into account their further role which is to aid the civil power, meaning, in practice, to assist, where requested, the Garda Síochána who have the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of this State. This replaced an earlier statement of the role to the effect, that the function of the Garda Síochána was to restore and maintain public peace. These significant changes in the roles of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána need to be debated.

The words "peace keeping" have been dropped from their third role, which leaves the way open for them to be involved in peace enforcement, a role with which the Minister is not happy. The other change may or may not be regarded as significant but from my reading of it, it is, that is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the European Union. This change replaces a commitment to protect the fishery policy or the fisheries of the State and broadens the role of our Defence Forces beyond simply defence of Irish fishing grounds. A relatively minor change has been made in that the Defence Forces are now formally enabled to provide a ministerial air transport service. These changes are not simply a case of terminology, they will have wide-ranging effects on the potential role of our Defence Forces in terms of how we perceive our role internationally, particularly within the European Union.

I welcome the fact that we have a Minister who is prepared to address these issues. For too long the Defence Forces were seen as a backwater in political terms. The role of the Defence Forces, the evolving changes in our foreign policy and our role in the European Union, deserve a Minister of the stature of Deputy Andrews. I hope he will respond to the questions I have raised.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

I want clarification on some increases and decreases that I find difficult to balance. The Estimate does not provide a breakdown for the consultancy services under subhead A.7. Will the Minister give that breakdown because the Government seems to have a mania for employing consultancy and public relations firms? Perhaps the figure covers advertising. The massive increase of 275 per cent indicates that some marvellous work must have been done this year that was not done last year.

Mr. Andrews

I will answer the Deputy's questions one by one as I sometimes forget the totality of the question and I would like to give the Deputy the benefit of as much knowledge as possible. The Estimate for consultancy services for 1994 is £45,000 and the Deputy correctly identified it as being intended to cater for consultancy needs. It is anticipated these may arise during the year in areas of computer development. A large development programme is underway in the Department and offices of the Defence Forces. Expenditure on consultancy services in recent years covered mainly public relatoins services. This included the services of PR consultants for the Minister and the Department, for example, Frank Dunlop and Associates Limited, Public Relations Management in 1991-92 including Mr. Michael Patton. I want to give the Deputy the advantage of all the information I have before me. Also Brindley Advertising Limited was engaged to publicise the "Toward 2000" initiative in Civil Defence. That was late in 1993.

The Estimate for 1992 was for £49,000, but expenditure was only £24,000. There was a considerable saving in that year. In 1993 the Estimate was £40,000, and expenditure was only £12,000. The Estimate for 1994 is £45,000, but we do not know how much of that will be used. I anticipate it will be similar to the two previous years. The full amount will not be expended. I do not agree that this Government is as consultancy or PR-minded as the Deputy suggests. Government Ministers should engage their own press and public relations services. They are appointed to very important positions in the service of their country and inevitably must be able to keep pace with the print and electronic media but such props — they are props — have become popular in modern times. If for example one wants to rationalise something to the public, the taxpayer or the electorate these people are professionally trained to get one's message across. Sometimes Ministers might not have a professionalism to transmit or communicate the message they are trying to get across.

Mr. Bradford

To give it a spin.

Mr. Andrews

To give it a proper communicational direction, would be the proper term.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Perhaps we should go back to the old days when Ministers answered questions in the Dáil and gave information for information's sake, without any spin.

Mr. Andrews

I have been a Member of the Dáil for 30 years and Deputy Lenihan has been a Member for 35 or 36 years. We would be seen as politicians of the old style, not in the sense of ageing, but in a mature sense.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

There are a few matters that fascinate me. We are recruiting extra members to the Defence Forces, but there seems to have been a cutback in subhead J. There has been an increase in numbers, but a cutback in clothing; I hope the new recruits are not joining a nudist colony. There is a cutback for Army uniforms and an increase for civilian clothing. I fail to understand the reason for that. Is there a simple explanation for that?

Mr. Andrews

I am not being short with the Deputy, but a certain amount of clothing for the Navy, the Army and the Air Corps is accumulated over time. There is a long lead time in the context of purchasing. As there may be a great deal of clothing on hands it may not be necessary to purchase clothing every year. The differential is difficult to explain, but members of the three services are very conscious of the need to present themselves properly and adequately. As far as the officials in the Department of Defence and I am concerned there are no constraints on purchasing clothing. I accept that the imbalance is difficult to explain on first reading.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

In general stores there is a drop of 15 per cent. In engineering stores there is a 61 per cent cutback. In drugs and dressings, for example, there is a decrease of 20 per cent in all stores. Everything appears to be cutback yet we have an increase in personnel numbers. Perhaps the Minister can explain the logic in that. I would be grateful if he can. I will give the Minister the details later.

Mr. Andrews

I would be most grateful if the Deputy would. I thought we were dealing with subheads A.1. to A.7.

Chairman

I want to repeat that we are trying to be helpful.

Mr. Andrews

I want to be helpful to the Deputy.

Chairman

The timetable was made out and agreed. Are there any further questions? Let us move on to subhead B to F.

Mr. Lenihan

This concerns the Defence Forces and their structure. I was glad the Minister in his opening statement made a specific commitment, and I quote: "There is a need to take a fundamental look at the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces with a view to ensuring that the are focused on operational tasks and that maximum use is made of their most valuable resource, trained personnel." This is related to what has already been referred to in opening statements concerning personnel on overseas service. We should examine how best we can use our trained personnel on overseas service and whether they are trained effectively. That would do away with the need for a debate on whether the United Nations intervention is of a peacekeeping or peace enforcing nature or for the protection of humanitarian workers. I prefer the general formulation that the Minister used when he said: "The Government remains committed to the principle of military participation in UN operations in the cause of international peace." That is our obligation within the United Nations mandate. In whatever manner we participate in a common, foreign and security policy we are involving a defence commitment as a result of agreement between all members of the European Union post-1996, our commitment will be on a collective security basis.

We examine how best we can train our personnel for participation in such collective security measures, whether on a regional basis within the European Union or on a United Nations basis in the cause of international peace. We have only limited numbers but we have excellent and skilled personnel which is a valuable resource. We do not have a sufficient number of troops to make up a large infantry contingent to send to some troubled spot in the world but we can concentrate on particular niche areas that are essential to the logistics of providing a force for international peace, whether under the United Nations or within the European Union.

At this stage we should consider how best we can make our contribution. A good example of that is the provision of a transport contingent on Somalia. That is a limited, efficient and effective unit which is making a worthwhile contribution there. We should look at this matter in a pragmatic, flexible way rather than getting into a largely arid debate as to whether our participation represents preventive diplomacy, peace enforcement, peacekeeping or the protection of humanitarian workers because the number of ways in which we can make a contribution is infinite. One has only to consider all the UN missions being conducted around the world to see the variety of contributions involved including Somalia, Kashmir, Cyprus, Lebanon and so on and all of these countries have different variations in dimension. There is a very different connotation to intervention in Rwanda, which is more of an observer status in the interests of diplomacy. One must consider all of those areas, observer status, peacekeeping, policing work, medical humanitarian work, or the real task of peace enforcement, and if the United Nations decide that that is the requirement, we must focus on what can we do effectively to contribute to whatever logical group is required.

We have developed an expertise in certain areas. Over the past 35 years we have become expert at the type of work involved in maintaining peace on the ground. This is largely due to the character of our military personnel in particular. They have evolved a way of handling situations on the ground that is not strictly associated with military tasks but is ideal for the quasi police work of peacekeeping. That expertise will always be necessary, regardless of what type of force is sent, as part of the logistics of any United Nations force.

There are other fine examples of Ireland's contribution to UN missions. They include the provision of medical facilities and advise on how best they can be provided. Our top military people could contribute much more than simply providing large infantry contingents. We do not have the highly sophisticated military equipment whether for use on air, land or sea. Other contries have such a capability and the world will have to rely on the United States, France and other countries to make that type of contribution. Our contribution will always be limited in that area but there are a number of essential niche areas, particularly peacekeeping or policing work on the ground, in which we have acquired a real expertise that is a tribute to the character and training in our military tradition. That is a resource.

Over the next year or two we will be taking our place in a new world order in which there will be no military alliance conflicts that gave rise to the strict neutrality in the past. Collective security and protection will be very important in this new world order and we will link in with other countries in that respect. In that context, we must examine what effective contribution we can make.

Mr. Andrews

I thank the Deputy for his intervention. Because he has the advantage of long service as a Dáil Deputy and as a Minister for Foreign Affairs and later Minister for Defence. I agree almost completely with his very clear and concise exposition on what he conceives to be the present and future role of the Army. When I was given the portfolio of Minister for Defence I examined a number of areas in which I felt there was a need to address issues, particularly one which I, like the former Minister, Deputy Lenihan, have had an interest in for many years, namely, humanitarian and aid issues, areas where the United Nations should be seen to operate and a definition of the role of the United Nations. From time to time I conflict with Deputy De Rossa on the question of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Deputy Lenihan made the point that there should be an umbrella term called "peacekeeping". Those terms are defined clearly in Chapters 6 and 7 of the United Nations Charter which was established around the end of World War II. People now talk about what is termed Chapter 6½ which encapsulates peace-keeping and peace enforcement. Peacekeeping is not one of the other but a combination of both.

Since I became Minister for Defence I addressed what I considered to be a lack — not in any way a malicious or deliberate one, quite the contrary — in the whole area of our United Nations involvement that is, the question of a United Nations school. I asked the Defence Forces to set up a United Nations school. That has been established and progress in that regard is ongoing. That school will address Deputy Lenihan's valid point on the need to keep up to date in retaining to address the requirements of a modern day Army, Navy and Air Corps. These requirements will be taken into account by the United Nations school, the establishment of which was one of my first acts in my portfolio as Minister for Defence. I am pleased to tell the Deputy, the Chairman and the committee, that the United Nations school will be officially opened by the Taoiseach on Thursday.

In addition to providing training for our own forces, we will open up the school to other countries to give them the benefit of our expertise as peacekeepers. Since our troops first became involved in that area in 1960, when they went to the Congo, where they suffered serious losses in terms of death and injury. They have been involved in many and varied peacekeeping operations throughout the world up to the present day. They continue to be involved in South Lebanon, have an observer status in Bosnia, serve international peace. Somalia in a transport mode, and in Cyprus where the type of peacekeeping required is different from the other areas mentioned by Deputy Lenihan. There are horses for courses in the peacekeeping area. The United Nations school and those professionals in the United Nations school in our country will address our involvement in peacekeeping on a regional basis within the context of the United Nations and in a peacekeeping role in a wider international context under the aegis of the United Nations.

The efficiency audit will address this area also. It will consider our requirements and our record in that regard. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has defined peacekeeping as the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and frequently civilians as well. Peacekeeping is a technique that expands the possibilities to prevent conflict and to make peace.

Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter authorises the Security Council to undertake, if necessary, coercive measures, including operations by land, sea and air of the United Nations to maintain and restore international peace and security. It is under that authority that UNOSOM II was established. As Deputy De Rossa said, the original mandate for the force has been changed and is now more in line with traditional peacekeeping mandates, which is basically what Deputy Lenihan espouses and supports and I would not be too far removed him on that.

Regarding Deputy De Rossa's point, also touched on by Deputy Lenihan, about our involvement with bodies like the Western European Union, we have an observer status there presently. Some had the view that as some stage we might become full members. Title V of the Maastricht Treaty establishes a Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. It specifies that the Western European Union is an integral part of the development of the union and sets out the way in which the European Union can request the Western European Union to elaborate and implement actions and decisions of the EU with defence implications. The Western European Union remains a separate organisation operating within its treaty framework. Following the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty last November, Ireland took up observer status with this organisation and we have appointed the ambassador in Belgium as a permanent representative to the Western European Union.

Deputy De Rossa also mentioned the intergovernmental conference in 1996. Title V, Article J.4.1 of the Maastricht Treaty provides for an intergovernmental conference in 1996 to review its common foreign and security policy provisions. This review is likely to include the question of the eventual framing of a common foreign policy which might, in time, lead to a common defence. As set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government, 1993-97, any decisions reached by the Intergovernmental Conference will have to be unanimous.

The Government are committed to putting the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy to the people in a referendum. This will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unchanged unless the people decide otherwise. The fail-safe mechanism in this matter — I share Deputy De Rossa's concerns about it — is that it will be the decision will be made by the people by way of referendum.

Mr. Bradford

Is there any specific training allowance element for those people serving overseas? I will not enter the peace-keeping versus peace enforcement debate.

Mr. Andrews

As I understand it, there is an allowance for training. The figure for this year is £7,680,000 for overseas allowances.

Mr. Bradford

I recognise that but what I am asking is whether we have any specific fund for extra training which should be required for overseas duties.

Mr. Andrews

That would arise in the ordinary way in advance of going to the particular location or mission they were assigned to.

Mr. Bradford

It is part of the general budget as such?

Mr. Andrews

That would be part of the general budget but these are specific allowances.

Mr. Bradford

Could the Minister estimate the cost of training people for overseas service?

Mr. Andrews

I cannot, off the top of my head, as the Deputy can appreciate, but I will let the Deputy have as near an approximation as possible.

Mr. Power

On the overseas allowances, what criteria are used in deciding what allowance is given to members of the Defence Forces serving overseas? I understand we have different allowances for those serving in, say, Cyprus compared to serving in Lebanon.

Mr. Andrews

The allowances were independently assessed in the sense that the Gleeson report recommended the allowances, as set out. Personal serving with UNOSOM 2 and UNIFIL, from commandant to colonel rank, receive £33.02per diem; second lieutenant to captain £30; sergeant to battalion sergeant £24.96; corporal £24.13 and private £24.31. Personnel serving with UNICYP, at Cyprus mission headquarters have separate allowances. It is interesting to note that the force commander there is Brigadier-General Michael Minahane who will be retiring in the next few months. Commandant to colonel on this mission receive £21.51 per diem; lieutenant to captain £19.56; sergeant to battalion sergeant major £16.28; corporal £15.73 and private £15.20.

The Deputy has quite properly raised the question of what might appear to be a matter of inconsistency but in fact is not. Whilst they are extremely important missions, the responsibilities in the various areas can be different, as the Deputy can appreciate. Tragically Cyprus is a divided country. Nevertheless, it is quieter and more peaceful in a peacekeeping context than, for example, Lebanon, where we are always under threat from the Israelis with the help of the south Lebanese army. The committee will appreciate that the dangers are greater and the difficulties are there for all to see. These allowances, as I understand it from the respected Secretary of the Department of Defence, were proposed by the Gleeson report. It is a reasonable question and I hope I have answered it.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, to the meeting. I want to remind members that we are gone way over our time in relation to the timetable. We are still on subheads B to F.

Mr. Mulvihill

I apologise for being late. I would like to ask some questions in connection with the facilities at the naval base in Haulbowline and about the training facilities there? The Cork Harbour Commissioners have sold some land to the Department of Defence.

Chairman

Is it further down?

Mr. Mulvihill

I will wait until we get to it.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

There are two aspects I want to comment on. Firstly, would the Minister accept that one of the problems in relation to Somalia is that there is confusion in the public mind between peacekeeping and peace enforcement? Many people see peace enforcement as being an extension of peacekeeping whereas it is an entirely separate role and needs to be dealt with separately. For instance, in relation to the renewal of the mandate for troops in Lebanon that is now fairly automatic and perhaps rightly so. I recall a time when we lost many lives there and serious questions were being raised about our role there.

In relation to peace enforcement, are we not talking about a contradiction in terms, that peace enforcement in fact does not add up, whereas with peacekeeping you essentially have an independent armed police force operating under the blue flag. On the other hand, the peace enforcement mandate requires a lot more than just mere police action because you do not have the approval and consent of all the parties involved. From that point of view would the Minister agree that there needs to be a lot more debate on the overall question of peace enforcement? Everybody accepts the very honourable r�le played by our troops over the years in peacekeeping area, but might I suggest that the question of peace enforcement has not been settled and needs further debate. In the context of whether or not there is to be a turnabout of our troops in Somalia now might be the appropriate time. I have major reservations as to whether there should be a renewal of that particular mandate. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to have a serious debate on that issue prior to any question of the Government renewing that mandate.

I want to raise an issue in regard to subhead C.5 — Border Duty Allowances — where the figure is £3.515 million. Various concerns have been expressed from time to time by and on behalf of members of the Defence Forces in relation to those allowances on the Border. It has been suggested that they are unfairly treated and that these allowances should be looked at in the context of the kind of hours that have to be put in by members of the Defence Forces there. I would like to hear the Minister's comment on that, whether he agrees it is a matter that should be looked at further from the point of view of bringing fair play to our troops who are stationed on the Border.

Mr. Andrews

I will do my best to answer as many of the questions posed as possible within the time allowed by the chairman who is becoming a little bit impatient about the length of time taken by my answers. Border duty allowances amount to £3,515,000 I thank the members of the Defence Forces who engage in these duties in aid of the civil power. As Deputy O'Keefee said, this work can be long and tedious but they are doing their job well in difficult circumstances. When they are put to the test they respond with great courage and valour. They will never be found wanting in that regard. The standards and training are of the highest quality and the individuals are of the highest calibre.

The border duty weekly allowance is payable to all personnel assigned to Border units. Officers receive £46.25 per week and NCOs and privates receive £40.47 per week. While I accept that these are not large amounts people will always be unhappy with the amount they are paid — no more than Deputies. The organisations representing officers, NCOs and privates can take the subject raised by the Deputy to conciliation and arbitration. It would be appropriate to take up the matter with the organisation concerned.

The Deputy has expressed major reservations about the renewal of the mandate in Somalia. I have visited Somalia twice since my appointment as Minister for Defence. The purpose of my first visit was to reassure the families of the first of our troops that where they were going, Baidoa, which is some distance from Mogadishu, was relatively peaceful and safe. The first transport company served with great courage and honour under the command of Commandant Maurice O'Donoghue. The second group will complete its six month stint in AugustSeptember. The Government will be guided by the opinion of the military authorities as to whether our troops should continue to serve in Somalia. Bearing in mind that we are now the only west European nation represented and that there is a move to involve African and Asian countries, it might be wise in the circumstances to consider whether we should continue to the hold the mandate we have been given by the Security Council.

When Deputy Bradford suggested recently that we should have a debate in the Dáil before we reach a decision on the matter, I pointed out to him that this might not be possible and that we may have to take a decision nearer the date, when the Dáil may not be sitting. If we decide to pull out our transport company we should announce this as late as possible in the interests of safety, because if hostile elements in Somalia discover that we are leaving it might cause difficulties. The less that is said the better. I cannot therefore give any undertaking that we will have a debate on this subject. I am sure the Deputy understands the position.

On the question of peace enforcement, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter was brought into effect for the first time under the Defence (Amendment) Act. However, the mandate in Somalia has now reverted to one of peacekeeping. I have articulated my views in this regard. Deputy De Rossa, supported by Deputy O'Keeffe — I am sure his request will be acceded to — has called for a further debate on this issue. Deputy Lenihan, during the course of an interesting exposition, made the same suggestion. If there is a belief that we should have a deeper discussion on the subject of peacekeeping and peace enforcement, let us have a debate on it.

Proinsias De Rossa

I apologise but I will have to leave shortly to prepare for Private Members' Business at 4.30 p.m. There is a number of points I wish to raise. Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between peace enforcement and peacekeeping; that one cannot draw a comparison between the actions units are involved in, that there is a distinct psychology; that different weaponry, units and training are required? It would be virtually impossible for the Army to meet all the requirements of the United Nations. I do not accept that the issue can be pushed to one side by accepting the statement that we are committed to the principle of military participation in UN operations in the cause of international peace. That is a bland and broad statement. It avoids the definitions and commitments we need to agree.

I was interested in the Minister's response in relation to the Western European Union. Under the Maastricht Treaty we are not required to hold a referendum on whether we should change our foreign policy to include defence matters. We have been given a political commitment by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste that a referendum will be held. I have no doubt that if they are in Government when the issue arises, they will follow through on that commitment; but there will be no obligation on any other Taoiseach or Tánaiste who might take office to pursue that policy. Although the issue of a common foreign and defence policy in the context of the Maastricht Treaty has been long-fingered, we have not been relieved of our obligation to address the question of a common foreign policy and the defence implications. There should be a debate about the question of defence and our involvement in it paralled with the debate the Tánaiste has initiated on foreign policy.

Would the Minister agree to publish a White Paper, in tandem with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the question of our likely involvement in common defence policy and common defence?

Mr. Power

Will the Chairman clarify what it is in order to discuss now?

Chairman

At this stage very little is in order because of time constraints; we are due to finish at 4.30 p.m. As soon as this question is taken I will take all the remaining subheads in Vote 36 and then move on to Vote 37. We have very little time and can have very little debate from then on.

Mr. Andrews

I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is producing a White Paper on foreign policy. I am not certain how advanced it is. To date he has not requested a view from the Department of Defence, but if and when he does, we will be glad to have an input into his document.

I should like to express my appreciation to the Department of Foreign Affairs for their co-operation with us over the years on a matter primarily under its control. With that spirit of cooperation between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence there should be no difficulty in giving our views about the matters Deputy De Rossa wishes to have addressed if we are requested to do so.

On the question of peace-keeping and peace enforcement, I agree with Deputy De Rossa that there is a clear distinction between them. The two words are different and have separate meanings. It is clear that peace-keeping means what it says and that peace enforcement means what the Americans bravely tried but failed to do in Somalia, losing many of their personnel by pursuing a policy which I would not favour. Deputies Bradford, O'Keeffe and others requested a debate on this issue. I would not be averse to such a debate and would welcome a general discussion on that very important question.

The review by the Intergovernmental Conference of the common foreign security policy is likely to include the question of the framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence. However, any decisions reached by the Intergovernmental Conference will have to be unanimous and the Government is committed to putting the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy to the people in a referendum. This will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unchanged unless the people decide otherwise. That is a general answer to the pertinent questions Deputy De Rossa asked. There will be another occasion for more expanded answers.

Chairman

We will move on to the ramaining subheads, G-Z, in Vote 36.

Mr. Power

Subhead E, which deals with allowances for chaplains and officiating clergymen, shows a reduction from £557,000 to £541,000 this year. I hope this does not represent a decline in demand for these services. The Minister might enlighten us.

Subhead V, which deals with buildings, shows an increase for this year. We must have a serious look at that. A large number of buildings in the Curragh are falling into decline. This cannot be ignored. Something must be done about it. Retired members of the Defence Forces find it difficult to get accommodation. That serious problem could be addressed and it would not cost too much to do so. I would like to see that matter addressed during the year.

Subhead X provides for the purchase of horses for the Army Equitation School. This is one area where for a small investment we have got a marvellous return. Those involved in equitation have brought great honour and distinction to our Defence Forces and to our country. I would like to see more money provided in this area and greater emphasis placed on the sporting aspect. It is a great opportunity for the country. In the past we got a good return and we should continue to bear that in mind.

Anyone who is familiar with the end product of the Army Apprentice School could not but be pleased with the return. In competitions throughout the world those who have completed apprenticeships in the Army School have done very well and have brought great honour to the country. If we are serious about maximising the potential of the Defence Forces we must look for greater involvement by the Army Apprenticeship School in the training of apprentices. In the past few years we have provided millions of pounds for FÁS and there is no comparison between those who complete a FÁS course and those who complete an apprenticeship in the Army Apprentice School. This could solve many of our problems and provide an opportunity that we should not miss.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy mentioned four areas — Army chaplains, buildings, the Army Equitation School and the Apprenticeship School.

As to chaplains and officiating clergymen, the 1994 estimate of £541,000 covers chaplains officiating, substitute clergymen uniforms and housekeeper allowances. As in 1993, provision is made for 21 chaplains, including the head chaplain; two chaplains for the Irish contingent in Lebanon, one chaplain for UNOSOM and a Church of Ireland chaplain. The overall number of chaplains has remained constant for more than ten years. There is no reduction in personnel. In addition, officiating clergymen attend certain military locations on an "as required" basis. They are paid on the basis of the number of personnel attending the service.

Chaplains are nominated for appointment by the local bishop and do not normally operate outside their own diocese unless serving overseas. The pay of a head chaplain is £24,395 a year and that of a chaplain £22,236 a year, and £6,856 for a Church of Ireland chaplain. There are also uniform and housekeepers allowances for various chaplains.

The Deputy has made a very good point in relation to buildings. There is no doubt about it but there are parts of the Curragh which I have already stated after numerous visits that are simply not good enough. They do not reflect in the way we would like to have them reflect on the essence and goodness of the Defence Forces. I would like to think that any members of the public visiting parts of the Curragh should be kept away from them because they are a serious embarrassment. It is something I have been trying to address. There are a number of ongoing refurbishments. There was a contract placed on 18 June, 1993, for the refurbishment of billet blocks B and D, McDonagh Barracks, Curragh Camp for £318,548. There was a central heating contract placed for billet blocks B and D, McDonagh Barracks, Curragh Camp, for £144,392 on 24 May, 1993. A third contract for windows for billet blocks B and D, Pearse Barracks, Curragh Camp for £108,980 was placed on 26 January 1993. It is not as if we are unaware of the serious situation that exists in the Curragh in relation to buildings and their upkeep. We are well aware of that. I respect the Deputy's views as a Dáil Deputy from the constituency which takes in that historic part of our Defence Forces role in that area.

The third point made by the Deputy was in relation to the Army Equitation School. Again, like the Deputy, I sometimes wonder whether we are serious about the equitation school. It is a marvellous facility and I do not know whether we are utilising it sufficiently to proclaim the Irish horse on the one hand and proclaim the advantages, efficiencies and professionalism of the Army horse rider on the other. I know that the Army Equitation School is financed from lottery funds and I have been in touch with my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to see if he can prise any additional funds under some heading in his Department from the European Union for the Army Equitation School. That is being examined at present.

Competitions for the award of 33 Army and 30 Air Corps apprenticeships are at present in progress. This is in relation to the question on the apprenticeship school. The competitions are open to males and females on an equal basis. Successful applicants will be enlisted in August 1994.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Since I had time to think over the Minister's reply about the uniforms, I wonder now if the Estimates were rather loose in their calculations in the past. Having taken in 500 new people this year there is still enough stores in place to cut back £500,000 in the uniform section. I did not get an explanation for an increase in civilian outfits. I did not realise the Army were provided with civilian clothes which they seem to be under some category.

My overall point which I was trying to ask earlier when I was slightly out of order is under Subhead K: ships, maintenance and stores, where there is a cutback of almost 14 per cent. The Minister has told us that women are going to be allowed into the cadets for the first time which will demand extra expenditure. Maintenance is something I find hard to see how it can be cut back. There was some major jobs done last year on our ships. The general stores under Subhead K is being cut back by 15 per cent. We are still taking in 500 extra soldiers. I am trying to find out why we can be cutting back on what should be an increase if we are going to feed our soldiers, which I hope we are. It was the same with clothing unless we leave them in the nude somewhere. The engineering stores have gone back 61 per cent. I do not know what exactly goes on in the engineering stores but I am still inclined to think that if we have extra men we need extra equipment, etc.

The one that frightens me because we can calculate in advance is that drugs and dressings will go back 20 per cent. What guarantee have we with increased numbers in the Army that there will not be more illness. One would expect to have an increase all the way. I cannot understand the logic of all those cutbacks when, in my view, it is extra expenditure we should be having.

Mr. Power

The drugs are obviously working.

Mr. Andrews

On the question of feeding the soldiers and the suggestion that in some way they are underfed——

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

There is a cutback there.

Mr. Andrews

The word should not be "cutback". The words "take up of expenditure" might be a better expression. In relation to food I must say that as Minister for Defence and having been around most of the facilities available in this country to our Defence Forces and having partaken of their food, I would respectfully suggest that we have probably some of the best cooks in the country or in the European Union.

The Minister was eating out of the same pot as the ordinary Private or NCO or Officer. I must pay tribute to the standard of food in the Army. I remember when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Gerry Cronin, back in 1973 the standard of food in the Army was not great. Now with the training they get in places like Cathal Brugha Street, the Army catering division provides outstanding food for the Army. We are talking about subhead O and provisions.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

No. Subheads J, K, L, N and Q.

Mr. Andrews

Subhead N refers to clothing. The 1994 Estimate amounts to £4 million which is made up as follows: uniform clothing, cadets, NCOs and privates, £3.5 million; UNIFIL clothing, £175,000; reserve Defence Force clothing, £250,000; civilian clothing, including clothing for NCOs and privates on discharge — this is the point the Deputy would like me to make — and protective clothing for civilian personnel, £70,000. When leaving the Army one is given a suit and that is the reason for that figure there. In comparison to previous years, in 1992 the Estimate was £5 million. Actual expenditure was £4,063,460. In 1993 the Estimate was £4,440,000 and actual expenditure was £4,427,000. In 1994 the Estimate is £4 million.

I can give the Deputy the additional information he may require. If he wants me to expand on the answers to the questions he has——

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

The Minister has not answered questions in relation to subhead K, L or Q.

Mr. Andrews

General stores.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

On engineers there is a cutback of 61 per cent.

Mr. Andrews

I wish to make my position clear in that regard. This subhead provides for the purchase of stores for use by the corps of engineers. The 1993 expenditure included additional purchases of stores including a weather haven unit camp arising from participation in UNOSOM II. That is the difference between the 1993 figure and the 1994 figure.

In relation to general stores, the subhead provides for the purchase and maintenance of signal and workshop equipment, educational training camp and camp cooking equipment. The 1993 expenditure included additional purchases of communications equipment again arising from participation in UNOSOM II. That explains the difference, although I am sure not to the satisfaction of the Deputy.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

More was spent last year, and I am afraid that the increase in the number of recruits——

Mr. Andrews

I understand the Deputy's very reasonable point.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I endorse the points made by Deputy Power and the Minister about the Army Equitation School — it has brought great honour to Ireland over the decades. I am sure the allocation of more money for the purchase of horses etc., would receive all-party support. There is more competition for horses — Fergie was in Cork and Kerry during the last few days.

On the question of where the Minister might get more money, I want to turn to the Appropriations-in-Aid, money coming into the Department. Receipts from the UN will be £2.5 million less in 1994 than in 1993. I understand that there were some arrears in 1993, which may partly account for the reduction. However, it is neither right nor proper that UN should continuously be in arrears in reimbursing to us the expenses and allowances of our troops stationed overseas. The Minister expects to receive £9 million from the UN this year. How much has he allowed for arrears? Does he know of any pressure which can be applied on the UN to reduce those arrears?

In relation to fishery protection costs, is there any way the figure of £4.5 million from the European Union can be increased? In general terms what does the Navy, which is mainly involved in fishery protection, cost? Will this £4.5 million be used for the purchase of new equipment or will it be used to offset current costs? Is there any way in which this amount can be increased?

Receipts from the banks in respect of cash escort services in 1993 was £1.5 million, while the estimated amount for 1994 is also £1.5 million. Last year the Bank of Ireland made a profit of £300 million. I presume the profits of the AIB will be just as good and that the other banks will also increase their profits. On what basis was the figure of £1.5 million for cash escort services from the banks agreed and when was it agreed? Is there a case for further discussions with the banks on whether they should pay a more substantial amount for these services?

Chairman

Before I call the Minister, I want to call Deputy Bradford, who has been offering for some time.

Mr. Andrews

I find it very difficult to remember the questions if I do not answer them directly. I will briefly answer Deputy O'Keeffe, with your permission, Chairman.

The cost of the Naval Service is £33 million annually. On the question of the banks paying additional money, if my memory serves me correctly, the figure of £1.5 million was set in the 1992 budget. Up to that time the banks did not pay for protection of cash and it was decided in the 1992 budget that they should do so. In the nature of things, £1.5 million is a substantial sum of money. If additional work has to be done in protecting banks and their money, then that figure can be looked at in due course — I have no doubt it would go upwards rather than downwards.

The amount outstanding from the United Nations at the end of 1994 will be approximately £13.5 million. We are trying to reduce this figure all the time. The 1994 estimate for UN receipts of approximately £9 million is based on the current level of payment by the United Nations in respect of UNIFIL, UNIOSOM and UNICYP, including £3 million for UNIFIL arrears. That is the sort of refund we would expect in 1994 to reduce the arrears I have just mentioned.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Is European Union money current or capital?

Mr. Andrews

On the refund on the down payment on the CASA aircraft 50 per cent of £8.8 million is £4.4 million, while in the case of the refund on Naval Service projects, 50 per cent of 0.325 million is 0.16 million, making a total of £4.56 million.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

So there is no current money?

Mr. Andrews

That is correct. The 1994 estimate of EC receipts for fishery protection is £4.56 million.

The high technology CASA aircraft, which we hope will be delivered next September-October, can stay in the air for seven to eight hours and can cover vast areas of the sea during that time. These modern aircraft will make a huge contribution to fishery protection.

Mr. Bradford

On the proposed purchase of extra aircraft, the explanatory note on subhead H refers to two aircraft for fishery surveillance and a Gulfstream aircraft for the ministerial air transport service. Does this relate to the Government jet or another aircraft for the ministerial air transport service?

Mr. Andrews

The Gulfstream IV aircraft is for the ministerial air transport service. It is a very worthwhile project. I imagine that the GIV will save this country millions of pounds in that it has quite a large passenger capacity. Instead of using commercial aircraft we have our own aircraft, which has enabled us to make huge savings.

Mr. Bradford

What is this aircraft designed to replace? Are we speaking about the official Government jet?

Mr. Andrews

The GIV is the Government jet.

Mr. Bradford

On ammunition and equipment, can the Minister give us an indication of the cost and method of disposal of surplus stores, outdated or outmoded weaponry and the cost of storage?

Mr. Andrews

I imagine that supplies material would be advertised in the ordinary way, with the security aspect uppermost in mind.

Mr. Bradford

I support the points made by Deputies Power and O'Keeffe about the equitation school and would encourage the Minister to do everything possible to provide extra funding. I have recently heard about the possible reintroduction of a cavalry corps, a mounted unit for ceremonial occasions.

I agree that the equitation school presents an excellent image of the country, our Army and of the Irish horse which is part of our culture and heritage.

Mr. Andrews

The matter is being examined. I agree with the Deputy. We should not hide our Army. The rotation parade for the Lebanon takes place in McKee Barracks. I often wonder why it takes place behind the high walls of a barracks or why we do not invite the public to see the way the Defence Forces, the Air Corps and the Navy turn out on parade? The Army should participate in, for example, the St. Patrick's Day parade. I accept that people might take the view that this is mixing trade with professionalism, but we should be very proud of the way our Army is turned out. I see no reason for keeping them behind the high walls of a barracks. With that in mind, I will continue to examine the questions raised on horses, ceremonial parades in public and the Defence Forces going public in, say, the St. Patrick's Day parade.

Mr. Bradford

With your agreement, Chairman, I do not object to finishing by way of a general discussion rather than concluding statements.

Mr. Carey

I raised a matter relating to the use of grounds at Lahinch where the Army has summer courses in the debate on the Estimates. A statement was made recently by a Deputy that there are other proposals for Lahinch. I am glad the community council's requests were met by the Minister. A substantial supplementary income accrued to the town of Lahinch then the barracks was in full operation. What is the nature of the new proposal and the extent of the proposed investment? I join with the other Deputies in encouraging the Minister to expand this area. A Defence Forces profile is necessary on the west coast and while personnel may have been located in Lahinch for a short time it was worthwhile. The Minister stated last year that he would examine this matter favourably and he is the first Minister in six or seven years to do that. The good news is very welcome, but I would like to know the extent of the investment.

Mr. Andrews

The news is good. The Deputy very kindly met me when I visited Ennis recently. I met eight deputations there, one being the Lahinch Community Council. The major engineering project to be undertaken at the camp is the renewal of the electrical wiring system. At the request of the Lahinch Community Council I have directed that the works be undertaken as a matter of urgency and have asked Departmental officials to make the necessary arrangements. It will be necessary to place a contract for the execution of the works and preparation of the tender documentation is underway. It is anticipated that the work will be completed within a few months and the estimated cost will be approximately £100,000. That is certainly an example of a political promise delivered, whoever takes the credit for it.

Mr. Carey

During the debate on the Estimates last year the Minister undertook to examine this matter and I am sure he was impressed by my representations as well as those from the community council.

Mr. Andrews

I am always impressed by Deputy Carey.

Mr. Carey

On the question of compensation, the Army requested compensation over a period, in regard to Knockalisheen in particular. Was payment made during the year?

Mr. Andrews

I will have that matter examined as I do not have the up to date information. I will communicate with the Deputy about it.

Vote 37: Army Pensions.

Mr. Bradford

A large amount of compensation was paid to serving members for injuries sustained on Defence Forces' property. Does that indicate that there are some difficulties with Defence Forces' property?

Mr. Andrews

No, it indicates that people are becoming more litigous and are more aware of their rights and entitlement to compensation. I am not criticising people who were injured.

Mr. Bradford

Has it anything to do with the age of barracks and equipment?

Mr. Andrews

I do not think so. The compensation paid is high, but if we are negligent we must suffer the consequences. As a general rule, the standard of equipment and buildings, with the exception of some areas mentioned, is generally good. The figure of £3 million a year being paid in compensation is horrendous.

Chairman

This concludes our consideration of the Defence Estimates. I thank the Minister for his candour and detailed contribution and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, and the officials of the Department of Defence. I thank members of the committee particularly spokespersons for the Opposition, who contributed, to a very interesting debate. I am sure we all learned from it and I hope it will contribute to the betterment of the Defence Forces.

The Select Committee will meet tomorrow, 18 May, at 10.30 a.m. to resume discussion on the Family Law Bill.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.30 p.m.