Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 November 2004
58 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the amount of funding his Department receives from the banks for providing defence security for cash in transit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29187/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra614 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the number of cash transport escorts provided by the Defence Forces in the past 12 months; the costs involved and the degree to which the Exchequer was reimbursed by the financial institutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29273/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 61 together.
To aid the civil power is among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces. This means to assist when requested, the Garda Síochána, which has the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. In this regard, the Defence Forces assist the Garda as required in duties which include escorting cash deliveries to banks, post offices and other institutions. An annual contribution of €2.86 million is paid by the banks for army escorts. This figure was set by the Department of Finance in the 1995 budget and has not been altered since. The contribution from the banks was designed to partially cover the total costs to the State of providing cash escorts. At that time, the contribution covered approximately 72% of the total cost arising to the Defence Forces, which includes pay and allowances. Based on annual costing by my Department, the relative level of the contribution has fallen in real terms over the years to the situation where it now only covers 43% of the total costs. My Department is currently in communication with the Irish Bankers Federation with a view to increasing the contribution.
The total cost of the provision by the Defence Forces of assistance to the Garda Síochána in protecting movements of cash for the years 2000-03 including pay, allowances, transport and aerial surveillance, was as follows. It was €5.7 million in 2000, €6.58 million in 2001, €6.87 million in 2002, €6.64 million in 2003. These costs related to the following numbers of requested escorts. There were 2,285 in 2,000, 2,488 in 2001, 2,516 in 2002 and 2,335 in 2003. For the first nine months of 2004, approximately 1,825 escorts took place. In any given month, approximately 1,592 army man-days are expended on these escorts.
Is there evidence showing a significant threat to the movements of cash and to the security of our prisons, proving that it is still necessary to have these operations of aid to the civil power? These were set up following the difficulties we had in Northern Ireland. Has the threat been re-assessed? Does the Minister believe we should look at the concept of withdrawing the military support for these operations?
I know it is not the populist line to take and that most people believe the banks should pay for everything, but part of the Department's mission statement is to protect the security of the State. In a democratic society, there is an onus on the democratic authority to provide a secure environment so that economic activity can take place. This will go contrary to the populist view that the banks should pay because they are not the most popular at the moment. However, I have concerns that as we originally went down this road we will not know where to stop. What happens if the equivalent of a Don Tidey operation occurs again, where someone is kidnapped and the security forces have to carry out checks? Should the company then have to pay for that kind of operation? Could we be faced with a situation where if people can pay for it they can have it, but if they cannot then they will not?
I see the point the Deputy is making. The security forces came into this back in 1978 following a significant robbery in Limerick. It was felt necessary to involve the security forces because of the fear of large sums of cash falling into the hands of paramilitary groups and terrorists. I agree with Deputy Timmins that the threat has receded somewhat. There are mixed views on whether the protection scheme is still necessary. Some people argue that dangers still exist and difficulties will recur if the banks have to rely on their own resources.
I understand Deputy Timmins's argument that the banks should be expected to contribute. They never agreed in principle that they should contribute, but the 1995 budget more or less forced them to make a contribution, which has never been increased. I appreciate that the State has a vested interest in this regard, as it does not want large cash sums to fall into the hands of undesirables, particularly paramilitaries. If the State did not provide this protection the banks would have to pay for it, which could be extremely costly. The banks are direct beneficiaries. Their initial contribution was 72% of the total cost to the State, but it has fallen to 43% because the relevant sum has not increased since 1995.
The Deputy is aware that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform also provides protection. The annual contribution given to the Department was set at approximately €950,000 in 1995, but that figure was recently increased to €3 million, or over 90% of the total cost, when an agreement was reached by the banks and the Department. It was felt, not unreasonably, that the banks should be asked to increase their contributions because they benefit substantially from the protection scheme. They receive 80% of the benefit and the post offices receive 20% of it. I will have preliminary discussions with the banks on the issue this evening. I hope the matter can be finalised in the next week.
