asked the Minister for Defence in view of the substantial reduction of finance to the Defence Forces, the areas in which cutbacks will occur and where economies will take place; if a reduction in the level of personnel resulting from the serious cutback in finances will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

(Limerick West): There has not been a substantial reduction in the financial allocation to Defence in 1987. The sum allocated to Defence in 1987 is £260,270,000 (net) which is a reduction of 1 per cent only compared with the 1986 outturn figure of £262,870,000. I shall make a detailed statement on the matter when I present the Estimate for discussion and approval by the Dáil.

Does the Minister agree that a 1 per cent reduction on the outturn for 1986 effectively represents a reduction of 3 per cent, taking into account the pay and pensions allocation on the 25th round for 1987?

(Limerick West): I do not agree because the provision of £65,958,000 for non-pay is a reduction of £10 million or 14 per cent on the 1986 outturn. This reduction arises mainly under subhead 0.2, aircraft provision, which in 1987 amounts to £9 million compared with the 1986 outturn of £19,534,000. The 1986 figure includes exceptional expenditure amounting to £13,850,000 on helicopter purchases.

Would the Minister not agree that, notwithstanding the exceptional expenditure on helicopter purchases in 1986, there is a substantial reduction in the provision for Army transport on the capital side, that further reductions are evident from the Government decision not to have any recruitment in 1987 and that overall a 1 per cent decrease over the 1986 outturn shows a substantial reduction in the provision for the Defence Vote in 1987?

(Limerick West): I do not agree. Furthermore, I should like to remind the Deputy that there was no recruitment in 1986 and, as I already stated in reply to a previous question, there is no decision as of yet with regard to recruitment in 1987. Having regard to the present constraints on public expenditure programmes, the allocation for Defence is considered adequate to meet Defence Forces requirements in 1987.

In view of the fact that there was no increase in Army strength in 1986, and that none is projected for 1987 on the basis of the budgetary provision, would the Minister not agree that we are reaching the stage where the Army, at the end of this year, will be seriously below the regular requirement.

This is leading to an argument.

——as notified to him by his Chiefs of Staff?

I cannot allow the matter to develop into a debate or argument across the House.

Would the Minister not agree that the Army is seriously under strength?

Would the Minister agree that a 1 per cent reduction in nominal expenditure for the Defence Forces, coupled with a 3 per cent inflation rate, represents close on a 5 per cent reduction in real terms over the amount expended last year and is, to use Deputy Desmond's phrase, a substantial reduction? Would he like to correct his first statement to the House that there was not a substantial reduction?

(Limerick West): I do not agree and, as I have already stated, the Defence Forces are satisfied that the present budgetary commitments are adequate.