asked the Minister for Defence the number of Army personnel who are normally deployed for cash escort duties for the major banks; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

(Limerick West): In the interests of security it is not the practice to furnish information of the kind sought.

In view of the unholy profits the banks make on the backs of our people, would the Minister say what is the justification for providing a buckshee service to the banks?

(Limerick West): These escorts were provided by direction of the Government in 1978 and were not requested by the banks. The Defence Forces act in aid of the civil power in the matter of these escorts at the request of the Garda. It has been the view of my Department that any question of principle in relation to a charge for State security, in the first instance, is a matter for the Department of Justice.

In view of the Minister's totally inadequate reply and the fact that this service costs the taxpayer in the region of £2 million, I fail to see why the unfortunate taxpayer should subsidise a lucrative sector.

How much exactly does that service cost?

(Limerick West): In 1988 it cost approximately £1.3 million; in 1987, £1.4 million; in 1986, £1.5 million and in 1985, £1.9 million. The cost is of that order.

I seek the assistance of the Chair in this regard. The Minister, in replying to this question, said that for security reasons, that it is not the practice to furnish information of the kind sought. I might draw the attention of the Chair and the House to the question which merely asks in general terms the number of Army personnel normally deployed for cash escort duties for the major banks. I must insist on the Minister giving that information in view of the cost to the taxpayer and of the depletion of numbers within the Defence Forces in recent years. Surely this House is entitled to know, in general terms, the answer to that question; furthermore, in no way could that be seen as releasing information that might be damaging or inimical to the security of this State.

The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a supplementary question.

It is an outrage. The Minister should give this information to the House.

(Limerick West): There has been no depletion of numbers within the Defence Forces in recent years. As I have said, it is not the normal practice to furnish information of the kind sought.

In view of the fact that the provision of this service costs the taxpayer £1.3 million, excluding pay — and surely pay constitutes a major factor — bearing in mind that the Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks and the Ulster Bank last year made pre-tax profits of £291 million, since we are discussing the need for recourse to moneylenders and for fees to be charged for rations within the Defence Forces, surely it is high time the banks were asked to provide the necessary finance for this vital service, vital to the continuance of their carrying out their normal duties? Would the Minister not agree?

(Limerick West): Of course the Deputy was not a Member of the last Dáil. I would have to remind him that his party did not effect any changes when in Government and had an opportunity of doing so. I might add that there is a general tax levy imposed on the banks of £35 million.

Would the Minister accept that the beneficiaries of this service are the major banks? Would he accept that, as a matter of general first principle, those who benefit from a service should pay for it? Furthermore, would he accept that that is particularly apt in circumstances in which many of those who serve in the Defence Forces are now below the poverty line, dependent on the family income supplement?

(Limerick West): I do not accept the implications in the last part of the Deputy's question.

The question deals with cash escort duties for the major banks.

(Limerick West): I know that Deputy Birmingham and his colleagues are all in here today to support Deputy Connaughton. I would have to say that Defence Forces personnel are not below the poverty line——

I note that support is sadly lacking on the Minister's side of the House.

It is a matter of public record that the Minister's soldiers are drawing the family income supplement.

(Limerick West): It certainly is not a matter of public record.

It has nothing to do with the question before the House.

(Limerick West): For security reason I cannot give that information.

It is an outrage and an abuse of this House that we cannot be furnished such basic information.