The Labour Party welcomed the establishment of a formal public debate on Ireland's security stance when it was announced by Government. At that time, I called in the House for a proper forum on the model of the citizens' assembly, which has proven so successful in so many areas at teasing out the detail and complexity of difficult issues. The Government chose not to go down that path and instead set up a forum consisting of four days of 16 panels and 80-plus speakers.

The Irish Times summed up the forum as having eight main takeaways or conclusions, and I will read them out. The first was that "We’re not joining Nato and Nato isn’t particularly interested in having us as a member"; the second was that "Nato is a lot more than a defence alliance"; the third was that "You don’t have to be neutral to be good"; the fourth was that "Neutrality still stirs deep emotions"; the fifth was that "Climate change is by far and away the biggest threat to global security"; the sixth was that "There are arguments for and against the triple lock"; the seventh was that "Threats can take many forms"; and the eighth was that "The debate is not over but don’t expect any major changes [soon]". That is a reasonable summary. Valuable and interesting talking points emerged from all this discussion and some, if not many, clear policy points have emerged.

There was therefore probably some merit in the exercise but it really does not advance us very far. The issue of neutrality, that is, not joining any military alliance, seems put to bed. I think it has been put to bed.

Sinn Féin does not.

We want to make sure it is put to bed by enshrining it in a constitutional amendment.

Hear, hear.

That is daft. Deputy Howlin knows it too.

If we put it in very clear terms, there cannot be any talk about it. There is no point in paying lip service and saying that neutrality is beyond doubt if we do not really mean it but I think it is beyond doubt. I sincerely hope so. As I have said, the issue should be put beyond doubt so that we can then discuss our domestic defence requirements in a rational way without the issue of neutrality always hovering above the debate.

I have repeatedly stated that being neutral is not the same as having no defence capacity. As the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces laid bare, our defence capacity is deficient in every area. Our military equipment is inadequate and our ability to monitor aircraft in our airspace and ships in our exclusive economic zone is virtually non-existent. Our military personnel numbers are shockingly below even the inadequate levels approved. I had hoped that, after the analysis of the review commission and the broad support from across this House for level of ambition 2, which the commission proposed, we would see a tangible and dramatic improvement but that has not been so, despite what the Tánaiste has again said today.

In the documentation presented to every Member of this House on budget day this year, the allocation for defence under the subhead, Defence Policy and Support, Military Capabilities and Operational Outputs, which is the main defence spend after stripping out pensions and so on, was €896,187,000. Of this, €720,212,000 related to current expenditure and €175,975,000 related to capital. Over the year, we are to see a vast increase of 1%. After all the talk we had, there will be an increase of 1%. That covers 9,072 associated public employees, a figure that is down 5% from this year's 9,500. The number of personnel involved in defence is down. The report shows the subheads and the capital figures. Under Vote 36, how much additional capital expenditure is there for all of the things we need to do, as well as the new ships, radar systems and everything else we need to procure? It is €34 million. We have €34 million to do all of the things we need to do. What is that €34 million going to do according to the documentation distributed on budget day? It will fund capital investment on defensive equipment, land forces capability development, a force protection programme, the Naval Service vessel renewal and replacement programme and the Air Corps aircraft renewal and replacement programme, along with the upgrading and modernisation of built infrastructure in military installations throughout the country. We are going to have ships, aeroplanes, buildings and equipment for €34 million.

That is disingenuous.

That is the additionality the Government is talking about. It is 1%. In truth, we are not serious. In this country, we are really good at developing and devising policies. I hear the Tánaiste is going to have another document produced in the next couple of months. We will have had a forum, White Papers, discussion documents and reports. If we are ever invaded, we will have enough reports, documentation and White Papers to barricade our ports but, based on the way things are going, we will not have much in the way of military equipment. The point of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy was to devise a strategy than can actually be funded.

I have run out of time but I set out my vision of neutrality and that of my party in my last contribution on this subject. We need a proper debate and I asked for that at the time. Quite frankly, asking Opposition Members to speak for six and a half minutes on such an important subject is totally and wholly inadequate. Let us have a proper debate on where we should go. I believe we can build a consensus on the type of neutrality we can present. Let us try to do that in a proper debate and a proper forum, allowing everybody's views to be heard before mediating a way forward.