asked the Minister for Defence if he has discontinued all Army exercises on bazookas and mortars; and, if so, why.
104.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Exercises.
103.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence if he has seen a newspaper report (details supplied) to the effect that the Army's entire supply of mortar weapons has been taken out of service; and if warnings were received about defects in these weapons prior to the recent accident in the Glen of Imaal.
105.
asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of the tragic accident which resulted in injuries to the Commanding Officer of the second motor squadron in the Glen of Imaal; whether, in view of the fact that his attention was drawn to the inefficiency of firing particular shells from an armoured car, his Department purchased the necessary shells for efficient firing of the armoured car guns; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
106.
asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of a report (details supplied) that all mortar weapons used by the army and FCA have been temporarily recalled from active service until further notice; if he will state the reasons for this action and the length of time for which they have been recalled.
107.
asked the Minister for Defence whether any investigation is proceeding on the defects in mortar ammunition issued to Army personnel; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 together.
An accident occurred on the 19th October, 1971, during mortar firing practice from an armoured car. Practice firing of mortar weapons has, as a normal safety precaution, been suspended pending full investigation.
Preliminary investigations failed to establish what caused the explosion and an order convening a court of inquiry to investigate the matter in detail was made on the 23rd November, 1971. Pending consideration of the findings of the court of inquiry, I do not propose to make any further statement on the matter.
Would it be fair to ask the Minister if, in fact, the mortar concerned was an ex-Dunkirk one and the ammunition being fired was also ex-Dunkirk?
As I have already indicated, I do not propose to comment further at this stage.
May I take it they have not been changed? I used them for a number of years and they were liable to explode in 1944, not to talk of 1971.
Could the Minister explain why, in view of the question I asked here on 27th November, 1969, whether it was true that one out of three mortar shells was misfiring three mortar s hells was misfiring, motor squadron was standing behind the armoured car when the shell was fired?
That is a separate question. I am calling Question No. 108.
The incident referred to is being inquired into and, until such time as the findings of the inquiry are available, I am not prepared to comment.
When it was pointed out two years ago that the mortar shells were defective that was the time for the investigation and not now.
I am awaiting the result of the full investigation being carried out.