asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the guarantee he has got from the British Government that the Border will not be crossed by British Army and air force personnel in the future.
30.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Border Incursions.
29.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of incursions by the British Army (a) on foot (b) in armoured vehicles (c) in transport other than armoured vehicles (d) in civilian attire and (e) by helicopter.
31.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of reported incursions by the British Army into the Republic in 1973, 1974, 1975 and to date in 1976; and the action taken in each case.
32.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in connection with British Army personnel operating in the Republic in civilian attire, he considers that there is sufficient provision in international law to deal with the situation.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 to 32 together and to circulate detailed statistics in tabular form with the Official Report.
On a number of occasions I have received assurances from the British Government that everything possible will be done to prevent British military personnel from crossing the Border without permission. I can assure the House that, as has been said here before, the Government take a serious view of all unauthorised crossings.
All reported incursions are carefully examined. Where sufficiently specific and reliable information is available, the incidents, unless they have first been reported on and regretted by the British authorities themselves, are raised with the British authorities and an explanation sought. The total number of cases discussed with the British authorities was as follows in each of the years in question:
|
1973 |
— |
47 |
|
1974 |
— |
121 |
|
1975 |
— |
68 |
|
1976 |
to date |
25. |
Of that total, the British expressed regret for 144 cases, 19 cases are the subject of discussion and it was not possible to agree on the facts in relation to the other cases.
A State's troops may not, under international law, operate within the territory of another State except with the consent of the latter State and irrespective of whether such troops are clad in civilian or in military attire.
Following is the tabular statement:
Number of British Army Border Incursions reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs, 1973-1976.
|
(a) |
(b) |
(c) |
(d) |
(e) |
(f) |
||
|
Year |
On foot |
In armoured vehicles |
In other transport |
Number of instances under (a), (b) and (c) in which civilian attire was worn |
Helicopter |
Other aircraft |
Total |
|
1973 |
18 |
4 |
11 |
1 |
38 |
5 |
76 |
|
1974 |
24 |
7 |
22 |
0 |
72 |
7 |
132 |
|
1975 |
13 |
6 |
17 |
1 |
31 |
4 |
71 |
|
1976 to 12th May |
8 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
10 |
1 |
25 |
|
Total |
63 |
18 |
55 |
5 |
151 |
17 |
304 |
In relation to the assurances given by the British Government and the British Army that troops would not operate in civilian attire, has the Minister made any specific protest to the British Government in relation to this particular matter? In relation to troops operating in uniform they are clearly identifiable but in relation to the question of the SAS operating in civilian attire, has the Minister made any particular reference to this aspect? Could he state if the members of the SAS, who were recently apprehended, were in possession of pump type shotguns? Is he aware that this type of gun is not normally issued to any army in the world, that it is generally used by thugs and criminals? Could he say if special reference was made to the question of civilian attire as distinct from uniform?
I have not details here. My recollection is that the positive problems posed by security forces in Northern Ireland operating in civilian attire have been discussed at appropriate times. Obviously, those problems are greater as far as we are concerned when they operate in Border areas. The Deputy's other question relates to matters that are sub judice and I cannot, therefore, reply to it.
Is the Minister aware that the personnel operating in civilian attire, the SAS, were operating on what is termed a search and destroy mission? Could he indicate if the members apprehended recently were on such a mission? Was there any indication on their maps as to the location of homes of people living under our jurisdiction?
The questions asked relate to matters sub judice and I obviously cannot answer them. I will be happy to answer any supplementaries on the important issue raised by the Deputy but I cannot answer in relation to matters sub judice. There are other aspects of the question about which I would be more than happy to answer.
Surely the question of national security could not be sub judice? The House is entitled to get the information requested. Can the Minister tell us, in relation to the documents received, if there was indication in them as to the location of people living within our jurisdiction? Were they on this type of search and destroy mission as indicated in their role of operations?
The Deputy is making unsubstantiated allegations in relation to matters that are sub judice to which I obviously cannot reply. I feel it is inappropriate that this House should be used for the purpose of making such allegations to which clearly no reply can be given on a matter that is sub judice. I will be happy to answer any supplementaries in relation to the general issues raised by the Deputy's questions.
Question No. 33.
Would the Minister agree by way of very proper concern about the recent SAS incursion that we must be even more concerned and perturbed by the fact that members of this group are constantly moving around Northern Ireland fully armed but in civilian clothing?
The question of the methods employed by the security forces in Northern Ireland is one which is primarily for them. There have, of course, been times when the results of the methods employed have created situations which we have had to deplore. Basically, the question of what method is employed is one which necessarily is for them in the exercise of their responsibilities.
Does the Minister appreciate the fact that people all along the Border have relatives, friends, and neighbours and that it is especially disturbing for the people living on this side of the Border to know that this unit of the British Army is constantly moving around among their friends, relatives and neighbours incognito and fully armed? Does he propose to protest to the British Government about this matter?
The possible difficulties that could be raised by the employment of those forces was taken up with the British Government when they were introduced.
With any results?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy means by any results.
Did the British Government agree that it was not correct procedure to have members of the army moving around in civilian attire and heavily armed?
No. We received the firmest assurances that their activities would be confined to the other side of the Border and that their method of operation would be in accordance with the law in Northern Ireland.
Is the Minister satisfied that it is sufficient in this country that he should have got from the British Government the assertion that they would not operate on this side of the Border? Is he satisfied that they should operate on the other side of the Border in civilian clothes and heavily armed?
That is a separate matter. Question No. 33.
I have told the Deputy that these matters were discussed.
Can the Minister say if to his knowledge members of this particular group of the British Army are issued with sawn-off shotguns?
No, I can make no statement on that matter.
Could the Minister say on how many occasions—I think he gave the number as 25—these incursions were by personnel in civilian attire?
Offhand, I could not say but I am aware of and can identify about four other cases in addition to the one which is at present sub judice.
Four cases of personnel in civilian attire?
I do not wish to say that there were only four but, on the information available to me, four were in that category.
Of personnel in civilian attire?
Yes. In one instance they were pay clerks who appeared to have lost their way.
Were there any in Dublin?
Each time there has been an incursion the Minister has expressed his and the Government's concern and says he has been in touch with the British authorities, but the incursions continue and they are now of a more serious nature because of the fact that the people involved——
We cannot debate this.
Would the Minister agree that people are now getting more concerned daily about these incursions and that it is time some definite and firm action was taken?
This has been a matter for continuous concern.
Deputies
Go on!
May I answer the question asked? It is a serious one and deserves an answer. This is a matter which has been of concern to the Government since they came into office and I believe it was one which arose and was of concern also to the previous Government. There are obvious problems because of the nature of the Border. I suppose it is inevitable that some unintended crossings should occur but the number of such crossings, however, certainly give rise to concern and we have had a series of assurances on a number of occasions when we raised the issue, not merely in relation to individual cases but generally.
On 16th April, 1973, we were assured that all UK security forces were given strict instructions not to violate the Border at any point; on 19th June, 1973, we were told that units on the Border had been reminded of the importance of strictly adhering to their orders and instructions; on 6th May, 1974, we were told instructions had been given to helicopter pilots when patrolling not to infringe on the Border; on 23rd April, 1975, we were told the British authorities regretted these incursions occurred and had taken further steps to try to ensure that all troops on the ground took the greatest personal care in respecting the Border with the Republic; on 6th June, 1975, we were told the British authorities were considering what new methods, for example, pending marks on roads, could be introduced to prevent Border incursions and all ranks were fully briefed to avoid incursions; on 3rd October, 1975, we were told that further instructions were being issued to the British Army about avoiding incursions; on 22nd March, 1976, in relation to a helicopter incursion, the Embassy expressed the unreserved regret of the British authorities and their desire to avoid any repetition; on 29th April, 1976, we were told everything was being done to prevent a repetition of incidents such as that which was then under discussion involving an incursion by two officers on 22nd February; on 7th May, 1976, we were assured everything possible was being done to prevent a recurrence and today I understand an official statement has been received from the British authorities saying that, while it is impossible for any Government to guarantee that human errors will not occur in future or that the Border will never be crossed inadvertently, the most clear instructions have been given and very recently reaffirmed by the GOC to prevent any recurrence.
There has never been any question of any members of the British army conducting operations of any kind on the ground across the Border. Overflights take place with the knowledge and consent of the Irish authorities. Deputies can see, therefore, quite apart from all the individual cases that have been raised, the number of occasions on which assurances of a more general kind have been sought and received. The number of incursions, however, remains high and contrasts markedly with the number of incursions on our side. We accept the inevitability of mistakes being made sometimes. Our own Army make mistakes sometimes but the number of such mistakes are small. The number of cases which have been reported to us by the British Government in relation to inadvertent crossings by our forces are six in 1973, ten in 1974, two in 1975 and four in 1976. The contrast in the numbers of cases on our side and the other side does give rise to legitimate concern. I think, and I can understand the feelings Deputies have in this situation.
Has the Minister any evidence that disciplinary action has been taken against people involved in these crossings?
That is a separate question.
Is he aware that the place where these people crossed is clearly identified? In one case they went around a barrier and there could be no such thing as a mistake.
That appears to be a separate question.
In certain cases I understand diciplinary action has been taken. Where a genuine mistake occurred, we would not expect disciplinary action to be taken.
Will the Minister accept my assurance that we on this side are genuinely apprehensive about army personnel travelling on our side of the Border in nonconventional garb carrying nonconventional weapons and can he say now, without offending the sub judice rule, how far south of the Border were the SAS men when they were first apprehended?
I am, I think, precluded from making any statement on that case. I regret that because the question asked is inherently reasonable and one in respect of which a number of statements have appeared in the papers but I think it would be inherently improper for me to comment even on that particular aspect of the case.
33.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of occasions on which permission was given to British Air Force personnel to over-fly the Border other than on mercy missions.
Since 1st January, 1973, the Royal Air Force has received permission to over-fly the Border on 58 occasions. Forty-three of these flights fall within a programme of photographic reconnaisance for the Northern Ireland Ordnance Survey, which is up-dating its maps; on six occasions RAF planes have been used for transport between Belfast and Dublin; on one occasion an RAF plane was used to photograph suspected explosive objects or incendiary devices lying on the Border and permission has been granted for eight RAF overflights as part of a British programme of meteorological research. While the Deputy's question refers to British Air Force personnel, I should, perhaps, add that, under permission given for British army aircraft, 209 overflights have been authorised in the same period.
Does that include the permission granted recently to land at Casement Aerodrome to ferry back the SAS people who had crossed the Border in civilian clothes?
I have nothing in front of me on that subject. I know no more than what I read in the papers.
I understood it was the Department of Foreign Affairs which gave permission on the last occasion to land in Baldonnel. Can the Minister confirm or deny that?
It is our responsibility but I cannot give offhand every particular instance.
But this is a particular case and it must be uppermost in the Minister's mind. Can the Minister not give some clear indication as to whether or not he gave permission?
Permission for flights of that kind are given quite routinely when it is a question of a plane coming to pick up people or deliver people. That is distinct from overflights in Border areas.
The Minister does not know whether or not he gave permission.