In accordance with a resolution of the Dáil on 25 October the House will now hear statements on matters appropriate to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I propose to call on Deputies Pat McCartan and Eamon Gilmore to make statements to the Minister for Defence to be followed by statements appropriate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by Deputies Michael D. Higgins, Proinsias De Rossa, Pat Rabbitte, Tómas Mac Giolla, Eamon Gilmore, Joe Sherlock and Eric Byrne. The Deputies I call have one minute each to put their questions. Will Deputy McCartan please put his question?
Adjournment Debate. - Defence and Foreign Affairs Matters.
I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to raise this very urgent matter with the Minister of State at the Department of Defence now that we do not have a Minister in Government for that Department. My question relates to the issue of the rules and regulations to be enforced on members of the Defence Forces when they meet within the barracks in pursuit of their interests and issues with regard to the formation of representations and representative associations. Under existing rules and regulations it is necessary before a meeting can take place that the permission of the camp OC be obtained and that any meeting once convened must be by soldiers in uniform, whether outside the normal course of their duties. Consequently, whenever the representative associations under current regulations want to meet to discuss their normal business they must get the permission of their OC in the first instance. Secondly, they must wear their uniform.
Your time is up.
I am asking the Minister of State to look at this matter and relieve the regulations slightly so that——
Sorry, Deputy. I would ask Deputies to conform to the one minute limit.
A new day, a new procedure. I ask the Minister of State simply to look at this matter to relieve the issue and allow the representative associations get on with their business.
This question concerns the case of a retired commandant who served for 30 years in the FCA, then served for a further ten years on full-time security duty and who was due for promotion in 1988 but due to the embargo on promotions, and the fact that he would have taken up a promotion which would otherwise have gone to the Permanent Defence Forces, was encouraged to resign from full-time security duty and continue to serve for two years in the FCA. As a result he lost the gratuity which he would otherwise have been entitled to. I ask the Minister of State to examine this. It has been under examination for some time in the Department. The Department are taking the view that he voluntarily stood down. I am challenging that. I believe he was greatly encouraged to stand down. There is correspondence to show that he did not voluntarily stand down and I ask that this be looked at because he has lost his gratuity.
We will have to get used to this late night spirit. My question today on Cambodia failed to elicit from the Minister for Foreign Affairs information on the present military position there. I asked whether the advance of the Khmer Rouge within Cambodia was of such a nature that it was imperilling the UN initiative, yet the Minister's reply concentrated on the prospects for the UN initiative. Therefore, I want to raise the question, is the advance of the Khmer Rouge, and their likely return, not posing a threat to the UN position and is there not a danger that the representative from the Council will be a Khmer Rouge representative?
My question relates to the issue of the refuelling of US military aircraft at Shannon some weeks ago. It was reported in the Sunday Independent that a considerable number of troop carriers landed at Shannon and were refulled. The excuse given was that they were in pursuit of a UN resolution in relation to the Gulf. My understanding is that this activity was in advance of a decision of the UN, therefore they were in breach of Irish neutrality. Clearly a case could be made for refuelling at Shannon if they were directly in pursuit of a decision of the UN. Indeed, it is doubtful even at this time whether the US are complying with the UN mandate. They are currently threatening to launch a war in the Gulf. I ask the Minister to indicate what status Irish neutrality has in this day. How do they define it?
I am calling Deputy Pat Rabbitte. I do not observe Deputy Rabbitte so I am proceeding to call Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla.
I am asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has seen the Greenpeace report in regard to the visit to Irish ports between 1982 and 1989 of US Navy warships. Is he aware that the Greenpeace report states that ten out of the 13 ships which visited our ports were deployed on naval exercises and six of the 13 were carrying nuclear weapons? The Department of Foreign Affairs say that if they are carrying nuclear weapons, or have taken part in naval exercises, they should not enter Irish ports. The US policy is that they will neither confirm or deny that they have nuclear weapons. Will the Minister therefore do as the Swedish Government are doing and demand guarantees from ships that they are not carrying nuclear weapons? Since it must be well known to the Irish Government what US warships have nuclear capability and what ones have not nuclear capability, will the Minister in the meantime allow in those that have not got nuclear capability and have not taken part in naval exercises and ban all ships with nuclear capability unless he has a guarantee that they are not carrying nuclear weapons?
I called Deputy Rabbitte earlier. I will call Deputy Rabbitte again and in one minute he might put his question.
I apologise.
On a point of information, Sir, would you agree to take me before Deputy Rabbitte seeing that I have been waiting? He should be penalised and sent to the end of the queue as I would have to stay here later than he because of his late arrival.
The next Deputy to be called is Deputy Gilmore.
My question relates to the nomination by the Irish national group for election to the International Court of Justice of Judge Pathak of India who was the judge responsible for imposing a highly unjust settlement on the victims of the world's worst chemical disaster, the leaking of toxic chemical in Bhopal in India in which 10,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were injured. In reply to a question today the Minister effectively stated that it is the Government's intention to vote for the nomination of Judge Pathak and to avoid public responsibility for that decision by claiming that the elections are held by secret ballot. Any vote of that nature which is made by the Irish Government should not be shrouded in secrecy. The Irish public are entitled to know how our Government vote on matters of this kind. My view, and I believe that of an increasing number of the public, is that the Irish Government should not support the nomination of Judge Pathak because of his involvement in the very unjust court settlement of the Bhopal affair.
Again I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to raise the case of the Birmingham Six. I asked the Minister of State this evening if he has made any representation to the British authorities to speed up the hearing of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Birmingham Six. The facts of that case are well known to this House. There is no need to reiterate them. There is a motion unanimously passed by this House in support of their innocence and demanding their release. The question that faces us and the Minister of State here tonight is whether we can countenance the six innocent men spending their 17th Christmas in custody without any hope of release. They have made their views known. They cannot countenance it. I do not think any of us here can.
The time to stop expressing mere concern has come and I would ask the Minister of State to consider in Government a clear and unambiguous demand to the British Authorities, including the Director of Public Prosecutions and the UK Government that they would now proceed to the immediate release of the six innocent Birmingham defendants.
My question is if any target has been set for Irish overseas development aid for 1991. I am disappointed with the reply given earlier today by the Minister on the question of reaching the target. Statistics show that of the 18 wealthiest states of the OECD Ireland was at the bottom of the league in terms of its contribution to overseas development aid. In the light of these figures, is it intended to increase Irish aid? When is it expected we will reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP? There has been a decline in overseas development aid over the last few years and it would make great sense to institute a programme over a period of years as suggested by Trócaire. It should be brought up first of all to the 1986 level and then annually by 0.5 per cent until the target of 0.7 per cent is reached. Will the Minister say that that is the policy of the Government?
A Cheann Comhairle, 14 million children under the age of five years die every year from the effects of malnutrition and preventable diseases. An estimated 40,000 children die each day in the developing world from easily preventable illnesses such as measles and diarrhoea as well as from malnutrition. It is against this backdrop that the Taoiseach signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. He was one of 71 world leaders who went to New York on 30 September last. My question is about the ratification process. When will the Government increase their small contribution to aid developing countries? Our contribution stands at the smallest percentage of GNP of 18 western industrialised nations.
Finally, when are we going to resolve our own disgraceful abuse of children where we throw 15 year old girls into the likes of Mountjoy Prison? I would argue that we should stop the hypocrisy of deciding on the rights of the child while we ourselves practice such primitive measures in dealing with our own children.
Since this is a new procedure, the Chair is anxious to facilitate Deputies to the utmost. I am therefore calling Deputy Rabbitte and I will assist him in relation to the question he wishes to put.
I apologise to the House. My question relates to the practice whereby would-be emigrants to the United States, in the event of their request for a visa being turned down, have that rejection stamped on their passport. They may only be applying for the purpose of visiting the United States. Yet that is a permanent rejection on the passport which is the property of the Irish State. Circumstances may change; they may wish to travel on another occasion or to another country. The passport is the property of the Irish State. I wonder if the Minister would be agreeable to making representations to the American authorities to find some other device by which refusal on a particular occasion could be recorded rather than the permanent defacement of the passport.
I will call first on the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Vincent Brady, to reply to the questions to the Department of Defence.
First let me respond to Deputy Pat McCartan. Very considerable progress has been made towards the formal establishment of representative associations. A large measure of agreement has already been reached as to the scope of representation etc. At present more than 20 items, including remunerations, are being finalised within the scope of representations. The role of the local representatives at command and barrack levels will be defined once the position at national level has been determined. In the meantime, I would like to assure Deputy McCartan that I will continue to monitor progress on the matter raised.
In reply to Deputy Eamon Gilmore's question the position is that the person named was called up on full-time duties on 1 September 1979 and voluntarily stood down on 3 March 1988 in order to obtain promotion from Captain to Commandant. Some nine months later regulations were brought into operation but these arrangements did not apply to any member of the FCA other than those who were engaged on full-time security duties on 1 January 1989 some nine months later. On this basis the person named is not eligible to avail himself of the particular arrangements.
I will now call on the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Seán Calleary, to reply to the other questions.
Deputy Higgins had a sprint; I would prefer to have a 60 yards dash. Let me refer Deputy Higgins to the comprehensive statement made on Cambodia today by the Minister to Questions Nos. 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41 and 43.
In reply to Deputy De Rossa's question, the US aircraft in question were given refuelling permission within the bounds of established policy, that is, in the event of an international crisis and in keeping with our commitment to uphold the UN Charter; and as the aircraft were being sent to the Gulf at the request of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the context of Article 51 of the Charter, which provides for the inherent right of individual or collective self defence of all member states.
No comparable facilities have been requested or given to any other country.
In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, I am aware of the practice he refers to. However, as it is an internal US matter, I have no function in regard to it.
I have, however, instructed the Passport Office to consider sympathetically an application for a replacement passport which they may receive from the holder of an Irish Passport who is unhappy with any endorsement made on it by the authorities of another state.
In reply to Deputy Mac Giolla's question my attention has been drawn to the report which, as the Minister indicated in a reply submitted to Parliamentary Question No. 49, he intends to study carefully. I believe that existing procedures in relation to visits of foreign vessels are adequate to ensure that Government policy is complied with. At first reading the Greenpeace report offers no proof that any of the US ships which visited Irish ports did in fact carry nuclear weapons. As I said, the Minister intends to study the report very carefully.
In regard to Deputy Gilmore's question, I am aware that Judge Pathak gave a judgment which imposed an unfair and inadequate settlement on the Bhopal victims. I am not prepared to comment on the laws of another state or their interpretation by the courts.
In reply to Deputy Pat McCartan, the question of the timing of this appeal is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an independent law officer. The British Authorities are, however, aware of the Government's wish for a speedy resolution of the case. I go along with the Deputy's comments that they should not spend a seventeenth Christmas in jail.
Will the Minister make further representations on that?
The British Government are well aware of our wishes in that regard.
In regard to Deputy Sherlock's question I would like to refer the Deputy to the Minister's reply given earlier to Parliamentary Question No. 53, that the 1991 Estimates are currently under consideration by the Government, and that when these are settled the provision for official development assistance will be made public in the normal way.
I would like to refer Deputy Byrne to the answer the Minister gave to Questions Nos. 42, 56 and 65 on today's Order Paper.
The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 November 1990.