Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 4

Other Questions. - Army Compensation Claims.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

52 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims for compensation received by the Defence Forces arising from injuries received in riot control training; the total number of cases settled; the total amount paid out in compensation to date; the steps being taken to ensure that injuries are not inflicted during such training; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20503/02]

There are eight personal injury claims on record relating to riot training exercises. Four cases have settled to date at a cost of €53,329. The safety of those engaged in these exercises is of primary concern. Prior to the exercise they are instructed by safety personnel attached to the training school. The exercises are conducted in such a way that those in charge can intervene as required. In addition safety equipment, anti-riot helmets with visors, protective elbow and knee pads and safety shields are provided.

Would the Minister of State agree that proper facilities must be provided so that training exercises do not result in claims of this nature being necessary?

Soldiers have made claims for battle stress resulting from training in riot situations. What does the Minister of State propose to do about that?

The eight claims referred to relate to four incidents over the 12 year period from 1990. Deputy Sherlock is right in saying sufficient safeguards should be put in place and the Minister is satisfied that such safeguards are now in place. Such strategies include pre-exercise safety briefings conducted for troops and rioters in the mock events by school staff. The riot situation is stage managed by the use of scenario serials and each serial represents an escalation in behaviour such as shouting, pushing, throwing objects etcetera. The instructional staff are pre-briefed and familiar with each serial and can readily intervene to control the training as required. In addition, safety equipment such as riot helmets, elbow and knee pads, and safety shields are provided.

What is the nature of the injuries sustained in each case? Were they of a superficial nature or have people been incapacitated or obliged to retire from the service because of them?

In the main the injuries were caused by the use of baton rounds. In 1997 a Cabinet sub-committee decided these would no longer be permitted.

In 1990 a private was struck across the back of the neck and his case settled for £25,000. During a riot control exercise in Casement Aerodrome a private and two apprentices who had volunteered for the roles of rioters and demonstrators sustained head injuries and their cases were settled for £7,500, £4,750 and £4,750. This would not indicate very serious injuries.

In Kilpedder Camp on 18 July 1995 a number of privates were required to gather in a confined space and while so confined rocks, including a canister of smoke, were thrown into the confined space. Three privates sustained injuries as a result of smoke inhalation. In November 1999, while involved in a riot drill exercise in O'Neill Barracks in Cavan, a private received a head injury and these cases have not come to court.

Can the Minister clarify the position regarding baton rounds, considering that people have died on this island from baton round injuries? Has the use of baton rounds by the Defence Forces ended?

When the Cabinet sub-committee on security decided in 1997 that the use of baton rounds would no longer be permitted the Government issued a direction accordingly. Baton rounds have not been used by the Defence Forces for operations or training since then. In fact, all baton rounds were withdrawn on direction and destroyed.

The Minister mentioned smoke inhalation. Was gas also used and do the Defence Forces have riot control gas?

For the purpose of the training exercise a canister of smoke was used.

Top
Share