Billy Timmins
Question:1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence if he will initiate an inquiry into the death of a person (details supplied) in Lebanon in February 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26046/05]
Priority Questions.
Defence Forces Inquiry.
Joe Sherlock
Question:2 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence his plans to conduct an investigation into the death of a person (details supplied) six years ago; if he is satisfied with the open verdict returned by an inquest in Donegal into this person’s death; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26049/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The case to which the Deputies refer is that of Private Kevin Barrett, who died on 18 February 1999 while serving with the 84th infantry battalion in Lebanon. I avail of this opportunity to express my sympathy to the family of Private Barrett on their sad loss.
The death of Private Barrett was the subject of a UN board of inquiry and an Irish contingent board of inquiry as well as a military police investigation. The coroner for north-west Donegal held an inquest into the death of Private Barrett on 5-8 September 2005. The jury returned an open verdict. I am advised the military authorities cooperated fully with the inquest into the soldier's death.
I have arranged to meet the late Private Barrett's mother in the near future. I will listen carefully to what she has to say and then consider whether any future action is called for in light of the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate accident. Pending my meeting with Mrs. Barrett I prefer not to go into detail regarding the inquiries held to date. I am sure Deputies will appreciate that this is the proper approach in a sensitive situation such as this.
I join the Minister in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Private Kevin Barrett. This is a tragic case and I warn the Minister that at the meeting Mrs. Barrett will express grave dissatisfaction at the way she was treated. The way this woman and her family were treated is nothing short of scandalous. I am not sure where the blame lies but this side of the House wants the Minister to initiate a Garda inquiry into the matter. The Minister might also examine the workings of his own Department and consider why material was not forthcoming when sought by one of the legal teams for the family. The material was not received until the inquest opened in Donegal in September this year. The military police sergeant who investigated the matter stated that something was not quite right about this shooting. On several occasions he sought the reopening of the case. The coroner expressed an open verdict on the case. One statement was withdrawn at the inquest and there is cause for concern. It is regrettable that we must wait on the actions of a mother bereaved of a son before we take action.
I am an advocate of Irish people serving overseas and making a contribution. Tragedies have happened and will happen again. It is crucial to have structures in place so that families can have confidence in what they are told happened. When a body is returned from overseas it should come home in a proper and respectful manner and this was not the case.
I join the Minister and the other speaker in extending sympathy to Mrs. Barrett and the family on the death of Kevin Barrett. I am disappointed by the Minister's response as he is well aware of the problem. Mrs. Barrett was told by the army that her son died as result of an accident and there were many unanswered questions. The Minister now proposes to have an investigation because the family wants to know the precise circumstances of the death. I want the Minister to state when the investigation will take place and the investigation must address the following questions. Why was the Barretts' legal team not given army documentation on Kevin Barrett's death? Will the Minister now make it available to the family? Serious questions remain about the condition of Kevin Barrett's body after his death. Can the Minister provide an explanation?
I share the concern of the Deputies but I prefer to meet Mrs. Barrett to hear what she has to say. I do not need Deputy Timmins to tell me what she thinks. In respect of the inquiry, sometimes it is impossible to ascertain the circumstances in which someone died. In this case there have been inquiries by the UN, the Irish army and a three day inquest. In none of those cases was there a definitive conclusion on how this young man died.
There has been a proposal for a Garda inquiry. I propose to read the transcript of the inquest and then read a report by the military on the inquest. Following my meeting with Mrs. Barrett I will speak to the military and then I will decide what further investigations are warranted. That may involve outside expertise or it may be a Garda inquiry. I will make the decision soon.
The Minister is correct in stating that several inquiries have taken place. I understand the family did not receive results of any of these inquiries except the coroner's report. The family did not get the result of the main UN inquiry. The legal team sought the result of that inquiry and did not obtain it. The Minister stated that no inquiry came to a conclusion on the cause of death but I believe the UN inquiry concluded that death was caused by self-inflicted discharge of a weapon.
Yes, but it did not conclude if it was accidental or deliberate.
Would the Minister agree that irrespective of what Mrs. Barrett might tell him or what I might request, a casual perusal of the information in the public domain makes it clear that a public inquiry is needed. The Minister should use his judgment without needing someone to tell him an inquiry should be carried out.
The coroner, Dr. John Gannon, said Private Barrett died as a result of a discharge from an Army weapon. Why did it take so long to meet this lady to consider or listen to what she had to say on the matter? When does the Minister propose to meet this person and does he hope to set up the investigation immediately following the meeting?
To answer Deputy Sherlock first, the lady in question did not seek to meet me. I initiated the contact with her and I will meet her next week. The inquest finished just last Tuesday fortnight. There has been no avoidable delay on my part. I initiated the contact with Mrs. Barrett.
I wish to correct the record of the House. Deputy Timmins is absolutely wrong in the implications in his questions. First, a copy of the Defence Forces contingent board of inquiry has been released to solicitors representing the Barrett family.
On the morning of the inquest.
The Deputy implied that it was not released. It was.
I stated in my initial question that it was the morning of the inquest.
As an ex-Army officer, Deputy Timmins should know that United Nations boards of inquiry are internal documents of the United Nations. They are made available to state authorities on condition that they cannot be released or made public in any way, including for judicial proceedings. However, with the agreement of the United Nations, a copy of that part of the UN board of inquiry entitled "Description of the Incident", which gives a factual description of the circumstances of Private Barrett's death, was released to Mrs. Barrett. That is the position and there is nothing more we can do, as the Deputy knows.
Deputy Timmins asked could I kick-start an inquiry from my casual observations of what appeared in the media. It is not a question of acting on casual observations. This is a very sensitive matter and I feel deeply sorry for the family who are obviously traumatised by this. I will not go off on some tangent based on some casual reading of a newspaper headline. I will not use this case to scrounge around for votes as the Deputy is doing.
I did not refer to the media. I referred to information available in the public domain. The Minister should check the record.
The Deputy said as clear as a bell would I not trigger an inquiry from a casual glance at the information.
From information available in the public domain, not in the media.
I will have another inquiry if I deem it necessary and having studied the matter properly, not in a casual manner, because it is not a case that should be dealt with in a casual manner.
This is a serious matter. The Barrett legal team was not given the Army documentation. Will this documentation be given to the legal team?
It has been given to them. A copy of the Defence Forces contingent board of inquiry has already been released to the Barrett family's legal team. I will inquire how long it took to release it or whether there was an undue delay.
The Minister is correct that the UN cannot release the court of inquiry document, which is an internal document. Under Defence Forces regulation C55, the Chief of Staff or Deputy Chief of Staff have the power to initiate an inquiry if they feel it is a matter of national importance.
I repeat I will initiate any inquiries and seek the support and help of anyone to pursue these inquiries. However, there will be such inquiries as I determine are warranted having studied fully all the evidence and information available in the case.
Overseas Missions.
John Gormley
Question:3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the legislative or constitutional changes which are being considered by the Government to facilitate members of the Defence Forces to participate in European Union battle groups; if any of these measures will affect the triple lock method of authorising Irish troop deployments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26051/05]
Joe Sherlock
Question:5 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if he has brought to Cabinet proposals for the participation of Irish troops in EU rapid reaction forces; the legislative changes that are required to facilitate this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26050/05]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:165 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which the debate on Ireland’s participation in a European rapid response force has evolved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26127/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 5 and 165 together.
The background to the rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, is that at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999, member states set themselves a headline goal that by the year 2003, co-operating together and voluntarily, they would be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks as set out in the Amsterdam treaty. In short, these are humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management operations, including peacemaking. This included, inter alia, a capability to provide rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness. The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European security and defence policy, ESDP.
Ireland's participation in such operations is entirely consistent with our foreign policy commitment to collective security which recognises the primary role of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and our tradition of support for the United Nations. During his visit to Dublin in October 2004, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, stressed the importance of battle groups and requested Ireland's support for them.
At the Cabinet meeting of 16 November 2004, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with partners with a view to potential participation in rapid response elements. A military capabilities commitment conference was held on 22 November 2004 at which member states committed up to 13 battle group formations which will be available to deploy to crisis situations within a five to ten day period from 2005 onwards. A battle group co-ordination conference was held on 11 May 2005 at which initial offers and commitments by relevant member states were confirmed. It was noted that only one slot, the second semester of 2007, remains unfilled.
Ireland supports the development of the EU's rapid response capability in support of UN authorised missions and is positively disposed towards participation in the rapid response elements in this regard. However, it is important that the full implications of our participation are assessed and, to this end, I have established an interdepartmental group to report to me on the matter. This group met in December 2004 and has established three sub-groups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising.
The sub-groups met on a number of occasions over the summer to progress issues in regard to battle groups. The legal issues sub-group met on four occasions. The Attorney General's Office is now in the process of submitting its report on the legal issues involved to the Attorney General and I expect to receive his report shortly. Once the advice is received, the other two sub-groups will expedite the completion of their considerations and report to me shortly thereafter. I will then consider the report and advise the Government accordingly.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He said recently during a visit to Haulbowline that he intends to bring the report to Cabinet at the end of September. Has the report not yet been considered or brought to Cabinet? I assume from his utterances and from the quotations in the article that the view he expressed previously in the House that he supports the triple lock method is no longer valid and that he wants to ditch it at this stage.
I do not have the report. I anticipated the Attorney General's office would be a bit speedier than it has proved to be. However, I expect to hear from the Attorney General next week and there will be no avoidable delay in bringing the matter to Cabinet.
Second, Deputy Gormley is absolutely wrong. He could not be more wrong even to imagine that I would abandon the triple lock method. I am fully and totally committed to the method.
Within time.
I said on several occasions in this House, and I repeat today, that we understand the rationale of battle groups, rapid reaction in modern warfare and terrorism conditions, and we will participate provided we can do so while at the same holding onto the triple lock.
The Minister said that his impression is it can be done by way of legislative change. He said that there will be certain elements in the Dáil that will fight that legislative change tooth and nail. I wonder who these certain elements are and why would we want to change it if there is no real change?
As I outlined to the House on a number of occasions, there are some difficulties, particularly about Irish troops travelling abroad and the requirement for Dáil approval, a UN mandate, etc. This applies currently when people travel abroad to participate in peacekeeping if the number is more than 12 and they are under arms. I do not wish to anticipate the report but it may be necessary, for example, to amend the relevant legislation, the Defence Act, to enable people to travel abroad solely for the purpose of training. I expressed my personal opinion on a number of occasions that slight legislative change is all that is necessary in this instance. A constitutional change will not be required. I must await the advice of the Attorney General, who is the official legal adviser to the Government and on whose opinion I will act.
It takes a long time for the Minister to achieve results in whatever capacity he operates. He must provide immediate clarification on the issue because there is ambiguity between his position and that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is there conflict between them on this issue?
The Minister says there is no point in changing the legislation. However, it is a while since the issue was raised and I would like him to clarify the current position. Has the Minister received the report of the expert committee on the options open to Ireland to allow members of the Defence Forces to participate in rapid reaction battle groups? If so, what are its recommendations?
I have not received the report because the Attorney General has not forwarded his advice which will underpin the report. However, I expect that advice will be available next week. I did not say that legislative change would not be necessary. I said a legislative amendment will probably be necessary.
But not a constitutional amendment?
Yes. That is my opinion but I must await the advice of the Attorney General. There is no conflict between me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs or any other Minister on this matter. We are all ad idem in our commitment to the triple lock, and our determination to respond to the entreaties of the United Nations and its Secretary General and the demands of international peacekeeping by participating in battle groups while holding on to the triple lock.
Assuming the Minister obtains the report next week, when will the legislation be introduced, given that this involves a relatively small change? Does he agree that all these small changes are chipping away at the last vestiges of neutrality?
I do not wish to anticipate what the report will suggest. I am confident I will have the report and I will be in position to go to Cabinet before we meet again for Question Time. We will discuss what, if anything, the report proposes by way of legislative amendment at that point.
Emergency Planning.
Billy Timmins
Question:4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence when the Government task force on emergency planning last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26047/05]
The Government task force on emergency planning last met on Tuesday, 20 September 2005. The membership of the task force includes Ministers, senior officials of Departments, senior officers of the Defence Forces and the Garda, and officials of other key public authorities that have a lead or support role in Government emergency planning. The work of the task force continues and there have been 41 meetings to date. Further meetings will be held on a regular basis as required. The office of emergency planning within my Department supports the work of the task force and continues to work with Departments and other public authorities to ensure the best use of resources and compatibility between different emergency planning requirements. A key area of activity of the task force is oversight of emergency planning to refine and develop the arrangements that exist, to continuously improve them through regular review and revision and to generally provide the basis for an increased confidence in the emergency planning process.
An interdepartmental working group on emergency planning supports the work of the task force and carries out studies and oversight of emergency planning structures and processes. The working group has met on 37 occasions and it encompasses all Departments with lead roles in the various Government emergency plans and key public authorities, including the Defence Forces, which plan to support such activities. The working group, under the guidance of the Government task force, continues to meet on a regular basis and is chaired by the office of emergency planning. It is a forum for developing strategic guidance to all those involved and for sharing information on emergency planning.
The lead responsibility for specific emergency planning functions remains with the relevant Departments, as do the budgetary and resource management requirements. Emergency plans are co-ordinated by the various lead Departments at a national level and through the local authorities, including the fire service, the Health Service Executive and the Garda divisions at local and regional levels. The Defence Forces contribute significantly to the work of both the Government task force and the interdepartmental working group on emergency planning. The Defence Forces emergency planning and preparations are of the highest standard and are well co-ordinated with the lead Departments and other key public authorities.
The Departments and key public authorities involved have responsibilities under a number of strategic areas of Government emergency planning and regularly report on developments and progress at meetings of the task force. The Government's objective is to ensure all State bodies can react quickly and efficiently to a large scale emergency. Each of the Departments represented at the task force has assured the office of emergency planning it is addressing its emergency planning responsibilities and plans and response arrangements are in place to address large scale emergencies in Ireland.
As chairman of the task force, my approach continues to be that such responses must be characterised by effective management of all aspects of emergency planning and by a high level of public confidence in all the response arrangements. Review and refinement arrangements will ensure co-ordination of all those responding so that should we be unfortunate enough to experience a large scale emergency, we will mount a credible response.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I will continue to report regularly on a confidential basis to Government on emergency planning. I am pleased to report to this House that there continues to be excellent co-operation between my Department and all other Departments and public authorities in these vital areas.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Has the task force been allocated funding since 2001? How is it resourced? Has the task force overseen exercises? If so, have reports been published on how they were carried out and on whether they were successful? In 2003 the Emergency Planning Society recommended to Government that emergency planning should be underpinned by legislation and an emergency planning authority should be created? In other words, one group would be responsible with one person in charge and this would be underpinned by legislation.
The task force comprises representatives of various Departments and, therefore, funding is not required per se. We try to meet at least once a month in Government Buildings. I chair the task force.
The recommendation to which the Deputy referred reflects the emergency planning model used in Britain and the US. It is generally felt, although perhaps not by the group to which the Deputy referred, that the model we use under which Departments are responsible for their own plans and it is the task of Government to co-ordinate the entire operation is more appropriate to Ireland's circumstances and it has worked well. Fortunately, we have not experienced a large scale terrorist attack or a nuclear explosion. However, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease several years ago was handled well, using the emergency planning process. I remain confident the arrangements in place are best suited to Ireland's circumstances. Just because the British or the Americans use a particular system does not mean it is right. Our system is similar to that adopted by Spain. The Spanish had to deal with an unfortunate incident in the not too distant past, which they dealt with well.
A full programme of exercises has been carried out and all the exercises were extremely successful. I will ask my officials to make the full list available to the Deputy.
I do not wish to get into a debate about appointees to State boards. However, the Civil Defence, which comprises 6,000 personnel, is an important element of emergency planning. The Minster recently came in for criticism following the appointment of a former Fianna Fáil councillor to lead the body. What expertise has he in this area? It is a strange appointment.
That is a separate question, not a supplementary.
In the US, Mr. Brown who had been appointed by Mr. Bush had to step down from his emergency planning post when it emerged he did not have experience of crisis management. Why did the Minister make this appointment?
This is a separate question but I have no problem responding to it. The person I appointed is eminently well qualified for the job. He has vast experience both in business and in the public sector, where he worked for many years as a community welfare officer. He has administrative experience as a member of Limerick County Council. He served in the FCA for many years and he is well known as a community leader in the area. His association with a political party should not disqualify him.
Question No. 5 answered with QuestionNo. 3.