Billy Timmins
Question:1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the discussions he or his Department has held to date with potential EU battle group partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7506/06]
Priority Questions.
Overseas Missions.
Joe Sherlock
Question:2 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the measures he has taken to ensure that Irish neutrality is not compromised by the participation of Irish troops in EU battle groups; the way in which the triple lock mechanism will be affected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7492/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The ambition of the European Union to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has been, and continues to be, a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. The tasks to be carried out under ESDP, the so-called Petersberg Tasks, are defined in the Amsterdam treaty as "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".
Our participation in the ESDP and in the Petersberg Tasks has been endorsed and supported directly by the Irish people in the referendum on the Treaty on European Union and the subsequent referenda on the Amsterdam and Nice treaties. Our participation in the ESDP is also fully in accordance with our traditional support for the United Nations and our obligations as members of the international community to respond to crises, events and humanitarian disasters wherever they may occur.
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. To this end, I established the interdepartmental group to examine all issues relating to Ireland's potential participation in an EU-led rapid response capability. The group reported to me in November 2005 and since then its report has been considered by the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs and, informally, by the Government.
On the basis of the study and informal discussions at Government level, I have authorised my officials to open discussions with potential partners on Ireland's participation in a battle group. In co-operation with like-minded nations, we will seek to contribute to the development of the battle group concept and, through this, to remain at the forefront of developments within the international community in supporting international peace support operations. With my recent announcement, 23 of 25 member states have signalled their intention to participate in battle groups.
My intention would be to identify specific options on participation and then return to Government for a formal decision. In the first instance we intend to talk to Sweden, which is the framework nation for the Nordic battle group. We have identified a range of potential offers ranging from smaller niche capabilities up to an APC mounted light infantry company group of approximately 200 personnel plus support elements.
While there have been some preliminary informal discussions with Sweden regarding potential participation, to date there have been no formal discussions with any EU member state. As such, I am not in a position to state what will come out of these discussions. However, arrangements have been made for a formal meeting between representatives from the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces of Sweden and Ireland on 10 March in Stockholm to discuss possible Irish participation in the Nordic battle group.
As members will appreciate, the Nordic battle group was organised some time ago and I understand that most of the core elements are already in place, with Sweden contributing the core manoeuvre battalion. In addition, battle groups covering the period out to 2010 have been announced and on this basis I expect that our contribution in the period to 2010 is likely to be limited. However, this will be a matter for ongoing discussion with other member states over the coming months, in particular, Finland and Austria with whom we have had some initial informal exploratory discussions.
There are no plans for the involvement of Naval or Air Corps assets, although individual members of the Naval Service or Air Corps may be deployed on overseas peace support operations as they have been in the past. Any commitment to a battle group will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time as set out in the White Paper on Defence.
There is no question of Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality being compromised by the participation of Irish troops in battle groups. Participation imposes no obligations concerning international or multilateral defence, nor does it give rise to constitutional issues. Any move to a common defence would be for decision by the European Council acting unanimously and in accordance with member states' constitutional requirements. At present, there are no proposals for such a move.
In any event, Ireland's position is clear. The amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann in October 2002 precludes Ireland from participating in a common defence. As a consequence, the Irish people would have to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann before Ireland could take part in a common defence.
Any decision to participate in any battle group mission will be a national sovereign decision, decided through our own national decision-making process on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, I have reiterated on many occasions that our participation in peace support operations would continue to require UN authorisation. Participation in battle groups will not diminish this requirement in any way. Ireland's basis for participation in missions undertaken by the EU is grounded in the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council. This will not change. The triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will remain in place.
What impact, if any, will this decision have on funding? Will additional funding be required and, if so, will it come from the present resources of the Defence Vote or will additional resources have to be obtained elsewhere? When will the Minister bring forward legislation? Will the Minister confirm what legislation, if any, is necessary to implement this proposal?
Will the report the Minister was given in November be made public? If it is to be published, when will it be made available? In his reply, the Minister stated that he did not have formal discussions with any of our EU partners but did he have informal discussions with them? Why did we pick Sweden and, it appears, that country alone? I am not saying there is anything incorrect in that as we have served with it in Liberia. It strikes me, however, that in view of the Good Friday Agreement, the so-called special new relationship with our nearest neighbour and the fact that it speaks the same language, we should have consulted the British on joining them. In the recent past, we have served alongside British forces in Cyprus. It would be much easier from an interoperability viewpoint to deal with the British who are very near to us.
I understand from the Minister's statement that Ireland will not be involved in such a battle group before 2010. If I am wrong, the Minister may correct me. Will the Minister not agree that the triple lock mechanism will give rise to efficiency? It is time for the Government to examine this neutrality rubbish we have spoken about. Ireland is not neutral so it is time we decided what our foreign policy should be. We should be mature enough to make such decisions in this House. I realise that the Minister is a bit concerned about scaremongering from certain quarters.
There is no scaremongering here.
However, we in Fine Gael would be most supportive of him if he decided to go ahead and put it on the record, once and for all, that we are mature enough as a nation to make decisions on whether we should participate.
We understand.
We should not be looking over our shoulders and letting the Americans or Chinese decide what we should or should not participate in.
Deputy Timmins has certainly raised a number of important questions. First, the funding question has arisen before. In the short term at least, I do not anticipate any increase in funding. We will stay within our limit of 850 troops and will operate from that. In other words, our total overseas commitment will not exceed our present limit of 850 troops.
Second, we will also insist on the principle under which we operate in the EUFOR and KFOR operations, namely, that costs will lie where they fall and each country will meet its own costs.
Third, our participation in a battle group, if it is deployed, might only last for 30 days. The maximum will be only 120 days. There will not be much extra cost involved when the battle group is on stand-by during that six-month period. If a battle group happens to be deployed we will of course have to meet the usual costs of deployment, sustainability, nutrition, overseas allowances and medical care. We will also have to meet the costs of bringing troops back. We do not expect, however, that it will add significantly to costs. Irish troops are well equipped for missions up to and including chapter seven missions. That is precisely the type of mission we are operating in Liberia at the moment. It is generally agreed that the force's assets are sufficient to provide adequate protection.
I hope to introduce the necessary legislation before the summer recess to enable Irish troops to go abroad for training. It will change the definition of the UN resolution slightly to incorporate the type of resolutions they intend to introduce. They will be the major changes, although there will also be one or two other minor amendments.
The Deputy asked about the publication of the report but as we are still working from it, I do not think it would be appropriate to publish it yet. Perhaps when I have gone to Government with a formal decision on joining a battle group, I will consider the Deputy's request to publish the report.
The Deputy also asked about other countries with which we have had discussions. I am told that we have had informal discussions at official level with Austria and Finland. I met the British Defence Secretary, Dr. John Reid, who came over to see me just before Christmas. The question of battle groups arose in conversation but I understand the British have their own. They are providing a single nation battle group while we will be part of a multinational battle group. We have joined with Sweden because to all intents and purposes, we are effectively in a battle group with that country.
The Swedish-Irish contingent is the rapid response unit of the United Nations contingent in Liberia. In effect it is a battle group in theatre. What it is doing and has been doing differs little if at all from what the battle groups we now envisage will be doing. We have traditionally worked with the Swedes. We are familiar with their system and they are familiar with ours.
It is not correct to say, as Deputy Timmins did, that we will not be doing anything before 2010. The general format for multinational battle groups up to and including 2010 has been agreed, so any contribution we make between now and 2010 will most likely be in a niche capacity. Following our discussions with the Swedes in Oslo on 10 March, I expect us to be able to move ahead straight away, perhaps have our contribution to a battle group ready before the end of this year and possibly even participate before the end of the year, should such a battle group be deployed and should we be on standby at that time.
The triple lock is not necessarily an impediment to our participation in battle groups. There is no doubt that in some cases, everyone might agree that a battle group should be deployed and Ireland will not be able to participate because the United Nations resolution has not been passed. That is a fact and that situation can occur. However, the Government is reflecting the will of the people when we say we will act in accordance with the United Nations resolution. That is and will remain Government policy. I point out to Deputy Timmins that it has been said to me by some of my counterparts in Europe that in certain situations, countries participating in battle groups will not want to go to a particular troublespot because of some historical problem or historical baggage. They would not be able to participate for that reason. It is not just the absence of a United Nations resolution which can preclude involvement in a battle group.
The important point is that all battle groups will have a built-in redundancy provision for situations where one or more participants cannot participate for one reason or another. That will be part of the organisation of multinational battle groups.
While the Minister is a very able person, instead of answering questions he makes speeches. It is very hard to figure out what answer he has given to the question. Will the Minister give details of the new legislation that is required to allow Irish troops participate in the new EU battle groups? Will this legislation be published and when does the Minister hope to have it enacted? Will he give further details of the partnership arrangements being sought with Sweden? Traditional Swedish neutrality, while similar to our own, has differed from the Irish interpretation of neutrality. Does this represent an evolution of our own neutrality in the direction of the Swedish model?
The maintenance of the triple lock is the Labour Party's greatest concern. I know the Minister has been at pains to stress it will not be affected. However, given the length of time it takes to achieve a UN mandate, a Government decision and Dáil backing, is it possible that international pressure will be exerted on Irish troops to enter into a battle group before each of these has been achieved?
The extent to which Irish neutrality has been compromised remains to be seen. It is clear that Irish neutrality has entered a new phase.
My answer was a bit long. I was trying to reply to all the different issues raised by Deputy Timmins.
We hope to have the new legislation published and passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas before the summer recess. That is our plan. The new legislation will enable the Irish Government, without having a UN sanction, to send people abroad for training. It is also intended to enable the Government to deploy troops, which it cannot currently do, on a humanitarian mission. For example, we found recently with regard to the tsunami and the flooding situation in New Orleans that we had to ask for volunteers for such humanitarian missions. The Attorney General advises us that under Irish law, we do not have the right to order people abroad on such missions. In most of those cases there is no international crisis so accordingly there is no UN resolution.
Under the Defence Act 1960, as amended in 1993, we are entitled to deploy troops, provided the requisite requirements are met, on a UN established mission. Deputy Sherlock is aware that, increasingly, the UN is subcontracting out, so to speak, some of this work to regional agencies such as the EU or the Organisation of African States. That is called an authorised mission. It is not established directly by the UN but authorised by it. We are advised by the Attorney General that the wording of the defence legislation probably extends to an authorised mission, although we are taking a chance on that. However, we have noticed in recent times that the UN tends to use different language such as "support" or "calls on to support". We will ensure that such a situation is covered and that our legislation will enable us to participate in a mission where the wording used is not "established" or "authorised" but perhaps "calls on" or "supports" and so on.
With regard to Deputy Sherlock's question about Ireland having a different model of neutrality to that of Sweden, I do not know what the Swedish model is. However, a UN resolution is not a legal requirement for the Swedes to deploy troops abroad. However, I understand it is a political requirement. The Swedes would be very slow to deploy troops on a foreign adventure without the sanction of the United Nations.
Deputy Sherlock raises a good point about international pressure. If we are in a situation whereby a battle group is ready to go and the United Nations resolution has not been passed, will we be under pressure in terms of the battle group not being able to operate because we cannot go? That is precisely why, in the discussions in Oslo on putting together these multinational battle groups, there will be built-in redundancy. There will be provisions to cover a situation whereby one or more participants in the multinational battle group cannot participate for one reason or another. That will be an essential feature of multinational battle groups. Otherwise the situation envisaged by Deputy Sherlock would arise.
We have a situation whereby there is a fixed number of troops, a fixed number of countries with a fixed contribution to a particular battle group. We might contribute perhaps only 20 explosives and ordnance personnel. The UN resolution might not have been passed, everything is ready and people are about to be slaughtered, but the battle group will not be able to move because we cannot send our 20 people owing to the lack of the UN resolution. Such a situation would apply tremendous pressure and compromise the integrity of national decision-making. That is why there will be a built-in redundancy provision so that someone else can step in during such a situation.
Deputy Sherlock also asked about our neutrality. That will not be compromised in any way. Traditionally, Ireland participated in international peacekeeping missions in the traditional way whereby the United Nations contacts various countries and deploys a group. Recently, the United Nations has been contracting out work to the EU or the Organisation of African States, for example. The deployment of battle groups is simply an extension of that. Various situations have arisen in recent times where, collectively, civilised countries have not been able to act quickly to prevent slaughter and massacre and to save people's lives. The battle group concept exists to meet that type of situation.
Ireland will look at each case. The battle groups are designed to carry out the Petersberg Tasks. If we think that any battle group of which we are part is being asked to do anything which constitutes common defence, going to war or anything of that nature, we will not participate. It will be decided case by case and within the terms of Bunreacht na hÉireann which specifically prohibits us from becoming engaged in common or neutral defence.
Finian McGrath
Question:3 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Defence the serious misleading and contradictory evidence examined in the military archive in relation to the Niemba ambush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7494/06]
Following a number of questions in the Dáil on this matter, including some from Deputy Finian McGrath, I undertook to have the military archive examined in relation to the Niemba ambush and to revert with the findings.
The question arising was whether Trooper Browne was killed at the Niemba ambush or survived for a few days and was killed near a village where he was foraging for food. A recently published book, The Irish Army in the Congo 1960-1964: The Far Battalions, outlines the second version and draws on material from the unit history for its account. This differs from the long held understanding that nine members of the Defence Forces died at Niemba.
Accordingly, I requested the military authorities to examine the relevant files and they have returned with the following information. The unit history referred to, which was written six years after the event, holds many differing accounts of how Trooper Browne met his untimely death and does not attempt to reconcile them. It includes an account that Trooper Browne survived past the initial action for two days and was killed approximately three miles from the site of the action. However, this information was not included in the Dáil replies because, I am informed, it is not supported by any independent sources.
In November 1961 the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Elizabethville convicted five Baluba tribesmen of killing Trooper Browne and eight others on 8 November 1960. Information from Baluba survivors in Manona hospital in 1960 led investigators to believe Trooper Browne was killed at Niemba and his body had been removed from the scene by the ambushers. It was a Baluba custom to bear away from the field of battle their most courageous victim. It was decided that, on the balance of probability, Trooper Browne died on the battlefield in an attempt to save his comrades' lives. What remains incontrovertible is that Trooper Browne died, directly or indirectly, as a result of the Niemba engagement.
I thank the Minister for his response and commend the work of the Irish troops serving with the United Nations, particularly their role in dangerous global conflicts.
The Minister's contention that Trooper Browne died at Niemba is disputed by two survivors of the massacre and the officer in charge of the search party, which failed to find Browne in November 1960. Have the Minister's officials made any attempt to contact the two Niemba survivors, Mr. Joe Fitzpatrick and Mr. Tom Kenny, to ascertain their opinions? If not, why is that the case?
The Minister stated Trooper Browne's body was removed from the scene and added it was a Baluba custom to "bear away from the field of battle their most courageous victim". This is incorrect. A retired Swedish army officer who worked as an interpreter at Niemba for the Army stated there were some pictures of mutilated bodies but, in all cases, the remains were left on the spot and it was quite unlikely the Balubas would carry away a whole body, as it was more normal to take away body parts for medicine, strength and eating.
In light of the disparity of opinion on the Niemba controversy, will the Minister commission an independent assessment of the known facts rather than an Army inquiry in the interests of historical accuracy? Will the Minister and his officials revisit the book The Irish Army in the Congo 1960-1964: The Far Battalions by Mr. David O’Donoghue? They should study this book carefully as the strong evidence therein must be examined by an independent person to bring closure for the families involved.
The book to which Deputy Finian McGrath refers draws considerably on the unit history, which contains a number of differing accounts and makes no attempt to reconcile them.
When this matter was raised in the House by the Deputy and others, I asked the Army, which is the first port of call in such a situation, to examine its archives and investigate the matter generally. The Army has done so and I have outlined the reply it communicated to me. I cannot answer the Deputy's question on whether the Army spoke specifically with the two survivors but I will check and return to the Deputy on the matter.
I am not an expert on Baluba customs but have informed Deputy Finian McGrath of what I have been told. It is the understanding of people who are more familiar with these issues than I that the Balubas carry away the body of the most courageous opposing warrior. I do not know whether it is the tradition to carry part of the body only.
Before we commit ourselves to an independent investigation or the like I will accept the Deputy's suggestion to have the relevant people in the Army revisit the matter to specifically deal with the points he raised, including speaking to the two survivors. If Deputy Finian McGrath wishes, I will return to him on the matter in writing.
I have a final question.
We are running behind schedule.
It is important to reconcile the two accounts.
Yes.
Defence Forces Recruitment.
Billy Timmins
Question:4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the level of female membership of all units of the Defence Forces; the steps he will take to encourage more women to join the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7507/06]
The levels of female membership of units of the Permanent Defence Force, as advised by the military authorities are provided in the form of the following tabular statement.
There are currently 528 female personnel serving in the Permanent Defence Force. The Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women in the Defence Forces, namely, the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and Reserve Defence Force, and the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activities. This means women are eligible on the same basis as men for participation in operational and ceremonial activities, assignment to all military appointments and educational and training courses and promotion. All female personnel undergo the same training and receive the same military education as their male counterparts.
To encourage increased participation by women in the Defence Forces, my predecessor decided in March 1998 to reduce the height requirement for all female recruits to 162.5 cm, or 5 ft. 4 in. This height requirement also applies to male recruits. The Defence Forces actively encourage female applicants, for example, by advertising, recruitment fairs and school visits. Where possible, all graphical advertisements and booklets produced for the Defence Forces show both male and female personnel and emphasise that all applicants are assessed on an equal basis. Stands at recruiting fairs are generally staffed by male and female personnel. When the Defence Forces are invited to give talks at mixed or all female schools, every effort is made to provide a female speaker. The number of female personnel in the Permanent Defence Force has increased from 244 at the end of 1997 to 528 at present. This constitutes an increase of more than 100% in the number of females serving over this period.
On 5 August 2005 I wrote to the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a number of outside organisations seeking their views and recommendations as to how more women might be encouraged to enlist in the Defence Forces. All of their replies have been received, the last on 17 January 2006, and are being examined in my Department in order to proceed to the next phase of the operation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I propose that officials, both civil and military, of the Department of Defence will meet representatives of each of the organisations that made submissions, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, and the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA. These meetings will consider ideas and suggestions and explore possible improvements or changes to the programme of recruitment to encourage more females to join the Defence Forces.
|
BRIGADE |
UNIT |
TOTAL |
|
DFHQ |
DFHQ |
7 |
|
1 SOUTHERN BDE |
1 BDE MP COY |
3 |
|
1 CAV SQN |
5 |
|
|
1 FD ARTY REGT |
10 |
|
|
1 FD CIS COY |
9 |
|
|
1 FD ENG COY |
3 |
|
|
1 LOGS SP BN |
14 |
|
|
1 S BDE HQ |
10 |
|
|
12 INF BN |
23 |
|
|
3 INF BN |
10 |
|
|
31 RES FD CIS COY |
1 |
|
|
4 INF BN |
29 |
|
|
KILWORTH CAMP |
1 |
|
|
NO 1 SCTY COY |
1 |
|
|
TOTAL 1 SOUTHERN BDE |
119 |
|
|
2 EASTERN BDE |
2 BDE MP COY |
5 |
|
2 CAV SQN |
10 |
|
|
2 E BDE HQ |
3 |
|
|
2 FD ARTY REGT |
6 |
|
|
2 FD CIS COY |
2 |
|
|
2 FD ENG COY |
1 |
|
|
2 INF BN |
12 |
|
|
2 LOGS SP BN |
9 |
|
|
27 INF BN |
18 |
|
|
5 INF BN |
11 |
|
|
DFHQ CIS COY |
4 |
|
|
DFSM |
6 |
|
|
EQUIT SCH |
12 |
|
|
LOGS BASE HOSPITAL |
12 |
|
|
MC KEE BKS COY |
11 |
|
|
TOTAL 2 EASTERN BDE |
122 |
|
|
4 WESTERN BDE |
1 INF BN |
16 |
|
28 INF BN |
9 |
|
|
4 BDE MP COY |
1 |
|
|
4 BDE TRG CENTRE |
3 |
|
|
4 CAV SQN |
3 |
|
|
4 FD ARTY REGT |
7 |
|
|
4 FD CIS COY |
7 |
|
|
4 FD ENGR COY |
1 |
|
|
4 LOGS SP BN |
12 |
|
|
4 W BDE HQ |
9 |
|
|
6 INF BN |
20 |
|
|
USAC |
1 |
|
|
TOTAL 4 WESTERN BRIGADE |
89 |
|
|
DFTC |
1 AMD CAV SQN |
5 |
|
3 INF BN |
9 |
|
|
AD REGT |
10 |
|
|
CSC |
6 |
|
|
CSSC |
13 |
|
|
DFTC HQ |
8 |
|
|
DFTC FCA HQ |
1 |
|
|
DFTC MP COY |
7 |
|
|
LBC |
7 |
|
|
MIL |
23 |
|
|
SSU |
20 |
|
|
TOTAL DFTC |
109 |
|
|
AIR CORPS |
AC CIS SQN |
2 |
|
AC COLLEGE |
4 |
|
|
AC HQ |
2 |
|
|
NO 1 OPS WING |
8 |
|
|
NO 3 OPS WING |
2 |
|
|
NO 4 SP WING |
2 |
|
|
NO 5 SP WING |
3 |
|
|
TOTAL AIR CORPS |
23 |
|
|
NAVAL SERVICE |
FLOTILLA — LE AISLING |
3 |
|
FLOTILLA — LE AOIFE |
2 |
|
|
FLOTILLA — LE EITHNE |
6 |
|
|
FLOTILLA — LE EMER |
3 |
|
|
FLOTILLA — LE NIAMH |
5 |
|
|
FLOTILLA — LE ROISIN |
4 |
|
|
FLOTILLA — RELIEF POOL |
1 |
|
|
GEN LIST NS |
2 |
|
|
NS COL |
13 |
|
|
NS HQ |
1 |
|
|
NS OPS COMD |
10 |
|
|
NS SP COMD |
9 |
|
|
TOTAL NAVAL SERVICE |
59 |
Will the Minister inform the House of the proposals in the reports of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and other bodies?
In a previous reply the Minister stated he would examine the height requirement for women, which is an old chestnut. The former Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, reduced the requirement from 5 ft. 5 in. to 5 ft. 4 in. but he also reduced the requirement for males to the same height. The Defence Forces have put forward the case that a certain height requirement is needed for carrying loads but there is no scientific evidence on which to base this requirement. I am sure some of our top international male and female weight-lifters are shorter than 5 ft. 4 in. The Minister should examine the research on the body mass index carried out in his constituency in the former Thomond College.
Does the Minister agree the average height of women is less than that of men? If the entry requirement is 5 ft. 4 in. for both genders, it discriminates against women as a far greater percentage of women than men cannot apply for the Defence Forces. Does the Minister understand my point? He has a mathematical brain and it should not be a difficult issue to grasp.
I plan to discuss the contents of the reports with my officials, the Army and the representative organisations RACO and PDFORRA. I have no problem with publishing their contents at that stage. I expect the discussions to take place shortly.
The internal debate on the medical barrier to further reducing the height requirements for female applicants continues. As Deputy Timmins states, medical evidence suggests it would be dangerous for people of a lesser height to engage in this type of work. I have asked the Army to examine the latest scientific findings, re-evaluate the situation and consider the type of tasks members of the Army would be asked to undertake. This may allow us to overcome this difficulty. Men tend to be taller than women but the number of women who join the Army is in proportion to the number of applicants.
How can we encourage more women to apply? Women constitute approximately 5% of the Irish Permanent Defence Force compared to 9% in the United Kingdom, 14% in the United States and 13% in Sweden and France. We must increase the Irish figure. I recognise that the height requirement is a barrier to women joining. I have asked the Army to report to me on how the workload may be altered to accommodate more women if findings do not change.
Defence Forces Inquiry.
Joe Sherlock
Question:5 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the new investigation into the death of Army Private Kevin Barrett in Lebanon seven years ago; if he has met the Barrett family to discuss details of the new investigation; when the investigation is set to commence; the length of time he expects it to last; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7493/06]
Private Kevin Barrett died on 18 February 1999 while serving with the 84th infantry battalion in Lebanon. His death 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 also held an inquest into the death of Private Barrett from 5 to 8 September 2005. The jury in the inquest returned an open verdict.
I met Mrs. Barrett, who was accompanied by her solicitor, on 4 October 2005. During my meeting with Mrs. Barrett I gave her an undertaking to have the interaction between my Department and the Defence Forces and her and Private Barrett's family reviewed by an independent person.
On 28 October 2005 I appointed Mr. Sean Hurley to carry out an independent review of the interaction between the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces and parents and family of Private Barrett in the aftermath of his tragic death. I received his report on 2 February 2006.
Mr. Hurley has conducted a thorough inquiry and has provided a detailed and frank report. It is clear and concise and covers the issues raised with me by Kevin Barrett's family. Mr. Hurley examined how the Department and the Defence Forces interacted with the Barrett family after Kevin Barrett's death and identified some clear failings and shortcomings. Copies of the review were provided to the Barrett family and its legal advisers on 3 February 2006, and the full report was published on my Department's website on 6 February 2006.
I accept the recommendations and conclusions contained in the report and I assure the Barrett family that I will act on these. Important lessons have been learnt for the future and errors that have occurred in the handling of this tragic case, outlined by Mr. Hurley, must never be repeated. Mr. Hurley acknowledges that some of these have since been addressed in the new Guidelines for Dealing with Bereaved Families introduced by the Defence Forces in 2001. These guidelines will be reviewed to include Mr. Hurley's recommendations.
On receipt of Mr. Hurley's report, I contacted the Garda Commissioner and asked him to provide for me his views on any possible assistance the Garda Síochána could provide. A Garda officer has since been assigned to the case and is examining my Department's files and the Defence Forces files on the case to determine whether the Garda Síochána can provide assistance in the matter.
I repeat my apology to the Barrett family for the pain and suffering they endured following Kevin's tragic death.
The Minister's reply is somewhat disappointing as I had hoped it would be more positive. Mr. Hurley's report made some clear, specific recommendations on what should happen next. Will the Minister state whether Mr. Hurley's recommendations are being implemented? Mr. Hurley's report is damning and raises serious questions on the manner in which the Defence Forces operate. The Minister must show leadership by immediately establishing a new investigation, which the Barrett family has campaigned for. Mr. Hurley's report vindicates this campaign.
The report covered the manner in which the Department treated the Barrett family. The Minister has met the family and many questions remain unanswered about the manner of the death, the way in which the body was treated after the death and the reason an open verdict was returned in the original investigation. The Barrett family has had no closure on the death and I ask the Minister to make every effort to have these issues addressed.
Concerning Deputy Sherlock's first question, it is my intention to implement the recommendations in the Hurley report. The majority of the report concerns the interaction between the family, the Department and the Army. Some improvements had been made since 2001 but Mr. Hurley recommends further changes and these will be implemented. I discussed these with the Chief of Staff as recently as today.
Regarding Mr. Hurley's recommendations for an investigation, it was concluded that the original investigation was incomplete and that there was probably room for a further investigation. He did not state that a Garda investigation or a military court of inquiry was the appropriate method of investigation. A number of options were suggested.
My preference, and that of the family, would be for a Garda investigation. A Garda superintendent is examining files to assess whether a Garda investigation is warranted. I spoke to the Garda Commissioner and I await the recommendations of the superintendent before deciding on the format of the investigation.
I agree the Barrett family has had no closure and it is a matter of continuing trauma. I spoke to Mrs. Barrett today and arranged to meet her following my return from Liberia. At that stage I expect to have the Garda findings.
Is the Minister prepared for a new investigation into this matter?
Yes.
Commemorative Events.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:6 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence the preparations his Department is taking for the military parade on 16 April 2006 to mark the 1916 Easter Rising 90th commemoration; if he will march in the parade; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7484/06]
Brendan Howlin
Question:52 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide further details of preparations being made in advance of the military parade in Dublin on Easter Sunday to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising; if the inaugural meeting of the planning group involving representatives of the Houses of the Oireachtas has taken place; the agenda for its consultations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7175/06]
Michael Lowry
Question:166 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the 90th anniversary commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising; his further plans to accommodate the family representatives of deceased soldiers from 1916 until the foundation of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7562/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 52 and 166 together.
The Easter Rising of 1916 will be commemorated by a military parade in Dublin on Sunday, 16 April 2006. Preparations for the parade, as announced by the Taoiseach last October, are being made by the Defence Forces. Approximately 2,500 personnel representing all branches of the forces together with representatives of ex-service personnel and veterans of UN service will be included. The parade will also include members of the Garda Síochána, representing their service abroad with the United Nations. A fly-past by the Aer Corps is also envisaged.
The parade will depart from Dublin Castle and will pass through Dame Street, College Green and O'Connell Street. There will be a reading of the proclamation outside the GPO and appropriate military honours will be rendered. The event will be televised live and it will be possible to view the parade along the route from Dublin Castle to O'Connell Street. I will be present on the viewing stand at the GPO.
This 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising will also be marked by a wreath-laying ceremony in Kilmainham Gaol earlier that morning and by a Government reception at Dublin Castle that evening. Officials of my Department and officers of the Defence Forces are represented on an interdepartmental working group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, which is overseeing all the logistical arrangements for the parade and associated events. This group is meeting regularly and includes, inter alia, representatives from the Garda Síochána, Dublin City Council, the fire services and the Office of Public Works. Many logistical issues such as the parade route, road closures, health and safety regulations and publicity must be addressed and the group is dealing with these issues.
The group is also dealing with the issue of invitations to the viewing stands outside the GPO. The invitations being issued for the ceremonies this year include the relatives of the 1916 leaders and volunteers who were killed in action in 1916 based on the list used for the annual Arbour Hill commemoration.
As the House can appreciate, there are space limitations in O'Connell Street which restrict the number of places on the reviewing stand to approximately 900 people. Provision must be made for the categories which normally, in part or in whole, make up the invitation lists for State events. These include the Government, the Council of State, Deputies, Senators, the Judiciary, the diplomatic corps, semi-State organisations, social partners, national cultural and sporting organisations and the universities.
On the invitation of the Taoiseach, all parties in the Oireachtas have nominated spokespersons to offer advice on the appropriate scope and content of a 1916 centenary commemoration committee to be put in place in coming years. I understand that the first meeting of this group will take place next week.
I am glad to hear that the reading of the proclamation will take place. Does the Minister agree that a central part of the preparations and celebrations should be to take the 1916 Proclamation as a yardstick of how we have progressed as a nation? Does the Minister believe that this Government guarantees the equal rights and equal opportunities of all of its citizens? Does he believe this Government cherishes all of the children of the nation equally?
How does he think the men and women of 1916 would feel about our Taoiseach, who spends €550 a week on make up? That is more than the average industrial wage.
That is not an appropriate question in this regard.
He expects the taxpayer to pay for his vanity. How would those people feel about the movers and shakers——
The Deputy must confine himself to the question.
I will confine myself to the question.
For a change.
The central question is the 1916 Proclamation.
The question is about the celebrations.
How would the men and women of 1916 feel about the movers and shakers in the Galway tent who buy access and opportunity? How would they feel about the blatant inequalities——
That is not an appropriate question.
——in our health system?
The question is on the Easter celebrations.
How would they feel about the corruption and how would they feel about the fact that the Acting Chairman's constituency colleague, Deputy Wright, goes unpunished for taking sops from developers?
Deputy Gormley must resume his seat.
No, I want to continue. My final question——
A relevant one for a change.
This is relevant.
For a change.
I take it from the Minister's reply that he will not march in the parade. That was my question. I am somewhat surprised and relieved, given the Minister's past performance. I expected that he would lead our Defence Forces up O'Connell Street, perhaps brandishing a pistol, pointing it at the cameras——
Deputy Gormley must conclude.
——and using it for a cheap photo opportunity. Will the Minister state why the committee has not met to date, despite many promises? Many of my colleagues were told the committee would meet. There has been no such meeting.
The question was about the organisation of the 1916 celebrations and I intend to confine my reply to that matter specifically. I outlined already to Deputy Gormley those who will march in the parade. It will be Defence Forces, ex-servicemen, United Nations veterans and members of the police in recognition of their service abroad. As I do not fall into any of those categories, ipso facto I will not march.
The other matters are completely beside the point. Regarding the question on why the committee has not met, I attempted to organise a meeting this week. Representatives of Sinn Féin, the Technical Group and Fine Gael were all prepared to accommodate it. Unfortunately, the Labour Party's nominated person, Deputy McManus, was not available. She thought the notice was too short and that is fine. We will arrange the meeting for next week.
Briefly, regarding Question No. 52, I did not catch the statement which the Minister made. Has the inaugural meeting of the planning group involving representatives of the Houses of the Oireachtas taken place? If not, why not?
I stated that I tried to organise it for this week but due to the Labour Party's spokesperson being unavailable, for understandable reasons, it will take place next week instead.
I welcome the concept and plan to commemorate 1916. Does the Minister agree that part of the celebrations and commemorations should include all political persuasions, inside and outside the House, and ensure that all traditions and all religions, including Catholic, Protestant and dissenter, are involved in the celebration? Does the Minister agree that Independent Deputies and members of the Technical Group will also have an important role to play on this committee?
Does the Minister accept that successive Governments have turned their backs on the 1916 commemoration during the past 30 years? This is sad for our country and nation, when compared with the celebrations in France and Independence Day in the United States. We should celebrate it, particularly with regard to issues of equality.
Part of any celebration or commemoration, especially in light of the teachings of James Connolly, should be programmes, projects and investment targeted at the most disadvantaged of our society. That would be a true commemoration of the men and women of 1916.
I am sure people of all persuasions and religious beliefs and none will be able to join in celebrating the sacrifice of the men of 1916. In so far as celebrating the other traditions, we will also have a commemoration for the people who died in the battle of the Somme in the first week of July. The Government will be represented on the annual national remembrance day as usual. I agree with Deputy McGrath that Independent Deputies and their representatives have an important part to play. That is why the Taoiseach decided they should be part of the steering committee. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
I do not agree with the Deputy that successive Governments turned their backs on the situation for the past 30 years. It was an annual event until 1971, when the Government decided to discontinue it because of the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I take the Deputy's point about France and the United States. However, they did not have a similar situation to what we had in 1971. I was not involved in politics at the time. I understand the Government was advised that it was inappropriate to celebrate 1916 with a military parade at a time when part of this country was engaged in major strife. We have decided to revive the tradition and I am glad of that.
Regarding focusing on disadvantage and wider cultural events, Deputy McGrath or his representative on the steering group will be able to input. We are reviving a tradition and a ceremony that took place up to 1971, which was a one-day operation involving a military parade followed by a reception in recognition of the people who participated and their relatives. What Deputy McGrath mentioned is appropriate. However, it is more appropriate to the centenary celebrations, which will be a major event and will continue for more than one day. We look forward to hearing the Deputy's contributions in the committee.
I agree that the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising should be marked. The Minister's party probably discovered how many people watched its Ard-Fheis through the number of people who immediately afterwards picked up on the announcement. When I heard it I was concerned that it would be just a military parade. That would have reflected only an element. The fundamental reason it should be celebrated is not the event itself, but why it took place.
My grandparents took part in the Rising in the Four Courts, and I have done some research into my family history. I would like to see more done in the context of a solid archive rather than a military history. There is substantially more that could be done. If one wants to find out about people who participated in the Rising, one must go to approximately six or seven different locations, including the archives in Kew, outside London. The material held there would be more appropriately held in this country so people in the lower echelons can find out about the Rising without having to travel to the UK.
I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for her support and I take her point. As it is unfortunately only a one-day event the military parade will be the centrepiece. Other events will include the wreath-laying ceremony at Kilmainham Gaol. There will also be an opportunity for a social occasion in the afternoon for invitees and relatives of those who participated. We will meet them and they will be invited to the State reception in Dublin Castle that evening. Other events not necessarily on the day will include the moving of The Asgard to the National Museum, the unveiling of a plaque in the Garden of Remembrance to people who died in United Nations service and the production of commemorative stamps both for the Battle of the Somme and the 1916 Rising. I take the Deputy’s point about the archives and the difficulty of research. It is a good point and has been mentioned to me before. I have asked my officials to look at it and will renew my conversation with them in light of the Deputy raising it. If she wishes I will write to her about it in the coming weeks.
The time has expired for this question.
I have no objection.
I support the concept that the State will celebrate one of the events that led to the founding of the State. It is inappropriate that it be just a military parade. It is a pity civic society is not being encouraged to be involved in the 90th anniversary. Hopefully steps will be taken as we go towards the 100th anniversary to ensure civic society in all its forms will be involved. When does the Minister intend to produce a list of the events the State is organising for the 90th anniversary? It is just over a month away and the Minister does not know all the details, which is a pity from the perspective of getting society involved. People have full diaries. Hopefully in the next few years the event will go beyond the single day and a military parade. That was fine in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but when we can have huge parades involving civic society on St. Patrick's Day we should ensure something similar or bigger is held on future anniversaries of the Rising.
I take the Deputy's point. I cannot announce all the events because there is a window of opportunity in the afternoon of the day itself. The parade will take place in the morning followed by a reading of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic outside the GPO. At approximately 7 p.m. there will be a State banquet in Dublin Castle. We had envisaged Government members meeting relatives of the survivors in a social setting.
That is all of Irish society.
If Opposition parties have other useful suggestions or ideas for what we could do in the afternoon I am willing to take them on board.
Much has been covered. I would have been available to attend today's meeting of the centenary committee. I understand the Minister is chairman of that committee. The centenary is almost ten years away. Perhaps we could put the centenary committee back a few weeks until after Easter lest there be any confusion. The Government has organised the events for the 90th anniversary. While there is a certain urgency on the part of the Department of the Taoiseach to have a meeting, we have waited 90 years and another three or four weeks will not matter. The Minster will be away next week. It might suit to hold the meeting after the 90th anniversary celebration lest the centenary committee take the blame for the contention associated with this year's celebrations. Are any of the people who were in the GPO in 1916 still alive? I know the half-brother of one of them is still alive.
We are going ahead with the meeting next week because while it is the committee's main function to begin planning the centenary in ten years time——
Will the Minister still be chairman of the committee in 2016?
We want to give the committee representatives an input into the immediate event. They may come up with some useful suggestions for the afternoon rather than the high-society event. Next week I have a meeting with the President of Liberia and have to visit our troops there and see the situation. People from the Taoiseach's office will chair the backup committee and I will be ably represented at that meeting by my intelligent and versatile colleague the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. I do not know whether anybody who was in the GPO in 1916 is still alive.
Will the committee include representatives of all the parties?
Yes it will include representative of the Labour Party, Fine Gael, the Technical Group and Sinn Féin. I thank everybody, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Timmins, representatives of the Technical Group and Deputy Gregory who kindly agreed to change their schedules to be available today. Unfortunately Deputy McManus was not available so I did not want to go ahead in her absence.
Awkward again.
I marched in the 50th anniversary military parade as a then member of the FCA——
So, the Deputy has paramilitary connections.
I might expect that from the other side of the House but not from my Independent colleague.
I apologise.
I am saying nothing.
I welcome the return of the parade. As there is a full day's celebration planned does the Minister feel it would be fitting that the principles and aspirations of equality of opportunity and cherishing all the children of the nation equally for which the men of 1916 fought, and as outlined in the Proclamation, would have a central and fitting role in the one-day 90th anniversary celebration? I am sure the committee will examine this issue in greater detail for the 100th anniversary. To have a solely military approach to the 90th anniversary is wrong and does not commemorate in a fitting way what the men and women of 1916 fought for. Would the Minister look for some way that this aspect of the heroism of those people could be commemorated to make it a fitting 90th anniversary celebration?
We are reviving what went before until 1971, an annual celebration the centrepiece of which was a military parade. We have the chance to change it. On the Deputy's suggestion that we do something in addition to the military parade to commemorate the principles underlying the Proclamation, I am open to suggestions. We have a window of opportunity in the afternoon after the military parade and before the State reception. I am open to practical suggestions on how that can be done.
Returning to my central point, which was taken up by Deputy Gregory, I ask the Minister to confirm to what extent the political idealism outlined in the Proclamation will be celebrated and analysed. How does the Minister feel that the Ireland of today measures up to those ideas? Does the Minister think — this is a genuine question — that the men and women of 1916 would be happy if they were to see the Ireland of today?
First, my party has no need to reclaim nationalism from anyone. We are the constitutional nationalist party and will continue to be such.
So is our party.
I already answered Deputy Gormley's second question in my reply to Deputy Gregory. If the Deputy has a practical suggestion to make on how we should commemorate those principles, I will be quite prepared to listen to it. He can make suggestions either directly to me or through the committee.
If the 1916 men were to come back today and see the wonderful and terrific strides we have made over the years, they would be proud to see we are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. We are a country that cherishes all the children of the nation.
That is not the case.
We cherish all the children of the nation much more equally than they were cherished in 1916. We are a far more equal and prosperous society and an infinitely better society. I would prefer to live in 2006 than in 1916.
Defence Forces Recruitment.
Joe Sherlock
Question:7 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence what efforts are being made to evolve the Defence Forces into an ethnically diverse military; his views on whether it is necessary to target recruitment from among ethnic minorities and other nationalities to acquire invaluable specialist linguistic and cultural knowledge for the Army’s missions at home and abroad; if he will set a specific target for increasing the numbers of non-nationals and members of ethnic minorities to be recruited to the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7169/06]
John Perry
Question:23 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Defence what steps are being taken to broaden the membership of the Defence Forces and to recruit non-nationals to the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7194/06]
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:69 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence if the Army will follow the Garda Síochána’s example by actively recruiting non-nationals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7483/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 23 and 69 together.
Entry to the Permanent Defence Force is either through the cadetship competition, apprenticeship competition, general service enlistment or direct entry competitions that are held to fill vacancies in specialist appointments. All applicants for each of these entry streams are required to meet qualifying criteria.
The question of the recruitment of foreign nationals to the Defence Forces is not a new one. Defence Force regulations have always allowed for the recruitment of ethnic minorities and foreign nationals to the Defence Forces. However, the operational requirements of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces are not directly comparable. My Department is not specifically targeting the recruitment of ethnic minorities for the Defence Forces at present. Current emphasis is on ensuring that there are no barriers to ethnic minorities or foreign nationals joining the Defence Forces. I have recently made changes to the cadet competition to broaden the entry criteria, thereby making it easier for qualifying foreign nationals to apply for cadetships.
In addition the Defence Forces equality policy, which was recently produced and formalised, underpins equality legislation. The policy states that the Defence Forces are committed to the principles of equal opportunities in all employment policies, procedures and regulations and will operate in an environment without discrimination in areas provided for by the Equality Acts. The policy also ensures that the principles of employment equality are employed in recruitment, promotion, training and work experience. All regulations and administrative instructions concerning service in the Defence Forces will be set out in a manner consistent with the equal opportunity policy, which will be reviewed with the Defence Force regulations on an ongoing basis by the Deputy chief of staff — support — to ensure compliance with best practice and to maintain a working environment in which all members of the Defence Forces are treated in a manner consistent with equal opportunities.
At the moment the primary focus in recruitment is to attract people with the core competencies required by the Defence Forces. Any specialist linguistic skills or cultural knowledge requirements identified by the chief of staff can be addressed through recruitment or through personnel development. My Department and the Defence Forces are fully committed to ensuring that all who wish to join the Defence Forces, including ethnic minorities and foreign nationals, are given the opportunity to do so.
The need for the Defence Forces to encourage recruitment among non-nationals is urgent. The Minister has not given us any idea of what efforts are being made to do that. The efforts in this regard by the Defence Forces must be contrasted with those of the Garda Síochána, which has a make-up that is much more representative of modern Ireland. There is an obligation on the Defence Forces to follow suit. Will the Minister therefore increase the embryonic diversification campaign that has begun to make the Defence Forces much more ethnically representative? What practical steps is he taking in that regard.
As I said, our emphasis at the moment is to prevent people of foreign and ethnic origin from being discriminated against when they apply to join the Defence Forces. I take Deputy Sherlock's point about the efforts being made by the Garda Síochána, but the Garda is a different type of organisation from the Defence Forces. Whereas we need gardaí who can relate to people in ethnic communities, who can speak their language and know their customs, the same considerations do not apply to the Army. If, as occasionally happens, the Army needs people with certain language skills and knowledge of certain cultures, that is an operational matter for the chief of staff. He has assured me that the Army can get all the people it needs in that regard through the ordinary recruitment process.
I take on board what the Garda has done, but the Army faces a different situation. The development of a multi-ethnic society presents challenges for us all, including the Defence Forces. For the moment, we will observe what lessons can be learned from the policies that the Garda Síochána is pursuing. However, I am advised by those who have operational charge for such matters that there is currently no need for a specific recruitment campaign to increase the percentage of non-nationals in the Army.
National Emergency Plan.
Ciarán Cuffe
Question:8 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the February 2006 meeting of the task force on emergency planning that he chairs. [7482/06]
Pádraic McCormack
Question:14 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Defence when the task force on emergency planning last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7206/06]
Brian O'Shea
Question:39 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the outcome of the most recent meeting of the task force on emergency planning; the issues that were discussed at this meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7179/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 14 and 39 together.
The Government task force on emergency planning has worked since it was set up in 2001 to co-ordinate emergency planning and response arrangements across the Departments that would lead and support the State's response in an emergency. The task force continues to meet regularly, most recently on Wednesday, 8 February, which was two weeks ago today. The membership of the task force includes Ministers, senior departmental officials, senior officers of the Defence Forces and Garda Síochána and officials of other key public authorities who have a lead or support role in Government emergency planning.
The Department of Agriculture and Food is represented on the task force, which it has briefed on avian flu developments most recently on 8 February. This issue is now a standing item on the task force's agenda and the situation will continue to be monitored and reviewed at future meetings. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who is responsible for dealing with the threat posed by an outbreak of avian flu, has introduced a range of measures aimed at minimising the risk of the virus being introduced to Ireland. Both she and her Department are keeping their contingency arrangements under constant review and refining them as necessary. Her Department's approach is informed by the most up-to-date scientific and veterinary advice available. Only last week the Minister appointed an expert advisory group to advise her as to the adequacy of the control measures in place.
The task force meeting on 8 February was also briefed by a representative of the Department of Health and Children on the plans being put in place to deal with any possible influenza pandemic. My colleague with lead responsibility in this area, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, is addressing the various issues that may arise. A detailed plan for response to an influenza pandemic was prepared in 2004. This plan is being updated to reflect the most up-to-date advice of the influenza pandemic expert group and the World Health Organisation. An interdepartmental standing committee chaired by the Department of Health and Children will meet on 27 February to consider the many cross-cutting issues that may arise.
The Government task force on emergency planning will continue to be briefed and updated on these matters and on related emergency planning issues on a regular and ongoing basis.
Is the Minister aware of Tom Clonan's recent study, which suggested that if a Stardust incident were to recur the city's accident and emergency units would be full within 20 minutes and would find difficulty in coping? Tom Clonan has carried out a number of studies indicating we would be unable to deal with a major emergency. Will the Minister comment on that?
For a possible flu pandemic, is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient stocks of antivirals for members of the Defence Forces, who would obviously be on the front line in dealing with such an emergency?
I am familiar with the work to which Deputy Gormley referred but I do not agree with that conclusion. We have a detailed twofold plan that specifies how the various aspects of the public would deal with a specific emergency and provides a number of specific disease-related plans for dealing with an outbreak of pandemic influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, smallpox and so on. Therefore, I am confident we would be able to deal with that. Mr. Tom Clonan, for whom I have great regard is not accurate in that assessment. On the possible outbreak of an influenza pandemic, the answer is that I am satisfied. The position with anti-virals is that the Government has decided we need sufficient stocks to cater for about 25% of the population initially. That would be about a million shots. We have 600,000 already and are expecting delivery of another 400,000. There is a pharmaceutical ingredient called oseltamivir phosphate powder, which is designed to treat children between the ages of one and five. We are awaiting delivery of a substantial consignment. It has been agreed that additional supplies of the other suitable antiviral drug, Relenza, should be stockpiled. Arrangements for the purchases of this additional stock are being finalised. The timeframe for delivery is under discussion with the suppliers.
I do not doubt the ability of this country to improvise if there is a slow-burner crisis, to put shoulders to the wheel and to deal with the issue. I have grave reservations, however, about an immediate or sudden crisis. To give one example, on 13 February on the M50 there was a crash involving a couple of trucks. Fortunately no one was fatally injured but the whole motorway closed for a few hours. I do not know whether the Minister's emergency task force will look at something like that. If not, will he say why it took so long for a helicopter to get into the air to try to start diverting traffic?
I am not familiar with that specific incident, though I can make inquiries. One thing I have emphasised strongly for the emergency task force, which it does now on a regular basis as people such as Mr. Tom Clonan acknowledge, is that it conducts exercises. There have been quite a number involving crashes and pile-ups, train and car crashes etc. We saw the emergency services in action in the tragic situation in County Meath where a number of school children were killed and injured. Everybody agrees, including the parents of those children to whom I spoke on the day I went there, that the emergency services worked very well in practice. However, the job of the emergency task force is to continue to refine and develop its response to an emergency. To do that properly, as Mr. Clonan has pointed out and I agree, we have to conduct regular exercises. We have conducted exercises on nuclear fall-out and various other matters. One of the main types of exercise we conduct, however, is related to the fall-out from a crash, whether a road accident, train crash or whatever. We are continually exercising in that regard. I do not know what happened, as regards the incident to which Deputy Timmins referred.
It meant the whole place was bottled up for a few hours.
I will make inquiries into that. I am not familiar with it.
Given that the Air Corps is providing a helicopter service, as regards the M50, does the Minister not accept that it is impossible for anything other than dedicated service to be available? A report has shown that a helicopter medical service that is available on a North-South basis is essential. It would mean such a helicopter would be available together with a fully staffed crew, in effect a flying intensive care unit comprising doctor, medic etc., to go to the location of an accident. I agree that new helicopters are being brought on board. However, if those helicopters have a multitude of tasks to do, they will not be available when they are needed in such an emergency and lives will be lost. Lives have been lost and I can give the Minister the figures to prove that. Also, the equipment they carry reflects their multipurpose role, so they are not capable of doing the job that should be done. Lives have been lost, accordingly. Will the Minister comment on that because the helicopters he has are not dedicated and have many other jobs to do? As a result there are many incidences where people died on the side of the road because the proper stretchers were not available and so on. These are matters of public record. Does the Minister agree we need a dedicated helicopter emergency medical service?
My information is that the air rescue service is working very well. I am not aware of any instances, especially, where people died because of any fault or slowness in the services. When we were operating a helicopter rescue service using Army aircraft rather than the current arrangement, we ran out of capacity to provide a full 24-hour service because of industrial action — the Air Corps version of blue 'flu. Because of that we had to change that system. I am told the new system is working very well. If Deputy Cowley has particular examples where he believes people suffered further injury or even death, as a result of helicopters not being available in time, I invite him to communicate them to me, privately.
I thank the Minister and I certainly will do that. The Beaumont study has shown that it can be up to 12 hours before a helicopter comes and people have died. A young lad from the west with head injuries after a road traffic accident died because of a delay in transferring him to Beaumont Hospital in Dublin. A tourist died on the side of the road because a helicopter was delayed in arriving at the scene. There are many examples I will be pleased to give the Minister.
I look forward to getting those.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.