Vol. 619 No. 1
65 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Defence his plans to improve the facilities, including increasing the number of personnel and extending the accommodation at the military archive, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17155/06]
The military authorities advise that the staff strength of the military archive is three, comprising a commissioned officer, a non-commissioned officer and a private. As I told Deputy Timmins earlier, two further commissioned officers serving at the military archive retired recently and approval has been granted for their replacement. The requirement for a more suitable home for the military archive has been recognised for some time. The primary focus has been on the National Museum of Ireland facility at the former Collins Barracks, Dublin, long considered the most appropriate location for the military archive. Facilities are required to protect and safeguard the material stored and future material as well as permitting easy public access. An interdepartmental committee was established in early 2003 with the terms of reference to examine and to advise on the best means of protecting and safeguarding the national military archive by way of securing its removal from Cathal Brugha Barracks to new premises to be developed at the former Collins Barracks, Dublin.
In the period up to early 2005 architectural consultants commissioned by the OPW carried out feasibility studies based on a detailed examination of the Collins Barracks site. The consultants identified potential locations within the Collins Barracks site. However, they also raised issues around the cost, planning and building or architectural protection considerations involved in meeting the demands of the military archive on the Collins Barracks site. The implications of the serious questions raised about the location of the full military archive on this site are being examined in my Department.
The challenge with rehousing the military archive remains the provision of extensive, modern, purpose-built facilities within an historic built environment. Consideration of some use of the Collins Barracks site has not been exhausted. However, I am considering revising the terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee and reactivating it to broaden the search for a solution to this issue. I have also requested that the scope for locating the military archives together with or alongside the National Archives be explored further in line with that body's own development plans.
The Minister obviously believes the situation is no longer suitable for the excellent service the military archive provides. I welcome his decision to re-examine the terms of reference of the committee that previously sat because while it came up with recommendations, there is a view that it has stagnated. It is important to get it right. Does the Minister take the view that the service should remain in Dublin? That is important because many people come from abroad to consult it. In recent years we have made a virtue of showing how much we get for selling property in Dublin as the Government and the OPW try to justify decentralisation. Will the Minister look at some of the properties the OPW is trying to sell and the loss of which might be short-sighted? The Minister mentioned the National Museum. Did he mean the one on Bishop Street?
I referred to the museum at Collins Barracks.
Is he talking about relocating to Collins Barracks?
Yes.
Does the Minister make a clear distinction between the National Archives and National Museum and a military museum? I am not aware that we have a national military museum. The National Museum has occasionally displayed matters of a military nature. Obviously the archives are a different matter. Could a military archive and military museum be housed within the same general space? Has the Minister considered this possibility?
I said when the interdepartmental committee was set up in 2003 that the primary focus was on the National Museum of Ireland facility at the former military barracks, Collins Barracks, Dublin. It was asked to determine whether the military archives could be taken out of Cathal Brugha Barracks and relocated at Collins Barracks — this was the extent of its brief.
Difficulties have arisen. Initially the architectural consultants produced three reports outlining the pros and cons — mostly cons — of certain locations within Collins Barracks. Subsequently, in January 2005, the consultants produced two further reports. Difficulties have arisen in respect of all the proposed locations and I have therefore revitalised and reactivated the interdepartmental committee and asked it to extend its search beyond Collins Barracks. It is more or less understood and I can confirm that the search will not extend beyond Dublin. I have sent word to the interdepartmental committee, and intend to tell its members personally that I want a range of options by the end of the summer, at which time we will have to decide on one option or a combination thereof.
Deputy Costello will be aware that the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism is responsible for the National Archives and it has been engaged for some time in trying to find another home for them. The Department of Defence in turn has been speaking to that Department to determine whether we could work together and house the military archives and the National Archives in one building. These discussions have not gone particularly far and I do not believe we will achieve our objective, desirable as it may be.
66 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Defence if the Naval Service has the equipment to enable it to carry out satellite monitoring of fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17135/06]
The Naval Service, supported by the Air Corps maritime patrol aircraft, provides Ireland with a very effective fisheries protection service in accordance with our EU obligations and the requirements of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which has primary policy responsibility in this area.
EU Regulation No. 1489/1997 introduced satellite-based vessel monitoring systems, VMSs, for fishing vessels in the European Union from 1 January 2000. Another European Union regulation, No. 2244/2003, effective from 1 January 2005, further increased the range of fishing vessels that must comply with VMS regulations to all vessels over 15 m. Each member state has been tasked with operating a national fisheries monitoring centre, FMC, to carry out the monitoring of activity by such vessels.
In Ireland, the Naval Service was tasked with this function and the Irish FMC is operated from the naval base at Haulbowline. This centre is manned on a 24-hour basis, 365 days per annum, and is provided with the necessary equipment to monitor the activities of all EU fishing vessels in the Irish 200 nautical mile fishery zone and also Irish vessels operating on a worldwide basis.
I understand the Naval Service has a satellite system, the LIRSAT system, which it is operating on a pilot basis to assist in the monitoring of vessels. Is this correct and are there plans to extend it?
We had to introduce the system in response to two EU regulations. We have the satellite equipment on-shore to locate all EU vessels entering the Irish 200 nautical mile fishery zone and also to locate Irish vessels anywhere in the world. Those vessels carry an instrument which I believe is called a transponder.
Vessels over 15 m.
Yes. That system has been put in place. I understand from talking to the relevant officials in the Department that there were some teething difficulties. However, we have gone way beyond the pilot stage and the system is in full operation and working well.
Is it the case that fishing vessels over 15 m must have the transponder according to the EU regulation? If the Minister cannot clarify this, it is understandable.
Yes.
Should all vessels not have the system installed if they have not done so already? If not, could the Minister not go back to his counterparts in the European Union with a view to monitoring those vessels bringing illegal shipments of drugs into the country?
I do not know the position. I believe the system applies only to vessels over 15 m because these are the vessels covered by the regulations. I will talk to my officials about Deputy Timmins's last point.
To what extent is the system capable of catching, by way of satellite or the transponder system, vessels bringing illicit goods into the country, as mentioned by Deputy Timmins, and foreign and Irish fishing vessels landing illegal catches?
The system applies to vessels over 15 m. Two EU regulations, dating from 1997 and 2003, apply. The latter increased the range of fishing vessels that must comply with VMS regulations to all vessels over 15 m from 1 January 2005. I will check the position on smaller vessels and write to Deputy Costello in response.
67 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the number of cases which have been subject to review under the compensation rule since 2000 in respect of injury and disease; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17197/06]
121 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence the number of former members of the Defence Forces who applied for disablement pensions since 2000 in respect of injury and disease; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17195/06]
126 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence if the rule which precludes double compensation applied to both injury and disease claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17196/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 67, 121 and 126 together.
The Army Pensions Acts provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities to former members of the Permanent Defence Force in respect of permanent disablement due to a wound or injury attributable to military service, whether at home or abroad, or due to disease attributable to or aggravated by overseas service with the United Nations. These pensions are commonly known as disability pensions but, under the Acts, those granted in wound or injury cases are, in fact, wound pensions.
Section 13(2) of the Army Pensions Act 1923, as amended, provides that "Any compensation which may be received from or on behalf of the person alleged to be responsible for the act which caused the wounding . . . may be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity which might be awarded under this Act to or in respect of such officer or soldier and if such compensation is received after the award of any such pension or allowance the Minister may review the award and, having regard to the amount of such compensation, either terminate or reduce the amount thereof". The underlying objective of section 13(2) is to prevent double compensation in respect of the same disablement. Compensation of the kind in question would usually result from a civil action for damages against the Department of Defence, but compensation received from any other source is not excluded.
From 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2006, 297 applications for pensions under the Army Pensions Acts were made. Of these, 188 were in respect of wound and injury only, 46 were in respect of wound, injury and disease, and 63 were in respect of disease only. Of the 297 applications, 191 have been found eligible for a pension or gratuity, 83 have been unsuccessful and final decisions have not yet been made in the remaining 23 cases. Of those found eligible, 59 wound pension and gratuity cases have been or are being reviewed under section 13(2) of the 1923 Act. A full or partial reduction of benefit has been applied in 48 of these cases while final decisions have yet to be made in nine cases. Section 13(2) does not apply in cases related solely to disablement due to disease attributable to or aggravated by overseas service with the United Nations.
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he give a breakdown of the figures for each year since 2000?
We will supply those.
Are all 59 cases being reviewed under section 13(2) of the 1923 Act wound or injury cases? What kinds of injuries are involved? Is it solely because there is the danger or suspicion of double compensation in those cases?
I undertake to supply Deputy Costello with the yearly figures. Some 297 applications were made and 191 were deemed eligible for a pension or gratuity. Of those found eligible, 59 were wound pension and gratuity cases relating to compensation for a specific wound or injury. These are being reviewed. An actuarial report is prepared on the value of the compensation and the person in receipt of compensation is invited to submit personal financial information to the Department. Ultimately, the Minister decides by how much, if at all, the pension will be reduced. Those 59 cases fall into that category and relate to wound or injury cases.
Someone may lodge a claim on the basis of having suffered malaria on service abroad even though there is no specific wound or injury. They may make a civil claim, arguing that the Department of Defence did not provide the necessary protection or medication. Such compensation cannot be taken into account because when the Act was drafted it was not envisaged that people could sue for disease contracted abroad. There is a difference between the two categories. There is a third category, where someone suffers disease directly resulting from a wound or injury. If someone suffers a fracture while on overseas service and subsequently sues in respect of rheumatism that developed from the fracture, compensation is taken into account because it can be traced to a specific wound or injury.
Double compensation applies to injury but not to disease if the disease is contracted in such a way that might suggest neglect. Will the Minister explain the third category and confirm that injury equates with double compensation but disease does not?
It is complex. If someone suffers a bullet wound or a leg fracture while on army service, it is regarded as a wound or injury and he or she can apply for a pension in respect of this. If the person sues the Department of Defence and receives compensation, this will be taken into account.
If someone suffers a wound or injury which does not merit compensation and subsequently develops a medical condition arising from that wound or injury and decides to sue, compensation received will be taken into account in estimating the pension payment. Someone may contract malaria, which is not related to a specific wound or injury, and in such a case, compensation received is not taken into account. Avoidance of compensation applies to the first two categories but not to the third category, where one suffers a disease resulting from overseas service. I hope that clarifies matters for Deputy Costello.
I will read the Minister's response in detail.
68 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Defence the legislative changes which are required to enable Ireland’s participation in EU battle groups; when same will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17100/06]
71 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence the capabilities and military personnel which will be made available to an EU battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17183/06]
78 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Defence the like-minded nations with which Ireland has had discussions with respect to participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17094/06]
86 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Defence if he will expand on recent comments he made while speaking at the University of Limerick that he finds the use of the term “battle group” unfortunate; the reason he stated same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17210/06]
88 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the negotiations he has been involved in with potential partner countries that Irish troops would serve alongside in EU battle groups; when a final decision on this issue will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17211/06]
94 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Defence the latest timetable for legislation allowing Irish soldiers to participate in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17209/06]
103 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Defence his rationale for participating in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17204/06]
107 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Defence the capabilities Ireland can contribute to EU battle groups as outlined to Ireland’s Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 9 and 10 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17098/06]
109 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence when legislation will be forthcoming to facilitate Ireland’s participation in EU battle groups; the details of the legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17179/06]
110 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the meeting of representatives from his Department with their Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 9 and 10 March 2006 to discuss Ireland joining the Nordic battle group; if there have been further consultations with the Swedish Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17182/06]
116 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence when he will publish the interdepartmental reports examining all issues relating to Ireland’s potential participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17095/06]
470 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the discussions he has had with his EU colleagues in the matter of the formation of EU-led battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17417/06]
471 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if he has been approached by the EU or the UN in regard to the composition of EU battle groups, task forces or PFP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17418/06]
476 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the position in regard to the development of RAPID response forces within or outside the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17423/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 68, 71, 78, 86, 88, 94, 103, 107, 109, 110, 116, 470, 471 and 476 together.
The ambition of the EU 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 ESDP and 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 ESDP is also fully in accordance with our traditional support for the UN and our obligations as members of the international community, to respond to crises, events and humanitarian disasters, wherever they may occur. Because ESDP is an element of common foreign and security policy, Petersberg Tasks will be undertaken only outside the borders of the EU.
The United Nations has not been in touch with me directly concerning the composition of EU battle groups. However, the UN recognises and supports the development of EU battle groups as a key factor in enabling it to respond more rapidly and with greater authority to emerging crises. During his visit to Dublin in October 2004 the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, stressed the importance of battle groups and requested Ireland's support for them. 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 battle groups concept in this regard.
I believe the term "battle groups" can be misleading. It is a standard technical military term to describe a coherent military force package capable of stand-alone operations, with full transport and logistics support capabilities to carry out its tasks. It may be defined as the minimum militarily effective, credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of stand-alone operations, or for the initial phase of larger operations. While the term is understood in military terms, the word has connotations that some may wish to exploit to raise baseless fears and mislead the public. What is meant by battle groups in this respect is a corps of troops that could respond quickly to a crisis.
I established the interdepartmental group and am bringing forward proposals as a result of that. Discussions with other like-minded nations on a potential contribution by Ireland to a battle group have now commenced. A delegation consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces met their Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 9 and 10 March to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battle group. Our representatives outlined Ireland's position on battle group participation and international peacekeeping generally and gave a presentation on the capabilities that Ireland can make available to a battle group. These range from smaller niche capabilities to an APC mounted light infantry company group of approximately 200 personnel plus support elements.
This is being considered by Sweden, which is the framework nation for the Nordic battle group. Further consultations between the Defence Forces and the Swedish armed forces and between officials of the respective ministries are planned. The Nordic battle group was organised some time ago and most of the core elements are already in place, with Sweden contributing the core manoeuvre battalion. In addition, battle groups covering the period through 2010 have already been announced and, on this basis, I would expect our contribution in the period to 2010 to be limited. However, this will be a matter for discussion with other member states over the coming months, in particular with Finland and Austria with whom we have also had some initial informal exploratory discussions.
In the event that we participate in a Nordic battle group we would be the only participant with a legal requirement for a UN mandate. Many member states acknowledge that it would be politically desirable, if not a political imperative, to have a UN mandate for any battle group deployment.
I am fully satisfied that our participation in the battle group concept in no way weakens or undermines Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. 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.
As part of its study the interdepartmental group recommended changes to current legislation in light of the increasing range of operations where military forces can play a role and the need for increased interoperability and training so that we can be more effective and more efficient once deployed. The requirement for this amending legislation arises irrespective of our participation in battle groups. Moreover, in light of developments since the Defence Act was amended in 1960 to provide for participation in UN peace support operations, for the avoidance of doubt, I also intend to update the wording in the Act to reflect current practice in the formulation of UN Security Council resolutions endorsing peace support operations more closely. The triple lock requirement of UN, Government and Dáil approval will stand. I also propose to provide for participation by Defence Forces personnel in humanitarian operations in response to natural and man-made disasters such as the tsunami in south-east Asia and the earthquake in Pakistan.
All those issues are important and must be addressed. To that end I will formally bring the draft heads of a Bill to the Government for approval in the next few weeks and, with the Opposition's co-operation, I expect to have the necessary legislation enacted before the summer recess.
The Minister answered my last supplementary question in his response. Will he confirm that Ireland has not had discussions with anyone outside, such as the Swedes, Finns or Austrians? Will he reiterate also that he has had no discussions with his British counterpart?
I agree with much of the Minister's policy, but on the linchpin of the triple lock I vehemently disagree. I believe he stated before the committee that having the triple lock in place reflected the view of the people. On a personal level and in his capacity as Minister for Defence, would he not find matters more flexible and his job easier if the triple lock were no longer in place, allowing him to make his own decisions?
I welcome Deputy Costello, the Labour spokesperson on defence issues. Unfortunately, he will not find the photo opportunities that he did when he had the justice brief since the media do not accord the coverage they should to defence. The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, would do a great service——
The Minister gets all the opportunities.
I know he does. On the Minister's comment about the will of the people, I have attended a few public meetings, and my party had its Ard-Fheis over the weekend. I disagree with him, since the will of the people is that we are now mature enough to make our own decisions. The Minister could be very innovative and visionary if he encouraged his Cabinet colleagues to stage a referendum on the issue of Ireland's neutrality, membership of the non-aligned group, or whatever we call it nowadays.
Perhaps I should have said "more visionary" rather than simply "visionary".
Night vision.
I am appalled at Deputy Timmins's suggestion that the Minister should make all such decisions alone without being bound by the triple lock. Until recently I was my party's spokesperson for the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and I would be appalled at the thought of the Minister in charge, Deputy McDowell, not having to refer back to the Government before he sent troops abroad in the form of battle groups, peacekeepers, peacemakers or anything else. The mind boggles when one considers the absence of the triple lock under such circumstances.
A double lock.
Before we hastily dismantle the triple lock, let us consider that we might have a different Minister in charge at some point.
I agree that the triple lock is good in the sense that we have a United Nations mandate and that it is referred to the Government and the Oireachtas. From that perspective, we can move forward positively in any decision of that nature. Regarding the origins of the battle group proposals, the Minister has said that he will introduce legislation before the end of this session. Where did the idea come from and who raised the issue with us? I presume it is a matter of tradition regarding the Nordic countries that we are in discussions with Sweden on implementing the battle group concept.
I agree with Deputy Timmins's suggestion that we have discussed this, formally or informally, only with the Nordic states, Austria and Finland. We have not discussed it with the United Kingdom for the very good reason that it is providing its own single-nation battle group. Since each will consist of at least 1,500 troops, we will be part of a multinational one. The most troops that we can send abroad at any time is 850. Britain is one of four European countries submitting a full battle group, meaning that there is no room for joining up with it.
We are dealing with Sweden and the other Nordic states because we have worked with them a great deal in peacekeeping operations. For example, we are working with the Swedes in Liberia, which is almost a battle group situation. There is a quick reaction force there. Interoperability between the Irish and the Swedes is very good. We are familiar with how the Swedish army operates and vice versa, and we know each other’s chains of command and so on. From the perspective of being familiar with how the other operates, that is very useful.
Regarding Deputy Timmins's other point, I disagree. If the people were canvassed on the matter, the majority would prefer us to operate in military adventures abroad only as a result of a United Nations resolution. In this instance, the Labour Party, the Green Party and all the others in the House are better at reading the will of the people than Fine Gael which stands alone in its wish to enable Ireland to deploy unilaterally.
What about the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fáil's partners in Government?
The Progressive Democrats is part of the Government, which is fully united behind the triple lock.
Some of them.
Those are brave words.
This is the chance.
It will be very interesting if, when security and defence matters are discussed at the next election, Fine Gael goes off in one direction and its potential partners in the opposite.
That sounds worried.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
