Billy Timmins
Question:60 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the number of staff who work in the military archives section at Cathal Brugha Barracks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17424/06]
Priority Questions.
Departmental Staff.
The military authorities advise that the staff strength of the military archives is three, comprising a commissioned officer, a non-commissioned officer and a private. Two further commissioned officers serving at the military archives retired recently and approval has been granted for their replacement. The military authorities advise me that a strength of five, including suitably qualified replacements for the two retired officers, is sufficient to meet the current demands on the archives. I appreciate the importance of returning to five full-time staff in the section without delay.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree a staff of three is insufficient? Approval has been given to employ two additional people but the number of requests received by the archives section has increased dramatically in recent years — approximately 200 queries are received every week. In addition, there is only enough space for five staff in the section in Cathal Brugha Barracks. Will the Minister give a commitment to increase the number of staff and to consider the relocation of the archives? The recent 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising was very successful. I would like the Minister to pick a project during his last year in the job——
I will have a bigger job then.
Is the Minister not happy with his current job? I am sorry to hear that.
I am very happy, but one can always do more.
Will the Minister consider taking on the extension of the military archives as a project? I do not know if he has visited the centre but the few staff involved do an excellent job. Many families are donating valuable collections and the staff are doing the best they can with limited resources. Despite what the military authorities might have told the Minister, the staff are struggling. Will he give a commitment to improve the service?
The supplementary question asked by the Deputy about relocation is the subject of Question No. 65, which we will deal with later.
I agree that a staff of three is inadequate. The view of the Chief of Staff, who is responsible for the section, is that a staff of five is necessary. Two people retired last October and I have given the authority the go-ahead to have them replaced. Sometimes if the authorities need to fill one of these vacancies, they regard it as necessary to have them trained and the new staff must undertake a course lasting between six and nine months in UCD. I have expressed my concern to the Chief of Staff regarding what might happen in the meantime and I have asked him to consider the possibility of bringing in people from the private sector, as happened previously, to meet any temporary hiatus in this section. I have expressed my views forcefully on this matter to the Chief of Staff and I will do so again later this week. In the meantime, I am committed to hiring the two additional staff but people may have to be brought in from the private sector if demand is such that they are required.
Overseas Missions.
Joe Costello
Question:61 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by the survivors of the Niemba ambush in the Congo in 1960 regarding their treatment by the authorities in the intervening years; if he will meet them and discuss their concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17199/06]
I undertook during Priority Questions on Thursday, 23 February 2006 to ask the military authorities to revisit this matter in light of the questions raised on that date. The Chief of Staff has appointed a senior officer to examine all aspects of the Niemba ambush in the Congo in November 1960. So far contact has been made with both survivors. One has been interviewed and the other is unavailable for interview until later this month. The examining officer has also contacted other interested parties at home and abroad. As the Deputy will appreciate, this process is ongoing and I will contact him when it has been completed.
I am delighted the Minister gave an undertaking on 23 February that he would take another look at the file, that he asked a senior officer to do so and that the matter is being pursued. My interest in this issue goes back 12 years, when one of the two survivors, Mr. Fitzpatrick, asked me to launch his memoir and I also met Mr. Kenny at that meeting. I put down a number of questions over the years to successive Ministers for Defence, especially to the current Minister's predecessor, Deputy Michael Smith, but my questions were stonewalled all the way. The recently published book, edited by David O'Donoghue, has brought up other issues and it appears that the Army records are quite inaccurate.
The two survivors are the only members of those events who have not been honoured. They have a long-standing grievance about the way they have been treated. They feel the authorities have neglected to give them proper credit and that they need to be dead to be honoured, which is quite wrong. It is almost half a century since these events took place, under the first UN-mandated service abroad for Irish troops. All of the people involved in the ambush should be properly honoured and they should be honoured equally. I am glad the Minister's senior officer will be meeting the survivors, but the Minister should also meet them. They were part of our first service in the Congo and they served on behalf of this country. Will the Minister meet them and give them the honour to which they are entitled?
I welcome Deputy Costello to this portfolio. I worked with him when I was a Minister of State in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and he was spokesperson on justice for the Labour Party. He did an excellent job in that portfolio and was a very effective spokesperson on justice.
I am aware of the Deputy's long-standing interest in this matter. The question raised on 23 February was raised by Deputy Finian McGrath. At that time, I gave an undertaking that the matter would be re-examined and we have now appointed a colonel to look into it. Unfortunately, one of the two survivors is not available for interview until later this month. When he comes back, we will bring the process to a conclusion fairly quickly.
The military hierarchy makes the decision to grant awards, honours, medals and so on. The civilian Minister for Defence does not make such decisions here. So far, I note that they have not considered granting medals to the two individuals concerned. I have no difficulty in talking to the military hierarchy about the issue and getting their views. I would also be delighted to meet the two individuals, as requested by Deputy Costello.
I am delighted the Minister has agreed to meet the two individuals. This is very welcome and I appreciate his approach to the matter.
There is a 30-year rule on State archives becoming available to the public. Does that rule apply to archival material of this nature in the military? There is a file on the Niemba ambush and some of the details in that file appear to be confidential. We have a 30-year rule for the release of normal State files to the public. Is that the same for military records?
The 30-year rule applies to some of the material retained by the military. I will check the files to which that rule applies. I do not know whether it applies to all of the data concerned, but I will check it out.
When will it be made available?
I will have to check it out first.
Defence Forces Property.
Catherine Murphy
Question:62 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Defence when the Air Corps began discussions with the Irish Aviation Authority regarding the proposed changes to airspace at Weston that will see Casement Aerodrome cede part of its airspace; the dialogue he had with the Air Corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17435/06]
The Irish Aviation Authority, under the aegis of the Department of Transport, is responsible for the safety regulation of Irish airspace. The IAA is responsible for regulating all matters relating to Irish civil airspace, operators, aerodromes, airports, pilots and air traffic services therein.
An airspace change proposal was submitted to the IAA by Weston Limited in 2005 that includes the use of instrument navigation aids to assist the arrival and departure of aircraft in accordance with instrument flight rules. Use of these landing aids would result in flight paths that penetrated military airspace. The Irish Aviation Authority convened a group, the Weston action group, to examine the implications of the airspace change proposal. As the Air Corps' main operational aerodrome and military flying airspace is adjacent to Weston and will be affected by the ACP, the IAA invited my Department and the Air Corps to participate in the meetings of the Weston action group to ensure that the levels of safety afforded to, and operational capability of, military aircraft and the aerodrome are not compromised. This remains the sole purpose of my Department's involvement on the Weston action group.
The Weston action group met in October 2005 and continues to meet on a regular basis. My Department and the Air Corps have been actively participating in the group since January 2006 with a view to ensuring that safety and operational capability of the military aircraft and Casement Aerodrome are not compromised. My Department keeps me apprised of developments in this respect. There is no question of my Department or the Air Corps ceding airspace currently designated for military use to Weston Aerodrome. Co-ordination procedures are under development to ensure the safe operations of aircraft operating from Baldonnel and Weston and in the surrounding airspace, if the IAA decides to grant the airspace change proposal.
My principal concern about Weston Aerodrome, and that of the general officer commanding the Air Corps, is the maintenance of safe and functional airspace in which military flight training and air operations can continue on a 24-hour basis. Changes in operations at Weston will require a risk assessment by the Air Corps to ensure that current levels of safety for military air operations are maintained or improved. However, the decision to grant the request by Weston Limited for an air space change is solely within the remit of the Irish Aviation Authority.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Weston Limited invited the Department of Defence to participate in the Weston action group two years ago. Department officials wrote back to the company and declined. They declined because they claimed facilities were being used at Weston that were unauthorised. For example, the stopway-clearway was being used as a runway. The officials stated that against this background, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department to enter into formal discussions with Weston about agreeing procedures, which might then be seen to legitimise the operation of an unauthorised development and the unauthorised use of a facility.
In July 2005, the High Court issued an order against Weston regarding some of the facilities. The authorities at Weston are now in breach of that order. They were told to take down certain structures within a certain number of months, but they have not done that. Negotiations were refused on the basis that the development was unauthorised and the matter has escalated in that a High Court order has been breached. I do not understand why there was a change of heart.
A report received by the Irish Aviation Authority on the airspace changes proposed by Weston Limited stated that the Department of Defence has been in discussions with the company for the past two years, which is clearly at variance with the reply given by the Minister. As the report also noted that pilots sometimes became confused as to whether they were landing at Baldonnel or Weston and that infringement had taken place, I do not doubt the need to consider this matter from a safety point of view. I take it from the Minister's reply that negotiations between the Department and Weston Limited began last October rather than two years ago. What has changed to instill greater confidence in the Minister and his Department despite the breaching of a High Court order?
Formal discussions between my Department and Weston Limited have taken place over the past two years but it was not until last October that a formal group was established to consider this specific proposal and the Air Corps have only participated in the process since January.
As regards the proposals currently before the Irish Aviation Authority, the authority will make the ultimate decision on those. Our role is to determine whether safety issues or the operational capability of Irish military aircraft will be compromised. We will make the group in which we participate aware of any interference with safety or operational capability. I doubt that the Irish Aviation Authority would grant permission if the Air Corps was to suspect that safety or our operational capacity could be compromised.
Deputy Catherine Murphy noted various unauthorised developments, which I take to be of a structural nature. I was not aware of the order made by the High Court but these are matters for South Dublin County Council and Kildare County Council. If a specific proposal is made and the Air Corps is asked to participate, it has a moral obligation to do so because it must take safety and operational capacity into account and the best way in which it can make its views known is across the table. However, the Irish Aviation Authority, which is the ultimate deciding authority, has not yet made any decision.
Overseas Missions.
Billy Timmins
Question:63 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the Irish mission in Liberia and Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17425/06]
Ireland has participated in UNMIL since December 2003, following a decision of the Government on 24 June 2003 and the subsequent approval by Dáil Éireann of the necessary enabling motion. Since then, the UN Security Council has authorised the continuation of UNMIL for successive periods and the Government has approved continued Irish participation. Ireland, together with an infantry company group from Sweden, provides the quick reaction force to the UNMIL force commander. The Irish contingent currently comprises 422 personnel. The role of the quick reaction force is to respond rapidly to any crises that arise within the area of operations and to support other UNMIL deployed contingents, including long range patrols into the countryside. While it has been a difficult mission, particularly in terms of the operating environment, it is working very well for the Defence Forces.
In December 2005, Ireland agreed to a request from the UN for support in expanding the area of operations of UNMIL to include Sierra Leone, as authorised under UN Security Council Resolution 1626 of 19 September 2005, and to allow Irish troops be made available for extraction operations should it become necessary to evacuate the staff and detainees of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown. The Irish contingent assumed its additional responsibilities in late December 2005 following Dáil approval on 15 December 2005. UNMIL is currently providing a permanent guard of 250 personnel from the Mongolian contingent at the special court.
In addition to conducting normal patrolling and security operations in Liberia, the Irish contingent currently conducts limited operations in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in support of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Since 30 March 2006, a small detachment of the quick reaction force, including Irish and Swedish troops, have been deployed to Freetown as preparation for supporting the security of the special court, if necessary.
The current Irish commitment to UNMIL continues until November 2006, when we are due to withdraw from the mission together with our Swedish partners. In a letter to the Taoiseach dated 3 March 2006, the UN Secretary General requested Ireland to consider postponing the withdrawal of its troops from UNMIL for a period of at least six months to give the UN time to find a suitable replacement for the quick reaction force capability. Our current assessment is that the security situation in Liberia, while continuing to be fragile, is stable and improving. We are also of the view that the remaining forces should be capable in general of handling security. However, I assure the House that Ireland remains committed to peace support operations in Africa under a UN flag. Detailed consultations have taken place with the UN, including a high level meeting at UN headquarters in New York on 24 April involving representatives of my Department, the Defence Forces and our ambassador to the UN. We are now in the process of finalising our consideration of the matter in light of these discussions. I am confident we will be able to respond positively to the Secretary General's request for one further six month extension to May 2007, whereupon we will withdraw the contingent. I am advised that the UN is actively engaged in efforts to find a suitable replacement for the capability provided by the Irish-Swedish contingent and that the period to May 2007 will enable it to complete this process.
I welcome the decision by the Minister to extend Irish involvement in UNMIL until May 2007 but can he confirm that the deployment will not continue beyond that date, regardless of whether further requests are received? Is he satisfied that the mission has sufficient manpower, in light of its extension? If I understood the Minister correctly, elements of the quick reaction force now have to deploy in Freetown. I commend Irish Defence Forces personnel on their involvement in the security arrangements for the upcoming trial of Mr. Charles Taylor.
A report was recently published which outlined abuses by UN personnel in Liberia. Can the Minister confirm that Irish personnel are not involved in these abuses and can he enlighten me further on any aspect of the matter?
The current quick reaction force comprises Irish and Swedish troops. The Liberian authorities and the UN have asked us to continue our involvement for a further six months to enable the UN to develop an alternative quick reaction force. The Swedish Government has declined but we are disposed to accept the request, although I have not yet recommended such a course to the Government. I understand that the replacement for the Swedish element of the contingent will be trained to take over the duties of the entire Irish-Swedish contingent.
On Deputy Timmons's second question, even if the Government accepts my recommendation to deploy for a further six months, we made it clear at the 24 April meeting in New York that we will end our involvement by May 2007.
I am aware of the disturbing reports of sexual abuse raised by the Deputy. While UNMIL has established a unit to investigate the reports, I am glad to confirm that no Irish personnel are involved.
I welcome the Minister's assurances. In view of his certainty that our involvement with UNMIL will cease in May 2007, are any other potential missions on the horizon? I am aware that the approach of the Minister and the Department is not to get involved in prolonged missions as in the past but that the troops stay for a few years and then move on. Peacekeeping makes up a great part of the work of the Defence Forces. It is good for them and for the country and I would like to know if there is a potential mission on the horizon.
Deputy Timmins will be interested to know that today the Cabinet accepted my recommendation to commit ten personnel to Congo to assist MONAC to oversee the election in July. While we have no requests to deploy troops in May 2007, unfortunately with the state of the world there will be no shortage of such requests and we will consider them as sympathetically as possible, taking account of the criteria we examine before we deploy troops.
If the environment was right and the Sudanese Government asked for UN assistance, would we be amenable to participating in the force there?
If the Sudanese Government requests UN assistance, the Security Council passes a resolution that troops should be deployed to Sudan and a request comes to the Irish Government, we will examine it in the same way as we would examine any other request.
Commemorative Events.
Trevor Sargent
Question:64 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence if, in view of the success of the Easter commemoration, he intends to make this an annual event; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17426/06]
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Defence Forces on their magnificent display at the Easter parade. There was great public approval and support for the commemorations of the Easter Rising. I have received a lot of positive feedback, written and oral, from members of the public who were delighted to see the modern Defence Forces given an opportunity to parade through our capital city. This widespread public approval was also evident at the other events organized by the National Museum of Ireland, the National Library and at other initiatives by colleges, community groups and within political parties which were not part of the official programme. It was also visible at the annual 1916 Defence Forces commemorative event at Arbour Hill last Wednesday.
On Easter 2007 and future years, no fundamental decision has yet been reached regarding the format of the commemoration. There was a great significance to this year's event being the 90th anniversary and marking the reinstatement of an annual commemoration. From this year on, there will be a significant annual commemoration of the 1916 Rising on Easter Sunday with a military component. However, the exact nature of this event has not yet been formulated. Given that we have some time to plan for Easter 2007 and subsequent years, I would welcome suggestions from all sides of the House on the format that should be taken for these events.
I respectfully propose that such suggestions should be channelled through the various opposition representatives who have been nominated to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Centenary Celebrations. I intend that the next meeting of this group will be held shortly and that time will be spent at that meeting considering any suggestions on the format of ceremonies for 2007 and subsequent years. I await suggestions with interest. We received some useful suggestions on the recent event through the Opposition parties on the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Centenary Celebrations and those suggestions were largely taken on board.
In my question I acknowledged that the commemoration is seen as a success and I acknowledged the positive feedback. Will the Minister assure the House that no hidden political agenda was associated with the commemoration? Does he agree with commentators who believe this was an expensive media and photo opportunity and a successful attempt to reclaim nationalism from Sinn Féin, and was this reflected in Fianna Fáil's subsequent 5% gain in the polls? How much did the taxpayer pay for this? On the post mortem to which the Minister referred, what lessons have been learned from the experience?
I assure Deputy Gormley and the House that there was no hidden agenda. As Fianna Fáil, not Sinn Féin, is the republican party, we had no need to reclaim nationalism from Sinn Féin and there was no such intention. While many commentators related the commemoration to recent opinion poll gains, I do not take much account of opinion polls. The poll that matters to me is the result on the day.
I do not know the exact cost but it was approximately €325,000. Although I will not say it was cheap, it was quite reasonable at that price. We learned that, as I have always suspected, people love pageantry, the Army is a popular institution and people like to see demonstrated publicly that we have a modern, well equipped and well trained Army. People appreciate the efforts of the Army in peacekeeping around the world and they appreciated that this was put on open display in Dublin. The feedback has been generally positive and I welcome the positive comments by Deputies Gormley and Timmins.