Vol. 844 No. 2
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence when the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces will sign off on a military court of inquiry into the crash of an Air Corps aircraft in County Galway on 12 October 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26111/14]
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the case of a person (details supplied); if he is planning to meet the family; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26145/14]
On 12 October 2009, a tragic air accident occurred over County Galway resulting in the loss of the lives of two personnel on board a Pilatus PC-9, Captain Furniss and Cadet Jevens. There was subsequently a military court of inquiry into this incident. When will that court of inquiry report be finalised?
Am I correct that Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are being taken together?
Yes. In future, each question will be taken separately, as agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
There was a misunderstanding when the questions were submitted. Would Deputy Mac Lochlainn like to put his question?
Yes. It is on the same issue.
I am sorry, that is the problem. Only the Deputy in whose name the first question was submitted can put a question.
Will we get the same time allocation?
Yes.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together and apologise for the misunderstanding.
There have been three separate reports into this tragic accident. The air accident investigation unit of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport conducted an inquiry and published its report on 24 January 2012. A coroner’s inquest was held in May 2012 into the deaths of the two crew members. The third investigation was a military court of inquiry which was convened on 26 July 2012 and produced its report on 17 January 2013. The findings of the court of inquiry are consistent with earlier investigations held by the air accident investigation unit and the coroner’s inquest, namely, that the probable cause of the accident was the spatial disorientation of the instructor who was piloting the aircraft in conditions of poor visibility at the time. It is agreed in all of the reports that the cadet bore no responsibility of any kind for the accident. As the convening authority, the Chief of Staff has indicated that he is in agreement with the proceedings and findings of the court of inquiry and that it complied with the terms of reference set.
Defence Forces regulations provide for military courts of inquiry. A court of inquiry may be convened to investigate any issue affecting military personnel, equipment or property which a convening authority considers necessary to have investigated. The primary duty and responsibility of a court of inquiry is to ascertain the truth concerning the matter under investigation. The members of a court of inquiry shall be held responsible for failing to report any irregularity coming to their notice in the course of their investigations. The findings and recommendations of all courts of inquiry are confidential, in accordance with Defence Forces regulations. The Minister has discretion to direct that the full court of inquiry report be made available to interested parties. In this instance, the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, provided the families with a copy of the report of the court of inquiry. The Chief of Staff, in the context of the report of the court of inquiry and in accordance with the provisions of Defence Forces regulations, can add any comments, criticisms or other remarks which, in his or her opinion, are relevant to the matter under investigation.
The former Minister for Defence received a series of correspondence from the family in which allegations were made in respect of a wide range of issues to do with this tragic accident, including the conduct of the court of inquiry. Legal advice was sought from the Attorney General, and the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, having considered the matters in the context of that legal advice, was satisfied that further investigation into any issues relating to this tragic accident was not warranted.
The family was informed accordingly. I have met the family on a number of occasions, as they are from my constituency. The previous Minister and officials from the Department also met the family to afford them the opportunity to discuss their concerns.
At the most recent meeting between the family and both the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff on 6 June last, an approach to address concerns raised by the family was discussed. This matter is currently being progressed following the meeting. In this context the Taoiseach, in his role as Minister for Defence, has not arranged to meet the family.
I would like to once again extend my sympathies to the families of the deceased.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I acknowledge his deep personal interest in this matter. He will be aware that the Jevens family has grave concerns about a multiplicity of matters surrounding the court of inquiry. They understand it was the third of three inquiries held into the accident but in numerous correspondences they raised serious issues relating to what they see, and which appear to be, significant breaches of military regulation. However, my clear understanding from them is that when they last met the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of the Department in recent weeks, they were given an undertaking that the court of inquiry report, which they had previously understood to have been signed off on by the previous Chief of Staff but which had not been, would be the subject of an addendum by the current Chief of Staff that would take into account concerns the family had about evidence given by a civilian witness and a then serving member of the Defence Forces.
The Deputy has taken an interest in this tragic case and no one likes to see anyone going through the stress this family is experiencing. It is important to note that the court of inquiry is not being reopened, a point made to the Jevens family and confirmed by the previous Minister following legal advice that there had been three separate investigations into this tragic accident and that a further investigation was not warranted. That remains the case and has been communicated to the family. The Chief of Staff in the context of the court of inquiry, and in accordance with provisions in Defence Forces regulations, can add any comments, criticisms or other remarks which in his opinion are relevant to the matter under investigation. This matter is being progressed and will be communicated to the relevant parties in due course.
The Deputy stated the family was told by an official that the court of inquiry report had been signed off. While the inquiry had been completed, it was not signed off on because the family had submitted correspondence raising issues regarding the court of inquiry. That is the reason the previous Chief of Staff did not sign off on the report.
The Minister of State is familiar with the case and he has met the family, who are constituents of his, on a number of occasions. He must be aware that there are serious concerns about a number of the contributions to the court of inquiry and there will have to be an addendum to the report with amendments. The record has to be corrected and that is the very least the family can expect. It is also my understanding that the Information Commissioner has agreed that the documentation withheld by the Chief of Staff from the inquiry should be released. Will the Minister of State ensure his decision is not appealed by the Defence Forces? An eight week period is provided for before the documents are handed over. Will he allow that to happen as a demonstration of goodwill in this matter?
On 6 June, the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff had a long meeting with the family. The findings and recommendations of all courts of inquiry are confidential in accordance with Defence Forces regulations. The family received a copy and the Minister has discretion to direct the full court of inquiry report to be made available to interested parties and, in this instance, the former Minister provided the family with a copy of the report. Following on from that, he received a series of correspondence from the family in which allegations were made in respect of a wide range of issues relating to the tragic accident, including the conduct of the court of inquiry. Legal advice had to be sought from the Attorney General and the former Minister, having considered the matters in the context of the advice, was satisfied that a further investigation was not warranted into any issue relating to the tragic accident. The family was informed accordingly. A number of meetings were then held with the family at which their concerns were discussed. The Deputy will appreciate, given the sensitivities involved in such circumstances and the requirement to obtain legal advice, that the matter has taken some time to progress.
Notwithstanding what the Minister of State has said, will he confirm that the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff stated to the family that an addendum would be attached to the report? Will he also confirm when the report will issue with the agreed addendum? This will satisfy the family to some extent in so far as it will put on the public record their concerns about the reputation of their son, which, as the Minister of State said, is and should be untarnished by any suggestion that he had any responsibility in respect of the accident. Can he make that crystal clear to the House? I pose the question, notwithstanding the fact the family has raised a number of other serious concerns about breaches of military protocol and military regulations which arose during this case.
Will the Minister of State also confirm, which he did not during the previous opportunity he was given, that the Information Commissioner has ruled that documents withheld by the previous Chief of Staff from the court of inquiry should be released and that the Department will not appeal the decision and will release the documents? This family has been through enough. It would be good to say that they will get the documents and, as Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said, that the addendum will be attached and the record will be corrected as necessary.
I will correspond with the Deputy regarding that information if that is okay with him-----
That is okay.
-----because there are significant complexities to the case. I have just taken over responsibilities in this area and, therefore, I will get back to the Deputy about his question in correspondence.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl is correct that all reports agree that the cadet bore no responsibility for this accident and he is correct about the meeting between the family and the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff on 6 June. The Department and the military will be in contact with the Jevens family on the proposals made by both gentlemen.
When?
I can assure the Deputy that is progressing and that correspondence is on the way to the family.
It was my understanding that, following that meeting, the family was content with some of the commitments given by both the Secretary General of the Department and the Chief of Staff. Those are being progressed.
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the issuing of three eviction notices in the past two weeks to residents in the Curragh Camp; if he will instruct his Department to withdraw from all such proceedings until proper dialogue with residents is held, as previously agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25918/14]
This is an issue that we discussed with the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, on his last appearance here, where he told us that nobody in the Curragh would be rendered homeless and that the Department would engage with people there in order to look at alternative accommodation for them, yet, in the past two weeks, three eviction notices were served on residents there, including on a number of quite ill citizens. Will the Minister agree to honour the previous commitments made to engage with the residents to discuss so-called "overholding" in the Curragh?
I thank Deputy Daly for her question. As has been said previously, military personnel are obliged under Defence Forces regulations to vacate married quarters within 21 days of retiring or being discharged from military service. The term "overholder" is used to describe former members of the Defence Forces and their families who have refused to leave married quarters when obliged to do so. The situation of overholders continuing to occupy married quarters is no longer sustainable and measures to resolve this are being progressed. Properties located outside barracks are offered for sale to the occupants. Those located within barracks are not for sale, as the property is required to be retained for future military use and for security reasons. My Department is, therefore, in accordance with normal procedures, seeking vacant possession of married quarters which are being overheld and will continue to do so until the overholding issue is resolved. Any initiative to resolve overholding must support and complement the current policy which dates back to 1997 of withdrawing from the provision of married quarters.
In the period since January 2013, some 12 properties which were being overheld in the area of the Curragh Camp have been returned by the occupants. There are 28 overholders remaining at the camp. This represents a small group in relation to the large number of military personnel who occupied such quarters over the years but who returned the properties to the Department on their retirement, as they were required to do. Ten of the current group of overholders do not pay charges in respect of their use of the property, including in some cases charges for the use of electricity.
Of the remaining overholder cases at the camp, the Department is aware that a small number of occupants may be particularly vulnerable due to their personal circumstances. In light of this, the Department has been examining what assistance it might provide in order to bring about a resolution. My officials will contact these individuals once the range of options open to the Department is determined.
It is preferable not to have to use legal means to obtain vacant possession of the properties concerned. However, the ongoing illegal occupation of military property by those who have no entitlement to do so cannot be supported. It is important to remember also that the Department of Defence does not have a role in the provision of housing accommodation for former members of the Defence Forces or for the general public.
The Minister's response is wholly inadequate. He has just rehashed information that has been given in this House many times and did not deal with the question. Events have moved on since the mantra that the Minister read out to us previously and there have been developments on the ground. Deputy Wallace and I met the property management section at the Curragh Camp a number of months ago. The residents also met representatives this week. The Minister has not addressed the fact that, in the intervening period, the Department of Defence has seen fit to issue eviction notices to a number of other people, which goes completely against what the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said previously. He said that nobody would be rendered homeless on the basis of the manner in which the Department dealt with those issues. He acknowledged that there were a number of elderly and vulnerable citizens there. The Minister's actions contradict that.
The group which met the Department on Friday put forward the suggestion that O'Higgins Terrace might be renovated. That is an order which could be handed over to the county council because of where the terrace is situated in the camp. There was a suggestion that this would be given active consideration. Can the Minister confirm that is the case and that he will, as he said he wanted to, withdraw from legal proceedings in the meantime?
A number of people who are in residence in the married quarters are vulnerable and the Department will examine their circumstances on a case-by-case basis. It is fine to live in the married quarters when one is a soldier, but it has always been the case that once one has retired from the Defence Forces, one vacates those premises. People have been under no illusions over the past number of years of the terms and conditions involved.
The Department pays the property tax in respect of each house occupied by the overholder. Overholders do not have to pay for their bin collections. Bins are collected by the Defence Forces under the general bin collection contract to the Curragh. Some overholders do not even have to pay for their electricity. Deputies here represent struggling people in their own constituencies, yet there are people in the camp who do not have to pay property tax nor pay for their bin collections and electricity.
A number of legal proceedings have been commenced and they will continue.
The Minister's comments are derogatory and inaccurate and he has not moved on with developments. It was agreed with the Minister, Deputy Shatter, that there would be a technical assessment of the properties in the Curragh Camp. A limited technical assessment was done on Pearse Terrace. I would like to see the outcome of that, because, on the information which the Minister, Deputy Shatter, gave us, it is possible to renovate some of those dwellings for accommodation use, which in the current climate of a housing crisis is something that everybody should be concerned about.
The Minister said that he was looking at the circumstances of some residents on a case-by-case basis but then slandered everybody who lives there and tried to make out that none of them pays their bills. I put it to him that Department officials met residents on Friday and discussed the possibility of renovating O'Higgins Terrace. If he is saying that no one will be made homeless and that vulnerable people are there, what alternatives is he putting in place to deal with that? Is the O'Higgins Terrace proposition being considered? In the meantime, will he withdraw from legal proceedings and discuss this matter rationally with the families and individuals who served this State so loyally as members of the Defence Forces over the years?
We will not withdraw from any legal proceedings and those will continue, because this situation has been going on for quite some time. It is my Department's policy to review each overholder's situation on a case-by-case basis. As each case is different, I cannot pre-empt how overholders that the Deputy has grouped together will be dealt with. As I have already mentioned, both the cost of renovation of the properties and the security issues surrounding civilian occupation of quarters within the military barracks present problems which are difficult to overcome.
However, I have taken the Deputy's views on board. There has been a huge amount of consultation between the Department and the residents in the Curragh. Numerous meetings have taken place over quite some time and I understand that Deputies from all sides of the House have been in contact with the Department raising the concerns of some of the residents there. This question goes back to the fact that it has always been a condition that when one retires from the Defence Forces, one is no longer a resident or entitled to a house. That has been the case and it has never been hidden from any member of the Defence Forces who had the right to a property.
4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the measures being taken in relation to asbestos on Naval Service vessels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26112/14]
In April, I raised a topical issue arising out of media reports that asbestos had been found on the Naval Service vessels the LE Aoife, the LE Ciara and the LE Orla. Recently, there is renewed speculation about the LE Eithne amid reports that up to 150 military and civilian personnel may have been impacted or exposed to the asbestos material. We seek to establish the position from the Minister of State.
At the outset I would like to assure the Deputy that the safety and well-being of all individuals involved in the Naval Base is of primary concern. I am advised by the Naval Service that it is following all Health and Safety Authority, HSA, guidelines while dealing with the current situation.
Earlier this year while work was being carried out on both LE Orla and LE Ciara material which was suspected as being asbestos was found on both ships. Both Cork Dockyard Ltd. and the Naval Service called in external expertise to carry out a full survey and analysis of the ships which confirmed that the material was asbestos - a particular type of white asbestos called chrysotile.
The Naval Service contacted the HSA and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The HSA has launched its own investigation into the incident and this is ongoing. I am advised that the HSA has visited the Naval Base a number of times and has served the Naval Service with an improvement notice under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
All staff on board LE Ciara, LE Orla and in the Naval Service dockyard, including the civilian workforce, have been briefed on the situation to date. All Naval Service personnel who may have come into contact with asbestos have been screened by the Naval Medical Officer. Medical screening of civilian employees by an occupational health practitioner has commenced and will be completed in the coming weeks.
Since the discovery of asbestos, air sampling and monitoring has been conducted by an external contractor on both ships and in the transport workshops and the samples taken were found to be safe. As part of the requirements under the HSA improvement notice, the Naval Service has engaged an external company, Abestaways, who are specialists in asbestos removals, to undertake the deep "environmental clean" of the two ships. This clean-up commenced on 26 May and is estimated to take a number of weeks. On completion of this process an independent asbestos consultancy company, Phoenix Environmental, will carry out air monitoring, analysis and third party assurance and reissue a re-occupational certificate as required by the HSA.
I am advised by the Naval Service that a full asbestos audit of all ships in the fleet will be carried out and in the interim a full asbestos risk assessment will be carried out prior to any work commencing. As I mentioned previously, this matter is being treated with the utmost seriousness and attention by the Department of Defence and the Naval Service. The Naval Service will be launching a formal accident investigation team to investigate all aspects behind this occurrence and to ensure that there is no repetition in the future. I understand that the HSA investigation is likely to take some time to complete. The Department will ensure that any recommendations emanating from the HSA findings will be acted upon immediately.
Can the Minister confirm the number of Navy vessels that are tied up as a result of this difficulty? Will he further confirm that consultants were engaged previously by the Naval Service to assess the fleet and that the consultancy found that asbestos was not a problem aboard these vessels? The Minister tells us there has been screening of those who potentially may have been exposed to the asbestos, asbestos dust being the major difficulty. What arrangements has his Department put in place to ensure there is ongoing screening of people so exposed because there is a risk for people exposed to asbestos that they will develop pleural plaques? As we know, that can lead to the development of asbestosis, which is a particularly nasty condition to say the least.
The Deputy asked about the fleet and the operational duties. The Naval Service is currently operating with six ships, which is 75% of allocated resources. It is inevitable that a lower level of operational output will continue over the coming months until the fleet is fully operational again. Where the Naval Service would on occasion visit harbours, specifically over the summer months, that has been curtailed and the remaining vessels put into operational duty because some of the vessels are tied up for examination.
The Deputy referred to personnel. All staff aboard the LE Ciara and the LE Orla and those in the Naval Service dockyard, including the civilian workforce, have been briefed on the position to date. All Naval Service personnel who have come into contact with asbestos have been screened by the Naval Medical Officer. In addition, health surveillance is being offered to all staff in accordance with regulations. Medical screening of civilian employees by an occupational health practitioner has been offered in accordance with regulations to all staff. Medical screening of civilian employees by an occupational health practitioner has commenced and will be completed in the coming weeks. An occupational health practitioner in asbestos has been briefed also. I assure the Deputy that this medical screening will be continued if needs be to make sure there are no dangers in place for staff.
I welcome the suggestion that there can be ongoing screening if medically recommended. The Minister has not clarified the position on the LE Eithne. Is it tied up as a result of concerns about asbestos in her forward pump room? Also, can the Minister tell us if it is the case that consultants in the area of asbestos were brought in by the Minister's Department and the Naval Service, that they examined these ships and told the Naval Service that everything was fine? If such consultants did so report, what will his Department do about that? The Minister listed at least two other consultancies that he intends bringing into play in this process but if a previous consultant gave inaccurate and erroneous advice, what is to be done about them?
A consultant was brought in previously. Off the top of my head I cannot tell the Deputy the year but I am almost sure, and I can revert to him by way of correspondence, that consultancy is no longer in business.
I am not surprised.
There is no way the Department can go back to that company but I will clarify that by way of correspondence with the Deputy. It could have been early 2000 or a little later, but I am not certain on the date.
The Deputy asked me about the LE Aoife-----
The LE Eithne.
I am aware a report is being done on one of the ships. I will come back to the Deputy on that.
5. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the case of a person (details supplied); if he is planning to meet the family; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26146/14]
The Minister may be aware I have raised this matter on a number of occasions with the previous Minister for Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter. By way of a brief reminder, on 27 April 1981, in Dyar Ntar, a village in south Lebanon, two privates in our Defence Forces, Hugh Doherty and Kevin Joyce, were killed by unknown forces at that time. The body of Private Kevin Joyce was never recovered and returned to his family. Private Hugh Doherty is from Letterkenny, in my constituency. I have met his family and members of the Defence Forces who served that day. There is a commitment to meet with them and I ask the Minister when that will happen.
I would like to again sympathise with the families because it is a difficult experience for any family when relatives who are serving members of the Defence Forces go to Lebanon and do not return.
The case to which the Deputy refers relates back to April 1981 in Lebanon when a UN observation post manned by Private Hugh Doherty and Private Kevin Joyce came under attack. Private Doherty was later found dead from gunshot wounds and Private Joyce was missing. Some equipment was also missing. The attackers are unknown. Earlier this year during parliamentary questions the then Minister for Defence indicated that he had received a request from the Doherty family for a meeting.
Officials of the Department of Defence intend to meet members of the Doherty family in the first instance, at a mutually convenient time and date, to gain a clear understanding of their concerns. In this regard, the Department of Defence has been in contact with the family and they are aware of the current position regarding a future meeting. I understand officials have been in contact in the past 24 hours because I specifically asked them to make contact. It is important that we have dialogue with the families involved, and specifically in this case.
I welcome that confirmation and the Minister's intervention following the submission of this question. When I met the family, I also met a number of members of the Defence Forces who served in Lebanon at that time. They have a detailed understanding of the issues involved in terms of the initial investigation by Colonel Savino. The colonel did not interview any of the team on the ground, bullet casings went missing and there were issues regarding the isolated nature of the observation post. There are a number of issues that the family, as lay people like me, do not understand. It would be only fair to the family if two members of the Defence Forces who served on that day would also be permitted to attend so the meeting can be constructive. Indeed, as I suggested previously, they would be happy to submit an agenda to the Minister and his departmental staff in advance of the meeting so they can see and prepare for the issues they intend to raise. Will the Minister allow two members of the Defence Forces who were there that day to accompany the family? It would assist in making the meeting constructive. I know the Minister wishes to get the answers as to what happened as much as anybody else.
I do not have an issue with whoever wishes to attend. My Department's officials can consider any requests from the family. This week, both the Lebanese authorities and the UNIFIL personnel were made aware of the Irish Government's desire for closure for the family of Private Joyce. During a visit last Monday with me to Lebanon, the Taoiseach asked for the assistance of the Lebanese authorities. He also raised the murders of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne while noting that the alleged perpetrator is currently living in the United States. Irish officials are in close contact with the authorities in this regard. The Taoiseach stated there was a clear need for closure and for the alleged perpetrators to be brought to justice. He sought the support of the Lebanese authorities. We will tease out further the contribution the Taoiseach made during his recent visit to Lebanon with the Lebanese authorities.
To clarify, the Minister agrees that a couple of members of the Defence Forces who were there that day can be at that meeting. That will be immensely helpful to the family. I appreciate that if that is what the Minister has agreed.
Second, and this is an issue on which I will probably follow up in correspondence, there were ongoing efforts over the years to try to engage with the authorities in Lebanon and with the Palestinian authorities to see if they could assist in locating the body of Private Joyce. There was an initiative in 2001 in which Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, representatives met the then Minister for the Displaced in Lebanon, Marwan Hamadeh. He is still alive and is a very much respected figure. Would there be some benefit in asking our Defence Forces representatives to re-engage with them? I appreciate that it is an extremely difficult and challenging task after all these years, but I can assist with any re-engagement in terms of the personnel who met the Minister at that time. He appeared to take a great interest and to wish to pursue the matter vigorously.
There has been a huge amount of consultation between the Lebanese authorities and the Department about this case because of the circumstances. To date, no information has been elicited to lead to the recovery of Private Joyce. However, I am advised by the military authorities that even though it is now 33 years since this tragic event happened, the case remains open and efforts are made from time to time in Lebanon to establish the location of Private Joyce's remains. If located, efforts will be made to repatriate them. The Department of Defence will continue to make every effort to bring this tragic case to a conclusion. I will take on board the Deputy's comments and will talk to the officials who are dealing with the Joyce family to ensure that every assistance is given to them. If anybody has any information about this case, I ask them to come forward.
