Billy Timmins
Ceist:1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence his plans to commemorate the 1916 Easter Rising at Easter 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31954/05]
Priority Questions.
Commemorative Events.
I want to outline my satisfaction and that of the Defence Forces with this commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising and also with the reintroduction of the traditional Easter military parade. The Cabinet has decided that the theme of the parade will be a celebration of Óglaigh na hÉireann, successors to the volunteers, serving a democratic State and engaged, through the UN, in the search for global peace.
Following discussions at Cabinet last July, I brought the proposal to the attention of the Chief of Staff and he has engaged in some preliminary planning in this regard. Around the same time, there were preliminary discussions at a senior level between officials in my Department and the Department of the Taoiseach.
As the Deputy will recall, the Defence Forces staged a highly successful parade through Dublin city in 2001 to mark the return of the last Irish contingent to serve in Lebanon and the experiences from this parade will serve as a basis for the organisation of the Easter parade. The involvement of organisations representing former members of the Defence Forces is also being considered.
As the Deputy will also appreciate, it is not possible at this early stage to go into any detail on the proposed composition, nature, cost, etc. of the parade since the Defence Forces are still at a very early stage of preparation in this regard. However, based on the experience of organising previous events such as the Lebanon parade I just mentioned, I am informed that an Easter parade is unlikely to entail significant additional expenditure.
I thank the Minister for his reply. While I support the concept of recognising what the 1916 people did and I welcome the re-establishment of a military parade, I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Is he speaking of only one parade based in Dublin or a parade being replicated at various locations throughout the country? Would the Minister have a view on concerns expressed in some quarters that perhaps the Taoiseach, by making the announcement at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, might not have chosen the most appropriate place to announce it? Perhaps he should have undertaken all-party discussions on it. Perhaps it is not the type of issue that should be politicised.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was talk of setting up a centenary committee to commemorate 1916. Is that a little premature?
On Deputy Timmins's first question about whether there will be one parade or whether it will be replicated throughout the country, no final decision on that matter has been taken as yet. It is more than likely that it will involve more than one parade in Dublin and that it will involve various parades throughout the country. As I stated, we are still at the very early stages of planning and we would welcome ideas from all sources, including Deputy Timmins who is a former member of the Defence Forces. Any useful suggestions would be gratefully taken on board.
On the announcement at the Ard-Fheis, I suppose that is as good a platform as any place else to make an announcement like this. Frankly, I was surprised at the publicity generated by the fact that it was announced at the Ard-Fheis because this matter has been under discussion since last July. I remember specifically speaking to the Chief of Staff and various people in the Department of Defence to get the matter under way. Obviously there is quite a number of Army officers who knew or heard about it prior to the Taoiseach's official announcement and I am amazed that it did not leak out into the public domain. I thought I had seen it mentioned on some publication or other. Perhaps I am mistaken.
On the centenary committee, certainly the centenary is a long way off but that does not necessarily mean it is premature to prepare for it now. The sooner we start thinking about this, the better. It is a major undertaking and we are giving ourselves plenty of time to plan it.
Are there proposals to erect some sort of monument prior to this parade or am I mistaken on that?
No, I am not aware of that.
May I ask a supplementary question on that?
No. It is not in order on a priority question. It is confined to the Member who submitted it.
Defence Forces Inquiry.
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:2 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the outcome of his meeting with the family of Private Kevin Barrett who was shot dead while serving with the Defence Forces in Lebanon in 1999; his views on the Barrett family’s request for an independent inquiry into the death following the unsatisfactory open verdict that was returned at the recent inquest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32082/05]
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 held an inquest into the death of Private Barrett from 5 to 8 September 2005. The jury returned an open verdict.
I met Mrs. Barrett on 4 October 2005. She was accompanied by her solicitor. I listened carefully to what she had to say. During the course of this meeting, I apologised to Mrs. Barrett and her family for the pain and suffering they had experienced since Private Barrett's tragic death. I indicated to Mrs Barrett that I was still awaiting sight of the transcript of the coroner's inquest, which I understand will be available shortly. When I have reviewed the transcript, I will decide what further action to take.
During my meeting with Mrs. Barrett, I also gave her an undertaking to have the interaction between my Department, the Defence Forces, her and Private Barrett's family reviewed by an independent person. I want to ensure that appropriate lessons are learnt for the future. On 28 October 2005 I appointed Mr. Seán Hurley to carry out an independent review of the interaction between the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the parents and family of Private Barrett in the aftermath of his tragic death. I anticipate that I will receive the report of this review before Christmas.
While I welcome the appointment of Mr. Hurley to carry out the independent review of the interaction between the Department of Defence and the family of Private Barrett, one is extremely concerned that the review the Minister has mandated will cover only one aspect of Private Barrett's death, namely, the manner in which the Department treated the Barrett family in the years since his death. Why has the Minister not at this stage authorised a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding Private Barrett's death? This is what the Barrett family seek.
I thank Deputy Sherlock for welcoming the inquiry I announced. On what the Barrett family seek, I met Mrs. Barrett and her solicitor and we have spoken to them on a number of occasions since. Basically, through her solicitor Mrs. Barrett asked me to do two things: to have investigated the interaction between the family and the Army and Department of Defence, and to organise another inquiry to follow on the inquest into her son's death.
I gave her an undertaking that I would organise the inquiry into the interaction between the Barrett family and the Department of Defence and Army, and I have met that commitment. I explained to Mrs. Barrett and her solicitor that I would need to have sight of the transcript of the inquest before I took a decision on the second request. She and her solicitor agreed that was entirely reasonable. I am sure they will not mind me mentioning it here. Unfortunately, the transcript of the inquest is still not to hand. When I receive it, I assure the House, the Deputy and, through this forum, the Barrett family that I will take a decision quickly on what to do on the matter and the family will not be kept waiting. I assure Deputy Sherlock that I will make a very quick decision on that matter as soon as the transcript of the inquest is to hand.
Why is it taking so long to get a transcript of the inquest? If the Minister was following this matter as he previously indicated he would be, why is it taking so long to get this? The Minister should remember that there are many questions left unanswered about the manner of Private Barrett's death and this was agreed previously. Consequently, I am a little disappointed that no progress has been made on these issues, the way his body was treated after he died and the reason an open verdict was returned. The original investigation gave the Barrett family absolutely no closure on the death of their brother and son. I am disappointed that little progress has been made on this matter by the Minister.
I am disappointed that Deputy Sherlock is disappointed, given that Mrs. Barrett is not disappointed, nor is her solicitor, to whom we spoke in recent days. They are quite happy. If Mrs. Barrett's family is happy, I do not know why Deputy Sherlock should be unhappy.
I have absolutely no control over the printing of the transcript of the inquest, which is a matter for the stenographer and the Courts Service. There is some difficulty, of which the solicitor is aware, in regard to printing the transcript of the inquest in this case. While I am not sure of the details, I am advised that we will have the transcript within the next week to ten days. When I have the transcript, I will move quickly on this matter.
Is it the Minister's intention to take further steps depending on the outcome of the investigation?
I will study the transcript carefully. If I conclude that a further inquiry is warranted, I will meet Mrs. Barrett and tell her what I intend to do.
Defence Forces Equipment.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Ceist:3 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence the type of equipment he envisages being purchased for any potential EU battle group involving Irish troops; and his views on assertions by NATO officials that the battle groups will need to be equipped to go to war. [32209/05]
I have yet to receive the report of the interdepartmental group which I established to examine all issues relating to battle groups. However, I do not envisage the Defence Forces buying any particular equipment in the context of its possible participation in battle groups. Participation in battle groups will not involve increased investment in the Defence Forces to acquire additional capabilities which are not central or key to our primary tasks in peace support operations, defence of the sovereign territory and support to the civil power and the civil authorities, as set out in the White Paper on Defence. Any offer to a battlegroup will be in the context of these capabilities.
As the Deputy will be aware, significant investment has been made in Defence Forces equipment in recent years to provide them with the most modern equipment to undertake the tasks assigned to them by Government. The upgrading of their equipment, which is continuing, is designed to ensure that the Defence Forces have the necessary equipment to undertake specific roles, including supporting chapter 7 missions under the Charter of the UN, involving robust peacekeeping and peacemaking.
Going to war is not one of the missions contemplated for battle groups, which may only be used for Petersberg Tasks as set out in the Amsterdam treaty. In short, these are humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management operations, including peacemaking. Within the framework of the Petersberg Tasks, battle groups may have to engage in intensive operations to complete their assigned mission. Where there is a need for higher-end capabilities to undertake these missions, these capabilities will be provided by those nations which already have them at their disposal within their military forces.
The Minister's answer is similar to one he gave me in May last, which is a pity because he has not grasped that operating in EU battle groups will require the purchase of additional equipment. Is the Minister aware of the declaration of the European military capabilities commitment conference which was held in Brussels on 22 November last and the European capability action plan which outlines the deficiencies in existing capabilities of member states? The following are listed as required for participation in EU battle groups: attack helicopters, air-to-air refuelling systems, field artillery battalions, cruise missiles and precision guided munitions. Is this the equipment of peacekeeping?
It must be remembered that battle groups can operate without a UN mandate and that this State is supposed to be neutral. The Minister previously stated that there will not be increased spending because Ireland will buy in bulk. This is nonsense because not only will we buy equipment in bulk but we will buy much more of it. Has the Minister read the documents to which I referred and will he make a statement in this regard? When will the Attorney General report on the question of the requirement for a referendum to precede our participation in EU battle groups?
The Attorney General's advice on the matter is the subject of a further question which I will deal with in detail when we come to it. I do not claim to know as much about military hardware as Deputy Ó Snodaigh obviously knows.
That is below the belt.
Did the Minister read the documents? He is the Minister for Defence.
I have read the documents. I would not like to leave the House with the misleading impression with which Deputy Ó Snodaigh seeks to leave it. The Deputy specifically stated that EU battle groups can operate without a UN mandate. I have made clear to anyone who wants to listen and I will do so again in words of fewer syllabi, if the Deputy wishes——
The Minister can use long words if he likes.
——that if Ireland was to become involved in battle groups, we would not be involved in any specific operation without a UN mandate. I tell the Deputy this in words as small as I can devise.
The Minister can say what he likes, for all I care. I do not trust him.
If Ireland becomes involved in battle groups, we will not purchase military equipment to contribute to those battle groups.
I do not know if the Deputy is aware of the requirements catalogue for battle groups which will be finalised during the British EU Presidency and which outlines the maximum level of equipment needed for participation in battle groups. Obviously, some of the participating countries will not have all necessary equipment available to them, and if they do not, the position is simple. A multinational battle group consists of troops from a number of countries. This is the only type of battle group in which Ireland would be involved because it would not be able to contribute 1,500 troops — the highest level we can send abroad at any one time is 850 troops. If, for example, countries A, B and C are involved in a battle group and one of those countries has a required piece of equipment, it will be the country to supply it. If none of the three countries has the equipment, inquiries will be made in the other countries contributing to battle groups generally to see if one or more of them have that equipment and would make it available. That is the position. A country can contribute to a battle group not only by sending troops but also by contributing logistics and equipment.
We move to Question No. 4.
I have a brief supplementary question.
We have gone over time on the question. Given the time limits, I suggest that if Deputies do not interrupt and are succinct in asking their questions, they will get to ask a supplementary question.
If the Minister stuck to answering the question, it would help.
Billy Timmins
Ceist:4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the air intercept capability the Defence Forces has; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32081/05]
The most important defence against any terrorist attack is detection and prevention by the security forces. While the Garda Síochána has primary responsibility for law and order, one of the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid to the civil power, meaning, in practice, to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána. The various components of the Defence Forces are active in this regard, providing such assistance as is appropriate in specific circumstances.
The level of any terrorist threat to Ireland is continually assessed. The advice available to me would suggest that while the terrorist threat to parts of Europe is currently high, it is low for Ireland. However, it is prudent that we take precautions and keep matters under continuous review.
The Defence Forces make contingency plans for a range of scenarios where the State may be at risk. An urgent and detailed review dealing with a range of emergencies was undertaken by the military authorities following the events of 11 September 2001. The assets available to the Defence Forces are related to the level of threat and are considered appropriate in this regard. Air defence capability requires the integrated use of aircraft, radar and air and ground based weapons systems. The Defence Forces have a limited ground-to-air capacity — that has always been the position. The new Pilatus trainer aircraft enhances the airborne elements of our air defence capability. However, we will continue to operate a limited air-to-air and air-to-ground defence capability.
It would be inappropriate of me to go into specific details about the readiness, deployment arrangements or speed of deployment or redeployment of defence assets. However, I can confirm that all Air Corps aircraft have adequate numbers of operationally trained aircrew, who can operate from Casement Aerodrome,Baldonnel, and are available on a 24-hour basis, where required. The shortest scramble time applicable in the Air Corps in certain circumstances is two minutes.
The Minister is aware that an air intercept capability was identified as a need in the early part of the decade. Why has this need gone off the radar? I realise such a facility will cost money but as the Minister has pointed out he is chair of the Government task force on emergency planning, established following the events of 11 September 2001 in New York. One area Ireland could be under threat from is the air.
I recently saw a television programme on the genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsis and Hutus while Ireland, a European Union member state, stood by. There is nothing inherently moral about being neutral. What will Ireland do if it comes under threat from the air? Ireland is a neutral country without the capability to protect itself. Will the Minister explain what provisions are in place for an air attack, without telling me the secrets of Fatima?
The secrets are out already. What happened in New York on 11 September 2001 shows how even a powerful country with a large air force and air protection capabilities cannot guarantee it will not be successfully attacked by terrorists. There is no small state, including Israel, that could be said to have a comprehensive air defence system. The threat to Ireland of an attack from the air is low. The expenditure on air defence is commensurate with that threat. Ireland could opt for an Israeli-type air defence system, costing €4 billion a year, but it may never be used. One wonders if this is the best possible use of resources when other Departments are crying out for resources.
Recently the chief of staff publicly said that if funding for the Department of Defence was increased, expenditure on air assets would be his lowest priority. He is in a better position than Ministers to judge these matters. It is a matter of scale as the level of air protection we have is commensurate with the level of threat. It has improved somewhat in recent years.
Many smaller countries take the approach of having a token air defence system, the "something for everyone in the audience" approach. These are systems that can respond in some way to all possible military situations. The view in military circles is that this is worse than useless. It is better to have a ready response to specific situations, with forces specifically trained to respond professionally to several given situations. This is the position on which we have based our air defence system. It is absurd to pretend that a country the size of Ireland could have a fully comprehensive, guaranteed system to ensure anyone who attacked us from the air could never penetrate our defences.
Do we have any arrangement with our near neighbour where we might be able to give them a telephone call if we were attacked from the air?
There is no formal arrangement. Ireland might be an island but the world is a small place. If Ireland came under attack from the air, it would present obvious dangers to neighbouring states who would be on high alert.
Overseas Missions.
Tony Gregory
Ceist:5 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Defence if he will have recent research on the Niemba ambush evaluated and the official record updated as appropriate; and if he will consider a special commemorative measure in view of the unique circumstances of the Congo mission. [32304/05]
Since Ireland took part in its first United Nations mission in 1958, Defence Forces personnel have performed approximately 54,000 tours of duty on 58 peace support operations worldwide. The nine members of the Defence Forces killed in the Niemba ambush were the first members to lose their lives in battle while serving on a UN mission. This was the largest single loss of life in any one incident in the history of the Defence Forces' participation on UN service.
All deceased members of the Defence Forces are commemorated in annual ceremonies held throughout the country in November of each year. The 45th annual Niemba commemoration will take place on 5 November at Cathal Brugha Barracks at which the Defence Forces, Óglaigh Náisiúnta Na hÉireann Teoranta and the Irish United Nations Veterans Association will participate. The chief of staff will attend this ceremony which includes a parade to the garrison church followed by a wreath-laying ceremony at the Niemba memorial.
In addition, the 33rd Infantry Battalion Óglaigh Náisiúnta Na hÉireann Teoranta committee has organised a special ceremony to mark the 45th anniversary on 8 November at the UN plot in Glasnevin cemetery. I am supporting this special commemoration with both financial and military assistance.
Neither my Department nor the Defence Forces has a copy of the publication referred to in the question. However, steps are being taken to acquire a copy.
The Minister has repeated the inaccuracy, highlighted in a recent book, that nine members of the Defence Forces were killed in Niemba. This new publication documents that the records in the military archives and in the history of the 33rd battalion state eight members of the patrol died at Niemba and that Trooper Anthony Browne died some days later, nearly three miles away, in a separate incident. The official version, contained in the Minister's reply, is that nine soldiers died at Niemba. However, the historically recorded version in the military archives, for whatever reason, has never been translated into parliamentary replies. Does the Minister accept that only one of these versions of the incident is correct?
It is important as to which version is correct as this was a significant incident, with the largest single loss of life, in the history of the Defence Forces. Will the Minister consider asking an independent historian to examine the issue to verify the correct version and set the record straight? The two survivors of the ambush have maintained that Trooper Browne died elsewhere. Private Tom Kenny has persistently stated he wants the record put straight. If what I have said is found to be correct, will a formal apology be issued to Private Tom Kenny?
Eight of the nine bodies of those killed were recovered over the course of the two days following the ambush on 9 and 10 November 1960. The ninth body was not located at the time. In the autumn of 1962, the Defence Forces learned that the location of the ninth body was known. A team of officers was sent to meet the Niemba civil administration. After lengthy discussions, the team was brought to where the body lay. The body was removed to Elisabethville from where it was returned to Ireland for burial.
Regarding the point raised by Deputy Gregory, I will look at the archival material and will communicate with him in due course.
I thank the Minister for giving that commitment. It is important for the history of the Defence Forces that this significant incident is recorded accurately. Does the Minister feel that since this was the first major UN operation for the Defence Forces, with the largest single loss of life, the Irish State should demonstrate its respect for the men who participated in the mission by holding something more than an annual commemorative ceremony?
The six minutes for this question have elapsed. In fairness to Deputy Ó Snodaigh I must apply consistency.
Can the Minister reply?
I will consider the Deputy's proposal.