Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2007

Vol. 633 No. 2

Priority Questions.

Fiscal Policy.

Billy Timmins

Ceist:

80 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence if he will visit troops serving overseas on St. Patrick’s Day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8853/07]

I have no plans to visit Irish troops serving overseas on St. Patrick's Day. However, the general officers commanding the home brigades for our missions in Liberia, Lebanon and Kosovo, the main missions in which we have troops deployed, will visit the troops in these missions on St. Patrick's Day, as is the norm and tradition.

As Deputies will be aware, I recently returned from visiting Irish personnel of the 34th Infantry Group serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. The primary purpose of my visit was to see at first hand the work of members of the Defence Forces serving with UNIFIL and convey to them, on behalf of the Government and the people, the deep appreciation felt regarding the outstanding manner in which they perform their duties in this very challenging mission.

My visit to Lebanon was arranged to coincide as near as practicable with the St. Patrick's Day festival. I paid a similar visit to personnel serving with the United Nations mission in Liberia at the same time last year. Such visits serve to boost the morale of Defence Forces personnel serving abroad, especially at the time of our national day celebrations.

I know the Minister was abroad recently. However, it is a pity he will not be abroad on St. Patrick's Day, our national day of commemoration. Traditionally, the Minister for Defence has travelled abroad to meet troops. The Minister probably wants to attend the parade in Limerick on the day. It is important that of all Ministers, the Minister for Defence should be the one to travel abroad.

The practice I have adopted is that the general officers visit the troops serving in the various missions during St. Patrick's week. So as not to coincide, I try to visit one of the missions as near as possible to that week. Last year we travelled to Liberia and this year to Lebanon. The troops seem to appreciate us doing it this way. As far as the St. Patrick's Day celebrations are concerned, this year I will visit troops who were in Lebanon and will travel abroad on behalf of the country.

Where will the Minister visit them?

I will visit troops at Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick and may be able to arrange visits beyond this, if time allows.

Will the Minister arrange a visit to Lebanon on St. Patrick's Day by Opposition spokespersons?

Overseas Missions.

Joe Costello

Ceist:

81 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Defence the outcome of his discussions with the Lebanese authorities regarding the denaturalisation, deportation and prosecution of the chief suspect in the murder of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne in 1980 in Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8768/07]

I visited Lebanon during the period 27 February to 1 March. During the visit I met the Lebanese Minister for Defence, Elias Murr. Among the issues we discussed was the killing of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne while serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, in 1980 and the efforts to bring the alleged perpetrator of this crime to justice. The measures open to the Irish authorities to bring the alleged perpetrator of this crime to justice were examined in detail in the Department of Defence in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney General advised that no provisions in Irish law provided a basis for Ireland to pursue a prosecution against the alleged perpetrator. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also examined all the available evidence in the case and concluded that it could not pursue a prosecution against the alleged perpetrator.

The country with primary jurisdiction in this case is Lebanon. The Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs are also in contact with the authorities in the United States where the alleged perpetrator resides as a naturalised US citizen. The United States is investigating the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne to see whether there is sufficient evidence which may enable it to take a case against the alleged perpetrator. If the US authorities can mount a case in the United States for the denaturalisation of the alleged perpetrator, the person in question could be returned to Lebanon, in which case we would seek to have the Lebanese authorities bring the alleged perpetrator to justice. During my meeting last week with the Lebanese Minister for Defence I sought the assistance of the Lebanese authorities in pursuing the case. Mr. Murr assured me the Lebanese authorities would assist in every possible way should the alleged perpetrator be denaturalised and deported from the United States to Lebanon.

We continue with our very best efforts in this case. It has been more than 25 years since this tragic event happened and the families deserve justice. They are not forgotten. I am assiduously pursuing every avenue possible.

I thank the Minister for raising the issue during his recent visit to Lebanon. As the House is aware, the manner in which Privates Barrett and Smallhorne were ambushed, kidnapped and killed in cold blood amounted to one of the most barbaric acts ever to have taken place involving Irish peacekeeping troops while serving abroad. In 2000 a campaign was initiated by PDFORRA to try to have the gentleman concerned denaturalised, extradited and prosecuted. The Minister raised the matter in 2005 and again this year. What talks did he specifically have on this matter with the Lebanese authorities and what was their response? Are they in favour of extradition and a prosecution taking place?

What has been the response of the US authorities? The Minister suggested they would raise the matter at the United Nations. Have they agreed to do so? Are they prepared to denaturalise a US citizen and have him extradited? Did they give any indication that they were prepared to do so?

I understand the Attorney General's advice was that the person concerned could be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions. The individual concerned was a member of the South Lebanese Army at the time and responsible for a crime against humanity and an international war crime.

What talks has the Minister had with the United Nations on this matter? To what extent has the matter been progressed since the question of extradition was initially raised? What steps have been taken since the person concerned was identified in the United States and the matter was raised publicly by PDFORRA? Where are we at this time?

Regarding the attitude of the Lebanese authorities, I raised the matter with the relevant Minister in Lebanon, namely, the Minister for Defence who is also the Deputy Prime Minister. I put it to him that there was a possibility that the individual concerned may be denaturalised by the US authorities which must go to court to do so. If he were denaturalised, he would no longer retain his US citizenship and be deported. We presume he would be deported to Lebanon, of which he was originally a citizen. I asked the Minister for Defence if in those circumstances the Lebanese authorities would be prepared to prosecute him in respect of the incident involving Privates Barrett and Smallhorne but he could not provide a categoric assurance, as it would be a matter for the prosecuting authorities in Lebanon to decide. However, he assured me he would be personally interested in seeing justice done in this case and that either he or his successor would liaise with the Government and be open to any suggestions we would make. The Lebanese Government is being very co-operative.

With regard to the United States, my understanding is that the type of case that can be taken by the authorities with such a scenario would be to denaturalise the individual in question. I am not absolutely sure about the grounds for denaturalisation, but from conversations we have had with the American authorities, I believe they will proceed on the grounds that the person was not exactly truthful in his initial application. The FBI is pursuing the matter currently. We have been in touch with the American authorities on a number of occasions about this and I understand the ongoing process may take some time.

Although I recognise the right of everybody to raise the issue and it is clearly a matter of concern to the families and myself, the United States authorities have more or less indicated to us that the less publicly said about it, the better. A gentleman who is free to come and go is residing in a certain part of the United States, which is a free country. If he gets wind that there is too much further down the line, he may take flight and disappear.

Proceedings are ongoing by the United States authorities, specifically the FBI, with a view to taking proceedings to denaturalise this individual. If this is successful, other processes will follow. In anticipation of this I spoke to the Lebanese authorities, which I have found to be most co-operative.

It is 27 years since the killings took place in the 1980s and that gentleman has really been living in the most peaceful circumstances since. The case has been raised on a number of occasions in the past seven years and he certainly has not taken flight. The main requirement would be for us to make every effort at this time because time is of the essence. The 27-year period has been very long for the bereaved families in Cork and Dublin.

Could we get some commitment that our ambassadors to the United States, the United Nations and Lebanon would continuously push the issue and keep it in the limelight? It may be another couple of years before the matter is raised again. As I stated previously, time is of the essence.

I recognise that 27 years is a very long time but we should bear some issues in mind. This gentleman has not been openly identified for the past 27 years, as the identification was more recent. We have researched every aspect of our law and held the most extensive discussions to see if we could do anything as a country to seek his extradition and put him on trial here. We have been advised again and again by the Attorney General, and afterwards by the DPP, that there is no provision for us to do so. We are basically relying on the US Government, a third party, whose police authorities have told me they are doing everything possible to mount a case for denaturalisation.

If Deputy Costello feels it would be helpful, I will certainly have a word with the ambassador to ask him to again speak to his American counterpart in an effort to expedite the process. As I understand, it is a slow process and although I am assured the Americans are doing everything possible, I will ask the ambassador to speak to the US counterpart if the Deputy so wishes.

Defence Forces Equipment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ceist:

82 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement detailing the types of special building measures and contingency response plans required for safety reasons where military materials are transported by planes. [8954/07]

As Minister for Defence, I have no responsibility for the transport of military material by plane, other than that transported by or on behalf of the Defence Forces. Weapons and ammunition for the Defence Forces, which may be intended for transportation by plane, are stored in dedicated armouries at Casement Aerodrome. These are separate to stores used for other materials and are secured by CCTV and high security doors.

The use of and inherent risks associated with all defence buildings are considered as part of the assessment for proposed building projects and the Department complies with recognised national and international standards, codes and practices for building, design and construction. Particular attention is paid to buildings in which hazardous materials are housed or used, such as ammunition and explosive depots, ordnance stores and fuel stores. Special measures are taken in the design and construction of such buildings commensurate with the risks identified.

When dangerous goods are transported by Air Corps aircraft overseas, they are listed in the diplomatic clearance application of the destination country. This information is used so as to ensure that, in the event of an in-flight emergency, the rescue and recovery services are alerted to the presence of said dangerous goods. Likewise, if dangerous goods are arriving at Casement Aerodrome, the Air Corps crash rescue service is alerted by Air Corps operations section, which receives notification through the diplomatic clearance form as to the presence and type of such goods.

In addition, the Air Corps has a full-time senior officer dedicated to the maintenance of a proactive aviation safety programme, including the monitoring of compliance with such a programme. I am satisfied the necessary safety measures are in place in the Defence Forces for the transportation of military materials.

I thank the Minister for his reassurance on the transportation of materials. Is the Minister indicating the Department has absolutely no role in the transport of armaments through the country by companies producing, transporting or exporting weaponry? Is the Department informed of such shipments in or out of the country in any way or does it have any role in emergency planning, considering the amount of weapons being transported through Shannon, some of which are explosive?

Last year I asked questions on what were termed "dangerous goods" being transported from Canada through Shannon to Bulgaria. Do the military authorities lend any advice to the Irish Aviation Authority and the airport authorities on freight craft carrying such materials, and what procedures and protections should be followed? Is there advice on the separation of the civilian population using the Shannon or Dublin airports and military goods? Such separation might involve blast deflection walls etc., used in the presence of goods of explosive nature or where there is a possibility of a major event.

The answer to the Deputy's first question is "no". Our only responsibility relates to Army material transported by the Army or on behalf of the Army by civil aircraft. That is where our responsibility ends. The responsibility for the matters referred to by the Deputy lies with the Department of Transport.

However, we have a responsibility in the event of an emergency. As Minister for Defence, I am head of the emergency planning task force, on which there is a later question. My job as chairman is to co-ordinate the response to various projected emergencies.

One such emergency would of course be an accident involving an aeroplane at an airport because of the presence of explosives or as a result of a crash etc. We have very detailed plans to deal with such a contingency, and we have exercised those plans on a number of occasions. I personally attended one of the exercises at Dublin Airport about 12 months ago and I attended an exercise in Shannon much more recently, although I cannot remember the exact date. That was quite an extensive exercise, which went on for most of a day.

On advice given to the aviation authorities, the Department of Transport is a member of the emergency task force, which I chair. There is clearly much interaction between members of the emergency task force, which meets every four or five weeks. A back-up group to the emergency task force consists of officials from various Departments and there is much interaction there. If the Department of Transport or any others responsible for such matters wish to consult with our people, they can do so either at a meeting of the emergency task force or at a meeting of the back-up committee.

Is the Minister happy with the plans in place for an emergency? For example, in Shannon there has been a number of incidents in the past number of years, with some involving a number of factories in Shannon being evacuated, and others involving fire brigade units from all around the region, not only those in Shannon Airport. The US refused to disclose what was on the military planes involved.

The emergency planning task force, of which I am chairman, is never completely happy with contingency arrangements. It is for this reason that exercises are conducted and the task force meets regularly. In light of experience and new methods of terrorism, we are improving plans consistently.

A number of simulated exercises at Dublin Airport and Shannon Airport were audited by the relevant European authorities and found to be first class, but this does not mean we can become complacent. We are constantly improving airport security and I have instructed the relevant people to conduct more exercises in the near future to determine what else can be learned. While we are never fully happy, we are always improving and our contingency arrangements are as good as those found anywhere.

Permanent Defence Force.

Billy Timmins

Ceist:

83 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence his views on the contents of an article in a newspaper (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8854/07]

The article to which the Deputy refers is the report of an interview with the Defence Forces' Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan, that appeared in The Irish Times on Wednesday, 27 December 2006. The interview was wide-ranging and the Chief of Staff gave his views on a number of current matters of interest to the Defence Forces, including their preparation for Ireland’s involvement in the “Nordic” battle group in 2008, the question of hours at sea for Naval Service personnel, the triple lock mechanism, the threat to Ireland from Islamic extremists, current overseas missions and the changing nature of the work involved, the possibility of Defence Forces involvement in a future UN mission to Darfur, the effects of the Army hearing loss controversy on the image of the Defence Forces, the 90th anniversary commemorations of 1916 and the future use of members of the Reserve Defence Forces on overseas missions.

The overall impression conveyed by the interview was of a modern, highly motivated, well trained and professional Permanent Defence Force fully equipped to deliver a high quality service to the Government and people of Ireland and to take on whatever tasks may be asked of it at home or overseas within the parameters and constraints set out in the White Paper on Defence.

The overarching objective of the White Paper was to ensure that the State has available at all times flexible, well equipped and well trained defence forces, including an appropriate reserve, to meet the roles laid down by Government. The Chief of Staff has made a significant contribution to delivering this capability and his commitment is evident from the interview.

I have just returned from visiting our troops in Lebanon, accompanied by the Chief of Staff, and I am pleased to report that I saw highly trained, well equipped and motivated soldiers carrying out their peacekeeping tasks in a professional and competent manner. As a former member of the Defence Forces, Deputy Timmins will be delighted by the improvements that have occurred in defence in accordance with the White Paper and in light of the changed defence and security environment.

Did the Minister have any difficulty with the interview and, if so, what were the issues?

I had no difficulty with the interview per se. The Deputy probably knows better than I that the Chief of Staff has a distinguished record and I would be sorry if any shadow was cast over it by the actions of someone who leaked a letter sent by me to the Chief of Staff. There is a steady stream of correspondence between a Minister for Defence and a Chief of Staff.

As in any democracy, Army officers in Ireland speak on operational matters in general and do not comment on policy matters. Policy is the remit of the Government, which is answerable to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the people. When a senior member of the Army is interviewed in the public domain, there is a possibility that today's clever media will drag him or her into saying something that should not be said, namely, something that casts a judgment on some aspect of Government policy. I am glad to say the Chief of Staff avoided that situation, but it was timely to write through him to the officers of the Army to remind them of the position in this regard. My letter contained no personal reference to the Chief of Staff. As the Deputy knows, if the Minister wants to communicate with Army officers, the proper way to do so is to send a letter to the Chief of Staff and ask him or her to circulate it. We have a responsibility to ensure that the situation obtaining since the foundation of the State is adhered to. Basically, I asked anyone who speaks in the public domain to stick to operational matters rather than policy.

Does the Minister vet all articles written by members of the Defence Forces or is he of the opinion that he should do so? He is concerned that a part of the letter ended up with a national newspaper. Does he know how this happened and does he intend to follow up on the matter?

The Minister should vet them all.

I have no idea about how this occurred. Once one writes a letter to the Chief of Staff and asks him to circulate it, it becomes difficult to follow the trail. I do not vet the statements of Army officers in advance and I have no desire to do so. Occasionally, I take the opportunity to remind officers of their obligations, namely, that the Army is neutral. It has maintained a tradition of neutrality since the foundation of the State and has never commented on policy regardless of which Government is in power. I hope this situation is maintained in future.

I have a supplementary question. Has the Minister written many of the letters to which he referred and, if so, what were their themes? Had he reason to write to the Chief of Staff previously?

There is a steady stream of correspondence between a Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff. While I address many matters therein, I have had occasion to remind people of their responsibilities, which has been the practice of every holder of this portfolio since the foundation of the State.

Overseas Missions.

Tony Gregory

Ceist:

84 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Defence if he will meet the two survivors of the Niemba ambush and attempt to resolve the remaining outstanding issues of concern to them. [9187/07]

The Niemba ambush occurred almost 46 years ago. It was the first such action involving the horrific deaths of Defence Forces personnel on a scale that remains unique. It has never been far from the public consciousness and I would like to publicly acknowledge the sacrifice made by all of the patrol's members and to extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those who died.

I will not take up the time of the House by going over the circumstances again, but there are two areas of controversy, namely, where Trooper Browne died and what he did to contribute to the survival of Private Kenny. The report concludes that prior to Trooper Browne's escape from the ambush site, he fired his weapon at the Balubas who were intent on beating Private Kenny to death, thereby distracting them and saving his life.

Colonel Behan's research of the available reports, consultation, interviews and direct evidence shows that there is no absolute certainty achievable in regard to these two matters. However, all the material assembled by Colonel Behan, including the statements of the interviews with Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick, will be added to the unit history and other associated papers held at the Military Archives, thereby creating the fullest and clearest record possible of this tragic event.

Since the completion of the report, Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick have asked me to hold an independent inquiry on the matter, but I do not believe that any further inquiry or investigation will resolve the facts of this case. Rather than focusing further on the specific circumstances in dispute, I would prefer to focus on how best the contribution of Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick can be suitably recognised and honoured. I would like to advise the House that I will be meeting each of the men tomorrow.

The Chief of Staff has proposed that appropriate public recognition of Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick be arranged on the day of an overseas parade where both could receive an appropriate presentation, such as a plaque or scroll. The UNIFIL review of troops, which is scheduled for Cathal Brugha Barracks at the end of April, would appear to be a suitable venue and event. A liaison officer has been appointed to keep Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick informed of developments with this proposal.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that Mr. Kenny, particularly in light of the serious injuries he sustained, and Mr. Fitzpatrick survived an horrific encounter with hostile forces, displaying courage, fortitude and tenacity to survive until finally rescued. I commend them on the selfless service they have given their country.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet the two survivors and for his compliments on their tenacity and courage. It was the largest number of lives lost in the history of the Defence Forces while serving abroad. It has to be true to say that, unfortunately, the Irish contingent was ill-equipped and ill-prepared for what lay ahead in the Congo. The survival of Privates Kenny and Fitzpatrick in the horrific events of the ambush was a measure of their courage, willpower and tenacity, as the Minister said. However, they have never been given adequate recognition for their heroic survival. The Minister has done more than any other in the pursuit of justice in the case, but there are outstanding issues of concern which must be fully and finally resolved. He will agree that it is unacceptable that one or either of these brave two survivors should find it necessary to protest outside Leinster House. That has been the case in recent weeks. Part of my reason for asking the Minister to meet them was to prevent this continuing and resolve the outstanding issues involved. I am glad he has agreed to do so.

In so far as I understand it — he will tell the Minister tomorrow, first-hand — Private Kenny's sole wish is that the official record should accurately reflect what happened to him and how he survived. He is looking for nothing more nor less than this. The Minister will be able to assure him that that will be the case and that his account of what happened to him will be recorded in the official record from now on. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for a variety of reasons. Private Fitzpatrick, on the other hand, wants and is entitled to due recognition for what the Minister has referred in the Dáil, namely, his tenacity and courage in his survival in that horrific ambush. I hope that when the Minister meets Private Fitzpatrick tomorrow he will be able to resolve that issue of recognition. I believe strongly that for far too long, for reasons I will not go into, including some, perhaps, I do not fully understand, these two brave men have not been given due recognition for their courage in their survival in the horrors of Niemba. I hope this is the final phase and that on this occasion the outstanding issues of concern will be resolved and that they will finally receive the recognition due to them.

Hear, hear.

I thank Deputy Gregory for his kind remarks. I came to this issue with an open mind. Several of my predecessors in office had been asked about it and took the advice of the Army that the matter was closed. I reopened it. We had a full inquiry, as a result of which certain conclusions have been reached, which were not arrived at previously. I take the Deputy's point about Private Kenny wanting to have the record altered to include his account of events. I am confident I will be able to assure him that we shall be able to do this. As yet, I am not sure what Private Fitzpatrick wants to talk to me about. However, I have invited him and he has agreed to come. I shall meet both of them tomorrow and try to resolve the outstanding issues to the very best of my ability in so far as this is within my power. I do not want to see anyone protesting outside Leinster House, particularly an old soldier.

Barr
Roinn