Billy Timmins
Question:59 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the steps, if any, he has taken to prepare the Defence Forces for Ireland's entry into Partnership for Peace in view of the recent comments on the subject. [5031/99]
Other Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
Frances Fitzgerald
Question:165 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the implications for the Defence Forces of the Government's decision to join Partnership for Peace; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5138/99]
Frances Fitzgerald
Question:174 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the implications for the Defence Forces of the Government's decision to join Partnership for Peace; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4914/99]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:231 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if the Defence Forces will receive any special or extra training in the context of possible participation in Partnership for Peace; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5276/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 59, 165, 174 and 231 together.
The question of Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace was the subject of a Private Members' motion and debate on 28 January 1999, culminating in the passing by the House of a Government resolution undertaking favourably to examine further Ireland's participation in PfP taking into account the ongoing public debate. In addition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a reply to a parliamentary question on 17 February 1999, gave an undertaking that any decision by the Government in favour of Ireland's participation in PfP would make clear the nature and scope of such participation and would be submitted to this House for its approval.
As regards implications for the Defence Forces of a decision to participate in PfP, I envisage that any possible future role for the Defence Forces would be in the area of peacekeeping and humanitarian and rescue tasks. Participants in PfP subscribe to a framework document which sets out the basic purposes and objectives of PfP. In addition, individual states decide on the scope and extent of their participation in PfP activities and in this regard agree individual partnership programmes covering the activities to which they wish to subscribe.
Should we decide at any time in the future to participate in PfP, it is envisaged that selected activities would include peacekeeping under a UN mandate and humanitarian and rescue tasks, etc. These are activities in line with our traditional involvement and experience in these areas. Since there has been no decision to participate in PfP, and in view of the nature of any envisaged participation by the Defence Forces, the question of preparations or special training for the Defence Forces does not arise at this juncture.
During the aforementioned debate in the House, Deputies will recall that the Taoiseach stated he would envisage Ireland joining Partnership for Peace on a mutually agreed basis in the second half of this year and that the Government would work towards that timetable. The Taoiseach sees the current debate on PfP as allowing an opportunity to the different parties in Dáil Éireann to formulate their positions and to put them before the people as part of the European election platforms.
The Taoiseach also indicated that it is not the Government's intention that joining PfP would result in a change in the real level of Defence spending. It is the policy of the Government to ensure that the Defence Forces are adequately trained, equipped and resourced to undertake whatever overseas operations with which they are tasked from time to time.
I take it from the Minister's reply that no specific preparations have been put in place in relation to our proposed entry into Partnership for Peace. I find that extraordinary considering that the Taoiseach indicated we would apply to join in the second half of the year. I am aware the Department is receiving submissions on the White Paper and that the Defence Forces are being reorganised. Will the Minister agree it would be prudent to examine how that reorganisation may be affected by our entry into Partnership for Peace? Given that there is a shortage of volunteers for overseas duty, has the Minister considered establishing a type of peace corps whose personnel could be used for overseas missions?
I indicated to Deputy Timmins during the last Question Time that I would examine the question of having an emergency team ready, and I am in the process of doing that. We do not have a problem with meeting our requirements to the UN. There was a problem in the past but the Government policy of constant recruitment has removed it. We have a reserve list of people wanting to go overseas but there is insufficient space for them to go to the UN at the present time. Deputy Timmins is correct that a certain amount of planning and preparation has to go into this matter because there is a long lead-in, as he will know from his own experience, to getting people ready for various kinds of actions. We must first await a decision. There is no point in trying to have a normal open discussion about something before decisions are taken but the better equipment the Defence Forces are getting, the armoured personnel carriers, the constant recruitment and all of the developments taking place to enhance the Defence Forces in terms of its reorganisation prepare us for the many challenges we will face. One of the reasons for that reorganisation is to prepare for future demands that might be made on us. It is not true to say preparation is not being made for the different demands that will arise in the future.
I have been given to understand that a small number of personnel were in training for a joint American-British exercise in the USA which I believe commenced on 14 February. Unfortunately, these personnel did not travel on the exercise. Will the Minister throw some light on that? Will he agree it would have been useful to the advancement of training in the Army if these personnel had been permitted to take part in such an exercise? Will the Minister indicate if the Department of Foreign Affairs blocked this project and, if so, why?
Proposals come forward from time to time for members of the Defence Forces to participate in different exercises and, in the final analysis, they are a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs to adjudicate upon. The considerations necessary in that and other instances will always be taken.
Has a request been received for troops to go to Kosovo in the eventuality of troops being deployed there under the UN or under the aegis of another regional organisation?
A request has been made and preparation is in train should that eventualise. Prior to Christmas a number of officers were sent to the area to examine the situation and bring back a detailed report on what would be required.
Acting Chairman
I am anxious to move on to other questions with the agreement of Deputies. There are a number of questions related to Ques tion No. 60 but we dealt with that topic in Questions Nos. 55 and 56. With the agreement of Deputies, I propose that we take Question No. 60 as read. We can go through it again but it is the same topic as that raised in Questions Nos. 55 and 56.
I would like to ask one question in relation to it.
I am happy to take the question.
Acting Chairman
I am merely anxious to deal with as many questions as possible.
I appreciate that. Post-traumatic stress disorder is part of this question in terms of the potential for claims arising in the Defence Forces. How does the Minister envisage compensation claims on this and other issues will be dealt with in the Defence Forces at a future date? Does the Minister have any plans to reform the Pensions Board or set up some scheme so that cases, other than the deafness cases, do not continually come before the courts?
Obviously we will grow in experience in the context of the non-judicial system we are preparing for hearing claims and these types of cases. That experience should help us decide whether thought should be given in the long-term to the way all these cases can be combined in a more sophisticated, less expensive and non-legal type system. There are approximately 21 claims for post-traumatic stress but only one has been dealt with by the courts and that is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. I hope we will not see an escalation in these type of claims but I appreciate it would be wise to give wider consideration to alternative systems, and the experience we gain now could be invaluable in that context.