asked the Minister for Defence to make a statement on the Glen of Imaal tragedy and the steps it is proposed to take to ensure prevention of similar accidents.

19.

asked the Minister for Defence the steps he has taken to prevent recurring accidents which have resulted in the death of several civilians at the Glen of Imaal, Wicklow, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together.

The Deputy Adjutant General of the Defence Forces was appointed as investigating officer in connection with the accident at the Glen of Imaal on 14 April 1979. I have just received his report and it is being studied at present. In the meantime the ranges at the glen were cordoned off by troops and search teams have been operating in the area under the supervision of an ordnance officer.

My Department's lands at the Glen of Imaal have been in use for military purposes for more than 80 years and have always been used by the Defence Forces for exercises in heavy weapons, the training of personnel in explosive demolition and other related training. The nature of the military exercises undertaken on the lands is such that at no time is it possible to say with certainty that all shells and so on have been detonated or can otherwise be accounted for. When service ammunition fails to explode at the target area during exercises the area is searched and projectiles found are destroyed. Ricochets, however, may cause unexploded shells to reach places in the lands beyond the general target area. Because of the possibility of shells becoming buried in soft ground it has never been possible to say with certainty that all unexploded shells have been recovered. Shells previously buried in soft ground may become exposed following rain, grazing by sheep or further firing exercises.

The danger of unexploded shells surfacing at any time is a continuing one. In those circumstances and even with the most stringent military safety precautions, the lands can never be regarded as absolutely safe for recreational purposes.

Accordingly, members of the public should not at any time enter upon the military lands at the Glen of Imaal. I appeal again to all organisations connected with youth groups who go to the glen as well as to all others who go there for recreation, to keep away from the lands in the interests of their own safety. This is the only certain way of ensuring that further similar accidents cannot happen.

I should like to place on record my personal regret on the recent tragic occurrences in which three young boys sadly lost their lives and several other young people were injured. I wish to express my sincere sympathy to their parents and relatives and I am sure that all Members of the House join me in doing so.

One accepts the Minister's statement completely so far as it goes, but if there is a major danger in relation to this area should not the Department take further steps to prevent intrusions to the danger area by way, say, of erecting fences rather than merely erecting notices advising people to avoid the area?

I agree that that matter should be examined very carefully. The report of the officer who conducted the investigation should assist me in deciding what steps it might be necessary to take to ensure that the maximum possible safety precautions obtain in order to warn the general public of the dangers of this area. The Chief of Staff has instructed the Director of Training to convene a board of officers to examine and report on all aspects of safety on approved military ranges in the State. This board are to consider, among other questions, the possible effects of new weapons and of new fire-control equipment on current safety regulations and measures. In addition, it might be appropriate that I establish a committee to examine the safety regulations that are at present in operation and to ask for recommendations on future safety precautions that such a committee might deem necessary to minimise danger to the public.

This party also extend sympathy to the relatives and friends of the victims of the latest tragedy at this glen. However, I do not think that the Minister has treated the case with sufficient urgency. Would he not agree that the only solution to this problem is to have a high-rise fence erected around the entire perimeter of the area? As this is the third time there has been a tragedy in this glen it is not good enough to say merely that a committee will sit to discuss the matter. Therefore, would the Minister not agree that such an urgent matter should be given top priority and that some action should be taken immediately?

This is a very long question.

Having regard to the numbers of people who visit this scenic area, is the Minister satisfied that there will be adequate protection for them in regard to accidents of the type that have occurred?

I do not know whether the erection of a fence, as suggested by the Deputy, would be an absolute guarantee that people would cease trespassing on the Department's lands in the glen but it might be a valuable safety precaution. The area covers about 8,000 acres so that a fence would extend to perhaps 30 miles. One could expect that breaching of the fence would occur from time to time and that it might require constant repairing. At any rate I do not know whether this would be the correct step to take. Perhaps it is opportune now that a group of persons with some expertise in these matters be called together to make recommendations and the fence idea might be one that they would consider appropriate.

When should this happen?

There is a great urgency about this matter.

In the immediate future.

Within a month?

Yes.

Would the Minister accept that a high-rise fence would be the only way of approaching the problem?

Very often there is a temptation to young boys to climb a fence in order to see what they are being kept away from so that the erection of a fence in this case could have the opposite effect from what was intended. There are others who have responsibility in this area. I personally believe that youth hostels should not be located in this area, and I would appeal to those who have brought organised groups into the area to reconsider their use of this area for recreational purposes.

Would the Minister send an appeal to them in writing?

We had written to them before this accident.

The responsibility must lie with the Department of Defence. This is Department of Defence land and therefore the Minister must accept responsibility for it.

I accept that responsibility rests with the Department to take precautions and to take steps to ensure that there are adequate safety precautions. I am satisfied the Department have fulfilled their responsibility in this matter.

Does the Minister not think it would be advisable to appoint wardens to liaise with the An Óige people who are using the hostels to ensure that a similar tragedy does not happen? Would he not appoint these wardens while he is awaiting the report of the committee he has mentioned?

It would be much more sensible if the people who organise the hostels reconsidered whether the hostels should exist in that area.

How often do the military have exercises which entail the use of shells and other explosives in the Glen of Imaal?

Very frequently. I would have to get separate information for the Deputy, but the number of rounds fired in the glen has increases very substantially in recent years. The type of equipment is changing as well.

I know the Minister is as sympathetic about this as we are on this side of the House. Would it not be better to consider using a completely new site for this type of exercise? The Glen of Imaal is part of the garden of Ireland. It is so convenient to Dublin and it is so beautiful that young people and trekkers will use it. There have already been three tragedies and the chances are that there will be another. There are many places in the island of Ireland, on the west coast, or perhaps not so far from the Glen of Imaal, where 8,000 acres of land could be found which young people will not particularly want to visit on a Sunday evening. In the interests of all concerned, would it not be better to find a completely new site which the military could use as a firing range?

Some people have expressed that view, but I want to make it quite clear that following that suggestion would not remove the dangers which exist at present in the firing range at the glen. If we were to close it down today, we would have no guarantee that there are not still live projectiles in the area.

Surely it could be swept clean.

No. That is not possible. I want the House and the Deputy to accept from me that it is not possible to give that type of guarantee. It has been known for projectiles to appear which were fired 30 or 40 years ago. The danger will exist for 100 years after the date of closing down this range. If we were to move now and open a new range, we would be creating a further area where this type of danger would exist for trespassing members of the public. Rather than minimising the danger, we would be increasing the possibility of a further accident. The decision to use the glen was made, and the fact that it has been used for over 80 years debars us from moving away from it. All we can do in the best interests of the public is to ensure that the maximum possible safety precautions are taken in the area.

I accept what the Minister is saying. I am not an expert, but is the House to understand that we have a categorical statement from the Minister that it is impossible for mine detecting apparatus to find, locate, destroy, or remove explosive substances such as unexploded mines?

I am not saying it is humanly impossible. I am saying it is highly impractical. The area is covered with pieces of metal from exploded projectiles which have been fired there for the past 80 years. A metal detector would react to every single piece of metal in the ground. It might take years to carry out the type of exercise the Deputy is proposing. I do not know how many years.

Could I suggest——

Question No. 20.

This is a very important question.

It does not matter how important it is. It is entitled to the same treatment as any other question.

Does the Minister consider that the guest houses and youth hostels should have notices warning their guests of the immediate danger in this area?

Such requests were made to youth organisations before this recent accident. I have no guarantee that they will erect these signs.

I mean in the premises.

I have no guarantee that they will erect them. We have already requested them to erect them.

Would the Department supply these guest houses and youth hostels with these notices?

We could consider that.

Could the Minister ask officers of his Department to find out if these notices have been provided? This is a question of two-way co-operation. There should be more co-operation between the Department and the An Óige people and the youth groups who are using the area to point out the dangers that exist.

That is argument.

The notices were not erected in the youth hostels.

The Department did not supply them.