Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will deal with Deputy Gannon's questions first. I am not sure this will make a huge impact with respect to underwater fibre cables but I can come back to the Deputy on the technicalities of that. My understanding is that MARSUR III is more about surveillance on the surface of the water, primarily, and the sharing of information in a way that is confidential and secure. That is important in the context of maritime security. Ireland has ten times as much sea surface as land surface. We have a significant responsibility in the north-west Atlantic in terms of maritime security. In terms of co-operating with our neighbours and other EU countries in sharing data in a way that is secure and safe, we could say "No". I would make this point to Deputy Brady. No one is forcing us to do anything here. We do not have to be part of any of these projects if we do not want to be. We have chosen to be part of these projects because we think it is Ireland’s interest and enhances the capability of our Defence Forces, not undermines their independence as seems to be suggested. If the Deputy were to ask those in the Defence Forces whether they want to be part of these projects, he would get his answer. They want to be interoperable with other defence forces in case they need to work with them, whether it be on a security, rescue or maritime catastrophe issue - for example, if there was an oil tanker spillage or something like that. We want to make sure, just like when our Defence Forces are on peacekeeping missions overseas, we have interoperability with the other nations with which we work. We are in UNIFIL with Polish forces at the moment. As we train together and understand each other, we are interoperable in a very efficient way that keeps our personnel as safe as they can be.

The idea that neutrality means we do not talk to anybody else, do not do anything in partnership with anybody else, keep to ourselves, keep our head down and do not spend any money on the military and military capacity, to my mind is complete nonsense. Being militarily neutral means we decide what we are and are not part of and what does and does not suit Ireland and our interests and defence priorities. That is what being non-aligned means. The European Defence Agency, EDA, only works for many of the other countries in the EU that are also non-aligned militarily and are also neutral because it allows countries to opt in or opt out as the case may be, whether it be category A or category B projects.

On this particular project on which I am asking members for their support, Sweden is a country that also considers itself to be neutral - and it is very much a part of this as well - as does Malta, but because they are maritime countries they want to make sure there is interoperability and proper sharing of information. Ireland, like other EU neutral counties that are not members of NATO, decides to work with other countries when it makes sense to do so. The projects in which we are involved, linked to the EDA, have all been ones that significantly enhance our capability from a military perspective, be it around cybersecurity, from which we need to learn and share experience with other countries. If our view was that we could not talk to any other EU countries because that would compromise our independence, we would be in a pretty sorry state in terms of our capacity and state of readiness for many threats, some of which are real and some of which are perceived.

The programme for Government and the White Paper on Defence are very clear on this. We are not changing our position in the context of Irish neutrality but we are being proactive in what we choose to be part of. These EDA projects we are part of certainly make a lot of sense to me in terms of Ireland’s capacity building within our Defence Forces.

Both Deputies have raised very fair questions on the Naval Service with respect to strength, staffing and resource issues. We know about that. We are trying to fix it. We have introduced sea-going and financial incentives for people in the Naval Service. We will continue to work with the Naval Service on a recruitment and retention strategy until we get it right. We will also continue to invest in the Naval Service until we can be sure we have sufficient numbers that we need. We have a target strength where we know we need to be at. We are not close to that at the moment. I believe that, given time to address this, we will get back there. We have recruitment and retention issues across the Defence Forces more generally and that is a big focus of the new Commission on the Defence Forces, which is doing good work. I am really happy with how it is progressing. It will report before the end of the year. I can assure the Deputies that I am more than aware of the challenges, but the idea that we would respond to recruitment and retention challenges in the Naval Service by opting out of increasing our capacity, both nationally and internationally, and by learning from best practice and by opting into shared data gathering and so on, in many ways would be downgrading the role of our Defence Forces and our Naval Service, not improving their capacity, which certainly will help to attract more people into the Naval Service as they see it as an exciting and rewarding career.

Regarding Deputy Brady’s questions on a European army and so on, that has nothing to do this motion. I do not see any path towards the creation of a European army. I see interoperability, co-operation and opt-in or opt-out options for countries. As it happens, Denmark is a NATO country and it co-ordinates its military co-operation and research through NATO structures rather than through the EDA. That is a matter for it. We are not a member of NATO. We work with NATO on certain things and again we choose when and on what we do that. That is what a neutral state can do. That is how the EDA works for us as well.

I reassure the committee that this adds to rather than compromises our independence as a country. It allows us as an independent state to get the benefit of co-operation without being tied into a military alliance. That is the beauty of it. Other countries rely on NATO and its structures for that kind of interoperability, but we do not. The way in which the EDA works allows countries that are not NATO members to benefit from shared information and shared projects of interest on an opt-in or opt-out basis depending on the project.

The Deputy asked how much we spent on this. I will provide the figures. The maritime surveillance, MARSUR, project costs us €50,000 per year. Our overall contribution to the EDA in 2015, including projects, was €397,000. In 2016, it was €221,000. In 2017, it was €547,000. In 2018, it was €578,000. In the year up to 2020, it was €689,000. It is in and around €500,000 per year. Given the projects I outlined that we have been and continue to be part of, this represents much better value for money than trying to build the same capacity on our own because we believed doing so enhanced our neutrality somehow. We would be left behind and, unfortunately, the Defence Forces would be left exposed by not having the benefit of these projects and the know-how developed through them.

According to a note I have, there is no provision in the EU treaties for the establishment of a European army. That is true, but there is also no political intent to move in that direction. That is certainly the case from an Irish perspective.

On the matter of the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, under the Defence Acts, I as Minister can call the Council of Defence or the Council of State to advise me on a defence issue. For that to happen, there is a requirement in the legislation for a Minister of State in the Department of Defence to be part of the Council of Defence structure. The Government felt it was consistent with existing legislation to have a Minister of State in the Department of Defence. That is what the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, has been asked to do. He does not have any formal assigned role to go with that, but if he is going to be part of the defence structure, he has to be briefed and up to speed because he is someone whose counsel I will seek in terms of political decisions we have to make around defence. That is why he has been briefing himself, meeting representative bodies and so on, as he should. He is working with me and does not have an assigned role that a Minister of State would normally have for a specific policy area, but he is certainly involved. I have had a number of meetings with him on broader defence thinking and policy development within the Government. That will be useful, particularly when the Commission on the Defence Forces reports. I hope he and I will be able to bring those recommendations to the Government and ensure they are acted upon. That is the position. There is no mystery around it.