Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for facilitating my attendance. I welcome the guests and thank them for their comprehensive opening statements.

I asked the Tánaiste to address this first issue yesterday. The Government has given an undertaking that the Department of Foreign Affairs will set out a briefing document for Members of the Oireachtas on what Irish neutrality is. We have never had it defined in the 102 or so years the State has been around. We frequently hear it said that Ireland is politically neutral or militarily neutral and non-aligned. We fail to understand these are opposite poles when it comes to discussing things. Would either of the witnesses care to try to define Irish neutrality, or Paddy neutrality as I frequently refer to it? It is becoming quite embarrassing when we travel overseas. I recently attended a conference in Bruges on foreign affairs and defence involving the 27 member states. At that conference during sidebar conversations, the issue of Ireland's neutrality was in some cases regarded as the butt of a joke and in more cases as a serious threat to the western flank of Europe. Do the witnesses have anything to say on that?

I disagree with Dr. McDonagh insofar as I think the forum organised by the Tánaiste was quite brave because it kicked topics into the public domain that for years had been suppressed. It did not achieve what it set out to do, but it started the conversation and we needed to start it.

That brings me on to the Defence Forces. In this illustrious establishment, when people talk about the Defence Forces, they categorise them into one of two categories. One is the local authority corporation that deals with bus strikes, collects bins, cleans the snow off the footpaths, are lovely guys in uniform any time a new ambassador arrives in the country and the only role they have in the world is peacekeeping. We fail to take cognisance of the fact that our explosive ordnance disposal, EOD, people are out once if not twice a week and of the several other mandatory statutory tasks and objectives the Defence Forces have. Speaking to two guys in civvies, there is an onus on all of us to get into the public domain what we do, what our Defence Forces are there for. They are greatly misunderstood.

On the lack of an intelligence service in Ireland, An Garda Síochána is double-hatted with some intelligence duties and normal policing. Do the witnesses see the lack of an intelligence service similar to the CIA, MI5 or MI6 as limiting? They spoke about how we can attend various committees in Europe and elsewhere, but there is a point at which we are no longer required in the room or, if we are in the room, we have no direct input. Is the lack of an intelligence agency in some way hampering Ireland's position?

The Atlantic Ocean carries massive assets for Europe, and many of them pass through our economic zone. It is as plain as the nose on my face that we are incapable of patrolling that area. Even if all nine ships were at sea, we still could not cover the level of the Atlantic Ocean that is necessary. I proposed at that meeting in Bruges the establishment of a European Atlantic fleet, outside NATO, that would have arrest capacity anywhere in Europe. The only caveat would be that an arrested ship would be landed at the nearest port, wherever that might be. Conceivably, a German ship could arrest a ship in Irish waters and have to escort it to Ireland for whatever action to be taken. We are not necessarily talking about military ships. We are talking about drugs, people trafficking and such things. Do the witnesses see that as something that might fly? It certainly flew in Bruges when I spoke about it.

I could not possibly discuss memorandums of understanding, MOUs. I am up to my neck in that at the moment. When that is over we will chat about it.

The witnesses spoke about research. There is research into military equipment in Carlow, for example. There is a lack of a centralised research agency. We discussed this yesterday in respect of cybersecurity. A great deal of cyber research is going on in the country, but there is no statutory body with oversight of it, which all these research agencies would feed into in order for us to have a co-ordinated approach to all research. Could we pull in military and cyber research under the guise of a central research body? How would that improve things? I am sorry I am throwing a lot at the witnesses, but I want to try to get in as much as I can.

Currently, Ireland cannot be a member of NATO for a number of reasons, not least that there is neither political nor public will to be. However, the North Atlantic is opening up. Climate change will bring new shipping pathways into the north of Europe and it would be in our strategic interest to ensure that passageway is protected. It has already been established that there is a joint expeditionary post. From the somewhat limited definition of our neutrality, would the witnesses see joining an expeditionary force as being anathema to any notion of neutrality?

I am coming to an end. The attack on a European partner was mentioned. I have been over and back to Estonia a number of times on cyber programmes and bringing delegations there. One of the things I notice when I arrive in Tallinn is the number of military uniforms from all over Europe, including the UK. The UK may be outside the EU but it is not outside NATO so its pilots can be found, for example. I was with the Royal Dragoons a number of weeks ago.

They are heading to Estonia for a six-month posting very soon. It will be a huge game-changer if there is an attack on European soil from a member state. Leaving aside everything else, do we have an obligation to our partners in Europe to support them?

My last question is, in the area of weaponry ammunition, I agree totally with the witness with respect to the weapons and ammunition we have. It would be a token gesture. Some of them are at the end of their life cycle and in fact it would be cheaper to have them shot at Russians than to have them destroyed. I just do not understand why we do not hand them over. If we are dealing with the US, there is a standardised system so there is a standard number of weapons, helicopters, aircraft and ammunition. Within Europe we have a mishmash, as was rightly pointed out. Different countries have different priorities. Will that limit the capacity to support Ukraine where, for example, the same rifle ammunition cannot be got? Someone might be using 7.62 mm and I might be using 5.5 mm or 3.03 mm or whatever. Will that be a problem for Europe? The establishment of a defence commissioner might resolve some of those problems.

I am sorry, that is a lot of stuff. I will leave it at that. The witnesses may be getting an invitation to come back from the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is very good to have these people here and we might bring them over to attend at our committee.