Mr. Dermot Ryan:

This proposal was presented to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence before the negotiations concluded last year. The Oireachtas had scrutiny of this proposal in June of last year. I just want to make that point because it is an important one, that there was prior Oireachtas scrutiny of the proposal before its enactment. Second, in the course of the negotiations, Ireland together with Austria and Malta, proposed successfully that a new recycle be included in the regulation. This was to the effect that this regulation shall apply without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. In some ways, that answers the question raised in regard to neutrality. That is clearly a reflection of that.

With regard to the European Peace Facility, which Senator Higgins mentioned also, she is aware that our funding goes in its totality to non-lethal equipment.

We use a construction there, called constructive abstentionism, to ensure that our commitment in the programme for Government on the European Peace Facility is fulfilled.

Regarding the Council Legal Service opinion - again I am sorry if I am repeating myself - a clear distinction is made between the appropriate legal basis, whether it is Article 142. It is, as colleagues in DG BUDG have also confirmed, that the legal basis was Articles 173.3 and 114. They were the legal bases proposed by the Commission. Those legal bases were assessed by all the Government Departments involved and they were satisfied that that was an appropriate legal basis for this particular instrument. That view was shared, as my colleague has said, by the legal services of the three institutions. It is fair to say that Ireland insisted that this regulation be coherent with the security and defence policy of the three neutral countries, namely, Ireland, Austria and Malta.