Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before addressing some of the specific matters, like the Chairman and Deputies O'Sullivan and Barrett, I approach all motions of this nature with a healthy degree of suspicion. I have argued for some years at the committee against many of the defence motions connected with the European Union that come before the committee and cautioned that we are increasingly creeping into an EU militarised structure. We will debate this issue in the coming week on a major proposed change to Irish defence strategy involving our participation in PESCO or permanent structured co-operation on defence. We will deal with that proposal in some detail in the House and members will be aware of my views on that issue and our policy of neutrality.

A number of issues are not completely clear with regard to the European Union's SatCom market, to which we are signing up. France became the 24th member of SatCom in August last, which was very convenient given that the contract for the delivery of SatCom was signed recently with one of France's biggest companies, Airbus Defence and Space. As the world's second largest space communications company, there is a logic to the decision to award the contract to Airbus but it is also strange that France did not sign up to SatCom until that contract was signed.

There appears to be a suggestion that the Defence Forces current contract is insufficient. According to the Minister of State, the project will provide the Defence Forces with security of supply and back-up. I was not aware of any problem with the supply of satellite communications for the Defence Forces. Are we liable to pay the current supplier to exit the contract early? In the event of any failure on the part of the current supplier to meet urgent operational requirements because it is not sufficiently flexible, that is a problem with whomever negotiated the contract in the first place. If one is negotiating a contract for the supply of satellite communications, it must be flexible and services must be provided at a moment's notice in the event of troops being deployed and requiring such services.

The Minister of State indicated there are no costs to the Exchequer. While there is no immediate cost evident, is there a cost in terms of ending the contract with the current supplier? What is the cost per use? One cannot argue there is no cost if a cost arises each time the system is used.

Another issue arises with the SatCom project.

It is probably hosted on the Eurostar or one of the other satellites that Airbus has spinning around the earth, looking down on us all. Who else would share that satellite? They are not for a single purpose and there have been embarrassing situations in the past where rival companies who were sharing the same space. I think there was a case some years ago where Vatican TV was embarrassed because there was something inappropriate also coming out on the same channel. Can we guarantee that whatever system is used is not also being used by our rivals? We are a neutral country but if we are buying into a system which is to be shared by the other 23 members so far, and there may be more because France is the latest one to join, will that cause a problem?

I concur with the other members on the explosive ordinance or detonation and the respect that those who are involved in this are held across the world. I recognise the training which members of the Defence Forces who are attached to the ordinance sections have given in war torn areas and countries which are coming out of wars to ensure that areas of land are safe, and I have no problem with that. I have several queries, however. They are talking about using Irish personnel, but the information that I have is that there is a major crisis of personnel in terms of members in the ordinance section in the Defence Forces, with a shortfall in skilled members. If that is the case, and we are committing eight of the most skilled people to get trained on this manual neutralisation capabilities in the European centre, can we afford to release them? I think that we should and I am not opposed to it but there is a question of can we afford it if we have international commitments and commitments at home, because one still sees the green trucks regularly moving around the country. It is provided that the €450,000 that this project will cost will come out of existing resources. It was not in the Estimates for next year. If €450,000 is coming out of other resources, what will lose out? The Defence Forces, like every section, do not have spare cash lying around. It is €50,000 short of €0.5 million. It is money that should be found and it should have been in the Estimates, although perhaps that was not possible because we had not passed it then.

Like other Deputies, I think these proposals are benign, for the most part, but they are an additional step towards our being subsumed, or more accurately, having our self sufficiency undermined, where before we were self sufficient and were capable of looking after ourselves. We did not rely on international satellites or training. In common with other Deputies, I am not opposed to the motion.