Dr. Cathal Berry:

I thank committee members for their kind invitation to be part of the delegation of former Defence Forces personnel to discuss the operational implications of the Bill.

I welcome the emerging consensus to formally add three new Defence Forces taskings for national operations overseas, namely, evacuation operations, counter-narcotic operations and close protection duties for diplomatic missions. Furthermore, the increase in the threshold of troops that can be deployed by government decision from 12 to 50 is both important and timely. In the next six months, the Air Corps will receive two new aircraft that can accommodate 19 and 66 passengers, respectively. This legal clarity, combined with these new acquisitions, will facilitate the rapid deployment of high readiness Irish troops when appropriate. This is a routine military capability which has long been advocated for by Ireland’s defence community.

Turning to the triple lock, I recognise and respect the diverse views that have been articulated to date. As discussed at last week’s hearing, the original purpose of the triple lock was to give Dublin a veto over New York, not to give New York a veto over Dublin. Over time we have lost sight of this fact. We should also remember the Soviet Union vetoed Irish membership of the United Nations for a decade until 1955. This was a punishment for our neutrality in the Second World War. It reveals how the P5 veto can be abused for national self-interest or indeed, in this case, used as a tool for targeted retribution. Ireland should reassert the primacy of Dáil Eireann for the deployment of Irish troops overseas as per our Bunreacht. No other country, whether neutral or otherwise, uses our triple lock mechanism, and for very good reason. The deployment of troops overseas is a national competence and therefore the exclusive preserve of national parliaments. That said, many national parliaments have regard for the existence or absence of a UN Security Council resolution and this forms the basis of the national parliamentary debate prior to any proposed deployment.

It is international best practice that the appropriate checks and balances on the decision-making process for potential deployments exist at a national level. For instance, in Ireland’s case, coalition Governments have already added an additional layer of safeguarding to the first lock when compared with the single-party Government of 1960. Furthermore, this newly established cross-party committee could be tasked with forensically scrutinising the viability of any proposed new mission and report its findings prior to a formal Dáil debate. This would add additional safeguarding to the second lock, as would the potential publication of the Attorney General’s formal advice on the matter.

It is of particular note that the mandate for the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon expires on 31 August, which is only a few weeks from now. Its renewal is by no means assured due to a potential American veto. As Irish law currently stands, Irish troops would have to immediately depart the UNIFIL mission should the mandate not be renewed. Meanwhile, other troop-contributing nations may decide to remain in a different capacity, under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter for instance, with the consent of the host nation of Lebanon.

Turning to human resource matters, I welcome the Bill’s proposal to provide powers of suspension to the Chief of Staff under certain circumstances. While I agree with the principle of the proposal, my support is conditional on appropriate safeguarding being applied to ensure natural justice and the protection of the good name and well-being of those involved.

I very much look forward to members' questions.