Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

The tabling of this Bill from 9.30 p.m. to midnight, with all Stages to be taken in the space of two and a half hours, is a scandal. This important legislation is being rushed through the Dáil. There is no break between any of the Stages to allow for periods of reflection, opportunities to tease out the implications of the various sections or debate the merits of Opposition amendments.

This is the only Bill tabled during the Minister's term of office. The last Defence (Amendment) Bill was tabled eight years ago in 1998. Defence Bills are not exactly growing on trees. It was disingenuous for the Minister to argue that the ordering of his legislation was not his responsibility. It is careless that he could not find more than two and a half hours on the midnight shift to process the Government's first defence legislation in eight years. It is careless in the extreme that he could not find more than two and a half hours in which to debate legislation as important as this. A midnight debate followed by a guillotine is no way to carry out the legislative business of this House. It is a cloak and dagger approach which raises suspicions about the good faith of the Government with regard to the Bill's provisions.

The central purpose of the Bill is to make new statutory provisions for the posting and deployment of Irish soldiers overseas. It extends the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, which first made statutory provision for Irish soldiers to serve abroad under the auspices of the United Nations. The 1960 Act defined "United Nations Emergency Force" as "an international force established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations for the performance of duties of a police character". The Defence (Amendment) Act 1993 repeated the definition but widened the remit of the operation by deleting "for the performance of duties of a police character". The Defence (Amendment) Bill before us substantially broadens the definition to include international United Nations forces which are not only "established" but also "authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations".

In effect, the Minster has changed the legislation to reflect the criticism levelled by the Labour Party at the Government for deploying Irish troops abroad in situations where the United Nations had not established any international force or body. In his speech to the Seanad the Minister admitted as much by saying:

In Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Operation Artemis in the Congo, Ireland has participated in UN-authorised missions led by the European Union. In Kosovo and Afghanistan, Ireland participates in UN-authorised missions led by NATO and we are currently providing personnel to an EU-Ied supporting mission to the African Union-led UN mission in Darfur in Sudan.

None of these missions was established by the United Nations. The Minister admits as much in his opening speech on Second Stage:

With the increasing demands around the world for peacekeepers, the UN has turned to regional organisations in the past few years, including the European Union, the African Union and NATO among others, to support its activities in the area of crisis management operations. In this regard, Ireland has contributed peacekeepers to many of these missions in furtherance of its commitment to the United Nations on both UN established and UN authorised missions.

The legislation makes provision only for UN established missions. Clearly there is a distinction between the two. Much as we hate to say it, we were correct all along. The missions to which I referred were established variously by the EU, NATO and the African Union and authorised or endorsed by the UN. The correct language was not used in the 1960 Act.

Clearly there is a question mark about the legal status of Irish troops serving abroad on such missions. After 18 months of the Labour Party raising the issue the Minister has belatedly moved to close the loophole and provide legal certitude. The Minister has repeatedly denied there was any distinction between established missions and authorised missions and that he has successive Attorney Generals' advice to prove it. I have challenged the Minster to publish the advice of the Attorney General. So far, despite the Minister's commitment during Question Time to make it available if possible, it has not been received. I do not know if the Attorney General is willing to part with the advice but it must be in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I welcome the Minister's rejection of the Attorney General's advice and his acceptance of our position. Hundreds of Irish soldiers now serving abroad will be relieved when the new definition becomes law and their mission is underpinned by legal certitude.

The second major section in this legislation also deals with a potential legal loophole. This Bill was tabled for debate in the Dáil three weeks ago. It was subsequently removed without explanation. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it disappeared from the Order Paper and appeared out of the blue in the Seanad. It will be debated for two hours in this House. The Minister explained his reason for urgent passage of the Defence (Amendment) Bill stating the advice of the Attorney General was that troops can only be despatched for overseas service as part of an international United Nations force, established or authorised by the UN Security Council. As such, existing Defence Forces staff postings in UN Headquarters, in the EU, in the OSCE etc. may have been open to question. In addition attendance at training courses, ceremonials, fact finding missions, equipment demonstrations, the provision of observers and monitors at OSCE and EU missions, even attendance at inter-military sporting events etc. could have been open to question. The advice stated that the major concern was the legitimacy of the substantive postings and the need to provide a firm legislative basis for these and that provision would be made for all these types of duties in the proposed urgent amending legislation.

Are any of our troops serving abroad with the correct legislation underpinning the mission? The Minister is belatedly riding to the rescue of our troops in a legal limbo, serving abroad in individual postings or seconded to international organisations. We do not know if they are legally entitled to be there. The provisions of section 3 are extended to cover the new areas of humanitarian tasks, natural disasters, as well as the new military training and exercises in the context of battle groups. The service abroad of these soldiers will be solely authorised by the Government of the day without authorisation of the Dáil or the United Nations. The nature of such external service requires some clarification.

It is particularly important that members of the Permanent Defence Force participating in this external service, without the triple lock, should be clearly designated as not being on active service. I have tabled an amendment to put this issue beyond doubt. It would also have the effect of ensuring our forces would not get involved in a situation of danger to themselves while posted abroad without the protection of the triple lock mechanism. They would not be on active service or armed. I would like assurances from the Minister in this regard.

The third major issue the Bill addresses is the procedure for deployment of the battle groups to the theatre of operation. Section 8, which deals with the issue, is quite confusing and needs considerable improvement. This will not be possible in the truncated debate in which we are engaged. Battle groups are rapid reaction forces that are specially trained and deployed quickly. However, the Irish requirement for prior approval by the Government, the Dáil and a resolution of the UN General Assembly or Security Council raises logistical and timing issues.

Section 8 attempts to deal with the gap between the need for urgent deployment and the triple lock time scale. It does not deal with it very well. It does not address the issue of the UN resolution waiting patiently for a decision by the General Assembly or the Security Council and how that might be expedited. It does, however, authorise the Government to despatch Irish troops for service outside the State as part of a force to be assembled or embarked before being deployed as part of a particular international United Nations force. Is it meant that Irish troops will be assembled in one of the battle group countries or assembled in an area separate from the theatre of operations? The section is not clear and the Minister should amend the legislation to clarify this.

The language in the second part of section 8 compounds the confusion by stating that "the contingent or member is not so deployed until a resolution under subsection (1) of this section has been passed by Dáil Éireann approving of their despatch for such service". It appears from the earlier part of section 8 that on the authority of the Government they have already been despatched for service outside the State as part of the assembly arrangements. Thus the second reference to despatch for such service involving Dáil and UN approval appears to suggest retrospective approval. The triple lock cannot be retrospective; otherwise it loses its validity and becomes meaningless. The Minister must make it absolutely clear that the assembly of troops is quite distinct from their deployment and that there is no overlapping of functions which are authorised solely by the Irish Government and those functions which are part of a mission approved by the Irish Government, Dáil Éireann and the United Nations.

From that point of view, this is unsatisfactory legislation. The Minister clarified the situation with regard to the deployment of battle groups and assembly. That should be in the legislation. He said:

In rapid response situations, including battle groups, where speed of deployment is of the essence, it will probably be necessary to have equipment containerised and despatched, together with personnel, while the UN Security Council resolution is being finalised. In addition, members or contingents of the Permanent Defence Force may have to assemble in the framework nation for the battle group, with their equipment, ready for despatch, in advance of the formal adoption of the UN resolution.

The legislation does not state that, it states that they will assemble, embark and be despatched. However, they could well be despatched to the theatre of operation or conflict. Nowhere in the legislation is it stated that they will be despatched to the framework nation. Why is it not stated? Are they to be despatched to Sweden, which is our framework nation? Our troops could partly assemble here in Ireland. Putting legislation through so rapidly generates these questions.

I welcome the Minister's later statement: "However, the Defence Forces could not, and will not, deploy operationally before the formal adoption of the requisite Security Council resolution and the approval of Dáil Éireann". That is wonderful but the provision in the legislation does not reflect that. The legislation must be distinct and clear but it is not.

The Minister has missed a golden opportunity to open a long awaited and long sought debate on the nature of Irish neutrality, the use of Shannon for military stopovers, overflights of the national territory, the Common Foreign and Security Policy and reform of the United Nations. Now we do not even get time to debate the narrow specifics of this legislation properly and adequately.

For the record, I will outline Labour Party policy as adopted in May 2003 at our annual conference. It states:

Conference is concerned at the diminution of Ireland's neutrality, particularly under Fianna Fáil dominated coalitions since 1997. Conference supports an active independent progressive foreign policy which upholds human rights, seeks to rectify international wrongs peacefully and opposes imperial domination by powerful countries and corporations. Conference understands the need to support the United Nations and to reform and develop it as a guarantor of peace, human rights and a new sustainable economic world order. Conference therefore resolves to campaign for the inclusion in the Irish Constitution of a clause setting out clearly that Ireland will not take part in military alliances or provide any assistance to activities of military alliances but is committed instead to maintaining peace and collective security by way of international law and support for a transformed United Nations.

I hope the Minister will respond to the key issues I have raised and give assurances, first, that the people who go abroad on postings that are authorised solely by the Government are doing so not on active service and, second, that there is a clear distinction between the despatch, assembly and embarkation of Irish forces to a framework nation and the deployment to the theatre of operations. There must be a distinction between the despatch and the deployment, which is subject to the triple lock.

See this speech in context