Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I wish to be associated with Deputy Timmins's good wishes. The appointments of Major General Dermot Earley and Brigadier General O'Sullivan are welcome. I wish them, and Lieutenant General Sreenan, who is retiring, well. Perhaps this is the last occasion the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, will grace this House in his current role. If that is the case, we wish him well also.

I have great respect for Deputy Timmins and for his and the Fine Gael position on these matters. However, I strongly believe the wider the scope of Defence Forces involvement in military operations abroad, the more important it is we have the triple lock mechanism in place to ensure we operate within parameters that are clearly defined by this House, the Government and the United Nations. This was a crucial issue in 2002 when we faced the first Nice treaty referendum, which was a watershed for Ireland. Two thirds of the electorate at the time, for the first time in the history of the State, said "No" to a European Union treaty. They rejected the advice of all the major political parties, the trade union movement, the churches and the farmers' organisation. They snubbed all the traditional pillars of society and said "No" to all the sacred cows. This was a very sobering experience for the Irish establishment.

One of the central concerns over Nice was the European Foreign and Security Policy. In order to allay those fears and prepare for Nice II, the Seville declaration was promulgated by the European Union in June of 2002. Paragraph 6 of the Seville document included the national declaration by Ireland in which Ireland reiterated that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces on overseas operations, including those carried out under the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, required first, the authorisation of the military operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations; second, the agreement of the Irish Government; and third, the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law. Thus the Seville declaration copper-fastened the triple lock mechanism for all Irish Defence Forces' overseas operations, including ESDP operations — those under discussion now in the context of the memorandum on battle groups.

The European Council made a solemn declaration at the time, in paragraph 4 of the Seville declaration, in which it acknowledged: "that the Treaty on European Union does not impose any binding mutual defence commitments". Nor does the development of the Union's capacity to conduct humanitarian and crisis management tasks involve the establishment of a European army.

In paragraph 6 of the Seville declaration the European Council recognised that like all member states of the Union, Ireland would retain the right, following entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, to take its own sovereign decisions in accordance with its Constitution and its laws on whether to commit military personnel to participate in any operation carried out under the ESDP. In its national statement in the Seville declaration, Ireland clearly stated its position and the European Union clearly accepted that position. That was the position of the triple lock. This was one of the major reasons the Nice treaty was carried the second time round. Some other issues were also involved, including the scrutiny legislation and the National Forum on Europe. All overseas operations, including battle groups, come under these terms. Indeed, the memorandum of understanding on the Nordic battle group reiterates as much in section 4.

In 2006, the Oireachtas passed the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. This Act provided for participation by the Defence Forces in overseas training and manoeuvres and for preassembly of Irish troops. It also made provision for participation in battle groups. Thus, it seems to me that the arguments and suspicions surrounding battle groups somewhat miss the point. A battle group is a multinational force which is trained as a highly mobile rapid reaction force. The Irish Defence Forces require optimum training in the modern equivalent, up to the highest international standards. Whether some of that training takes place in Ireland or abroad is irrelevant. What is crucial are the circumstances and purpose for which that trained force gets involved in military operations.

Ireland is committed to engage in military operations abroad only under the mandate of the United Nations and with the approval of the Government and the Parliament. Once the triple lock is intact, Ireland can properly participate in a multinational battle group and be available to the European Union to undertake functions under the Petersberg Tasks.

A number of issues relating to the memorandum require clarification. First, will the Minister clarify the status of forces in terms of jurisdiction and discipline, in that we come under the NATO-PfP SOFA terms of reference? It is stated in the memorandum that certain crimes, powers of military police, enforcement of discipline by superiors of the relevant personnel and determination of liability for damage to the property of third parties will be dealt with under the status of forces agreement, SOFA.

I understand the law of the land would operate for any citizen of Ireland, whether in the Defence Forces or not, when in a participant state. However, does this memorandum imply that if there are grounds for a court martial, that court martial would take place under the auspices of that participant state? Could an Irish citizen be tried by a foreign court martial? Will the Minister clarify whether an Irish citizen can face a court martial in a foreign jurisdiction and face the rules, regulations and legislation that apply in that jurisdiction? This is a particular concern considering the recent legislation we have passed in terms of improving and human rights proofing our court martial structure.

It is proposed that the operational headquarters for the Nordic battle group will be in Northwood in the United Kingdom. It is unsatisfactory that a country that is not a member of the battle group would host the crucially important seat of operations. Britain will not sign up to the memoranda of understanding, yet the operational headquarters will be based there. I recognise that the commander will still be the commander of the framework country, Sweden, and that the Irish contingent will be led by the Irish commander.

If Ireland is to be involved in a Nordic battle group, will the Minister make it a priority that one of the Nordic countries is the home of the operational headquarters? Although only a few countries in the European Union have the capacity to deal with the complexity of operational headquarters, it seems a contradiction that we are entering a Nordic battle group, but the headquarters of the group are not in a Nordic state. I suggest this matter should be rectified at an early stage. The Minister should enter into discussion with the other Nordic countries with a view to ensuring the most suitable country, probably Sweden, the framework country, which is the largest country in the group, is the site of the operational headquarters for the future.

Will the Minister clarify how the Irish contingent will be led by an Irish commander and explain the proposed relationship between the Irish contingent control and command and the overall commander, who will be a Swedish commander? How will decisions be made and communicated in this regard?

Will the Minister clarify what extra resources are required in terms of Irish involvement in battle groups? There will be enhanced levels of training and I presume we will require enhanced levels of equipment to bring the group up to modern international standards. Considerable travel will also be involved with regard to training, pre-assembly, standby and operations. Some three to four weeks will be spent training in Sweden in the autumn.

It is envisaged the first battle group will be ready and on standby by January 2008 and that this group will be on standby for a six-month period. Will the Minister undertake a full assessment and examination of that operation? It may be a stand-by situation with no operation. They may not be called to engage in any of the Petersberg Tasks. Will the Minister commit himself and his successor to a review of the operation of the battle group, with a report presented to the House and a debate here to inform us of future commitments in this area?

See this speech in context