Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the motion. I agree with everything Deputy Berry said and acknowledge his deep expertise in this area.

The participation by Ireland in these European initiatives is a natural extension of Ireland's integration into Europe and its deeper collaboration with European partners on a whole range of different fronts. I do not see why defence needs to be different. Defence is about our own strategic self-interest. Our strategic self-interest is at the heart of Europe. It is about seriously equipping ourselves for the challenges we know are ahead. As Deputy Berry has said, the opportunity of participating in the four additional PESCO programmes is about enhancing our own expertise, intelligence and access to intelligence. It is about enhancing our contribution to the security that I sometimes worry we take for granted or could take for granted. It is also about reducing risk to Ireland and to Irish people by putting in the work to deepen integration and to develop better skills within our Defence Forces. Our Defence Forces are deeply professional. They need better financial support from Government. I am glad that the Minister has published the work of the Commission on the Defence Forces. I strongly support the work of that commission in identifying the key strategic challenges for defence and the investment that is needed. I might come back to that.

Ireland is a small open country. The necessity for us to participate collaboratively with partners is not in any way unique to defence. We do the same thing in respect of medical and scientific development. We must continue to learn from our colleagues and to get the best we possibly can. It is in our rational self-interest to do so.

I strongly urge the Minister to take the opportunity to go as far as he possibly can with regard to additional spending on defence at this time. While the commission's report was published in advance of the invasion of Ukraine, I am hearing a deep concern among my constituents that Ireland is simply not equipped to deal with the challenges that might face it at any time. Ireland was not capable of preventing the cyberattack that occurred, which was as disruptive to the health system as the challenge of Covid, if not more so. We face such risks at all times. The risks facing Ireland set out in the report are very real. There are the implications of Brexit, the implications for trade and the question of managing our territory in that regard. There is also the question of how Ireland is situated geographically and strategically in the context of changes in geopolitical power dynamics, which may result in risks to Ireland - which I again stress is by no means possible - or to the EU more generally, in which Ireland is a participant. As I have already said, there are challenges with regard to infrastructure and IT. These can be hit at any point. Ireland is uniquely vulnerable to such hits being, as we are, an island economy. There is also a challenge with regard to instability on the borders of Europe and on the Continent of Europe more broadly. There is also a challenge with regard to organised crime and terrorism along with challenges relating to energy security and raw materials security. If anything, the invasion of Ukraine has given us a window into the possible future and shown us how at risk we always have been and still remain. We are participating in more demanding peacekeeping duties and want to do so.

I have a question. If the Government does not take the opportunity to participate in these PESCO projects, or to invest in our Defence Forces - and many Deputies have called for such investment in salaries and better resources - to equip our Defences Forces as well as possible and to give every professional opportunity to every member of the Defence Forces to become the very best they can possibly be within our structure and something then goes wrong, which Deputies are prepared to go back to their constituencies and say that we were not prepared to support that participation and investment? Which Deputies are happy to say that they were not happy to give the additional funding to the Defence Forces that they knew was needed?

Now is our opportunity to take stock of what we have seen across Europe. Now is our opportunity to recognise that we were always at risk and to reflect on the fact that we may have collectively been a little naive in our perceptions of our own security. Even in the last 12 months, we have been shown again and again that we are not immune to international challenges and geopolitical risks. We have seen the threat of Russian ships entering our maritime area. We are aware of how exposed that maritime area is and how large it is relative to those of our European partners. We are aware of our limitations, which have been clearly pointed out to us by the Commission on Defence Forces. These limitations have great spending implications. It is easy to put such reports on a shelf and to fail to act. It is easy to let a convenient narrative prevail that we are safe, have always been safe, have always been a certain way and always need to stay that way, but it is just not true. It is not even accurate based on the evidence to date, never mind the risks we can reasonably foresee for the future or those that we cannot foresee. I again ask, if something happens and if, despite knowing the risks, we have not invested or taken the steps towards better and deeper integration with our European partners and professional defence forces around the Continent from which we can learn and to which we can contribute our expertise, what will the Irish public say to us? Are Deputies ready to go back and have those conversations honestly? They are reasonable questions.

On behalf of the Parliament, I recently had the opportunity to visit Finland. The Ceann Comhairle pointed me towards the Helsinki Policy Forum Women Parliamentarians Network, which meets in Helsinki twice a year. I took the opportunity to meet different Members of Parliament to discuss their recent experience of joining NATO and to ask how it had gone from a public opinion perspective and political perspective and what they had experienced over the previous six months. Finland had been a neutral country for a very long time. As another European entity on the other side of northern Europe, we have not experienced or understood the risks that Finland always has. Finland had made itself more than ready for NATO. It had taken the steps needed to be ready to join, if it ever chose to do so. It made joining an option 20 years previously and made practical changes such as signal changes and so on. What was really important was the public opinion experience in Finland over time as they saw the realisation of the risks they faced, albeit in a different part of the Continent, how quickly public opinion changed and how quickly Members of its Parliament signed up. Some 98% or 99% of the Members of the Finnish Parliament voted for it. A couple of Members who identify themselves as on the far left voted against and a couple abstained. There was a great shift in public opinion over a short period from having not wanted to be involved with NATO to absolutely wanting to do so. Again, this was entirely based on rational self-interest.

We do not face the same direct threat that Finland faces but we are similar in many other respects. We have to have a conversation about how far we are ready to equip ourselves, act in our rational self-interest and give our Defence Forces the opportunity to be the best and most professional organisation it can be on a small island. Participation in these PESCO projects is the absolute minimum required but I call on the Minister to take the opportunity to do as my constituents are calling for and to provide significantly enhanced funding to every stream of the Defence Forces.

See this speech in context