Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to contribute to this important debate on Ireland’s defence and security posture. I welcome the fact that a conversation is finally, belatedly, taking place. For too long Ireland’s defence and security have been treated like kryptonite. We could not even discuss it or look at it in case, as Deputy O’Callaghan pointed out, even to discuss it would mean we would probably threaten it. I welcome the fact it is happening. It does not bother me whether it is a citizens’ assembly, a consultative forum, a Dáil debate or a conversation on RTÉ, provided a conversation is actually, finally, happening.

The Minister might recall in 1999 there was a movie called “Fight Club” and the first rule of fight club was, "You do not talk about fight club". That has shrouded Ireland’s defence policy or lack thereof for 100 years. Where it comes from, I am not sure. I presume one factor was that there is a fair amount of evidence that at the early Dáil meetings some of the Deputies coming into the Chamber were actually armed. They had fought each other, killed each other’s brothers, fathers or friends and defence was such a contentious issue that it could not even be discussed. That continued for several generations until we lost the language needed to hold a conversation on it. I welcome the fact it has happened.

If we consider what this nation has been through over the past 25 years, we have not shied away from contentious topics. We have tackled the issues of divorce, reproductive rights, marriage equality and, to be fair, we are a better country as a result. We can move things forward and have a better policy at the end of this initiative and consultative process. I recognise it is not just logic and reason that will cause this policy to evolve. There is an emotive component to it as well. I was heartened by what I have heard this afternoon. It was a constructive, civil and courteous debate. We are off to a good start. I look forward to this process, however long it lasts.

Before the Minister came in, the Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the triple lock. It is an issue for sure. There are many unknowns about the triple lock. I wish to focus on that. It came in around 1960 as a result of our troops going to the Congo. We had approximately 1,000 troops over there - two battalions - at one stage. It was a major deployment with a large number of fatalities and casualties. It is completely appropriate that the triple lock is there for a UN, blue helmeted, blue braid mission. That should continue because there cannot be a UN mission without UN authorisation, whether by the General Assembly or the Security Council. That is completely appropriate. The difficulties with the triple lock happened in 2002 when it was extended not only to UN missions but to all Irish deployments overseas. That caused a major issue because not only can we not deploy troops overseas without a UN mandate, we could not send the rugby team to France with our Defence Forces, nor could we send a ceremonial platoon as we did in 1963 to John F. Kennedy’s funeral in Arlington. In 2006, a Defence (Amendment) Act was passed and it listed a number of exemptions. Unfortunately, those exemptions were not sufficient. If someone looked to tweak or improve the triple lock, it should go back to how it was in 1960, where for a UN mission, the triple lock needed to be invoked and satisfied. We could look at increasing the number of exemptions. There is, for instance, no exemption for close protection bodyguard duties, humanitarian operations relating to evacuation operations or hostage rescue.

Another option is to increase the threshold from 12, which is the current ceiling, to 30, 50 or 100 to give more latitude. I recognise that all the votes here in the Chamber are simple majorities. We need 50% plus one to pass legislation. We could consider the option of a supermajority, if wished, to regain Ireland’s sovereign control over its sovereign troops. We can, therefore, leave the triple lock in place for UN missions but for all other deployments it should be a national competence made by the national Parliament as it is in every other country. I do not know of any country that has ceded authority and sovereignty to authoritarian states in how it deploys its troops overseas. There are a few options for the Minister.

People have different views on neutrality, which is completely appropriate because different countries have different views as well. There is conscription in Switzerland. It is a heavily armed country with a massive arms industry that exports all over the world. It actually sends troops to protect the Vatican. It enters into defence clauses. That works for Switzerland. On our version of neutrality, my view, which is, I believe, shared by most, not all, people in Ireland, is that Ireland’s neutrality means we do not join any formal alliances such as NATO and that we do not sign up to any common defence clauses such as the European security situation at the moment, but that we absolutely co-operate with our partners, colleagues and neighbours around the world but particularly in our neighbourhood in the EU. That is what we have done successfully for the past 100 years. It has worked out quite well for us. I do not detect any attempt to undermine our neutrality or opportunities to resource our neutrality. We claim to have a policy of neutrality but we have not resourced it at all. I do not see us joining NATO or EU security policy. I do not detect any such vibes in the Chamber. What I detect is our desire to be self-sufficient in respect of our military security and defence capacity so that we do not have to rely on external actors to help us out. I welcome the fact that we joined the Hybrid CoE, centre of excellence, in Helsinki recently. One of the Minister’s party members was there signing us in. The Cybersecurity CoE in Estonia is also a positive development.

There is another point about this issue. Even if Ireland asked to join NATO, which I do not believe we will, I doubt that NATO would accept us. It would look at us militarily and say, “Fellas, you are a basket case, come back to us in 20 years’ time when your home situation is sorted out.” That is exactly what we should be doing. To be fair to nearly all the contributors to the debate, there is an understanding that we need to improve our own independent capability first.

With regard to the state of our Defence Forces, they are in a bad way. Only a decade ago, there were 10,500 people in the Defence Forces; now there are only 7,800. We have dropped our strength by 25%. If the number of nurses, doctors, teachers or Ministers at the Cabinet table was reduced over a ten-year period by 25%, there would be mayhem. That is the mayhem and chaos in our Defence Forces at the moment. There has been some improvement in pay for people with less than three years’ service. I totally accept that. However, other commitments have yet to be delivered regarding long-service increments, patrol duty allowance for the Naval Service and lance corporal appointments. There is a good deal of work to be done from a pay perspective. There has been some improvement on premises, in particular. The Minister for Foreign Affairs' best intervention so far since he took up office five months ago was to overturn the rulings on family accommodation on base for military families.

That is the most positive thing he has done so far. It has been announced but it has not yet been implemented. There is ample space on the Curragh, in Baldonnel or even at St. Bricin's Hospital for military families to be accommodated on military land. I know the Minister, Deputy Ryan, who is present, is a fan of modern methods of construction. The military should be looking after their own people in the defence community to take the pressure off local authorities in respect of social housing. That should be explored. St. Bricin's Hospital is owned by the Defence Forces or the Department of Defence. Many hospitals are now considering building accommodation for their nurses and doctors. The Defence Forces should be doing something similar in the context of defence.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was given the list of modules detailing what will be discussed during the four days. Although I accept they are only draft modules and they are comprehensive, there is no module to deal with the possible unification of the island in the next five, ten or 20 years or however long it takes. Approximately one hour's drive from here, the Six Counties are in NATO and a large proportion of the population up there is quite happy with that. They are happy to be in the UK from a defence perspective. If they were to join up with this jurisdiction, there would be a major diminution in their defence and security. It would be worth holding a module on how this entire island can defend and protect itself. The Minister has been a champion of the shared island approach and there have been seminars on sport, healthcare, tourism and infrastructure but there has not been a shared island seminar on defence and security. Such a seminar would be useful. It would highlight many issues relating to reunification, if the people were to decide that should happen.

In summary, I welcome the fact that these discussions are taking place. I very much look forward to contributing to all three of the consultation forums that will come thereafter. I am glad we have discussed neutrality and NATO. They are the two extremes but we are now actually discussing normality and having a normal conversation in respect of defence and security. This is a good initiative and I look forward to participating fully in it.

See this speech in context