Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Lawless.

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute on this important issue, which is growing more important as time goes by. I compliment the Tánaiste on bringing the matter before the House and setting up this review of our defence and security, of which there are many aspects. As every day goes by, new threats arise that we may have to contend with in future, for example, cyber threats, the threat of induced viruses, which we constantly hear about on television, and how, from time to time, there are people who view it as being within their rights to impose on others their will.

I am a supporter of security in terms of what the country needs to do to defend itself in the first instance. Of course we are not going to get into a major war, but we can make a contribution - and we will be expected to do so - at a particular time in the event of such an emergency occurring.

The Opposition will say that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's idea is to get rid of our neutrality and replace it with something else. Incidentally, the tradition of neutrality that we are talking about does not count for much. After all, we as a country fought in every battle on the Continent of Europe for 500 years. We then fought on the continent of America just for the fun of it, sometimes on both sides to show we were even-minded about it. Our neutrality did not go too far. The tradition of neutrality did not exist, and could not exist. We fought in all the major battles across Europe - Austerlitz, Landen, Fontenoy and Borodino, and later in the second battle at Borodino. As a neutral people, we had a funny way of expressing it.

During the Second World War, neutrality did not well serve the peaceful people of many states across Europe who were committed to it. That is a stark fact. They were just pushed aside as if they did not exist. I am not saying that we could hold up a legion of armies, but we could make a contribution to the protection of our vital infrastructure in the event of something happening.

It may well be that we can only delay and cannot stop intruders indefinitely, but we can hold them up. We can contest, at different levels, the threat as it may be presented. We have a lot to look at in that regard. For instance, basic domestic water supply will be a vulnerable area at some time in the future. Water is more and more sought after around the globe. That is something we have to include in our ability to protect that asset of ours, which is a vital piece of infrastructure and a daily and hourly requirement. We have to talk about defending against cyberattacks, which are becoming more and more evident and serious as time goes by. We need to have the competence to slow down, detect and, in some way, arrest the speed of a cyberattack and prevent it where possible. We have to recognise that security of the food production sector may also become an issue in future, and could come very quickly, even overnight. People in various countries and of various traditions, as we stand now, are subject to a threat in that particular area. Threats are coming, let us say it, from all quarters. I strongly support the concept being pursued by the Tánaiste in order to address these issues. Likewise, I agree with my Kildare South colleague on the need for a well-paid army. We need a reliable army, one with a certain basic strength that is sufficient to give an account of itself in the event of being called upon. That is the way security works.

On the issue of neutrality in the past, I agree with Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. It may well have been for selfish purposes that we declared our neutrality in 1939 to suit that particular situation, but I agree with it. I would have done the same thing for the simple reason that I could not have trusted our next-door neighbours not to find some reason to impinge upon our territory, such as it was, at that time, in addition to our economy. We would have been very weak in the order of comparison when it came to that, but it was the right thing to do. However, times have changed, as have the threats and potential threats. It is now time to look again at what we have to face, how we have to face it, and what we can do to prevent the threats that may present themselves to us in the very near future. It will also be a deterrent, to those who might be aggressors, to know that there would be some small response we could make. Not to diminish it, but various other smaller countries all over the world have managed to present a reasonable defence in the event of an emergency.

We have a duty to make the preparations the Tánaiste talked about. We have a responsibility to do so. If we do not accept this responsibility, make these changes now and re-evaluate the situation as it presents itself to us, we will be found wanting when history comes to be written. I do not normally share things with constituency colleagues but, on this occasion and in view of the neutrality that pervades the entire debate, I hand over to my colleague.

See this speech in context