Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "in advance of Dáil Éireann considering Ireland's participation in four European Defence Agency Projects:

i) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Equipment,

ii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Soldier Equipment,

iii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Ammunition, and

iv) Category A Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network (MICNET),

pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, the matter be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny.".

I recently attended the four-day consultative forum on international security. The Minister of State will know that I and others had sought a formal role for the Opposition but the Government refused to provide for this. The Minister of State will imagine my surprise when I heard several contributors at the forum, including several Government speakers, tell us that "nobody should be afraid of debate". They were clearly pointing towards those who advocate Irish neutrality. It was bizarre that those given a platform were telling those who were denied one that their position was somehow one of denying debate. In fact, the Tánaiste went so far as to suggest that those of us who value the triple lock, the mechanism that ensures our Defence Force members who embark on peacekeeping missions do so with a UN mandate, were squeamish.

It is when dealing with motions such as the one before us that we can credibly ask who is squeamish about debate and dialogue. This motion seeks approval for Ireland's participation in four EDA projects, namely category B – collaborative procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear equipment; category B – collaborative procurement of soldier equipment; category B – collaborative procurement of ammunition; and category A – Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network. The motion requests approval pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.

Section 2 of the Act provides that participation in EDA projects requires the approval of the Dáil. In the wider context of this debate, it is worth noting how the Government seeks that approval. A discussion of just 55 minutes is provided for, to be followed by a single vote in respect of all four projects. This is as close to a rubber stamp as can be got. There is no opportunity for debate and no engagement allowed through questions for the Minister on the detail of each specific project. It is a case of the Government doing the bare minimum required by law. It should stand as a warning to those who want to abandon the triple lock. The triple lock requires UN approval, either through the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly and also Government and Dáil approval. Considering the ongoing approach to the projects coming before the Dáil for approval, Members of this House should recognise that the removal of a triple lock could end up meaning no lock at all. This is the reason for my amendment.

The Sinn Féin amendment, in my name, simply calls for these proposals to be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny prior to a final Dáil vote. The Government should accede to the amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister of State did not refer to it at all in his remarks. In the Government's own words, nobody should be afraid of debate.

The four EDA projects referred to in the motion relate to the procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear equipment, the procurement of soldier equipment, the procurement of ammunition and co-operation on cybersecurity. Co-operation on common procurement can be positive and help to deliver value for money for taxpayers. It is a laudable objective but it should not be the only one; environmental and social implications should be considered regarding all these matters. There should also be a detailed examination of how each project affects our neutrality. These matters should be considered in the appropriate forum, which in our view is the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Members of this House should know there has been detailed scrutiny of all these matters before signing off on them.

The joint committee provides the forum for members of all parties and groups to engage with experts, officials, stakeholders and Ministers on these projects.

In this instance, we could engage in deliberations with members of the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence, the National Cyber Security Centre and others to hear the case for participation before returning to the Dáil to have a more meaningful debate on whether we should participate. I would go further and say all future proposals in respect of engagement by the Defence Forces in international, including EU, security organisations and frameworks should be referred by the Dáil to the joint committee for consideration and detailed scrutiny. That would include any proposals on participation in permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, or Partnership for Peace, PfP, operations. It would address the lack of democratic oversight of Irish engagement in these organisations that was cited during the consultative forum hearings.

There must be assurances regarding arms and equipment procured through EDA projects. While acknowledging that our Defence Forces needs to acquire military hardware from somewhere, we must ensure any arrangements we enter into do not facilitate, for example, the trading, subsidised by EU taxpayers, of armaments with hostile, aggressive actors. As a participant or even an observer in projects related to the development of arms, will Ireland have a say in or a veto on who can eventually purchase commercialised hardware that emerges from these prototypes? Will Ireland have a say in or a veto on end user licences or re-export licences?

In recent years, we have seen missions under the CSDP go awry, including in Mali and in the training of the Libyan Coast Guard. As a nation that was once colonised rather than being a coloniser and one that has a proud tradition of peacekeeping, I support Ireland leveraging that proud tradition as a facilitator, agent and interlocutor of peace. In recent weeks, the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has deteriorated, with one report last month indicating that at least 46 people, including 23 children, were killed at a displacement camp. Ireland's history is one to be proud of in respect of that country. The Casement report back in 1904 laid bare human rights atrocities that were taking place in the then Congo Free State. The heroism and resolve of Irish peacekeepers at Jadotville in 1961 is well renowned. I have confidence that the response of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the current strife in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is appropriate. I would welcome and support any Government endeavours to play a constructive role in addressing the humanitarian crisis there and resolving conflict.

I have a question for the Minister of State in the context of co-operation on developing military hardware. Does he think the goodwill we have earned would be diluted or strengthened if arms hardware used by belligerents were sourced through a project Ireland has endorsed? I believe it would be the former. That is why Sinn Féin is taking the approach it is to participation in such projects. It will be our approach to all such projects and missions. Let us have detailed scrutiny. Let us get answers to the question of what impact any participation would have on Irish neutrality and our ability to contribute positively to international conflict resolution and humanitarianism. In every conflict in all parts of the world, arms are used by actors that manufacturing nations would never have envisaged would use them. I never want to see a day when military hardware developed with the support of Ireland is used in such human rights atrocities. While the particular projects before us for consideration today will not be seen in those terms, it is important in the context of a changed international security environment that this House adopts a principle of detailed scrutiny of such matters. I commend the Sinn Féin amendment and urge the Government to adopt it. There is time to allow for detailed scrutiny on the motion and for a final vote to take place on it before the Dáil goes into recess.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence in taking the opportunity to commend the Women of Honour group. I welcome the Tánaiste's indication today that he plans to recommend a public tribunal of inquiry to investigate the allegations against the Defence Forces that were highlighted by the group. I understand he is meeting with the Women of Honour shortly. The last piece of the jigsaw is reaching agreement on the terms of reference for the tribunal. I urge the Government to ensure such agreement is reached. Were it not for the work of the Women of Honour group, there would not have been an independent review group or any type of inquiry or tribunal. We probably would not even be aware of most of these issues. It is inconceivable that there would be any further process that did not have the group's full support and endorsement. The Government has one opportunity to get this right. It must seize it.

See this speech in context