Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate and thank the Sinn Féin Deputies for tabling a comprehensive motion involving a number of important issues which this House should debate. In truth, it should not be up to the Opposition to use scarce Private Members' time. There should be an open-ended debate on fundamental issues like this, which the Government should facilitate by setting out a clear position paper that we can debate.

The motion before the House contains a number of parts. I wish to deal with each of them. One is the current status of our Permanent Defence Force in the context of numbers, morale and equipment. The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces sets out how starkly inadequate our defence provision is. Our national defence capacity is hopelessly inadequate. The number of serving personnel, which is well beyond even the inadequate number set out as the objective, is stretched beyond limit. We have no ability to monitor our airspace or the seas in our exclusive economic zone. We depend, amazingly, on the British Royal Air Force to tell us if our airspace is entered by unauthorised aircraft. Should we want to track any such unauthorised aircraft, we simply do not have the means to do so. I made the point last week that I believe this situation was not only recognised but was to be addressed by the Government. That is what I understood to be the response of the Government to the commission, namely, that we need, fundamentally, to resource our Defence Forces, upgrade pay, allowances and equipment and provide for all the things the commission set out, such as a radar system and proper supports like sonar for our sea-going vessels. Yet, as I pointed out last week, the increase in the defence allocation in the budget was 1%. The core element of the defence allocation, on page 36 of the document circulated on the day of the budget, shows that, in sub-programme A, defence policy and support, military capacities and operational outputs - the core spending of the Department on the military - is to rise from €915.362 million next year to €920.712 million. That is a 1%, or €5 million, increase. It is a joke. The Government is not serious about giving capacity to our Defence Forces, proper wages, the allowances personnel need or a radar system. It takes forever to do anything. It has been five years since the two replacements for the CASA aircraft were ordered. My understanding is that one is yet to arrive. The Taj Mahal was built quicker than we can get basic equipment for our military. It is shocking.

The other issue raised by the motion, on which most of the speakers tonight have focused, is the sudden and surprising announcement by the Tánaiste to this House last week about the abandonment of the long-standing triple-lock arrangement for the deployment of Irish military personnel overseas. While the Tánaiste's announcement surprised us, the reason behind it has since become clear. In a reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy McNamara, the Tánaiste confirmed that any deployment of Defence Forces personnel as part of the battle group will be subject to the requirements of the triple lock. The participation of our Defence Forces in the soon the German-led battle group that is soon to be stood up next year and in 2025 is an important plank in the Government's defence policy. While the training and preparation of the Irish contingent will take place largely here in Ireland, Irish troops cannot be deployed with this battle group - the new main focus of the Government in defence policy - without a UN mandate under the triple lock, which is legally binding. It knows it is highly unlikely to be received. Rather than deal with that issue, it will abolish the triple lock. That is if the required number of Irish troops to make up the battle group, approximately 182, is achieved, which is proving problematic.

In the reply to our colleague, Deputy McNamara, the Tánaiste confirmed that it may be necessary to use mandatory selection if volunteer numbers for this battle group are not reached. This is unacceptable, but it explains the timing of the Tánaiste's announcement. The triple lock requiring the approval of the Government, the Dáil and the UN before any Defence Forces' personnel can be sent on overseas service has served us well. UN authorisation under the Act can be by either a Security Council or a General Assembly vote. There are difficulties in that regard, which we know. I have acknowledged how imperfect a body the UN is; it needs significant reform. We all acknowledge that. A UN mandate is the sort of endorsement that is a real protection for Ireland and Irish Defence Forces personnel. In an increasingly polarised world, having the safeguard of the agreement of the only legitimate international institution truly representative of global opinion is important. Altering a sound and well-tested procedure in order to address an immediate requirement of the policy of the current Government is a bad decision.

It is a decision that will have a long-term, perhaps permanent, impact on how we deploy our Defence Forces and, more importantly, on how our forces are viewed by the rest of the world.

If we simply become an actor in consort with others in a polarised world, then all of the goodwill we have built up through our peacekeeping will be undermined. A third element of the motion calls for Ireland to engage with the EU institutions and member states with a view to recognising the integrity of neutral states within the EU treaties. Again, this is an important issue that merits proper debate. The EU does not have a common foreign policy. The debate on Gaza has starkly laid that bare. The vote of member states in the United Nations General Assembly shows there is a profound divergence of views. The Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, is the EU's foreign policy framework. However, decisions under that CFSP system are made at the EU Council of Ministers by unanimity, with a limited role for the European Parliament. We have established the external action service and the High Representative, but there are now voices calling for an end to the requirement of unanimity. This is ostensibly to deal with the serial blockers of decisions, for example, Hungary, but it is a most serious move which I oppose. Can you imagine if the qualified majority vote at EU Council tied our position on the issue of Gaza? I think the Irish people would be scandalised.

I support, as I have done formally on behalf of the Labour Party, the idea of a referendum to enshrine neutrality into our Constitution. I ask the Minister of State not come in here and read a script, decide that this is the policy and then the Government can bulldoze it through because it has the numbers. This is a profound issue for the Irish people, and I desperately ask that the Government listen to all of the voices, create as much of a consensus as it can on this issue and not simply drive a position through.

See this speech in context