Gerard Murphy (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Minister for Defence the recent discussions he has had with the Department of Foreign Affairs with respect to the triple lock policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17656/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The conditions under which the Defence Forces may participate in overseas peace support operations have been made very clear by the Government. The conditions, which are known as the triple lock, must be satisfied. The operation must be mandated by the United Nations and it must be approved by the Government and by way of a resolution of Dáil Éireann.

Section 2 of the Defence (Amendment)(No. 2) Act 1960 provides that a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State as part of a particular international United Nations force if, but only if, a resolution has been passed by Dáil Éireann approving of the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State as part of that international United Nations force. An international United Nations force is defined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993 as "an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations".

The UN mandate for the force and the Dáil resolution provided for in section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 form two elements of what has become known as the triple lock. The third element is the Government decision approving the dispatch of the contingent and the introduction of an appropriate resolution in Dáil Éireann.

Section 2(2) of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 provides that a contingent of the Defence Forces can serve overseas in the absence of a Dáil resolution in three situations, namely, where the force is unarmed, where the contingent consists of no more than 12 members of the Permanent Defence Force, or where the contingent is intended to replace, in whole or in part, or reinforce an existing contingent. Finally, as I have stated on many occasions both in response to questions in this House and in public speeches, there are no plans to reform the current arrangements in regard to the triple lock.

Gerard Murphy (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This question is related to some extent to that which precedes it. The triple lock system is excessively restrictive and we should examine ways of making it more flexible. The United Nations can sometimes move slowly in coming to a resolution and there is also the issue of the veto enjoyed by certain member states. Is it acceptable that China, for instance, should have a veto over Ireland's participation in a peacekeeping force that is badly needed in some part of the world? There have been examples of such vetoes in respect of Macedonia and the Balkans, for example.

If we are to participate effectively in the battle groups, we must introduce some flexibility in regard to the triple lock. This could be achieved by a provision that Irish forces can take part in any operation in respect of which the principles of the UN Charter are clearly applied. Does the Minister believe that Ireland can participate in EU battle groups without reform of the triple lock mechanism? In view of the case of Macedonia, in respect of which China effectively vetoed the deployment of Irish troops, does the Minister accept that giving other states such a veto is extremely unwise for a sovereign state such as Ireland?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question of whether Ireland can participate in EU battle groups within the confines of the triple lock system is under examination by my Department. We intend to identify the obstacles that exist in this regard while ensuring the triple lock is maintained. The feedback I receive from the public indicates there is great confidence in the triple lock mechanism. It provides significant reassurance to the public and there is widespread support for its retention. The triple lock ensures that Ireland's participation in any type of foreign military adventure is strictly controlled.

Deputy Murphy used the example of Macedonia to highlight the difficulties that may arise as a consequence of the veto enjoyed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is the case that any one of those members can prevent an operation from being designated as a UN-authorised mission. In such an instance, Ireland cannot legally participate in the relevant expedition. However, the triple lock has not prevented us from playing a leading role in UN peacekeeping operations for the past 50 years and there is international recognition of that proud and effective role.

I recognise there are difficulties in respect of UN decision-making procedures in that the process is often slow and cumbersome. As Deputy Murphy observed, there is the possibility that any one of the five permanent members can unilaterally impose a veto. These difficulties are a matter for the UN, however, and we cannot unilaterally change the decision-making procedures. Deputy Murphy is aware that the UN is currently examining those procedures in detail. The expected reform in this area will impact on our future participation in peacekeeping operations.

Gerard Murphy (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those involved in crisis situations accept that getting to the source of the problem and resolving it quickly is the most important issue. Is it possible to devise a system whereby Ireland can participate in overseas missions in respect of which the principles of the UN Charter are observed?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Murphy proposes that we replace the requirement that overseas missions must be authorised or established by the UN with more vague criteria. That would involve unlocking one of the three locks of the triple lock and is against my policy.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Defence the military hardware that will be used by the EU battle groups. [17748/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The European Union, which produces 25% of world GDP and has a population of 450 million, is one of the richest trading blocks in the world. Recognising its wealth, influence and impact on world affairs and conscious of the obligations such a position brings, the Union has committed itself to support, through all the various means at its disposal, international peace and security.

The instruments available to the Union to support international peace and security within the framework of the UN Charter include political, diplomatic, financial, economic and trade instruments, together with development aid and support for civil administration, justice and policing. The EU has set itself a new headline goal for 2010. One aspect of this — I emphasis it is only one aspect — is the formation of rapid response elements which are available and deployable at very high readiness and capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks.

The equipping of a battle group will depend on the nature of the response which may be required of it, given the wide and potentially diverse nature of the tasks which may be assigned to it, within the overall context of the Petersberg Tasks. In major conflict, which might require the separation of opposing forces and the protection of civilian populations, the military hardware could involve significant arms capabilities and force protection assets. In the case of a humanitarian disaster, the military hardware would more likely be in the nature of heavy transport equipment, airlift, cranes, logistics and other engineering type equipment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Battle groups by their nature must be ready for all eventualities and the equipment available to them cannot be dependent on the nature of any future and unknown mission. The equipment purchased by the British army for its participation in the EU battle groups includes transport aeroplanes, unmanned aircraft and precision-guided missiles. This is hardly the equipment needed for humanitarian or peacekeeping missions.

The Minister said in November 2004 that the Government had agreed in principle that Ireland would participate in the EU battle groups. In January 2005, however, he stated that Ireland would not join the battle groups due to legal and constitutional difficulties. This week he announced the Government has not yet made a decision in this matter. Which of these three positions is the correct one?

Is the Minister aware that a UN mandate will not be required by the EU for the deployment of battle groups? Has he been informed that the agreed EU security doctrine does not require a UN mandate? Nor does it restrict EU military deployment to peacekeeping or humanitarian missions but can be extended to foreign intervention and the military backing of other Governments in counter-insurgency operations. Is the Minister aware that NATO officials have said the battle groups must be prepared to go to war?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question related to the military hardware to be used by the EU battle groups. I have told him in quite reasonable language that the type of military hardware that will be used will depend on the mission in which a particular battle group is engaged. If it is involved in mainly humanitarian tasks, it will be the type of equipment to which I referred. If it is involved in a chapter VII mission such as that which took place in the Balkans, where warring armies are trying to kill each other, it will obviously require different capabilities, including force protection assets, heavy weaponry and so on. The hardware required by any individual battle group will depend on the task in which it is engaged. The Petersberg Tasks range from humanitarian rescue missions on the one hand to peacemaking operations at the other extreme.

I said in December that Ireland was favourable in principle to joining battle groups. My position remained the same in January and is the same now. Nothing has changed. We are in favour in principle but are nevertheless committed to the triple lock and will not sacrifice that merely to participate in battle groups. We are engaged in a process of trying to find ways to overcome the difficulties to participating in battle groups which are posed by the triple lock. Our policy is to stand by the triple lock if it proves insurmountable even after UN reforms.

I am cognisant of the issues raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh in terms of UN mandates. He is aware that many countries do not require any UN mandate to become involved in foreign military adventures, whether the purpose is aggressive or involves peacekeeping or making. I assure the House that, if we join the battle groups, no Irish contingent will become involved unless the three conditions set out in the triple lock doctrine have been observed. A Government decision and Dáil approval will be required and the operation will have to be authorised, as defined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, by the UN.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last October, the Minister told me that no increase in defence spending would result, yet the equipment in question will put an extra charge on the Exchequer. Has the Minister commenced cost projections for the equipment he will seek for these battle groups or our participation therein?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is outside the scope of this question but the Minister may answer if he so wishes.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It concerns military hardware for EU battle groups.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not included within the question.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a supplementary question.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last Monday, a meeting of Defence Ministers was held in Brussels. Of the many countries which will participate in battle groups, none intends to increase defence expenditure and neither does Ireland. A requirement catalogue which sets out the possible weaponry requirements of battle groups in operations will be finalised under the EU Presidency. In addition, an organisation, the European Defence Agency, will regulate the fragmented market in armaments which will permit countries to purchase armaments more cheaply. Our policy and that of our European colleagues is not to spend more money but to receive better value for our current expenditures.