Dáil debates

Thursday, 29 September 2005

Priority Questions.

Overseas Missions.

2:00 pm

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Defence the legislative or constitutional changes which are being considered by the Government to facilitate members of the Defence Forces to participate in European Union battle groups; if any of these measures will affect the triple lock method of authorising Irish troop deployments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26051/05]

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has brought to Cabinet proposals for the participation of Irish troops in EU rapid reaction forces; the legislative changes that are required to facilitate this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26050/05]

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 165: To ask the Minister for Defence the extent to which the debate on Ireland's participation in a European rapid response force has evolved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26127/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 5 and 165 together.

The background to the rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, is that at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999, member states set themselves a headline goal that by the year 2003, co-operating together and voluntarily, they would be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks as set out in the Amsterdam treaty. In short, these are humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management operations, including peacemaking. This included, inter alia, a capability to provide rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness. The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European security and defence policy, ESDP.

Ireland's participation in such operations is entirely consistent with our foreign policy commitment to collective security which recognises the primary role of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and our tradition of support for the United Nations. During his visit to Dublin in October 2004, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, stressed the importance of battle groups and requested Ireland's support for them.

At the Cabinet meeting of 16 November 2004, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with partners with a view to potential participation in rapid response elements. A military capabilities commitment conference was held on 22 November 2004 at which member states committed up to 13 battle group formations which will be available to deploy to crisis situations within a five to ten day period from 2005 onwards. A battle group co-ordination conference was held on 11 May 2005 at which initial offers and commitments by relevant member states were confirmed. It was noted that only one slot, the second semester of 2007, remains unfilled.

Ireland supports the development of the EU's rapid response capability in support of UN authorised missions and is positively disposed towards participation in the rapid response elements in this regard. However, it is important that the full implications of our participation are assessed and, to this end, I have established an interdepartmental group to report to me on the matter. This group met in December 2004 and has established three sub-groups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising.

The sub-groups met on a number of occasions over the summer to progress issues in regard to battle groups. The legal issues sub-group met on four occasions. The Attorney General's Office is now in the process of submitting its report on the legal issues involved to the Attorney General and I expect to receive his report shortly. Once the advice is received, the other two sub-groups will expedite the completion of their considerations and report to me shortly thereafter. I will then consider the report and advise the Government accordingly.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. He said recently during a visit to Haulbowline that he intends to bring the report to Cabinet at the end of September. Has the report not yet been considered or brought to Cabinet? I assume from his utterances and from the quotations in the article that the view he expressed previously in the House that he supports the triple lock method is no longer valid and that he wants to ditch it at this stage.

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

I do not have the report. I anticipated the Attorney General's office would be a bit speedier than it has proved to be. However, I expect to hear from the Attorney General next week and there will be no avoidable delay in bringing the matter to Cabinet.

Second, Deputy Gormley is absolutely wrong. He could not be more wrong even to imagine that I would abandon the triple lock method. I am fully and totally committed to the method.

Photo of Billy TimminsBilly Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Within time.

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

I said on several occasions in this House, and I repeat today, that we understand the rationale of battle groups, rapid reaction in modern warfare and terrorism conditions, and we will participate provided we can do so while at the same holding onto the triple lock.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said that his impression is it can be done by way of legislative change. He said that there will be certain elements in the Dáil that will fight that legislative change tooth and nail. I wonder who these certain elements are and why would we want to change it if there is no real change?

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

As I outlined to the House on a number of occasions, there are some difficulties, particularly about Irish troops travelling abroad and the requirement for Dáil approval, a UN mandate, etc. This applies currently when people travel abroad to participate in peacekeeping if the number is more than 12 and they are under arms. I do not wish to anticipate the report but it may be necessary, for example, to amend the relevant legislation, the Defence Act, to enable people to travel abroad solely for the purpose of training. I expressed my personal opinion on a number of occasions that slight legislative change is all that is necessary in this instance. A constitutional change will not be required. I must await the advice of the Attorney General, who is the official legal adviser to the Government and on whose opinion I will act.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It takes a long time for the Minister to achieve results in whatever capacity he operates. He must provide immediate clarification on the issue because there is ambiguity between his position and that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is there conflict between them on this issue?

The Minister says there is no point in changing the legislation. However, it is a while since the issue was raised and I would like him to clarify the current position. Has the Minister received the report of the expert committee on the options open to Ireland to allow members of the Defence Forces to participate in rapid reaction battle groups? If so, what are its recommendations?

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

I have not received the report because the Attorney General has not forwarded his advice which will underpin the report. However, I expect that advice will be available next week. I did not say that legislative change would not be necessary. I said a legislative amendment will probably be necessary.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But not a constitutional amendment?

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

Yes. That is my opinion but I must await the advice of the Attorney General. There is no conflict between me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs or any other Minister on this matter. We are all ad idem in our commitment to the triple lock, and our determination to respond to the entreaties of the United Nations and its Secretary General and the demands of international peacekeeping by participating in battle groups while holding on to the triple lock.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Assuming the Minister obtains the report next week, when will the legislation be introduced, given that this involves a relatively small change? Does he agree that all these small changes are chipping away at the last vestiges of neutrality?

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

I do not wish to anticipate what the report will suggest. I am confident I will have the report and I will be in position to go to Cabinet before we meet again for Question Time. We will discuss what, if anything, the report proposes by way of legislative amendment at that point.