David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has received any reports from the group examining the cost and any other implications of Ireland's participation in the EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31947/05]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 23: To ask the Minister for Defence if the Government will be bringing forward proposals to allow for Defence Forces participation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31903/05]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 30: To ask the Minister for Defence if the Defence Forces will be enabled to engage in joint training initiatives with other EU member state forces in preparation for EU battle group participation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31904/05]

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 56: To ask the Minister for Defence when he expects to bring proposals to Cabinet regarding Ireland's participation in EU rapid reaction forces; the legislative changes that he has recommended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32001/05]

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

Question 65: To ask the Minister for Defence the state of discussions with his EU colleagues in regard to the formation of a European rapid response or battle group force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31957/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 23, 30, 56 and 65 together.

The rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, originated at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999. 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 established an interdepartmental group which includes representatives of my Department, the Defence Forces, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office. This group met in December 2004 and established three subgroups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising. The subgroups met on a number of occasions over the summer to progress issues in relation to battle groups.

I recently received the advice from the Attorney General which sets out the legal background in relation to participation in battle groups. I have asked the interdepartmental group to finalise its considerations, which it could not do until it received the Attorney General's advice, to review all the policy and operational issues in the context of that advice and submit its report to me for my early consideration. I expect to receive the report in the next few weeks. Once I have had an opportunity to consider the report, I propose to bring the matter to Government for consideration on the way forward. In the absence of the Government having had the opportunity to consider the issue, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the relevant actions which may be taken to facilitate participation in battle groups.

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

Can the Minister share with the House the Attorney General's advice as to the legal implications? I believe it simply requires the amendment of the Defence Act 1954 and a constitutional amendment is not necessary.

Does he believe he will get the support of his Cabinet colleagues for funding to join these battle groups? He said in an earlier reply that it would not be necessary to increase funding. Can he give an indication of how he sees us joining? I urge the Minister and the Government to adopt a positive approach to these battle groups. The term "battle group" is unfortunate, and I often call them peace missions or peace assistance groups rather than battle groups. The Minister is a strong defender of the triple lock mechanism, although I believe that it does the nation no favours and that it is morally wrong that the country does not make its own decision on foreign policy and is held to ransom by other countries instead. Does the Minister agree that adoption of an approach seeking UN approval rather than a mandate would provide more flexibility and autonomy?

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

I will explain the current position, although I expected the process to be further advanced at this stage. The interdepartmental group did not wish to finalise its report, although it had much work done, until it received formal written legal advice from the Attorney General. It was received a fortnight ago, although I expected to receive it sooner. Unfortunately, a number of aspects of the advice had to be returned to the Office of the Attorney General for further consideration as some issues were unclear. We expect clarification next week and the interdepartmental group can then send its report to my Department. I will then go to either the Cabinet or the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs with certain proposals to ascertain views before going to Cabinet.

Deputy Timmins mentioned the legal advice which came from the Office of the Attorney General. Such legal advice is privileged, as the Deputy is aware. I do not normally mind discussing legal advice in such cases and giving some indication of the Attorney General's advice. However, as some points have yet to be clarified, I must be careful with the matter. It is clear from the advice that a constitutional change will not be required according to the Attorney General. A number of technical matters must be ironed out.

I cannot anticipate how my Cabinet colleagues would react to anything which I say and they constantly surprise me. Deputy Gormley may argue that this issue will in some way contravene our neutrality. I believe it does not and as far as I can ascertain, it is the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet that it does not. It is an extension of our peacekeeping role. Any battle group deployed by Ireland will be a joint battle group and be subject to triple lock requirements, including a UN mandate. With regard to Deputy Timmins's comments on distancing the country from the UN mandate requirement and just seeking UN approval, it is interesting to note that Norway did not require a UN mandate until a recent change of government. That new government has changed procedure and the country now requires a UN mandate to participate in battle groups.

Later this month I will probably go to the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs, if not the Cabinet, with the report of the interdepartmental group and the advice of the Attorney General on outstanding issues.

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

Is the Minister aware that Simon Devereaux, the deputy secretary of the Defence Forces' staff representative association, PDFORRA, expressed concern last month at the group's annual conference about the level of funding available to the Defence Forces for the battle groups? He argued that Ireland would carry out the process cheaply. Does the Minister agree with the assessment of Mr. Devereaux and does the Minister concur that the battle groups will require significant extra levels of funding if we are to have the equipment, high readiness and interoperability that is needed?

Could the Minister clarify his opinion on the triple lock mechanism? He has stated in the past that he is committed to this mechanism, as am I and the Green Party as a whole. Other parties in Opposition also concur. Will there be no change in the triple lock mechanism if we participate in battle groups? When can we expect the legislative change spoken about by the Minister?

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

That will depend on what the Government decides. I was at the PDFORRA conference referred to by Deputy Gormley and I listened to some of the speeches with great interest. I do not agree with every statement which every official from PDFORRA makes. I disagree with the statement referred to by Deputy Gormley.

The Government is engaged in the modernisation of equipment which forms part of a ten-year plan running to 2010. We have used savings from downsizing the Army to 10,500 and surplus property has been sold off. This money has gone towards improvement of infrastructure such as barracks and the purchase of modern equipment. I do not understand why people assume that if the country joins battle groups, it will have to invest large amounts of capital into equipment. The only operations in which battle groups will be engaged are Petersberg Tasks. We already engage in these tasks up to and including chapter 7 missions, which could involve separating two standing armies, as would have been the situation in the Balkans, for example.

Battle groups are doing nothing new in participating in the Petersberg Tasks, which range from humanitarian missions to chapter 7 missions. There is a requirements catalogue for battle groups. If, for example, there is a multinational battle group — the only type we would be involved in — one of those countries might be able to supply a particular type of required equipment. This may not even be the framework nation or the nation contributing most troops. However, if the piece of equipment is not available to any of the three countries forming a multinational battle group, it can be accessed from any of the other countries committed to battle groups. Both men and niche capabilities are committed. As I understand it, there is no obligation to spend extra money on equipment even if we join battle groups.

I made it clear in Brussels in May that if Ireland involved itself in battle groups, it would do so on the basis that the country brings the standard of equipment and force protection of our troops to the requisite standard to perform Petersberg Tasks up to and including chapter 7, of which the Liberia mission is an example.

I wish to clarify the triple lock mechanism. This mechanism means that Irish troops under arms will not be deployed abroad on a peacekeeping mission unless there is a mandate of the United Nations, a decision of the Government and the decision of the Dáil. I intend to maintain this position.

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

The Minister has indicated that there will not be increased standing in terms of battle groups. Is he aware of the commitment to develop the necessary military capabilities? He mentioned earlier the requirements catalogue. The definition of battle groups is a buoyant arms battalion-sized force. In all cases interoperability and military effectiveness will be the key criteria. Does the Minister understand the concept of interoperability? Does he understand that we will be obliged to upgrade our arms and matériel to ensure its interoperability with those of other participating countries? Otherwise, we would encounter the situation suggested by the Minister, whereby we would send troops on battle group missions without training and equipment, which would be loaned by some other country. That would be ridiculous.

The Minister has noted that we would be involved in Petersberg Tasks. Will the Minister define the aspect of the Petersberg Tasks which mentions peacemaking and what is involved? What equipment is required to carry out those duties in battle groups?

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

A battle group is defined as the minimum military effective, credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of stand-alone operations or for the initial phase of larger operations. As Deputy Timmins has rightly noted, the name is a misnomer and they should be called peace brigades. The intention of forming battle groups is that in some cases, because it would take several months to deploy a traditional type of peacekeeping force——

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

They will be involved in battles.

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

——thousands of people could be killed in the meantime. Members should consider what happened in the Balkans and in Rwanda. In a similar situation, one needs, as Deputy Gormley is aware, to be able to deploy a temporary force quickly to prevent something catastrophic from happening.

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

We supported it on this side of the House.

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

Yes. Almost invariably, it will be followed by the bigger traditional type of peacekeeping force. As I stated previously with respect to equipment, I have made it clear to my fellow Ministers for Defence of those countries which will participate in battle groups that if Ireland is to participate in battle groups, they will be obliged to take us as they find us. I have made the point that we have invested quite a substantial amount of money in modernising our equipment.

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

Are they happy with that position?

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

Yes they are, because apparently unlike some Members, they realise that the intention of battle groups is not to go to war. Battle groups will participate in Petersberg Tasks, which include, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh stated, missions up to and including chapter 7, or peacemaking, missions. That has been decided. Liberia is a chapter 7 mission. When we deployed troops to Liberia, several Members from all sides of the House rightly expressed concern and asked questions as to whether the troops had proper equipment and force protection. In practice it has been demonstrated that they have and that the Army is as well equipped and armed as any other army participating in such missions. Hence, I cannot envisage how we might be required to pay extra money or what could cost us extra money. We will be taken as we are found and we are among the best.

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

Will the Minister tell us if Irish military spending is the lowest in the European Union? That is related to this issue. Does this not severely compromise the Government's plans for Irish participation in EU battle groups? The Minister must also consider the effect on the individual members of the Defence Forces, given the sharp drop in military spending.

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

I meet individual members of the Defence Forces as I go around the country and morale is extremely high. This is partially due to the unprecedented amount of money invested in the Defence Forces in recent years.

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

And because Deputy O'Dea is the Minister for Defence.

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

Yes. Between 1985——

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

There has been a reduction from 1.3% to 0.7%.

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

That does not mean — if Deputy Sherlock can grasp this — that less money is being spent on the Defence Forces, it simply means that GDP has grown enormously. The Government has been spending a great deal of money on other Departments, such as the Departments of Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs, on which the Labour Party constantly calls on us to spend more. I did not know that it was Labour Party policy to——

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

There has been a reduction from 1.3% to 0.7%.

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

——increase expenditure on defence. In any case, the Government is increasing expenditure on defence. In 1985 and 1995, during much of which time the Deputy's party was in office, official figures show that expenditure on defence increased by 2% per annum. From 1995 to 2005, it increased by 7% per annum. Since the Government came into office, the increase in the consumer price index has been 43% and expenditure on defence has increased by 68%. Hence, even though GNP is growing enormously, we are investing quite heavily and way above the rate of inflation.

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

This was achieved through the sale of property.

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

Surplus property, which there was no point in retaining, was sold. Was it not better to use the funds properly? I am committed to continuing the reinvestment programme which will be in place until 2010. I wish to cite one international statistic. Defence expenditure by all governments in Europe has fallen quite substantially since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It has fallen substantially as a proportion of GNP or GDP in individual countries, and this country is no exception. The only way in which this country differs is that we are beating the rate of inflation and are increasing expenditure in real terms, and we will continue to so do.