Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 16, after "Union" to insert "including battle groups".

The purpose of this amendment is to record the manner in which this Bill is being pushed through the Dáil and the participation of the Defence Forces in an EU battle group. However, it is very disingenuous that the term "battle group" does not feature even once in the Bill. We are opposed to the introduction of battle groups just as we are opposed to the development of the EU into a global imperialist power.

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

The provision the amendment addresses is the dispatch of personnel to serve in secondments in international organisations. The amendment proposes to add the term "battle groups" to the section, namely "the European Union or any institution or body of the European Union". A battle group is not a body or an institution of the European Union and as such, the amendment makes no sense. Personnel will not be seconded to a battle group. The personnel who will be operating in headquarters are deemed to be part of the battle group. In the context of international organisations it makes no sense to state that the terms "international organisations" also includes battle groups. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As amendment No. 3 is a technical alternative to this new part of the Bill, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be discussed together.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 21 and 22, to delete all words from and including "mandated," in line 21 down to and including "sanctioned" in line 22.

I propose this amendment for similar reasons.

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

I referred to amendment No. 3 in the course of my contribution on Second Stage. We wanted an international force or body established and mandated. We were happy with the word "authorised". I draw attention to the words, "otherwise sanctioned". It is clear to me that Ireland should not be out of step with other members of the battle group who have no triple lock requirement. They do not have it written anywhere in legislation where a UN mandate is required. The Minister stated he would be in a framework country and that he is waiting for some form of resolution from the Security Council. The resolution could be very vague. The Minister referred to Dermot Gleeson who was Attorney General and who stated clearly that we were covered. Why is the Minister changing it and inserting all these terms? Any sort of resolution will do. The term, "otherwise sanctioned" gives the Minister much room for manoeuvre. I do not believe the Minister when he says he will be in a framework country. It would be ridiculous to go to Sweden when there is a mission in Africa. I suggest this is madness. The Minister will go along with the rest of the battle group and he will not go elsewhere. He will be waiting with them. This is the reason he deliberately left it vague.

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

Is it necessary to include the reference to the General Assembly of the United Nations, considering it perhaps no longer has a role in passing a resolution?

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In my contribution on Second Stage I referred to the area of "established and authorised". I referred to the legal advice we received that the word "established" was not adequate. The meaning of the expression "established" is to establish a mission and we were involved in missions that had never been established by the United Nations but rather had been authorised or sanctioned by the United Nations. The advice was that it was time to bring the statutory provisions in line with what was happening. A question hung over the legal certainty surrounding the deployment of our troops abroad because the 1960 Act only refers to missions established by the United Nations. The Minister was doing that and was rejecting the advice of his Attorney General. If he was not rejecting the advice of the Attorney General he would leave it as it was. If the Attorney General said that the word "established" meant the same as "authorised"——

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

That is what he said.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why should it be changed?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Dermot Gleeson was the Attorney General for the Deputy's side of the House and not ours.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not deny it.

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

I accept that.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister was happy with it, he would have left it the way it was. Why does he include the terms "further mandated", "authorised", "endorsed", "supported", "approved or otherwise sanctioned"? We have been making this point for a long time that the wording as it stood was not legally adequate. I am delighted the Minister has taken our views on board and that he is finally rejecting the advice of the Attorney General.

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

Amendment No. 2 would leave the definition of international United Nations force the same as it is currently in the 1993 Act. It would completely subvert the purpose of the definition in this Bill which is designed to provide for the full range of terminology used by the United Nations Security Council.

Amendment No. 3 would simply add the word "authorised" to the existing definition of international United Nations force and would not overcome the difficulty that the use of terms such as "endorsed" or "supported" which appear in United Nations Council Resolutions may not be covered by the legislation.

I will clarify the situation for Deputy Costello for the umpteenth time.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suggest the Minister publish the Attorney General's advice.

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

I cannot do so without the permission of the Attorney General, as Deputy Costello knows.

The 1960 Defence Act stated that Ireland is entitled to send troops overseas on a mission "established" by the United Nations. In recent years the United Nations has farmed out the organisation of some of these missions to regional bodies such as the EU, the African Union etc.

The question arose when the Fine Gael and Labour coalition Government was in power in 1996, when Mr. Dermot Gleeson, SC, was the Attorney General, with regard to a particular mission that was established by a regional organisation at the request of the United Nations. In other words, it was not established directly by the United Nations but it was authorised to be set up by the United Nations. The advice of Mr. Dermot Gleeson, SC, was that the situation was covered by the word "established" in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960. I cannot make it any clearer.

Since then, circumstances have again changed. The United Nations, in its resolutions, tends to use expressions not limited to "authorises" but including "endorses", "supports", "calls on" etc. We have gone through the United Nations resolutions to check their wording.

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

So have I.

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

We have consulted our mission to the UN in New York and taken advice from them. We are trying to have an all-embracing definition so that if the United Nations words a resolution in a certain way, our defence legislation corresponds with it. If the mission is desirable we should not be prevented by a technicality from the definition in the defence legislation not being exhaustive enough to cover what the United Nations might state.

We are saying that we will send troops on an overseas peace mission at the behest of the United Nations, if we decide for other reasons that the mission is desirable. We are not saying that if we think a mission should be engaged in, and the United Nations asks us to join it, we will join it only if asked in a certain way, with the State being constrained by the Defence Act.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Gormley wish to support the UN?

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

Deputy Gormley may refer to terms such as "authorised", "endorsed", "supported", "approved" and "otherwise sanctioned", but under this legislation there can be no deployment whatever of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions unless there is a specific resolution of the United Nations which will give rise to that.

The Deputy mentioned Iraq. The argument put forward by the US Government, as I understand it, on the Iraq matter was that while there was no specific resolution allowing that country to go into Iraq, it did so to enforce some resolutions which were passed years earlier. That is completely different from what we are proposing. We are proposing that it is only in response to a specific resolution authorising or asking us to go into an area that we will do so. That is the factual position.

We may not get to the specific amendment on the embarkation clause. Arising from discussions with our potential European battle group partners, I have stated that it is planned that in some cases, when there is a last-minute delay about getting a United Nations resolution, for example, a battle group may be required to come together in the interests of speed. I have received advice from military personnel that the assembly will often be in the framework nation. The framework nation would be the organising country, which would provide the greatest number of troops.

I take Deputy Gormley's point that the location may be further away from the actual theatre of conflict. The main part of the force will have to come from the framework nation anyway. I have received military advice that in many but not all cases, initial assembly prior to deployment would be on the soil of the framework nation. It does not have to be so, and the advice is not exhaustive. For example, in the United Nations mission which we have been asked to sign up for with regard to forthcoming elections, much of the force will be located over the border from the Congo.

We can parse and analyse words and their meaning until the cows come home, but common sense must enter the argument at some stage. On deciding as a sovereign Government to deploy troops as part of a battle group to a war theatre, sometimes in the interests of speed and efficiency troops will be ready to go in pending the passage of a United Nations resolution, but we will not deploy them in the theatre. That is the last thing we will do. We will not have them beside the theatre of war, where they can be fired upon. If they assemble at a location other than the framework nation, they will be a safe distance from the action.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is obvious.

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

The Minister is stating that we can parse and analyse endlessly, but the problem is that we cannot do so as we have such a short space of time. Two hours were allocated for all stages of this legislation.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Talking about the matter all day does not make the argument any better.

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

It is not a good way to process legislation.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should speak quickly. If he is to shoot wide he should shoot quickly.

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

These are important issues. The Minister is departing from his original stance. He stated clearly last Sunday that troops would be sent to the framework country, though not all the time.

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

I used the term "usually". That is what I said last Sunday and I am saying the same now.

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

The Minister is saying that our troops could be sent elsewhere, perhaps across the border.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is consistent.

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

If the Minister wants to be specific he can say that they will be sent to the framework country, and that will be the end of it, but he will not do that.

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

I do not propose to confine myself that way.

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

The Minister is leaving it open. There is a problem with legislation.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where is the problem?

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue is clear.

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

They will not be pre-deployed into a theatre of war. Surely the Deputy can understand that and agree with it.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy never wants to see soldiers in a war zone.

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

That is untrue. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, has just arrived in and has not heard the debate so far.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a former Minister for Foreign Affairs and I am well aware of the issues.

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

The Deputy has not heard the debate.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I dealt with Deputy Gormley's misrepresentations for four years.

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

The Minister, Deputy Cowen, has not heard the debate so far.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Gormley spoke of Armageddon on numerous occasions.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Timmins.

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

We have supported every single mission that has come before the House.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy was educated in the defence policy group on the European Union constitution.

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

I was there.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy was educated on all the realities. He told me that and I will put it on the record.

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

I made plenty of amendments. Michel Barnier put his forward. I may raise the issue.

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

Has the Minister had discussions with our counterparts on this matter? If the UN resolution does not come forward and we have a force in the area of embarkation, or a forming area, and the other components of the battle group decide to move in, will our position be undermined in the long run?

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

There are two issues here. We should forget about prior deployment for the moment. I will give an example of a normal situation where people deploy from their own country into a battle group that has already been sanctioned to go. That case is straightforward. The battle group will be waiting for a United Nations resolution and will decide to get together, either in the framework nation or elsewhere, although not in the heart of the war as that is where it is ultimately waiting to be deployed to.

I have had discussions with potential members of the Nordic battle group, which consists of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Estonia. From speaking to those countries and others, including Austria, which will also be part of multinational battle groups, it is clear that all these states are signed up to the idea that groups may sometimes get ready, for the sake of speed and efficiency, while the United Nations resolution is being passed. I do not see that undermining us in any way.

People have argued that because we are the only country in the potential Nordic battle group with a legal requirement for a United Nations resolution, we are at some disadvantage. The countries in the group regard the United Nations resolution as a political imperative in most cases.

I will be careful in my comments as Deputy Gormley may pick me up incorrectly, but I have heard reports that at least one of those countries is considering changing their law to make what is now only a political requirement a legal requirement.

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

I know that, it is Norway.

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

Yes. That will be two countries that will have a legal requirement. The Norwegians do not have a difficulty with it and I do not see why we should either.

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

The Minister will have a patent on the triple lock mechanism.

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

There are other situations where a country will not be able to deploy, not just because it is a political imperative. Some countries have baggage such as a colonial past and will not want to send soldiers into a particular region. That is an imperative which does not apply to us and we should not always think of ourselves as the non-participant. As that is the reality in multinational battle groups, a situation will often arise where one or more of the participants for some reason or other, because of the political imperative, the legal imperative or the historical baggage, will not be able to deploy. All multinational battle groups will have an in-built redundancy to provide for that situation. In other words, they will have substitutes to call up. This is part of the organisation of multinational battle groups. That is the way it will operate in practice. That is as clear as I can make it.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two important issues. I referred already to the first, the need for legal certainty, which is now dealt with by the new provision, even though the Minister denies it. The second and most important matter is that the resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations is the key issue. Once that resolution is in place, then we can go forward.

The Minister referred to the assembly of the battle group. It does not matter whether the prior assembly takes place in a framework country or in any country involved in the battle group, or in none of those countries. The key issue is that the assembly takes places outside the theatre of operations so that there is no danger to Irish troops. That is what is needed and what should have been enshrined in this legislation. It is not clear because it is presented in a confusing fashion.

The Minister assured us there is no question of any overlap between the area of the dispatch of the troops and that of the subsequent deployment, that there is no question of them being in the same theatre or area of conflict. That is the key to it. That must be in place. If it were not, then we would not have the triple lock because the Minister would have already undermined one of the pillars, namely, deployment prior to getting the UN resolution. It is essential that the assembly area is separate from where they will be deployed and that the deployment takes place only after the Dáil has debated the issue and after the UN resolution has been passed. That is the way I envisage it and I am glad to hear that is the way the Minister envisages it. I would have preferred more circumspect language in section 8 to include that.

The Bill does not address a question on the purpose of a rapid reaction force which will be deployed rapidly to a theatre of operation to deal with a crisis, that is, the issue of how the resolution will be expedited. Has the Minister begun to think through the logistical and timescale implications of the request for the resolution, when the United Nations Security Council might meet and when the General Assembly might meet? What mechanism will apply in terms of those issues?

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

If a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force assembles, for instance, in a neighbouring country, as the Minister stated, and comes under attack, I assume it can defend itself in those circumstances. If it does so, is it not becoming embroiled in a conflict without a UN mandate?

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

In answer to Deputy Costello, the people negotiating the composition and operation in practice of the battle groups are examining all those issues at present. Obviously, there will always be a lead-up time. Something will be happening which will require the United Nations to approach the EU for assistance. The EU can decide in what form it will provide that assistance, whether by organising a traditional-type United Nations force or by deploying one of its battle groups, depending on the circumstances of the case.

I agree with Deputy Costello that it certainly makes it potentially less rapid than it otherwise would be if we must wait for a Security Council resolution because such resolutions are not always readily and easily forthcoming. Nevertheless, it is the Government's policy that we will not deploy troops in the absence of a Security Council resolution.

We will have a system, which is within our power, of recalling the Dáil to debate the matter, for example, if it is during a recess, and of convening a quick meeting of the Government to debate the matter.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister envisage a recall of the Dáil if there is a request?

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

If the Dáil is not sitting, we must recall the Dáil because it is one of the three pieces of the triple lock and, obviously, nothing can be done without a Dáil motion. The people putting the multinational battle groups together are considering all those issues and they are issues which must be considered in detail.

Deputy Gormley asked the position where troops assemble in a neighbouring country ready to deploy. I would imagine that what would happen in such a case is that if such troops come under fire, we would obviously have to withdraw the troops. It is as simple as that.

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

Then the Minister would find himself out of step with the other members of the battle groups.

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

I am sure they will not only be attacking the Irish troops.

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

Exactly.

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

I am sure the other countries will also take measures to ensure the safety of their troops.

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

It is unrealistic that we would withdraw and the others would remain.

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

It is even more unrealistic to conjure up all these images.

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

No, this is called legislation. We must go through it systematically.

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

How many scenarios will there be? When one gets the assembly together waiting for the United Nations resolution and in that short space of time they happen to be somewhere where they happen to be attacked——

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

It happens in war. People get attacked.

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

We are not going into the war zone.

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

They are going into a neighbouring country.

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

If one is assembling a group of people to go to a concert, one does not assemble inside on the floor of the concert. One assembles some place else with a view to being deployed into the war zone ultimately. One does not assemble in the war zone.

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

I gave the Minister the example of a neighbouring country.

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

Would the experienced military people running that battle group not be very foolish to put troops in where they are likely to come under attack?

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They would be daft.

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

Would they not be very foolish to withdraw after one attack?

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

We will withdraw them if they are in danger, but that would be definitely an unusual situation.

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

May I be of assistance to the Minister? When forces have deployed in the past, they would have gone through areas outside the area of operation with equipment. They have landed in Israel en route to Lebanon.

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

Deputy Gormley is now splitting hairs he has already split. One can come up with all sorts of scenarios but common sense must come into it at the end of the day. DeputyGormley has the Humpty Dumpty approach to words. It is what he states they mean, nothing more and nothing less. I do not agree with him.

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

It is our job as legislators——

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

I know that.

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

——to go through this in some detail. Unfortunately, we have not been given the time to go through it.

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

That is not my fault.

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

We are here to look at all scenarios. That is what we are supposed to do. Unfortunately, when it is rushed we will not do our job properly.

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

Every possible scenario.

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

Given that we will probably not get through more amendments and this has been rushed, and while each year a document is laid in the Library or an update on the overseas operations for the year is given to the committee by the Minister, would he give a commitment to come into the Dáil each year, rather than into the committee, to report on what is taking place because we are going through a serious period of transition? I understand the Minister gave a commitment to lay a document before the Seanad.

Will the Minister give a commitment to come to the House on an annual basis to report on how this system is operating?

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Deputy Timmins because we have not had adequate time to debate the legislation. It is wrong to deal with an important Bill in this manner. The least we should expect from the Minister is a regular report to the House with an opportunity to debate what happened in the previous six or 12 months. The report should not be left in the Library and the Minister should be proactive and afford us an opportunity to tease out the implications of the system in the House.

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

There is provision for an annual report to be debated in the House and it is repeated in the legislation. In practice, the report is laid before the Dáil and the Whips ask for it to be referred to a committee. There is no barrier to it being debated in the House and if party Whips want such a debate, I have no objection. If they communicate their views to me, I will talk to my Whip about it.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As it is now midnight, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is, accordingly, reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".