Dáil debates

Tuesday, 5 July 2022

3:55 pm

Photo of Catherine ConnollyCatherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are three motions here that will be debated together.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2020, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st June, 2021, in accordance with Section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 2006.

I welcome this opportunity to report to the Dáil on Irish Defence Forces’ participation in United Nations missions in 2020 and 2021 and to present to the House a motion proposing Ireland's participation in four permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, projects. This debate comes at a time when we are experiencing war on our Continent, something we hoped we would never have to see again. The outrageous and illegal war being perpetrated on Ukraine by Russia has, quite rightly, shone a light on this country’s attitude to this form of illegal aggression.

This Government has been clear that while we remain militarily neutral, we are not neutral in our steadfast support for the people of Ukraine. Last week, we had the opportunity to discuss these motions in the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I would like to use this opportunity, therefore, to address some of the issues that arose in that discussion and, in particular, to correct some misunderstandings or misinterpretations about PESCO and the reasons why I am proposing that Ireland should enhance its engagement.

Indeed, there are links between what I am proposing with regard to PESCO and the contribution that the Defence Forces continue to make on international peacekeeping duty. The primary benefit of participation in PESCO projects is the enhancement of the Defence Forces capabilities and our interoperability with EU member states. In every UN or Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, mission in which we participate, we work alongside the armed forces of other countries, whether that is with the Poles, Hungarians and Maltese in United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, or with the Germans in United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, MINUSMA.

Ireland’s contribution to peacekeeping around the world reflects a commitment to work with others to overcome emerging challenges. Together, we can provide support for fragile states and prevent conflicts from escalating further. The presentation of the two UN reports gives this House the opportunity to express our appreciation for the role which the Defence Forces continue to play throughout the world in the preservation of peace. At a time when a part of our Continent is at war, it is difficult to think of something more laudable than keeping peace and helping innocent and vulnerable people to survive conflict.

The reports on Defence Forces participation in United Nations missions in 2020 and 2021 were laid before Dáil Éireann on 21 June 2021 and 30 March 2022, respectively. These reports document the participation of Defence Forces personnel in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, which include CSDP missions, such as the EU training mission in Mali, EUTM Mali, the EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Operation Althea, and the NATO-led international security presence in Kosovo, KFOR.

I want to address an issue that arose in the committee last week, during which reference was made to the absence of Dáil approval for the deployment of the Defence Forces personnel to the EU training mission in Mali, thus effectively questioning the legitimacy of the deployment. It is the case that in all circumstances in which the Defence Forces personnel are deployed overseas, they are so deployed in strict coherence with the law. The conditions under which the Defence Forces may participate on overseas peace support operations are set out in the Defence Acts. Where personnel are deployed as part of an International United Nations force, the conditions known as the triple lock must be satisfied. That requires that the operation must be authorised or mandated by the United Nations; it must be approved by the Government and, where the size of a Defence Forces contribution is more than 12 personnel, it must be approved by way of a resolution of Dáil Éireann. In accordance with the provisions of sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, the approval of Dáil Éireann is not required where members of the Defence Forces are deployed in a training role. EUTM Mali is a training mission and so, in accordance with the provisions of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, the approval of Dáil Éireann was not required.

There is a range of activities provided for in law when it is not necessary for Defence Forces personnel who are travelling outside the State to have the approval of the Dáil. These include the conducting of or participation in training; undertaking monitoring, observation or advisory duties; undertaking humanitarian tasks in support of an actual or potential disaster or emergency, such as we did very effectively in the Mediterranean; or participating in sporting events, as one would expect.

The EUTM Mali was launched with the objective of training and mentoring the Malian armed forces so as to improve their military capacity and their effectiveness in guaranteeing the country’s territorial integrity. Following serious allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, EU member states decided in April to suspend operational training activities for the Malian armed forces, the national guard and the national gendarmerie of Mali. Several of the troop-contributing nations are adjusting their commitments to the mission, including a number of which are withdrawing entirely. The EU, however, remains committed to the mission, not least because of concerns about the vacuum which a full withdrawal would create. In line with a reduction in the levels of training, my Department and the Defence Forces are also considering what level of support is appropriate, given the changing nature of this mission.

The issue of mandatory selection was also raised last week, and rightly so. It is a practice used sparingly and only when there is an insufficient number of volunteers to fill overseas appointments. While I am not in a position to detail the number of occasions on which mandatory selection has been necessary, personnel selected for mandatory overseas deployment may appeal their selection. The Defence Forces personnel management system is being upgraded to capture information relating to such appeals and the upgraded system is expected to go live in the first quarter of next year.

The possible deployment overseas of members of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, was also raised during the committee meeting. Deputies will be aware that, following the enactment of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2021, that the RDF may support the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, on a voluntary basis both on-island and overseas, where it is in the best interests of the PDF. The practical arrangements to implement the amendment, including all the elements associated with the voluntary service by Reserve Defence Force members overseas are being progressed by departmental officials and the military authorities. Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, the representative association for the RDF, will also be consulted on these matters. I have also engaged with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar, on the issue of employment protection for RDF members who might be engaged in such voluntary military service in support of the PDF. That is an issue that a number of Deputies have asked me to pursue. We are pursuing it to ensure that if people choose to serve either at home or overseas in the Reserve Defence Force, that their jobs are safe.

Engagement at official level with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is continuing to consider the matter and identify the appropriate next steps. My Department is arranging, with the assistance of Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, a preliminary and informal meeting with employer bodies and associations. A letter on the matter has issued to Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, and Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and it is hoped that this meeting will take place very shortly. The outcome of these deliberations and the advice of the Chief of Staff will inform consideration of these matters.

I referred at the outset to the importance of interoperability, particularly in the context of Defence Forces personnel serving side-by-side with colleagues from many different countries. The Defence Forces place a heavy emphasis on ensuring the interoperability of their personnel and rightly so. The tools available include our participation in Partnership for Peace, PfP, our voluntary participation in NATO’s Operational Capabilities Concept, OCC, and our participation in the EU’s permanent structured co-operation, PESCO. Ireland has been a member of PfP since 1999 and our participation is fundamental to Ireland being able to meet its obligations in providing professional peacekeepers for international crisis management and peacekeeping operations mandated by the UN and in enhancing the Defence Forces interoperability with other professional military forces.

The Operational Capabilities Concept, OCC, is a voluntary evaluation process, which Ireland joined in 2016. It provides for external evaluation by trained evaluators of declared military capabilities in accordance with NATO standards. The main benefit of participating in the OCC is that Defence Forces training is benchmarked to an international standard, thereby ensuring that the protection of Irish Defence Forces on operations is enhanced. The Defence Forces are participating at level 1, which focuses on interoperability. In other words, if we are going to be serving overseas with other countries, we need to make sure that we are competent in using the same equipment, the same standard of training and the same benchmarks that are being set in the countries with which we will be operating in the field. We have to ensure that we have consistency with here which is exactly what we are doing.

Participation in PESCO is another tool that can enhance the Defence Forces’ military capabilities for participation in UN-mandated peace support operations, enhance interoperability and ensure that our troops are provided with the latest and best equipment and training. Having been at the centre of the EU’s CSDP since its inception and having played a key role in the EU’s overseas operations, joining PESCO was a natural progression from an Irish perspective. It provides a structure within which we can work with other member states to develop capabilities needed for peacekeeping and crisis management operations, and to maintain a central influence on the development of CSDP. It is unfortunate that there are those who either misunderstand or choose to misrepresent the purpose of PESCO. It is not, as some would suggest, a Trojan horse for a European army, nor does it compromise our policy of military neutrality. It does not involve a commitment to the development of any form of common military force.

Having pointed out these facts, today’s debate should focus, therefore, on the motion before the House. What the Government is proposing is a very modest level of participation in PESCO by increasing the number of projects in which we are participants from one to five of the 60 projects that are currently under way. Ireland is currently the lowest-level participant of the 25 member states that participate in PESCO. The proposal before the Dáil will bring our rate of participation to a level similar to that of Finland. It will still be below those of other militarily neutral countries like Austria and Cyprus.

We should focus today on the specific projects in which it is proposed to participate, whether that is with regard to cyberthreats, military disaster relief capability, special operations forces medical training or semi-autonomous technologies and capabilities for maritime mine counter measures, which are all highly relevant at the moment given some of the challenges we face on our continent and beyond. In each of these cases, Ireland has had the benefit of having been an observer for a number of years. Therefore, we know what these projects entail before we become a full participant.

Following an assessment of all of the nine projects on which we have been observers, the Defence Forces have concluded that there is value in progressing to full participant status. While observer status enables a member state to secure information on the project and map its evolution and alignment with national capability development requirements, full participation allows the member states to contribute to and influence the project. In other words, the national needs from a defence capabilities perspective can be taken on board and included in the objectives of the overall project.

The motion before the Dáil reflects the military advice provided to me, which will further enhance the Defence Forces’ capability to undertake the roles assigned to them by the Government, both at home and overseas. In view of the thorough assessment that informed that advice, there is no reason to delay progressing to full participant status, as was suggested last week.

Without prejudice to the Government’s decision on the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, I point out that the commission recommended that the opportunities offered by PESCO to "develop Ireland’s defence capabilities should be more fully explored and exploited than at present." This is exactly what we are doing. In that respect, the advice given to me to progress to full participation is fully consistent with the recommendations of the commission's report.

I have taken some time this afternoon to elaborate on and address some of the issues raised at last week’s committee meeting. There is a significant amount of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about what PESCO is, and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not. This debate needs to be honest and informed. My contribution this afternoon is aimed at contributing to such a debate. I commend the motions to the House and look forward to responding to any queries Deputies may have.

4:15 pm

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have two fundamental issues to discuss today, namely, the service of the Irish Defence Forces with the UN for 2020 and 2021 and approval of Ireland's participation in four projects involving PESCO. On the face of it, these are two separate issues. In reality, however, participation in one will impact on Ireland's participation in the other. This may colour the future perspective adopted by the smaller military non-aligned nations that invested their support and confidence in Ireland as a military neutral country by voting Ireland on to the UN Security Council.

Ireland has a proud history of uninterrupted service in the UN dating back to 1958. Since then, the blue beret and tricolour shoulder flash have offered succour, safety and assistance to beleaguered people in conflict zones across the globe, including in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In pursuit of the noble cause of peace, many Irish troops have made the ultimate sacrifice. I want to remember that sacrifice here today. The Irish Defence Forces serving within the UN possess an identity that is synonymous with dignity, integrity and, above all, impartiality. It is this hard-won identity of an impartial military force acting as an advocate for peace and justice that I fear participation in PESCO threatens to erode.

I know the Minister wishes to present PESCO in some benign manner. This is to allow Ireland to develop the capacity to participate in humanitarian missions alongside other EU nations. That is the Minister's view. Notwithstanding the current rate of turnover within the Defence Forces, a critical number of experienced troops who were trained at this time would in all likelihood have rotated out of the Defence Forces before they could be called upon to exercise the benefits of the training they received. The Minister's view appears to be at odds, to say the least, with the views of key EU representatives both past and present. Indeed, Ms Federica Mogherini, the former High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, claimed with regard to PESCO that we are building an EU defence union. It is not a plan or a dream anymore; it is reality coming true. Mr. Josep Borrell, her successor, stated categorically that the EU needs to develop a military force to give it military strength.

Whatever claims the Minister makes to the contrary, and however much he seeks to project the image of PESCO as an enlightenment attempt by the EU to act as a humanitarian force for good, he is fundamentally wrong. PESCO is not an altruistic attempt by the EU to develop a humanitarian force for the global good. The mandate of PESCO, as outlined in the Lisbon treaty, includes the requirement for participating states to make members of their Defence Forces available to be deployed as part of PESCO missions.

I wish to put on the record Sinn Féin's commitment to resourcing the Defence Forces. We are committed to a policy of Irish military neutrality. That is not policy of isolationism; it involves embedding our military neutrality within a larger strategic policy of active neutrality on the international stage. The record of our NGOs in delivering humanitarian aid projects, the extensive global range of our diplomatic service and the sterling record of our Defence Forces on peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations can combine to achieve a significant level of soft power for an island of our size.

Irish neutrality should be enshrined in the Irish Constitution because Sinn Féin believes that our Defence Forces - the men and women charged with protecting the security of this State - need to be properly resourced to carry out their role. Arguably, at this moment, the biggest threat to our security does not come from an external factor but from the internal erosion of the strength of our Defence Forces through the loss of key personnel.

The Minister is on record as stating that the establishment figure for the Defence Forces needs to be expanded by 2,000 personnel in order for them to carry out their functions, which means that the Defence Forces are operating at over 3,000 personnel below the establishment figure. While we have NATO overseeing artillery exercises in Cork, we have situations where our Defence Forces lack sufficient numbers of qualified trainers to oversee basic live firing exercises. The number one security priority has to be to address the staffing problems in the Defence Forces.

The representative associations were recently granted the right to associate membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, an issue the Minister and I have battled over on many occasions in this House. Despite the Minister's concerns about the issue, he conceded to it and the sky has not fallen in. There are other outstanding issues that continue to plague recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces, including the working time directive and issues with pay and allowances. Addressing the issues of morale, culture and conditions in the Defence Forces has to be a priority, not the erosion of our neutrality in pursuit of the illusion that we are going to be some type of international military player in a European army of the future.

4:25 pm

Photo of Patricia RyanPatricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Deputy Brady said, Ireland has a long and proud tradition of neutrality. It has been at the heart of our foreign policy since the foundation of the State. One of the main reasons that we are held in high regard all over the world is our lack of a colonial past. Our reputation for impartiality is rooted in our military non-alignment.

Our neutrality has been continuously undermined by successive Fianna Fáil-led and Fine Gael-led Governments. Those same Governments neglected our Defence Forces, which have suffered greatly because of years of underinvestment. We have historically low levels of personnel, and the Defence Forces Reserve is suffering from the indifference of the Government. Morale is on the floor. It cannot go any lower. There has been no attempt to address this or to improve pay and conditions. It is about time the Defence Forces received the investment they deserve.

The investment should not be at the expense of our neutrality. We have the resurgence of discussions on neutrality in the wake of a war in Ukraine. We have seen the attitude, in true Churchillian style, to never let a good crisis go to waste. We must have a referendum on neutrality and there must be a reasonable debate to ensure that our citizens have the chance to hear the arguments for and against before making an informed choice. That debate has to include details of Ireland's involvement in Mali. The Defence Forces are being tainted by involvement in a country where atrocities have taken place and where the involvement of the Russian mercenary Wagner Group continues. This is the same group that entered Ukraine to attempt to assassinate President Zelenskyy and members of his Government.

It is a cynical move to include PESCO in this debate along with the reports on United Nations activities. The Government is attempting to obscure the erosion of Ireland's neutrality by attempting to present participation in PESCO as representing training opportunities for the Defence Forces.

I wish to mention the deployment of the Defence Forces to Dublin Airport to support security staff. If this is necessary, the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, must repay the full cost to the State. Defence Forces personnel must receive their fair share from this debacle, which is entirely of the DAA's own making. This must be a last resort, and it must be a short-term measure. Yes, of course the airport must be kept open, but not at the expense of Defence Forces personnel coming from all over the country and upsetting their plans, to make up for poor management decisions.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As with many issues like this, the truncated debate giving Members five minutes to speak on something of such fundamental importance does not do justice to it. If one asked the vast majority of our citizens what PESCO is, they would not have a clue. They would probably think it is something to do with fish. However, PESCO is a very important concept. It is permanent security co-operation, a permanent mechanism within the European Union to develop military capabilities and interoperabilities and to make our military equipment and personnel compatible and our training mutual and common. That is what is involved in PESCO. It has been described not as a fixed issue but as a process by many of those involved.

The words used in the briefing note we received, such as "come together voluntarily" and "project-by-project basis", are carefully chosen. The specifics of the projects that are in the motion before the House, and as it is one of three motions I do not have time to go into them in much detail, appear to be prima facievery benign issues, such as cyberthreats and incident response information sharing. Who could object to that? There is also the deployable military disaster relief capability package, special operations forces medical training and maritime semi-autonomous systems for mine countermeasures. All of those, in themselves, appear to be benign and unobjectionable.

I disagree with the Minister. It has been repeatedly stated that this is not a Trojan horse, that it is not a process and that we are not moving towards anything. I vividly remember the debate on the Lisbon treaty, which was originally defeated in this country. We gave assurances in respect of our involvement in any military alliances, including common defence alliances within the European Union. I acknowledge that everything has changed since the illegal and appalling invasion of Ukraine by Putin's forces. That has led to monumental change across Europe, with Sweden and Finland moving away from the neutrality they had guarded dearly for decades. In Germany, Labour's sister party, which is in government, has moved from its previous position to committing to €100 billion in additional defence spending.

What I am saying to the Minister is that it should not be the case that he comes to the House and says that these things are not what they seem to be, that we are just opting into things that suit us and that this is part of training and so forth. What is absolutely required, and this is something the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have said, is a proper debate on where Ireland stands in all of this. The Labour Party would welcome that debate, because we want to set out our vision of neutrality, which is an opt-in neutrality in terms of opting into peacebuilding and peace maintenance and support for the International Court of Justice-----

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can have that debate, but this is not it.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us have that debate-----

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not it.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and what our military posture should be. However, let us not try, regardless of how the Minister says it, to move along a path by stealth, in my judgment, to a situation that the Irish people will be surprised to find themselves in one day. Let us have this debate in an open clear way, an informed debate on the future of Irish neutrality, what it means to us and how we are going to vindicate it into the future, not chip away at what most people believe to be the stance of the Irish nation in terms of its military capacity.

We were supposed to have the Minister's response to the debate on funding by the end of last month. Will we see the Government's response to the paper? Is that going to happen before the recess? That would inform this debate too. In the context of all that, let us have an open, informed and real debate and let us not have the Dáil being presented with motions such as this, with five minutes to respond to them, when these are such profound issues for the people of Ireland to address.

Photo of Sorca ClarkeSorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have many issues with this motion regarding PESCO. The most pressing, which is directly related yet unaddressed, is the absolutely abysmal timing and the disregard for more urgent issues relating to the Defence Forces at this time.

It would be significantly more appropriate and beneficial to debate the Government's proposals on the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. That report needs, as a matter of urgency, to come back from Cabinet with a definitive and clear commitment from the Government in respect of it before any commitment to other projects is sought from this House. That report is gathering dust while two Ministers are reportedly bickering over funding.

This debate on PESCO involvement is taking place at a time when there is disregard for the Defence Forces being under strength and overtasked. That anyone would presume to expand overseas involvement, at a time when members of our Defence Forces are undertaking free work and are exhausted as they conduct their duties on land, at sea and in the air from a position that is far off that phantom establishment of 9,500 members, is simply not good enough. They are underpaid and denied basic employment rights. The figures speak for themselves: we are losing members hand over fist. The Minister has acknowledged the recruitment and retention problems in all areas of the Defence Forces but the priority seems to be discussing this motion. That is not where our focus needs to be. The priority for any Minister with responsibility for defence should be to ensure the Defence Forces are fit for purpose, that its members receive appropriate remuneration, that they are equipped to a high standard and that being a member of the Defence Forces is an attractive career for men and women. We all know, unfortunately, that is not the case because of the inability of successive Governments to adequately resource or plan effectively. If the Minister continues to run before he walks, the Defence Forces will remain in that state. That is a desperately sad indictment, not only of this Government but of those which preceded it, and it is a failure to appreciate those who protect this State.

The Minister cherry-picked the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces when he referenced a single line regarding the potential to fully explore other issues in the context of PESCO. He has managed to get one sentence to the floor of the House. Will he please confirm when the Government's response to the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces will actually be discussed? When will we see that? The Defence Forces want to see it. There is a commitment in the membership and among veterans to ensure our Defence Forces can and will be better, and will develop into something that is fit for this era of military activity. As I informed the Minister at last week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, he has categorically put the cart before the horse.

4:35 pm

Photo of Marc Ó CathasaighMarc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Deputy Richmond. I stepped out of sequence. The Deputy has nine minutes.

Photo of Neale RichmondNeale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate. While I agree with and support the three motions before us, I am slightly disappointed that we are only now moving from participating in one PESCO project out of a total of 60 to five projects. That is grossly unambitious. If we are serious about the security of our State and the European Union and if we believe in the true essence of European solidarity, we need to have a real assessment of our role within Europe. That is why I welcome our commitment to participate from the outset on the discussion when it comes to the European strategic compass strategy.

Unlike Deputy Howlin, I do not believe we are chipping away at our neutrality. I very much wish we were, because our military neutrality is an absolute sham. It does not serve us well as a nation or as a people. I fundamentally believe that the responsibility of our Minister for Defence is to ensure the defence and security of this State in co-operation with all our allies. We have allies. We are not non-aligned. It is quite clear we are signed-up members of the European Union, with key partners around the globe that share our vision when it comes to democracy, the rule of law, freedom and human rights. That is clearly embodied by the brutal and vicious attacks on Ukraine and its people by the dictator that is Vladimir Putin.

I will speak specifically to the third motion relating to the four PESCO projects it is proposed that the Defence Forces will participate in. That is the essence of this debate, rather than jumping on other debates or discussing other matters. The four projects deserve individual assessment and individual criticism, where needed, but also discussion by this House. This is quite obvious in respect of the first project, which is about participation in strengthening cybersecurity. We only have to look at the vicious hack on the HSE last year to see the impact of that. We only have to look at the important Government response, which was to work with EU and British allies and the tech sector to identify and solve the problems that hack created. We all know where that cyberattack came from and where the safe harbour for those criminal gangs that participate in such cyberattacks comes from. This goes to the essence of why it is so important we work consistently with our European colleagues to strengthen our security and defence abilities. Warfare has changed. It is not about boots on the ground; it is hybrid warfare. We only have to look at the Belarusian border with Poland to see what the dictator involved is prepared to do. We only need to look at the cyberattacks in Lithuania in the past number of weeks and the cyberattacks that took the Estonian welfare system offline for three whole weeks in 2007 to know what the threats are to our economy. Geography will not protect us.

The second project relates to training for disaster relief. We will see across continental Europe again this year the impact of forest fires, mudslides and all the various natural disasters that are sadly the consequence of the climate emergency we are living with. We need our Defence Forces to be in a position to co-operate with European partners to address mass flooding, not only on this island but across the Continent. It makes eminent sense that we co-operate with 26 other member states, many of which have far greater resources, experience and skill sets, to protect our people, not necessarily from a military enemy but a natural enemy.

The third area is that of emergency medical training. We need to see our Defence Forces participating in this PESCO project. We need to see our medics, be they in the Army, Air Corps or Naval Service, working at the same level with the same methodologies as partners across the European Union. We have seen them benefit from this co-operation in the past. We know it will stand to us in the future.

The fourth project relates to the protection of shipping harbours and offshore infrastructure. Let us not forget the area of our maritime jurisdiction is three times the size of Germany. We all remember the fuss and concern when the Russian navy proposed entering our economic zone off the south-west coast. We know about the response, whether it was glib or serious, of certain Irish fishers to ensure that they could protect that area. How can we, as a small island nation, expect not to co-operate fully with our partners closest to us in developing security and protection for shipping harbours and offshore infrastructure, when we rely on them and will increasingly rely on them in the years to come? That is very obvious when we talk about offshore infrastructure, energy development and energy security, in light of the vicious war in Ukraine.

People often think these debates, especially when it comes to defence policy, are removed from everyday life and are somehow academic. I am well up for that academic debate. I have been trying to contribute to it during my entire involvement in politics, but this is about the practicalities. It is about people in Ireland being able to access medical appointments online, having that sense of assurance that their records are being protected in the health system, and that the Government is working with European partners to protect those records. It is about people in Ireland knowing the best possible resources will be put in place, God forbid, if a major flood or natural disaster were to happen on this island, in co-operation with European partners. It is about the people of Ireland knowing that if Irish soldiers, sailors or pilots get seriously injured, they will have medics on hand who are trained to the best possible capabilities and who are working with European partners to save their lives. It is about the mum or dad who knows that their son or daughter is deployed somewhere overseas, in harm's way and putting himself or herself in danger, but also knows the best possible training has been provided. It is about our fishers, people who rely on energy and everyone in the maritime area knowing the best level of co-operation and security is there.

There has been a concerted campaign to misrepresent what PESCO is about. There have been glib references to a European army. I have repeatedly seen the ability of people to take speeches made by individual European representatives, use them out of context and make statements about PESCO that are completely inaccurate. If we spend any time contributing to debates at European level, following our Ministers at Council meetings or our Members of the European Parliament or looking at the discussion that is happening across Europe, we cannot continue to believe we live in blissful isolation when it comes to protecting our people and the people to whom we have a responsibility in the European Union.

We have before us three very basic motions. Two of them relate to our participation in the United Nations, which I know will continue.

That service goes far beyond the work of our peacekeepers in the Defences Forces, and also includes the work of An Garda Síochána in Cyprus and many other areas of co-operation. The motion on our participation in four additional PESCO projects is a crucial one. Looking at the other 55 PESCO projects that Ireland is not participating in, some of which we are an observer in and some of which we have no involvement in at all, there is massive potential. Points have been made about the retention and recruitment of staff into the Defence Forces. One aspect that is often overlooked is the purpose of staff. What are we training our soldiers, sailors, pilots and aircraft technicians to do? We must ensure they are trained to perform to the best of their ability so they can not only earn a living and get the terms and conditions they need, but also that they can also strengthen their skills, develop their careers and be the best that they can be in defending this State. I speak with current and former members of the Defence Forces on a regular basis, whether they are constituents or people who have contacted me who have an interest in the area. Many of them want to see further opportunities to use their skills to work with partners around the EU to ensure they can be the best that they can be and that their career in our Defence Forces is a lot longer than five, six or seven years in length and can be a lifelong career.

In conclusion, I support the three motions before the House. If others want to use this forum to make wider contributions about our defence security and neutrality, I welcome that, but we are having this debate now. We must be prepared to make it an honest debate. We must set out exactly what our responsibilities are to the people of Ireland, the people of the EU and all of our natural allies.

4:45 pm

Photo of Gary GannonGary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend to discuss Ireland's participation with the UN, but first I will address a few issues that have been raised in this debate, in particular, by the previous speaker. I acknowledge the fact warfare has changed in many ways. However, throughout the world and with the invasion of Ukraine, it is still working class men and women who are being sent to the front lines and killed because of the vanity of tyrants. We have spoken about having a debate on the issue of Ireland's neutrality. While it may be described by others as being academic, the outcome of that debate, from the desires of others, will still see working class men and women being sent to the front line to die. That will not be academic. It will be a reality, as it has been for generations. It is why Ireland's neutrality has been hard-fought for. It should be protected. When we see what has rightly been described as a creeping militarisation, we should be willing and open to debating the issue. It should not be the case that five minutes of the Dáil schedule is dedicated to discussing it. It should be much more than that. It is why we should protect this Chamber as a source of debate. Our neutrality was long-fought for and should be protected.

On Ireland's participation with the UN, since 1955 Ireland has embraced the collective security mechanisms of the UN. Then, as now, it was understood that Ireland is part of a global community, and that a security threat anywhere in the world can affect Ireland. Since the late 1950s, Ireland has committed its diplomats, members of the Defences Forces and members of An Garda Síochána in some instances to remote and far-reaching places to undertake crisis management for natural disasters and tackle the effects of interstate and intrastate conflicts and, indeed, poverty. Through peacekeeping, peacebuilding, peace enforcement and crisis prevention, Ireland's personnel have continuously put their lives on the line to bring stability to conflict regions, to ensure the restoration of human rights, to allow local communities to go safely to work, to freely vote, and for children to get an education in conflict zones. We are able to do that because of our reputation as those who put ourselves on the line in the name of peace. Ireland is proud to be the only nation to have an unbroken record of service to the Blue Helmet peacekeeping since 1958. Since then, Irish peacekeepers have served in more than 40 peacekeeping operations around the world, including in Afghanistan, the Balkans, East Timor, Rwanda, the Mediterranean and Lebanon to name just a few. Irish Defence Forces personnel have completed more than 70,000 individual tours of duty overseas since 1958. This service has not been without cost. To date, 86 members of the Defence Forces have given their lives to the service of peace.

With the evolution of the EU's Common Security and Defence policy, Ireland has committed itself to the understanding that Ireland is part of a community whose borders stretch from the mid-Atlantic to eastern Europe, and from the Arctic Circle to north Africa and the Middle East. The geographical scale of the EU, along with its global interests, have stretched Ireland's defence and security parameters even further, and still we are asked to do more. Transnational terrorism and climate change are threats that are multiplied by hybrid warfare and the tide of geopolitics, demonstrating a new complex relationship between all three strategic paradigms. Conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Sahel region of central and north-eastern Africa, and the quasi wars' intentions in eastern Europe have created displaced peoples, breeding grounds for criminality in some instances, transnational terrorism, human trafficking, collapses in governance and human rights breaches. In collective response, Ireland has supplied personnel to Afghanistan, Chad, Georgia, the Mediterranean and Syria, to name but a few. Recently, we completed extraction missions in Libya and Afghanistan. Rather than praising and showering our armed forces personnel with the admiration they deserve, they have continued to suffer with poor working conditions, discrepancies in pay, reduced ranks and inadequate resources and equipment. How many times has the State forgotten to book flights home for overseas units? Just in the last week, our proud Defence Forces personnel were told that they will be sent to Dublin Airport to cover for the fact that the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, has mismanaged its own systems. Our Defence Forces personnel have a proud and distinguished history of placing themselves in harm's way in the service of peace. We are having a debate here today that is not the most important one in relation to how we protect not only our long sought-after peace and neutrality, but how we enhance and respect those who place themselves in harm's way. Setting aside five minutes to debate the UN or participation in PESCO projects is not enough. We need much more time than that. The only debate we should be having today is how to enhance the role of our peacekeepers, how to pay them better and how to ensure that they are not living in poverty. We should debate the issue of Ireland's neutrality, but in the meantime we should have a conversation about how we look after our peacekeepers and soldiers. Currently, people are leaving the Defence Forces because of a lack of morale. In the past week we have learned of the plans to send Defence Forces personnel to the airport to cover for DAA's mismanagement, which further erodes that morale. There are conversations about greater expansion of the Defence Forces in terms of the erosion of our neutrality and further engagements beyond what we are already being asked to do. How can we do that when we are already losing soldiers and peacekeepers because of the lack of respect being shown to them by this State?

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

This is a most important debate, on which I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution. I should say that many times over the years I have expressed that we should be open about the desire to defend ourselves and each other as full members of the EU. We talk about our traditional position on neutrality. We never had a traditional position on neutrality. We did not have a position on neutrality until 1939. As it happens, former Taoiseach de Valera took the right decision at the time, because we could not trust the other guys to keep their agreement, as we now know. The fact of the matter is that Irish soldiers fought on every battlefield, for the guts of 200 years, all over Europe. They fought in the battles of Landen and Fontenoy and on every battlefield. If that was not enough, we went to the US and became involved on both sides. I do not know how we could claim to be neutral, because we were certainly eager to have a scrap.

We need to be able to defend ourselves to some extent. We are not going to have a big army that can see off aggressors like the Russians. However, there is no harm in having in a defence mechanism that has to be reckoned with, so that when the crunch comes for colleagues across Europe, at least we know how to act and we have the necessary equipment and training, and the ability to get involved and, more importantly, to give a good account of ourselves. Reference has already been made to the long shorelines that we have in this country. It is the fact that we have a long shoreline. We must patrol our shores. That will become more important as time goes on. It is all very fine to say that we are neutral and nobody can attack us. That is not true. We know what happened to neutral countries in the Second World War. Suddenly, it was all over and done with for them. Our friends in Finland had their own experience of having an aggressor next door. Finland had no option but to take them on. Indeed, Finland gave a good account of itself. The moral of the story has to be that we must be prepared to join with others of like minds to defend ourselves and, if necessary, to defend them. I will cite the example of the western Balkans.

It had quite a good reputation but the UN failed to defend the safe havens there. The reason it failed to defend them was that it did not have the firepower to do so. There is no sense in trying to explain it away or in saying if it had the firepower it would have managed to succeed. It did not have the firepower and Milošević knew it did not have it, just the same as the Russian President knows that nobody could attack them or intervene because of his strength and what he has done. We need to be alert to what is going on around us and we need to remember that the world is changing.

Whatever happens from here on in, we should have a growing ability to interoperate with our colleagues. We have to be speaking in similar tones, although not necessarily in the same language, to our European colleagues, so that they know what we are doing and we know what they are doing. There is no other way to do it. We should do this during peacetime and we cannot say we will do it during peacetime now because there is a war on in Europe. Several Members will make the opposite point but the fact of the matter is that there is nothing glorious at all about dying when you cannot defend yourself. People might say they made the ultimate sacrifice but it means nothing and it is a useless exercise. We need to become part of this, albeit on a limited level and maybe in the future we will develop more strong ties with our European colleagues. The fact of the matter is we are dealing with aggressors who will seek out any weakness at all in the defence mechanism in Europe. They will seek it out at every opportunity, they will try to see the weakness and they will exercise their maximum strength to undermine those weaknesses. I am totally supportive of the Bill that proposes to upgrade our Defence Forces. We should be proud of them and when we are proud of our Defence Forces we need to be able to stand behind them and ensure they are properly funded and have sufficient resources to do the job they will be asked to do. We must ensure they do not feel they have to go into any situation in a vulnerable position. It is as simple as that.

On the other hand, I will go back to the point on neutrality. I cannot get over the fact that we claim to be traditionally neutral; we were never neutral for God's sake. We can look at any example. There was the Irish Brigade in France, the Irish Brigade in Spain and the Irish Brigade in the United States. I know there are those who will say those were mercenaries but they were soldiers who went to war. They were funded and trained and they showed that when they were trained they were able to give a good account of themselves.

Some people see any movement towards defence and security as one of aggression but there is a big difference. We should not forget that when the Russian ships were off the south-west coast they were not there for their own good or for holidays. They were testing the ground and the water and they will be back again; there is no doubt about that at all. If they should come back I hope we will be sufficiently capable of ensuring that, while we may not be able to repel them, at least we can delay them. There is nothing to be gained by saying we cannot do it. We can do it, we did it many times in the past and we will do it again but we can only do it if we have sufficient pride in and resources and support for our Defence Forces, which I hope are coming in the course of these Bills.

4:55 pm

Photo of Mairead FarrellMairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The position of my party and I on neutrality is completely clear. Deputy McDonald has already said that if she were to become Taoiseach, protecting our neutrality would be a key priority. Unfortunately the position of certain parties is not clear and is completely ambivalent. Fine Gael has at least been honest tonight and it has long been calling for a debate on our neutrality and joining NATO. I am shocked to hear some of the commentaries today that we are not ambitious enough, that we need to make a good account of ourselves, speaking of increased militarisation and talking tough. It has been suggested that pushing this agenda forward shows that we are proud of our Defence Forces. We are all proud of our Defence Forces and I would suggest that those who are saying we are proud of our Defence Forces should consider paying them properly. However, many of those who speak of increased militarisation and who call for the Defence Forces to be involved in a variety of situations and pacts do so safe in the knowledge that they will never have to pick up a weapon and stand a post or risk their lives fighting and dying in conflict zones. As far as they are concerned-----

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

We did it.

Photo of Mairead FarrellMairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----war is for other people.

We know this Government is united in its support for PESCO. The reality is that a lot of people are not that familiar with PESCO but according to the European Defence Agency it is a tool to provide Europe with a "coherent full spectrum force package, in complementarity with NATO". The recent Commission on the Defence Forces mentions: "Opportunities offered by the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation to develop Ireland’s defence capabilities". It goes on to state that "it is necessary for the Defence Forces to be trained and equipped to NATO standards" and laments the fact that our "current battalions do not align to NATO standards". We have seen the accounts in the media detailing how NATO was in Cork in recent weeks supervising a military exercise. If you look at the review it is astonishing that it references NATO 48 times. It goes on to list three separate options for the future funding of our Defence Forces. The first, which is considered the benign option, would cost more than €1 billion per year. Option 2 is said to allow us to serve in a higher intensity conflict areas and to deal with greater crisis management overseas and that would cost around €1.5 billion per year. Option 3 is the big one, which proposes to develop a full spectrum of military capabilities, which would cost around €3 billion per year. I look at things from a monetary point of view and €3 billion per year is a colossal sum of money. To put that figure into context it is around 75% of the annual budget for the Government’s Housing for All strategy.

I know some of the speakers today are saying differently but the majority of people are in favour of our neutrality. They are proud of our neutrality and they want the Government to continue in that position. We continuously hear people say they support neutrality and that they are proud of our status as a neutral country. They also say that it gives us an influence on the international stage and does good. I am proud of our neutrality and I hope we stick with it.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are using a faked concern for the well-being and welfare of our soldiers and our Defence Forces in order to abandon neutrality because they want to join the big boys club of the European militarisation project and get closer to NATO. PESCO is indistinguishably and inextricably connected to NATO in their interoperability. Let us be honest: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are embarrassed by our neutrality. They always have been and they see concern about the well-being of our troops and the Ukrainian crisis as an excuse to finally bury the tradition of neutrality. We intend to stand out strongly against that. If they are concerned about the well-being of our soldiers they should pay them properly so that they want to stay in the Defence Forces and so we can get them up to proper force. We should equip them to secure their safety but that does not mean we should get involved with the European militarisation project or with NATO.

As an aside, if we go along with the dramatic increase of expenditure that is being proposed by NATO and the European militarists we can forget about dealing with climate change.

It makes a nonsense of it because the biggest producers of CO2 emissions in the world are militaries. That flies directly in the face of any concern for climate change.

I heard the Taoiseach and probably the Minister rightly condemn Vladimir Putin as an imperialist. His attack on Ukraine is an imperialist attack, absolutely. Are there any other imperialists in the world? Who might they be? If Putin's invasions of Ukraine is imperialist - and it is - was the United States's invasion of Iraq imperialist? The answer is "Yes". Was its invasion of Afghanistan imperialist? The answer is "Yes". Is its arming of the Saudi dictatorship to conduct a bloody war in Yemen imperialist? The answer is "Yes". Is the European Union's and the United States's support for an Israeli apartheid state involved in crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people part of a western imperialist project to have an ally in the Middle East to help keep that region under its thumb? The answer is "Yes". The Minister knows it. The double standards of the European Union in terms of foreign policy are despicable. While the Minister rightly calls out the imperialism of Putin and says we should be concerned about it, he does not mention US, British or French imperialism, even though they have been as guilty of brutal, murderous, unjustified wars and of backing rotten and criminal regimes. A proud tradition goes back to the independence of this State and to James Connolly and the leaders of 1916 of opposing imperialism. That is why we must defend neutrality and oppose the Minister's attempts to shatter it.

5:05 pm

Photo of Mick BarryMick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On 24 June, a couple of dozen people at least were victims of state murder when refugees were crushed to death against fences at the border between Morocco and the Spanish enclave of Melilla. Judith Sunderland of Human Rights Watch said: "Videos and photographs show bodies strewn on the ground in pools of blood, Moroccan security forces kicking and beating people, and the Spanish Guardia Civil launching teargas at men clinging to fences." The Taoiseach was offered the opportunity last week in the Dáil by Deputy Paul Murphy to condemn these killings. Not only did he spurn that opportunity, he chose instead to praise the European Union for its humanitarianism and to criticise the Deputy who had raised the human rights concerns. Historians looking at the Taoiseach's reply may well rank it as one of the most disgraceful and shameful speeches ever made in this or any other Dáil. The "UNITED List of Refugee Death" calculates that 48,647 people have died to date as a result of fortress Europe policy. Neither I nor the Socialist Party will ever support a PESCO project which aims to strengthen that racist fortress Europe policy.

Photo of Cathal BerryCathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I welcome even more the opportunity to listen to the debate. I have listened to all sides, particularly those who may have different views from me. There are two, pretty much, motions before us. One is about Defence Forces overseas and the other is about the PESCO projects. I will deal with the first one first. I echo many comments, particularly those of Deputy Gannon, in praise of our troops overseas, particularly those in the Middle East. We have more than 500 troops there at the moment keeping a lid on potential conflicts. Recent events in Ukraine are catastrophic and devastating for that country and we see the direct effects of the conflict in this country in relation to refugees, cost of living, cost of fuel and so on. It casts a different shade on our peacekeeping troops overseas. They are working for the global good, but also in Ireland's self-interest to make sure the stability of the world continues.

Turning to the PESCO projects, I am very much in favour of the four projects selected and will tell Deputies why. I am proud to say that in 1926 my great-granduncle was part of the first Irish military mission to the USA. They spent 15 months in the US, six of them in total, then came back and established a military college in the Curragh Camp in my constituency. We have been benefitting from that ever since. From my experience of international training courses I have benefitted enormously. I spent three months in the UK on a live fire course, came back and the standard of live fire training and expertise in our Defence Forces increased considerably as a result. That is why our troops are so good overseas and so heavily sought after. They are composed and comfortable in a live fire scenario. Their weapons handling is excellent and their weapons discipline is excellent, unlike other countries which are more trigger-happy and jumpy.

I spent a lot of time in the jungle in Belize, which made me a better peacekeeper in Liberia and Côte d'Ivoire. I spent a month there and spent months all over Europe working with like-minded countries to improve our hostage rescue capability and bring it back to Ireland. I spent much time in the UK doing medical training which we ploughed back into our Defence Forces. PESCO is not about Europe, but Ireland. It is about improving our standards. We do not have the expertise on this island and have to go abroad to get it and plough it back. From a military perspective, it is in Ireland's interest.

I agree with all four projects selected. First is cyber. There are two seats in the National Cyber Security Centre for military cyber experts. We do not have the expertise in Ireland so have to go abroad and get the expertise to prevent attacks and deal with one if it happens. We saw the devastating effects of the HSE attack last year.

From a disaster management point of view, I do not want to make a false equivalence but will give a classic example. I was involved in the vaccination programme and everybody in this Chamber knows it was sluggish for the first two or three months because we had not done it before and had not trained together. If there is a tsunami, earthquake, volcano or severe weather event abroad, there will be an international response and if we have not trained together or co-operated in the past, we will find it difficult to have a cohesive response.

I have mentioned at the committee that I am concerned about medical training in the Defence Forces. Any opportunity we get to improve our expertise, tools and talent we should seize, bring it back to our Defence Forces and plough it into our training.

In relation to the last one on mines, the Naval Service does not have the expertise in dealing with mines. Sea mines from the Second World War float ashore occasionally. Mines are becoming extremely topical in the Black Sea. If the international community decides it needs to go in and secure Odesa to bring the grain out of the silos, there will be a requirement to deal with the sea mine threat. We do not have the expertise. We have to get the expertise to bring it back in.

My view is purely from a training perspective. Any interaction we have had with the European Union, from a national perspective, has been, on balance, positive. Students use the Erasmus programme and engage with the European Union. An Garda Síochána uses Europol and Ministers use the Council of Ministers. PESCO is how militaries engage and co-operate with each other, exchange skills through workshops and bring them back to their national defence forces to improve their standards. PESCO does not compromise our peacekeeping standards. International training does not compromise those standards; it created them in the first place and enhances them.

I am in favour of the four projects. I hear the diversity of views in the Chamber and respect them but, in Ireland's self-interest and that of our Armed Forces, these four projects will make us better peacekeepers, soldiers, sailors and flight crew. We will be able to protect our country to a higher standard and contribute, should we wish on a voluntary basis, to international operations overseas.

Photo of Jennifer Carroll MacNeillJennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the motion. I agree with everything Deputy Berry said and acknowledge his deep expertise in this area.

The participation by Ireland in these European initiatives is a natural extension of Ireland's integration into Europe and its deeper collaboration with European partners on a whole range of different fronts. I do not see why defence needs to be different. Defence is about our own strategic self-interest. Our strategic self-interest is at the heart of Europe. It is about seriously equipping ourselves for the challenges we know are ahead. As Deputy Berry has said, the opportunity of participating in the four additional PESCO programmes is about enhancing our own expertise, intelligence and access to intelligence. It is about enhancing our contribution to the security that I sometimes worry we take for granted or could take for granted. It is also about reducing risk to Ireland and to Irish people by putting in the work to deepen integration and to develop better skills within our Defence Forces. Our Defence Forces are deeply professional. They need better financial support from Government. I am glad that the Minister has published the work of the Commission on the Defence Forces. I strongly support the work of that commission in identifying the key strategic challenges for defence and the investment that is needed. I might come back to that.

Ireland is a small open country. The necessity for us to participate collaboratively with partners is not in any way unique to defence. We do the same thing in respect of medical and scientific development. We must continue to learn from our colleagues and to get the best we possibly can. It is in our rational self-interest to do so.

I strongly urge the Minister to take the opportunity to go as far as he possibly can with regard to additional spending on defence at this time. While the commission's report was published in advance of the invasion of Ukraine, I am hearing a deep concern among my constituents that Ireland is simply not equipped to deal with the challenges that might face it at any time. Ireland was not capable of preventing the cyberattack that occurred, which was as disruptive to the health system as the challenge of Covid, if not more so. We face such risks at all times. The risks facing Ireland set out in the report are very real. There are the implications of Brexit, the implications for trade and the question of managing our territory in that regard. There is also the question of how Ireland is situated geographically and strategically in the context of changes in geopolitical power dynamics, which may result in risks to Ireland - which I again stress is by no means possible - or to the EU more generally, in which Ireland is a participant. As I have already said, there are challenges with regard to infrastructure and IT. These can be hit at any point. Ireland is uniquely vulnerable to such hits being, as we are, an island economy. There is also a challenge with regard to instability on the borders of Europe and on the Continent of Europe more broadly. There is also a challenge with regard to organised crime and terrorism along with challenges relating to energy security and raw materials security. If anything, the invasion of Ukraine has given us a window into the possible future and shown us how at risk we always have been and still remain. We are participating in more demanding peacekeeping duties and want to do so.

I have a question. If the Government does not take the opportunity to participate in these PESCO projects, or to invest in our Defence Forces - and many Deputies have called for such investment in salaries and better resources - to equip our Defences Forces as well as possible and to give every professional opportunity to every member of the Defence Forces to become the very best they can possibly be within our structure and something then goes wrong, which Deputies are prepared to go back to their constituencies and say that we were not prepared to support that participation and investment? Which Deputies are happy to say that they were not happy to give the additional funding to the Defence Forces that they knew was needed?

Now is our opportunity to take stock of what we have seen across Europe. Now is our opportunity to recognise that we were always at risk and to reflect on the fact that we may have collectively been a little naive in our perceptions of our own security. Even in the last 12 months, we have been shown again and again that we are not immune to international challenges and geopolitical risks. We have seen the threat of Russian ships entering our maritime area. We are aware of how exposed that maritime area is and how large it is relative to those of our European partners. We are aware of our limitations, which have been clearly pointed out to us by the Commission on Defence Forces. These limitations have great spending implications. It is easy to put such reports on a shelf and to fail to act. It is easy to let a convenient narrative prevail that we are safe, have always been safe, have always been a certain way and always need to stay that way, but it is just not true. It is not even accurate based on the evidence to date, never mind the risks we can reasonably foresee for the future or those that we cannot foresee. I again ask, if something happens and if, despite knowing the risks, we have not invested or taken the steps towards better and deeper integration with our European partners and professional defence forces around the Continent from which we can learn and to which we can contribute our expertise, what will the Irish public say to us? Are Deputies ready to go back and have those conversations honestly? They are reasonable questions.

On behalf of the Parliament, I recently had the opportunity to visit Finland. The Ceann Comhairle pointed me towards the Helsinki Policy Forum Women Parliamentarians Network, which meets in Helsinki twice a year. I took the opportunity to meet different Members of Parliament to discuss their recent experience of joining NATO and to ask how it had gone from a public opinion perspective and political perspective and what they had experienced over the previous six months. Finland had been a neutral country for a very long time. As another European entity on the other side of northern Europe, we have not experienced or understood the risks that Finland always has. Finland had made itself more than ready for NATO. It had taken the steps needed to be ready to join, if it ever chose to do so. It made joining an option 20 years previously and made practical changes such as signal changes and so on. What was really important was the public opinion experience in Finland over time as they saw the realisation of the risks they faced, albeit in a different part of the Continent, how quickly public opinion changed and how quickly Members of its Parliament signed up. Some 98% or 99% of the Members of the Finnish Parliament voted for it. A couple of Members who identify themselves as on the far left voted against and a couple abstained. There was a great shift in public opinion over a short period from having not wanted to be involved with NATO to absolutely wanting to do so. Again, this was entirely based on rational self-interest.

We do not face the same direct threat that Finland faces but we are similar in many other respects. We have to have a conversation about how far we are ready to equip ourselves, act in our rational self-interest and give our Defence Forces the opportunity to be the best and most professional organisation it can be on a small island. Participation in these PESCO projects is the absolute minimum required but I call on the Minister to take the opportunity to do as my constituents are calling for and to provide significantly enhanced funding to every stream of the Defence Forces.

5:15 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the core elements of supporting Ireland's policy of neutrality should be the wish for Ireland to be a peacemaker, a neutral mediator seeking international justice and a fair contributor to the humanitarian cause, as we always have been. This should always underpin Ireland's consistent and active participation in UN peacekeeping measures. If it does not, we run the risk of our sons, daughters and grandchildren fighting other people's wars. I am very concerned about the slippery slope the Minister is on and about the stance he is taking without any reasonable modicum of debate in the House.

Two warships have recently been to the Minister's own city of Cork. There was a British ship at the quay in Cork ten days ago and there was a Canadian ship there yesterday. At least ten gardaí arrived when one or two people went to question what the ships were doing there and what it cost to mind them. Who invited these warships into our, that is to say the people's, Port of Cork? What was the mission of these NATO warships in being there? What were they doing there? What do we hope to achieve by having them there? Is it to soften us up before we slide into participation with NATO? We are supposed to be neutral and we should be neutral. As I said here last week, we cannot ride two horses. If we try, we will fail with both. I want answers from the Minister as to who invited the warships, why they were there and what their purpose was. I also want a guarantee that we will guarantee the independence of our State.

Having sought so hard the job of Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin is everywhere except in the Chamber. He is Spain, he is at NATO talks and he is at all kinds of other talks cheerleading for Europe instead of being here, answerable to the Parliament. This is the second or third week in a row he has not been here for Leaders' Questions. He has limited time. He is all over the place.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is in Ukraine.

5:25 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is Ireland. He is responsible to this Parliament, not the Ukrainian Parliament. That does not justify him not being here. I want those answers from the Minister. Why are the warships here? Who is sponsoring them and who is bearing the cost of the gardaí minding them?

Photo of Danny Healy-RaeDanny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate and thank our Defence Forces for the great peacekeeping work they have done over the years. They have served with distinction. They are recognised all over the world for the great work they have done and people thank them for that. I am in favour of our neutrality. Generations that came before us were in favour of our neutrality and we all want to thank Eamon de Valera, who was Taoiseach at that time, for the stance he took during the Second World War to ensure our neutrality. That is the way we should be from here on. I hear the leader of the Minister's party saying we should have a debate, that the world is changing and we should change. If we are to change our stance on neutrality, it must be the people of Ireland who make that decision. It must be a referendum. The people of the country are entitled to that. If the Government wants to change that, it will have to allow a referendum. I do not believe the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste are entitled to make that decision for us. It is the people who should make it.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank and compliment our Defence Forces at home and those abroad on peacekeeping missions. The small size of the Defence Forces and the economic circumstances of the Irish State are factors that must be considered with regard to our defence capability and deployment. Ireland is not in a position to participate in self-funded operations. It has a limited number of personnel available for overseas operations, as the Minister well knows. Similar to other states, Ireland retains a national command of Defence Forces personnel when on UN operations. However, Irish participation has always been based on the premise that full operational command in the field must reside with the force commander or head of mission, as appropriate. Participation in the NATO-led, albeit UN-mandated, operations covered in part by this motion, placed Irish troops under the de facto command of NATO for the first time. There are significant legal and constitutional difficulties involved in the command and-or control of Irish forces by non-Defence Forces personnel. Successive Governments to date, including the Minister himself, have quietly ignored these issues. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government's position on such profound matters. I once again thank our Defence Forces for their excellent and unwavering sense of duty, particularly the people who leave their homes, go abroad and put themselves in harm's way as part of peacekeeping operations.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I am very concerned about its proposal to significantly increase Ireland's participation in permanent structured co-operation projects. This motion is seeking approval from the House to increase Ireland’s participation in PESCO projects from one project to a further four military projects. I oppose this completely. PESCO is seen by many, including myself, as a precursor to an EU army. I take this opportunity to voice my absolute opposition to the establishment of any type of EU army.

When PESCO was formed, the joint notification on permanent structured co-operation from PESCO member states stated:

PESCO is a crucial step towards strengthening the common defence policy. It could be an element of a possible development towards a common defence [that is, a common European army] should the Council by unanimous vote decide so (as provided for in article 42.2 TEU). A long term vision of PESCO could be to arrive at a coherent full spectrum force package - in complementarity with NATO, which will continue to be the cornerstone of collective defence for its members.

Another statement on PESCO claims:

PESCO is both a permanent framework for closer cooperation and a structured process to gradually deepen defence cooperation within the Union framework. It will be a driver for integration in the field of defence.

That is what PESCO is ultimately about.

I believe we are going down a very dangerous path. We must do all we can to protect our long-standing policy of neutrality. Despite reassurances by the Government, it seems our neutrality is under serious threat at the moment. Recent Government behaviour only proves this. The Taoiseach’s presence at an EU-NATO meeting in Madrid last week was a very public attempt to erode Ireland’s military neutrality. This motion for increased participation in military operations is a clear indicator of this Government’s plans to abandon neutrality altogether.

Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs has said the building of PESCO will be a big task and a big opportunity for the European defence industry. He said the strategy for the medium term is to expand the existing capabilities of EU countries and eliminate the gap between member countries in terms of both quality and quantity of defence systems. He referred specifically to air defence systems, drones, air refuelling capabilities, tanks, armoured vehicles, coastal protection and cyber capabilities. That shows what the intentions of the EU are for PESCO co-operation. While these individual items of PESCO might be minimal, it is about the overall Government policy and strategy. We are getting to the stage where we will wake up one morning and discover we are participating in everything. Then, people will wonder how we got here.

This, following the increased focus on an EU army across the Continent, suggests we are slowly being dragged into war. One day we are going to look back and wonder where it all began. It begins with these small steps, these seemingly insignificant motions. These are the moments future historians will look back on and study if we are not careful. We are a small, neutral nation. Our strengths have always been in peacekeeping and speaking out against injustice, not in military participation. This is something we should be incredibly proud of and something that is clearly reflected in the reports brought forward by the Minister for Defence via this motion. The 2021 report states that Ireland currently participates in six of the 12 peacekeeping missions operated by the UN and, according to the UN data, we are the sixth largest per capita troop-contributing country in the world, and the largest in Europe. This is where our focus and our resources should remain. This is where they are important and where they will make the most significant impact.

I welcome that the adoption of UNSCR 2594, spearheaded by Ireland, was the first UN Security Council resolution devoted to the transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. The resolution focuses on the transition from UN peace missions to a UN civilian presence that supports peacebuilding in post-conflict environments, ensuring civilians stay protected throughout this process. Ireland has a unique insight into post-conflict environments, given our recent history. I am glad our knowledge and experience is being utilised at the highest level. Again, this is where our strengths lie and this is where our focus should be. PESCO is not about that.

Even more cynically, PESCO is being dressed up as a business opportunity. A report produced by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces on thee Common Security and Defence Policy stated, "there is dual opportunity arising whereby Defence can incorporate agile innovation into its capability development processes, whilst also supporting Irish research institutes and enterprise in accessing the new funding streams to deliver these capabilities". Another report advocates the establishment of a security and defence enterprise group, stating it would

[bring] together enterprise, industry, [academic] research and practitioners in the field of security and defence to identify areas of common endeavour and collaboration

[...]

to support Irish-based enterprise in their engagement with the EDA ...

It is okay if Irish business makes money out of the weapons and so on in the future. That seems to be where we are heading.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I will try to respond to the issues that have been raised. Ireland cannot stand still when it comes to defence and security. We cannot build a wall around our island and pretend we do not see what is going on in the rest of the world.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us have that debate.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should let me specifically answer the issues he and others have raised. They cannot on the one hand praise the Irish Defence Forces for their peacekeeping work and at the same time prevent them from training with other countries across Europe on projects they choose to be involved in, to upgrade their capacity to be better peacekeepers, better soldiers and better Defence Forces personnel. The four projects I am asking this House to support are projects the Defence Forces have chosen.

The Defence Forces came to me to recommend that they have been an observer on these projects to date and that they think there would be a significant benefit with regard to capacity, training and upskilling, were we to move to full participation. That is what we are debating, not neutrality. I agree with the Deputy that we need to debate the broader issues. I am happy to have that debate.

5:35 pm

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us have that debate.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have clear views about how that debate should evolve and so on. I hope we will be able to have some of that debate, although resourcing our Defence Forces is a different debate to the debate on neutrality, how it is defined and what is wanted for the future. I am not proposing to this House that Ireland should move away from its position of non-military alignment. I will propose to Government next week that we adopt an ambitious series of recommendations in response to the commission's report. The recommendations are loyal to the report.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it come back to the House?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope that will be possible. If not, we will have a long debate on this in September and October. These are important issues. They will not go away. They will be as significant in September as they are now. This is not a party political issue and it should not be seen as something that needs an instant debate. These issues will not go away. The security landscape on our Continent is, unfortunately, changing because of raw aggression and brutality in the east, coming from Russia into Ukraine. That is changing how every country in the European Union views security and defence capacity and the partnerships that they need. I have had this debate with Finnish and Swedish Ministers at length over the past ten years. The support for joining NATO in Finland was consistently between 20% and 25% for decades, but people feel a threat to their own security right now, which has understandably changed that perspective. If we were geographically located where Finland is, I believe we would be having the same debate. We would not be talking about the ideology of neutrality and so on.

We are fortunate about where we happen to be on the planet. We have natural protection, given where we are, with the Atlantic on one side and the United Kingdom on the other. We do not have many natural enemies, at least in a conventional way, from a security and military perspective. We face threats, as we have seen with cybersecurity issues and so on. This is not a debate about neutrality. It is a debate about the resourcing of our Defence Forces and how we can enhance that with opportunities to operate with other countries that have also voluntarily opted in to these projects in order that we can work together to make sure our troops are safer when they are abroad and we have a better skill set for responding to what is asked of them. To refer to neutrality in a way that suggests we should not work with other friendly countries which we are working with on all sorts of other matters to enhance our capacity and skill set is, to my mind, extraordinary.

Incidentally, I still do not know whether Sinn Féin is supporting these PESCO projects. If Sinn Féin supports the Defence Forces, then it should consider that they want these projects. They feel safer on the back of doing them There is an idea that we should not be involved in a project that is about cyberthreats and incident response information, with a sharing platform with three or four other countries, and training and working with other countries to ensure we are better prepared for disaster relief. If, God forbid, there was a natural disaster in North Africa today that killed thousands of people, Deputies would all be calling on me to respond, just like people responded positively when we sent a ship to the Mediterranean to respond to the plight of migrants there. We can train with other countries to make sure that we have the capacity to do that and we choose to do it ourselves.

On the special operations forces medical training centre, Army Ranger Wing personnel are in Mali as we speak on a complex, difficult mission. The idea that we would not offer them the opportunity to improve medical training capacity is extraordinary. Tying that up in an ideological debate on neutrality is just not where this should be.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister missed the fundamental point.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The same applies to mine countermeasures. If we were asked by the UN to be part of an agreed international mission to help to get grain out of Odesa at some point in the next months, do the Deputies think we should train to have the capacity to be able to say yes to the request? I think we should. I do not think we should isolate ourselves from the benefit of that kind of training. That is what PESCO is about. These are voluntary projects where we train with other countries to improve the skill set and capacity of our Defence Forces. It is nothing more and nothing less. We will have a debate on the broader issues relating to capacity, resourcing, reform, expansion of our Defence Forces and-----

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the budget.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the neutrality debates. I look forward to those. Let us focus tonight on what we are being asked to make a decision on, which is to give the Defence Forces the opportunity to train with other countries to improve their skill sets.

Question put and agreed to.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2021, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 30th March, 2022, in accordance with Section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 2006.

Question put and agreed to.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That, in accordance with the Programme for Government commitments, Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's participation in four Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) Projects: i) Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform,

ii) Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package,

iii) Special Operations Forces Medical Training Centre, and

iv) Maritime (semi) Autonomous Systems for Mine Countermeasures.

Question put.

Photo of Marc Ó CathasaighMarc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 6 July 2022