Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's participation in four European Defence Agency Projects:

i) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Equipment,

ii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Soldier Equipment,

iii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Ammunition, and

iv) Category A Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network (MICNET), pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.

In commending this motion to the House, I want to take the opportunity to outline the function of the European Defence Agency and to provide the House with the background to the projects in which Ireland wishes to participate and the clear rationale for doing so. The European Defence Agency was established by a joint action of the Council of the European Union in 2004:

to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future.

On 6 July 2004, the Government approved Ireland’s participation in the framework of the European Defence Agency. Since then, Ireland has participated in a number of European Defence Agency, EDA, projects. These projects span a range of capability development areas including force protection; chemical biological radiological and nuclear, CBRN; counter-improvised explosive devices, C-IED, training; military search training; cyber ranges; and a joint procurement project for satellite communications and maritime surveillance. As Deputies will be aware, participation in any EDA project is voluntary and countries decide to buy into them only if and when they want to. At no point are they forced to.

That being the case, the Government is today seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann for Ireland to participate in four EDA projects, all of which have been deliberately chosen, with appropriate military advice, to enhance the capability of the Irish Defence Forces. Before elaborating on the specific projects for which the Government is seeking approval to participate, I should also recall that the European Defence Agency is just one of the EU defence-related initiatives and frameworks with which Ireland is engaged. The European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy sets out the EU’s framework in the field of defence and crisis management, including defence co-operation and co-ordination between member states. Ireland is a strong proponent of the important role the EU can play in support of international peace and security, and of the UN. At its core, defence remains a national competence, something borne out by the differing responses and actions taken by EU member states in the aftermath of Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Participation in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, does not prejudice the security and defence policy or obligations of any member state. Nor does participation in EDA projects or engagement with any other EU defence-related initiative have any impact on Ireland’s policy of military neutrality. Indeed, Ireland’s position of military neutrality was once again recognised by our EU partners just last week, when EU leaders agreed to language in the European Council conclusions that security commitments towards Ukraine will take account of Ireland's longstanding position on military neutrality.

As the House will be aware, the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 requires Dáil approval for Irish participation in any EDA project. This statutory requirement ensures complete transparency and proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Government's proposals. Three of these projects relate to joint procurement, namely the procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, CBRN, equipment, soldier equipment and ammunition, and the fourth relates to building cyber defence capabilities.

The war in Ukraine has brought unforeseen and indeed unprecedented demands for military equipment. The limited availability of military equipment and depleted stockpiles are recognised by EU member states as constituting a critical operational shortfall. This affects the readiness of member states' armed forces and their ability to protect their soldiers and enable mission accomplishment. The overall objective of these three projects is to support member states in their efforts to replenish stocks of vital and potentially life-saving equipment: CBRN equipment, soldier equipment and ammunition. There is nothing new in the procurement of these items. They are essential requirements that enable the Defence Forces to train for and undertake the roles assigned by the Government at home and in overseas missions. In fact, failure to procure these items exposes the Irish Defence Forces to unacceptable vulnerability, which no government could countenance. There are no obligations arising from participation in these joint procurement projects. Put simply, they will give Ireland options for procurement. Merging orders with other member states' orders to procure this equipment will bolster Ireland's buying power, thus ensuring improved security of supply and delivery. Smaller countries like Ireland can experience particular challenges in seeking to have their orders met and achieving value-for-money, given the modesty of those orders. It is important to point out that there are no joining costs associated with these projects. Costs will arise only if a procurement order is placed. Each of the three procurement projects is for a duration of eight years, with the option to extend for a further eight years on a continual basis if agreed by the member states.

The primary objective of the ammunition project is to fast-track the procurement of ammunition for supply to Ukraine. Member states procuring ammunition to supply Ukraine can be reimbursed via the European Peace Facility, EPF. The project also provides an opportunity for member states to procure ammunition for their own national needs.

Consistent with Ireland's position with regard to the EPF, Ireland will not participate in that element of this project that procures ammunition for Ukraine. Instead – I want to be clear about this – Ireland's proposed participation in the ammunition project will be exclusively for national Defence Forces needs only.

The fourth project is called Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network. This cyber project will facilitate information exchange and improve the response to cyber threats to the EU and member states' defence structures, including those associated with the EU-led operations and missions, which will ultimately improve the overall resilience of the EU defence community.

Ireland's participation in this project will enhance national military computer emergency response team capability through increased training and education, participation in cyber-related exercises and the sharing of information between member states' cyber defence experts. The cost of participation in this project is €60,000 per year for its life. The duration of the project is four years, with the option to extend on a continual basis if the member states agree. Building cyber defence capabilities requires broad engagement, which goes beyond our capacity acting alone.

As was highlighted on several occasions during the meeting of the recent consultative forum on international security, cyber threats are moving at a speed that is difficult to keep up with, let alone overtake. Moreover, such is their nefarious nature that no country is immune, as highlighted by the ransomware attack on the HSE.

Cyber defence is something we need to enhance, but it is not something we can do on our own. We need to collaborate with partners. We live in a digital world of unparalleled connectivity where borders are irrelevant. This project allows our Defence Forces experts to gain insight into cyber threats experienced by other member states and, importantly, learn from these in an effort to mitigate any national attacks.

The White Paper recognises that opportunities will continue to be identified to expand Ireland's participation in multinational capability development projects within the framework of the EDA in support of Defence Forces' operations, capacity and capability. It also encourages the exploration of joint procurement options, noting that procurement approaches will be developed further through more robust planning, through more collaborative or joint procurement through direct engagement with other countries, or through the EDA. The high-level action plan for the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces accepts the recommendation to deepen Defence Forces' involvement in relevant national and international forums to enhance capability development in the cyber domain.

Participation in projects such as those we are proposing will allow Ireland access to areas that we simply cannot develop on our own. I commend the motion to the House.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "in advance of Dáil Éireann considering Ireland's participation in four European Defence Agency Projects:

i) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Equipment,

ii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Soldier Equipment,

iii) Category B Collaborative Procurement of Ammunition, and

iv) Category A Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network (MICNET),

pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, the matter be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny.".

I recently attended the four-day consultative forum on international security. The Minister of State will know that I and others had sought a formal role for the Opposition but the Government refused to provide for this. The Minister of State will imagine my surprise when I heard several contributors at the forum, including several Government speakers, tell us that "nobody should be afraid of debate". They were clearly pointing towards those who advocate Irish neutrality. It was bizarre that those given a platform were telling those who were denied one that their position was somehow one of denying debate. In fact, the Tánaiste went so far as to suggest that those of us who value the triple lock, the mechanism that ensures our Defence Force members who embark on peacekeeping missions do so with a UN mandate, were squeamish.

It is when dealing with motions such as the one before us that we can credibly ask who is squeamish about debate and dialogue. This motion seeks approval for Ireland's participation in four EDA projects, namely category B – collaborative procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear equipment; category B – collaborative procurement of soldier equipment; category B – collaborative procurement of ammunition; and category A – Military Computer Emergency Response Team Operational Network. The motion requests approval pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.

Section 2 of the Act provides that participation in EDA projects requires the approval of the Dáil. In the wider context of this debate, it is worth noting how the Government seeks that approval. A discussion of just 55 minutes is provided for, to be followed by a single vote in respect of all four projects. This is as close to a rubber stamp as can be got. There is no opportunity for debate and no engagement allowed through questions for the Minister on the detail of each specific project. It is a case of the Government doing the bare minimum required by law. It should stand as a warning to those who want to abandon the triple lock. The triple lock requires UN approval, either through the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly and also Government and Dáil approval. Considering the ongoing approach to the projects coming before the Dáil for approval, Members of this House should recognise that the removal of a triple lock could end up meaning no lock at all. This is the reason for my amendment.

The Sinn Féin amendment, in my name, simply calls for these proposals to be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny prior to a final Dáil vote. The Government should accede to the amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister of State did not refer to it at all in his remarks. In the Government's own words, nobody should be afraid of debate.

The four EDA projects referred to in the motion relate to the procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear equipment, the procurement of soldier equipment, the procurement of ammunition and co-operation on cybersecurity. Co-operation on common procurement can be positive and help to deliver value for money for taxpayers. It is a laudable objective but it should not be the only one; environmental and social implications should be considered regarding all these matters. There should also be a detailed examination of how each project affects our neutrality. These matters should be considered in the appropriate forum, which in our view is the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Members of this House should know there has been detailed scrutiny of all these matters before signing off on them.

The joint committee provides the forum for members of all parties and groups to engage with experts, officials, stakeholders and Ministers on these projects.

In this instance, we could engage in deliberations with members of the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence, the National Cyber Security Centre and others to hear the case for participation before returning to the Dáil to have a more meaningful debate on whether we should participate. I would go further and say all future proposals in respect of engagement by the Defence Forces in international, including EU, security organisations and frameworks should be referred by the Dáil to the joint committee for consideration and detailed scrutiny. That would include any proposals on participation in permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, or Partnership for Peace, PfP, operations. It would address the lack of democratic oversight of Irish engagement in these organisations that was cited during the consultative forum hearings.

There must be assurances regarding arms and equipment procured through EDA projects. While acknowledging that our Defence Forces needs to acquire military hardware from somewhere, we must ensure any arrangements we enter into do not facilitate, for example, the trading, subsidised by EU taxpayers, of armaments with hostile, aggressive actors. As a participant or even an observer in projects related to the development of arms, will Ireland have a say in or a veto on who can eventually purchase commercialised hardware that emerges from these prototypes? Will Ireland have a say in or a veto on end user licences or re-export licences?

In recent years, we have seen missions under the CSDP go awry, including in Mali and in the training of the Libyan Coast Guard. As a nation that was once colonised rather than being a coloniser and one that has a proud tradition of peacekeeping, I support Ireland leveraging that proud tradition as a facilitator, agent and interlocutor of peace. In recent weeks, the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has deteriorated, with one report last month indicating that at least 46 people, including 23 children, were killed at a displacement camp. Ireland's history is one to be proud of in respect of that country. The Casement report back in 1904 laid bare human rights atrocities that were taking place in the then Congo Free State. The heroism and resolve of Irish peacekeepers at Jadotville in 1961 is well renowned. I have confidence that the response of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the current strife in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is appropriate. I would welcome and support any Government endeavours to play a constructive role in addressing the humanitarian crisis there and resolving conflict.

I have a question for the Minister of State in the context of co-operation on developing military hardware. Does he think the goodwill we have earned would be diluted or strengthened if arms hardware used by belligerents were sourced through a project Ireland has endorsed? I believe it would be the former. That is why Sinn Féin is taking the approach it is to participation in such projects. It will be our approach to all such projects and missions. Let us have detailed scrutiny. Let us get answers to the question of what impact any participation would have on Irish neutrality and our ability to contribute positively to international conflict resolution and humanitarianism. In every conflict in all parts of the world, arms are used by actors that manufacturing nations would never have envisaged would use them. I never want to see a day when military hardware developed with the support of Ireland is used in such human rights atrocities. While the particular projects before us for consideration today will not be seen in those terms, it is important in the context of a changed international security environment that this House adopts a principle of detailed scrutiny of such matters. I commend the Sinn Féin amendment and urge the Government to adopt it. There is time to allow for detailed scrutiny on the motion and for a final vote to take place on it before the Dáil goes into recess.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence in taking the opportunity to commend the Women of Honour group. I welcome the Tánaiste's indication today that he plans to recommend a public tribunal of inquiry to investigate the allegations against the Defence Forces that were highlighted by the group. I understand he is meeting with the Women of Honour shortly. The last piece of the jigsaw is reaching agreement on the terms of reference for the tribunal. I urge the Government to ensure such agreement is reached. Were it not for the work of the Women of Honour group, there would not have been an independent review group or any type of inquiry or tribunal. We probably would not even be aware of most of these issues. It is inconceivable that there would be any further process that did not have the group's full support and endorsement. The Government has one opportunity to get this right. It must seize it.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is rare for me to contribute to debates of this nature. I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Howlin, who is unable to attend. In speaking to him earlier about the nature of this debate, it struck me that for such an important subject to be relegated to a Thursday afternoon slot, with less than an hour for the debate, does it no service whatsoever.

Students of history might cast their minds back to the 1918 election, which came after the 1916 Rising and, we are often told, was a demonstration of Ireland's determination to be independent. In fact, one of the main motivations for people to vote for Sinn Féin in that election, the Labour Party having stood aside, was the issue of conscription. It was the first election in which women voted. Conscription was a major emotional issue and the rationale behind many people's voting decisions in that election. At the time, at the very foundation of the State, there were people in Ireland who were resistant to demands from the great and the good to push people who did not want to be pushed into a state of war. Those emotions and those debates are lost in time but we should remember and reflect on them and we should be loyal to that ethic.

I concur with what the previous speaker said about the Women of Honour. My party leader, Deputy Bacik, spoke about their situation earlier and got an assurance from the Tánaiste, which was very much appreciated, the he will listen and adhere to what they are advocating for and seeking. This is not just a matter of righting wrongs of the past. If we are to deal with the recruitment and retention issue within the Defence Forces, the strength of which currently stands at fewer than 8,000 individuals, these sorts of issues will have to be resolved.

For somebody like me who rarely speaks on these issues, I was immediately struck by the first reference in the motion, which is to category B collaborative procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, CBRN, equipment. That jumps off the page. I concur with Deputy Carthy that this proposal deserves a little more scrutiny in the Oireachtas, perhaps in a committee setting in which a proper investigation can be made into what it means, rather than having it nodded through in a formulaic way in a debate such as this.

As Deputy Howlin outlined to me earlier, it is true that the Government needs to buy primary radar for the State and to replace armoured cars. We can do that in an efficient manner, in the way outlined by the Minister of State in his contribution. However, part of what we are discussing today is related to process and part of it is to do with the drift in which the Government is apparently engaged, in which it seems to be pushing towards a change in our long-standing viewpoint as a Republic as to what our place is in the world. We should not take that place for granted. I grew up in an Ireland in which people thought this country was irrelevant, unimportant and that what we had to say on the international stage was not of any relevance. In fact, what we say on the international stage has huge relevance because of our colonial history, the nature of what we have endured, our record of peacekeeping and because people trust us. When Irish politicians say something on the international stage, they are trusted. They are seen not to be speaking from a place of untruth but from a place of wounds, hurt, damage and violence in our muscle memory. I remind the Minister of State of that.

The Labour Party will support the Sinn Féin amendment. The proposals in this motion deserve more investigation.

I repeat that we do need to invest in many of the materials our Defence Forces use but, to come to the House, list what is itemised under category B and suggest that we could walk out of here having just given it a nod, belittles the House and belittles the nature of this conversation.

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

I was about to say I intend to be quick but I do not have a choice. We have been offered five minutes to debate partaking in four European Defence Agency projects. I put it to the Minister of State and his Government that this is a farce. It gives us absolutely no opportunity to undertake the required level of scrutiny or to fulfil our mandate. These issues matter. I do not want to say this is fine and let it through on a wink and a nod. The Minister of State says that partaking in these common European Defence Agency programmes makes good economic sense but how do we know? What opportunity have we had actually to scrutinise the legislation and look at the proposals? He also said that none of the moneys that Ireland will spend on these projects will result in weapons or ammunition going anywhere else. When my constituents ask me about that, with hand on heart, I will have to say that I am not really aware of the details because we only received one ten-minute presentation from the Minister of State, a couple of newspaper articles and five minutes to stand on ceremony to say this is great, go ahead. The issues with defence personnel in my constituency pertain to the fact that many of them cannot afford to live in the city when they come back from taking part in overseas missions. Will any of the matters we are being asked to discuss here make them safer? Will any of them mean that they can afford to do their work with greater levels of dignity?

I have to say, I do not trust the Government on this issue. I really do not. From the moment I first came to this Chamber, when talking about defence and neutrality, we have been told that we should not be afraid to discuss these issues and, from that day, we have absolutely agreed and said that we should have that debate and discussion. The consultative forum on security gave absolutely no opportunity for debate, scrutiny or discussion. There was no opportunity for those of us across the Chamber who have a different view to partake in it. There are very real discussions to be had about the changing nature of security and defence in the world but that does not mean that we, who have a proud tradition of neutrality and who have, for more than five decades, had armed servicemen and servicewomen place themselves in harm's way in the name of peace, need to change our approach. Nothing the Government has put on the table so far has led us to believe anything but that it is pursuing a creeping militarisation and that there is a desire on the part of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to change the framework of neutrality in this country. It matters.

I am not going to take further part in this debate. I believe it is an absolute farce. We will support the Sinn Féin amendment to bring this motion to the committee. Why would we do otherwise? Five minutes is an insult to those people who have been asked to go overseas and to place themselves in harm's way in the name of peace.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next, we have the Regional Group and Deputy Cathal Berry.

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

It is People Before Profit next.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, I need to put my glasses back on. For People Before Profit-Solidarity, I call on Deputy Boyd Barrett. Who would forget him?

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

It is no problem. We oppose any involvement in the European Defence Agency or the project of European militarisation, which is accelerating at a shocking rate. We will support the Sinn Féin amendment to refer the motion to the committee but, in our view, there is no justification for getting involved with the European Defence Agency. We have opposed it, root and branch, and continue to do so because it is part of arming Europe for war, a global escalation of militarism and developing the military-industrial complex, which inevitably leads to war. Even the most cursory look at history shows that, before the other great wars, there was a process of armament and of dividing Europe and subsequently the world into armed camps. When you divide the world into armed camps, at some point, those camps go to war. Anybody who does not understand that does not understand, even at the most basic level, what history has told us over the last 100 to 150 years.

The only argument put forward for this motion is that, because of the inexcusable and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, we have to arm ourselves. The logic is that, if we arm ourselves to a sufficient level, we will deter Russia from doing the sort of thing it has done in Ukraine. There is a big problem with this logic because, prior to the war in Ukraine and Russia's invasion, NATO was spending 17 times more on weapons and armaments than Russia was. It was spending four times more than China was. That was before the war. Did that deter Russia? No. Not even remotely did it deter Russia. However, it is now being used an excuse to say that we need to arm even more. An additional €200 billion in expenditure is projected. That is a dramatic increase in spending in the European Union. Arming yourself and turning Europe and countries across the world into armed camps has never deterred war before. It did not deter this war and it will not deter future conflicts. It will do the exact opposite. It is preparation for war and makes it more likely.

There is then the strategic compass, of which all of this is part. Europe is developing its strategic defence and security compass. I will tell the Minister of State what kind of compass NATO and the European Union need. It is not a strategic compass but a moral compass. That is what they need. In the face of warmongers, authoritarian governments, totalitarians and people who have no respect for democracy and human rights and who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, what you want is a moral compass to determine your policy. Is there any sign of a moral compass operating in NATO or in the project of European militarisation? There most certainly is not.

I look at the recent comment of Jens Stoltenberg of NATO, in which he said:

Maintaining our technological edge has helped to keep our Alliance strong and our nations safe for more than seventy years. But today, nations that do not share our values, like Russia and China, are challenging that lead.

Factually, they are not. As I have explained, NATO countries are spending way more than them. However, why are only Russia and China mentioned? Apparently, they do not share our values. I agree; they are brutal authoritarian regimes. Saudi Arabia is not mentioned, however. Do we share values with that country? The European arms industry is selling billions worth of material to it. All major NATO and European powers go to Saudi Arabia for arms fairs where, ironically, Russians, Ukrainians and Israelis are also selling arms. Israel's arms industry and its exports to Europe and elsewhere in the world have received a great boost since the war in Ukraine started. In addition, Europe is selling Israel arms to kill Palestinians as we speak. German arms, Spanish arms, Italian arms, British arms and American arms are being used to bomb, kill, shoot and murder Palestinians. There is no mention of a problem with that. We are against the motion.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the Regional Group, I call Deputy Berry. Is the Deputy sharing time? He is down to share.

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

I have two and a half minutes to scrutinise this motion. The peaceful delivery of words of war is absolutely shocking to me, and that is what is happening here. The Minister of State has delivered a big print speech of ten and a half pages with great gusto and confidence. In that he insults us on page five, when he states, "The House will be aware further the 2009 Act that Dáil approval is required," and, "This statutory requirement ensures complete transparency and proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight." Does he think we are complete idiots? This has been allocated 55 minutes. He took ten of that, which leaves 45. I have two and a half minutes as we sign up for more warmongering. Earlier in his speech, he told us about how the EDA was formed. What he neglected to tell us was how the arms industry led the politicians by the nose as it was set up in 2004. The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, now Airbus, along with the French started lobbying and so on. I cannot go into more details as I will run out of time.

Ursula von der Leyen tells us this collaborative procurement will bring us closer to a European defence union. Mr. Borrell, that man who told us Europe was a garden and everything outside of it a jungle, tells us it sends a clear message. I apologise, the website of the EDA tells us this, but he has endorsed it. It states that it sends a clear message to industry. That is what we are doing here. It sends "a clear message to industry, that aggregate orders will be placed together through the European Defence Agency. Large orders provide industry with certainty." Can you imagine that? It allows "them to ramp-up production and produce" faster and faster - more arms, more war and more slaughter. We stand here and say we stand in solidarity with Ukraine, while we watch Palestinians being slaughtered as we do not use our voices. The Minister of State has ten pages of a speech to connive, cheat and hide the purposes of what we are doing, which is to join the warmongers of Europe. We are failing to learn from history. He is failing to listen to us. I will have absolutely no part of it, as a woman, as a mother and as an independent Deputy. I will not be part of this horror show.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is becoming clear that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and now the Green Party intend to end Irish neutrality and move towards NATO against the wishes of the Irish people. As of 17 April, 71% of the country supported neutrality. That is an overwhelming percentage of people. Ireland initially voted to reject both the Nice and Lisbon treaties. Both had to come back with clauses protecting Irish neutrality before they were passed. This agenda to erode our neutrality is happening drip by drip behind the scenes. If it were put to people, they would reject it.

Successive Governments have done this with Shannon Airport and the illegal invasion of Iraq. The Government has been attacking Ireland's triple lock, and attempted to do it through the absolute farce that was the consultative forum. This is just another attempt to sell off our neutrality in order that giant tech and military corporations can profit from death and destruction. The irony is that this push to end neutrality is supposedly being carried out in the name of protecting democracy. How is it protecting democracy if it is not put to a vote? The Government cannot claim to be protecting democracy without giving a democratic choice on the issue. It will not give us the choice of holding a referendum on neutrality because it knows it will lose.

After it was founded, the head lobbyists for the major arms company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, now Airbus, bragged that the EDA was its baby,and that the agency was 95% identical to its proposals. The agency website states that a push from industry was instrumental in its creation. This is about money and increasing profits for big tech and the arms industry. It is about making money off war and bloodshed and the Government is trying to sell Irish neutrality down the road. Our best defence has always been our neutrality and our participation in international programmes for peace. That is what the Irish people has persistently supported. We do not want our tax money to go to death and destruction. I oppose Ireland's participation in EDA projects. I oppose this motion, and I support the Sinn Féin amendment for it to be debated at committee.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their comments and their contributions to the debate. The primary function of these projects is to develop and maintain capabilities necessary to enable our personnel to fulfil their roles as laid down by Government. I have highlighted the importance of supporting our defence forces in capability development, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to keep abreast of best practice in the defence environment. As I said in my opening contribution, joining these joint procurement projects provides options to the Defence Forces. The war in Ukraine has resulted in increased demand for ammunition and equipment, which can have an adverse impact on smaller member states. These projects provide options for procurement in particular areas of ammunition, CBRN equipment and soldier equipment. It is important to stress that they are not the only procurement options available to us. By signing up to these projects we are not limiting our procurement to these specific projects. We are simply widening our options. As I stated in my opening contribution, there is no cost to the Exchequer until the order is placed. The cyber project makes absolute sense. Why would we leave our cyber defence experts outside of the room? Participation in this project will enable capability development and create a network of experts who will learn from each other. It will also provide educational testing opportunities to our Defence Forces. We will get all of this at a relatively low cost to the Exchequer of €60,000 per year. I have mentioned that collaboration and engagement at EU level is central to our international defence policy, as is clearly stated in the White Paper on Defence.

Given the changed geopolitical environment, this collaboration of member states to do more together is needed now even more. I have detailed how the European Defence Agency is focused on assisting member states in capability development, obtaining better value for existing spending levels, improving competitiveness and securing greater efficiency, especially in the area of research, technology and procurement of defence capabilities. The projects undertaken with the European Defence Agency are linked with operational requirements and through this engagement, the Defence Forces have acquired skills and developed capabilities that could not be achieved when acting alone. Participation in these four projects will enhance our interoperability and strengthen our ability to make effective contributions to the promotion of global peace, security and development.

To respond to a few queries concerning CRBN, we are referring here to personal protective defensive equipment in respect of chemical, nuclear, biological, radiological and other such hazards, such as over-suits, gloves, boots and facemasks. Many of these things have a short shelf life. It is important for the members of our Defence Forces to have this necessary equipment to keep them safe and ensure they can carry out their work effectively.

On neutrality, the Government is very clear Ireland is a neutral country. I am a proud supporter of this policy. I speak quite regularly with my counterparts in Europe, from Austria and Malta, regarding this issue. We are also very strong in respect of ensuring this remains the case. The Government has also been very clear that we are not joining NATO, but no matter how many times we say this, the suggestion keeps being repeated.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody said that yet.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the many binary threats that our State now faces, Deputy Carthy made several contributions in the forums that will be taken into the recommendations. It is important that we have a proper discussion on these issues and we are fulfilling our requirement here. As I said, I am a very proud supporter of our position as a neutral country, but in no way can I or any Government countenance a position where our troops would not have the necessary equipment to protect themselves against these threats. It is only right and prudent that the Government would ensure this happens.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, the Minister of State has spoken on two occasions. If he is going to vote against the amendment, then the least he could do is give the House the courtesy of explaining why the Government is voting against it.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I addressed it in my opening speech in terms of the 2009 Act.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has not done so.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has not referred to why he is refusing to support the amendment.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is because it is a requirement.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is bang out of order.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are at the point where-----

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is out of order.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am out of order because I am breaching the rules of the House to make a-----

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good the Deputy has admitted it anyway.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----a point of information regarding-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where we are at now-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be pressing the amendment but I think it would have been basic manners, if not necessarily-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have to take this matter up with the House. He cannot debate it here.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time next week.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, this vote that will now be held next Wednesday evening would have allowed ample opportunity for the joint committee to deal with the deliberations as set out in the amendment. The Government is simply being pig-headed in respect of how it is dealing with this matter.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Carthy. That was my job.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is welcome.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This division is deferred until next week's weekly division time. We need to suspend for a short while until the Minister of State arrives. Is that agreed? Agreed.