Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

153. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to provide an update on the planned negotiations for a radar detection system; the expected cost of the system; a timeline for the delivery of the system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23068/25]

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a national embarrassment that we are without detection systems in our skies and waters and must rely on the Royal Air Force, RAF. We have outsourced that element of our sovereignty for a long time. The Tánaiste brought a note to Cabinet on a radar detection system that he wants to bring on board. Will he provide to the House more details on the timelines and costs involved?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. When we look back at the Commission on the Defence Forces and everything else, radar and sonar are two key areas on which we must move. The Deputy and I can largely agree on that point. These are no-brainers. We must have a better understanding of what happens in our skies and seas. We need that capability.

It is a key priority for me to ensure that the operational capacity of the Defence Forces is maintained and developed in line with the decision the Government has already made to move to level of ambition 2, as defined by the Commission on the Defence Forces, by 2028. The commitment in the programme for Government states that when we have arrived at LAO 2, we will move to level of ambition 3.

The commission recommended the development of a primary radar capability to ensure that Ireland can maintain a complete recognised air picture, and that this should be a top priority. The commission also advised that in the absence of a complete recognised air picture, there are vulnerabilities which need to be addressed for various reasons, including the protection of our national sovereignty in the air for the purposes of civil aviation safety and the maintenance of co-operative relations with neighbouring states, which are also impacted by this capability gap.

On foot of this, a project team comprising senior civil and military personnel was established to progress a military radar programme. This programme of work is ongoing and I am pleased that good progress has been made. There are three elements to the military radar programme: land-based long range primary radar; ground-based air defence systems, to include a counter-unmanned aerial systems capability; and maritime or ship-borne radar. When fully addressed, the recognised air picture will incorporate this suite of military radar systems, which will have the capability to detect all aircraft traversing our airspace, including any that may be operating with their transponders turned off.

Full delivery of the programme will be complex but will be fully rolled out by 2028. That roll-out will start in 2026, which is sometimes missed in the discourse. In each month and quarter from 2026 onwards, we will start to see progress and the roll-out will be fully completed by the end of 2028. I will go back to Cabinet later this year with the recommendation so we can press "Go" for the roll-out in early 2026.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Tánaiste. We are so far behind in our capability. Is it envisioned that what is going to be provided and online for the State will be of the highest technical standard compared with other states? Will we be bringing in equipment to a specification that is perhaps ten or 20 years behind other states?

We must improve our national security. Only when we are minding our own shop can we promote our positive neutrality. State actors who were previously allies of ours are no longer trusted so we need to invest, though not at the cost of housing or health, in our national security. This is one basic element that needs to be done.

This issue can be decoupled, to use the word the Tánaiste used in his response to the previous question, from debates around the triple lock and neutrality. This is basic, and is something we need to do to the highest standard.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully agree with the Deputy. I like, and will cog, the phrase "positive neutrality". That is what we should be talking about. I certainly have no plans to change Ireland's military neutrality. There is an overwhelming consensus in this House and significant support across the country for military neutrality. We should be proud of our neutrality. It is not just a cornerstone of our Defence Forces policy but also our foreign affairs policy. We need that vision of positive neutrality. There are many neutral nations that spend a lot more on their own security. In fact, one could argue that being neutral places a greater obligation on a country in light of its need to invest in its own national security because it is not a part of a military alliance and should not be able to rely on others to come to its aid. This is in the national security space.

Perhaps a benefit, if there is one, of being one of the last in Europe to get this right is that we have access to the best information about what modern, fit-for-purpose radar systems look like.

The Government has taken a decision to work government to government on procurement. That will involve the delivery of modern fit-for-purpose capabilities in this space.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The provision of modern fit-for-purpose capabilities is important. There would be more trust from this side of the House if we were not having the parallel debate on the triple lock and what is coming down the tracks there. There are places we can land on in terms of the extraction of Irish citizens and ensuring that capability can be raised but the multilateral backup of the UN for peacekeeping missions is still vital. I am concerned that debate will impact on issues like this or investing in our cybersecurity. I do not want that to happen because these are things we have to do. These are the basics of national security. The fact the Tánaiste is trying to do these in parallel will be politically difficult and harbour mistrust on this side of the House that we are moving towards military alliances, be it NATO or through the European Union. That is something we cannot countenance and we do not need to.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We certainly do not and there is no proposal to join NATO or anything like it. I value military neutrality. Understanding and debating what it means, though, is very useful. It means being militarily unaligned but one can be militarily unaligned and still take national security and defence seriously. I accept there are very different views in the House on the terms, conditions and parameters on which we decide to deploy personnel abroad for peacekeeping. The Deputy is right that we have to get to a point. We are about to set up an Oireachtas committee on national security and I really welcome that. The Deputy's party leader, Deputy Bacik, makes the point - and I agree fully - that we need a much greater and more honest exchange among Government and Opposition. We do not talk about it enough. We should be able to have informed conversations that do not simply run into an alleyway because all we talk about is neutrality. We may all have different views but we all agree on military neutrality. I certainly agree military neutrality is important but we should enable ourselves to have the space to talk about it. We are militarily neutral but what do we need to do to give the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann the equipment they need to keep this country safe and to have access to good information? We know about the shadow fleet. If, God forbid, anything ever went wrong, the Deputy would be asking me much more difficult questions on why we did not go down this route.