Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. At the beginning of the year, in the aftermath of the defeat of the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty and in the run-up to the second referendum, one of the options being considered in public by commentators who have an interest in these matters was that Ireland might seek to opt out of certain defence arrangements as personified by the European Defence Agency. If media reports are correct, this option was considered by the Cabinet, and the Minister played a significant role in ensuring it was rejected. That rejection was welcome. During my time as chairman of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, we spoke to various delegations from Denmark, where an opt-out arrangement has been in place for the last 15 years. I was struck by how willing the delegates were to speak out against such an option for Ireland and how open they were in pointing out the disadvantages arising from the position they took in terms of their status on the world stage. They also referred specifically to the disadvantages it conferred upon their army. If for no other reason, we should all welcome this legislation because it signals that a course of action which would not have been to the advantage of our armed forces or our country was not taken. That is certainly to be welcomed.

I propose to deal with five aspects of the Bill, on the first of which I may well be a voice of one in the House. I differ strongly from my colleagues who have offered their support to the triple lock mechanism. I do not support the concept of a triple lock because I do not understand why members of the United Nations Security Council should have a veto on decisions regarding where our armed forces are deployed. Such decisions are a matter for the elected Government. I am aware of one example in 2003 in regard to Macedonia - perhaps the Minister will clarify this - where our inability to secure the full support of the United Nations Security Council meant we could not follow a particular course of action. I wonder whether the successful work of our forces in Sudan might have begun much earlier had we not required the support of the United Nations Security Council and the explicit consent of China for that mission. In the context of the extensive discussions we have had regarding the pooling of sovereignty on the European stage - which I support - I do not see why we would propose to abrogate our sovereignty to the extent that we are willing to offer a veto to an outside agency in respect of decisions on whether our troops will participate in an overseas military operation. An Irish Government of any political persuasion is elected by the people in order to take those types of decisions.

An alternative arrangement is that a simple majority of the Oireachtas, whether in the Dáil or in both the Dáil and Seanad, be required in regard to the deployment of our troops abroad. If we are serious about having a comprehensive discussion in respect of the work done by our military forces abroad, why does the Government not agree to seek the consent of at least one Opposition party before making any decisions in that area? This would facilitate a more rounded discussion regarding the role played by our forces abroad, the support they need and the environment within which they are operating. I assume all Opposition parties would always be supportive of the role played by our forces abroad. It is far preferable that elected representatives should have responsibility for decisions in this area rather than the Chinese Government.

That relates to the second issue I wish to raise, which is the importance of a more comprehensive discussion in regard to neutrality. Other Members have spoken at length about this. There is a valuable distinction to be made between being a non-aligned country and a neutral country. There must be scope for debate in order to clarify the role of our forces abroad. It is important to bear in mind that we are discussing a concept that does not have statutory footing; it is not enshrined in legislation but is rather a matter of policy. We should be more engaged in refining that policy for a world that is very different to the one in which that policy was created in the 1930s.

The third issue relates to the Minister's speech. I welcome his acknowledgment that what is involved in permanent structured co-operation requires fleshing out. This is a new concept that will be ushered in by the Lisbon treaty. The latter makes clear that permanent structured co-operation arrangements must respect the military and foreign policy heritage of every participating country. I am pleased the Minister has recognised that we must do some work to figure out what is involved in this regard. It is important that we have that discussion in public, as argued for by colleagues on the other side of the House. There was genuine fear among a substantial minority of the population regarding what that would involve. We will do ourselves and the country a service if we ensure that discussion is conducted in public.

The fourth issue I wish to raise is the role of the European Defence Agency. Unlike my esteemed colleague, Senator Norris, I welcome this institution as something that will be of benefit to the country and to the work done by European forces abroad. The agency should have a role in strengthening the regulation of the arms trade within Europe. As Senator O'Toole said, if we are to increase efficiency in how armaments or the facilities European armies need are purchased and to achieve value for money, there is an opportunity to improve the transparency in regulation within which those purchases take place and the EDA could play a role in this regard.

Senator McFadden made the point well that because our forces are unable to participate in the civil arrangements open to other members of society, it is incumbent on us to do what we can to respect that and to protect them. There is a growing trend abroad and in the UK, in particular, for former members of the defence forces to take on political roles when they retire. David Cameron recently appointed a former chief of staff to serve him. The non-willingness of members of our Defence Forces to get involved in politics must be commended because it would do them and the support they enjoy a grave disservice. As Senator McFadden said, it is incumbent on us all to recognise their needs, given their proud lack of involvement in domestic politics.