Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

Senator O'Toole dealt very well with the record of some of those countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, which are held up as models of neutrality.

Senator Doherty wanted to know what our definition or concept of neutrality is. I could give a long dissertation on this subject but I will keep my remarks simple. Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality is that we do not participate in any military alliance, such as NATO or the old Warsaw Pact, and that we do not become involved in any mutual or common defence agreement. In fact, we are prohibited by the Constitution from doing the latter.

Senator Doherty also expressed scepticism about our membership of the EDA. Other Senators dealt very well with the reasons why we should be part of the EDA. Senator Doherty is also, predictably, fearful that we might become involved in enhanced structural co-operation. We recently had a difficulty in Chad because the United Nations, which had promised to supply air support for us, failed to do so, even after a number of force generation conferences. We had hurriedly to acquire air support ourselves and a mistake was made in the procurement procedure, for which we all hold our hands up. My idea of enhanced structural co-operation is that a number of countries should get together to provide a pool of assets which could be used by whichever countries were participating in the peacekeeping mission. This is at a very early stage of development and we do not know how it will pan out.

If a number of European countries get together in the form of enhanced structural co-operation, they will not be able to launch a mission on their own. Any decisions on defence and security must be taken unanimously. Every country will have a veto, regardless of whether it is part of the enhanced structural co-operation group.

Senator Feeney pointed out, correctly, that the EDA helps to reduce the cost of equipment and provides for interoperability and so on. I also support what she said about the scare created about a European army. During the first Lisbon treaty referendum campaign I got the impression I had missed something and that no sooner would the ink be dry on the treaty than press gangs would arrive at 4 o'clock the following morning, as in the days of the old British navy, break into people's houses, seize their younger children, conscript them into a European army and land them in the front line in Afghanistan within 24 hours. The main advocates of that point of view came from Senator Doherty's party. I was engaged in a debate on Pat Kenny's radio show with the former MEP, Mary Lou McDonald. She trotted out those old arguments while I pointed out to her that there were various guarantees, that there would not be a European army and that the Constitution precluded us from becoming involved in mutual defence. There was a certain familiarity about her arguments. When I did some research I found they are the very same arguments Sinn Féin has used in every European debate since 1973. They simply change the date.

Senator Cummins was worried about barracks closures. There will be a certain amount of dislocation and there is a change of station allowance of €3,500. Much money has been spent, and more remains to be spent, on making the new barracks acceptable and suitable. However, a deeper policy is involved here. It is not simply a question of cost cutting. The Army high command takes the view that collective training and a smaller number of bigger units is now preferable. This is particularly advisable in the case of force protection. When people go abroad it is important that they would have trained together previously.

Senator Cummins also mentioned a threat I am alleged to have made to PDFORRA. I assure the Senator there was no threat. I simply pointed out what PDFORRA is entitled to do under the arrangement my Department has with it. That arrangement is enshrined in law and the organisation fully accepts it. I can assure the House that PDFORRA and RACO are well able to represent themselves. I keep my door open to them at all times. In fact, I received correspondence from them in recent days asking for another meeting, although we had one very recently. I will certainly accede to that request.

Senator Wilson also referred to the spectre of conscription which was conjured up during the Lisbon treaty debate. Senator Wilson also asked me about the current recruitment policy. The White Paper provides for 10,500 serving men and women in the Army, Naval Service and Air Force. The McCarthy report recommended reducing that to 10,000 over a two to three-year period. We have not accepted that recommendation and no Government decision has been made to reduce the appropriate size of the Defence Forces to 10,000. On the other hand, the embargo on recruitment operates very harshly on the Defence Forces due to the large turnover in all military organisations. We are now down to 10,018. I have made a case to the Minister for Finance to allow me to resume recruitment to ensure we do not drop below 10,000. I expect a response to that request before the week is out. I hope it will be positive.

Senator O'Toole raised the question of neutrality and pointed out that the EU was powerless to intervene in the slaughter in the Balkans. That would not be the case now. There have been a number of developments such as the expanded definition of the Petersberg Tasks and the new tendency for organisations such as the EU and the African Union to get UN sanction and then organise missions.

Senator Norris referred to the Israeli company from which we acquired parts at a cost of €2.3 million. This is not a Government operation. It is a private company. As Senator Norris acknowledged, we must go to tender in these matters. If one were to try to find a company selling arms which had not at some stage in its existence sold arms for some purpose with which one did not agree, one would have a very hard job and might not get the best value for money.

Senator Leyden raised the question of recruitment to the Defence Forces. I hope my representations to the Minister for Finance will be successful in that regard. Senator Leyden also raised the question of promotions in the Army, which is a very relevant matter. I have asked the Minister for Finance to allow me to make a number of targeted promotions so as to maintain the operational capability of the Defence Forces.

Senator McFadden asked me to continue to invest to ensure the best equipment for the Army. I will do that. Her concerns about the brain drain will be dealt with by the promotions I hope to make. The Army has a community involvement. Unfortunately, resources have forced the Army to cut back on this area of activity in the past year or so but it will be maintained as far as possible.

Senator Bradford mentioned the conflict between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. They are, obviously, two different things. The Petersberg Tasks now allow the United Nations to sanction missions for peace enforcement in addition to traditional peacekeeping.

Senator Donohoe referred to the opt out of defence arrangements. Many issues were discussed by the Cabinet, in particular in the lead-up to the second Lisbon treaty referendum campaign. However, the Cabinet never gave serious consideration to opting out of the European defence arrangements.

I take Senator Donohoe's point about not supporting the triple lock. I had this debate with his colleague, Deputy Timmins, when he was defence spokesman in the previous Dáil. The majority of European countries seek a United Nations mandate. I take the point that any member of the UN Security Council can veto a decision. If one looks at the original proposal, it was that it would be the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. Effectively, that has never worked. In practice, it has always been the UN Security Council. This has more to do with how the United Nations does its business. We see the United Nations as the lodestar in this regard.

I do not necessarily agree with Senator Donohoe that we would have been able to intervene earlier in Chad but for the triple lock. What really held up our involvement in Chad was the question of force generation. We had an unprecedented five force generation meetings before we got sufficient equipment and sufficient troops in the field to make the mission doable.

I thank Members for taking this Bill at short notice. I join in the kind sentiments expressed by various Members for the Defence Forces generally and, in particular, in regard to service by the Defence Forces in overseas peace support missions.