Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 1 of Act of 2006

17. Section 1 of the Act of 2006 is amended by the deletion of ", or has participated,".".

The Minister has usefully read the definition of "international organisation" into the record, which saves me having to do so. I would note that in the Bill in front of us, it is not "international organisation" that is in the definition section but "international force". It refers to a "United Nations Force or any force", so the definition that applies to international organisation is relevant to section 3(1)(a) of the 2006 Act. However, that definition does not constrain international force as it is set out in this Bill. One of my concerns is that "international organisation" is quite clearly constrained in the original 2006 Act whereas "any force" is far more widely construed in this legislation and as it relates to those other parts of section 3 and those other actions under that section.

I am concerned about how the original definition in the 2006 Act is framed and believe it is framed too widely. The United Nations is there, appropriately, as is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. The latter has an important role to play in election observation and so forth. The European Union or institutions or bodies of the EU are there too but it is very important we are clear on our mandates in terms of what we engage with and how we do so at that level. Concern arises with regard to "any regional arrangement or agency that participates, or has participated, in operations as part of an International United Nations Force", specifically with "has participated". It should not be the case that we would be engaging with a regional arrangement or agency that is not conducting operations as part of an international UN force and that we would engage simply because it has done so in the past. My example falls within the EU, so it is not perfect, but Germany engaged in certain activities as part of NATO but has also engaged in UN activities. Clarity is required because many countries may engage in UN peacekeeping activities but they may also engage in other things. Similarly, regional arrangements or agencies may engage in international UN-mandated missions but they may also engage in other kinds of missions. The fact they have participated at some time in the past in an international UN force does not mean, therefore, that every single thing we might do with them is fine. In fact, I would say it should only apply where they are participating in operations as part of an international UN force.

I propose that the language that would be used would be any regional arrangement or agency that participates in operations as part of a UN force and that we remove the phrase "or has participated" so that we are not simply saying the fact an entity was once involved in a UN mission means everything it does militarily in the future is fine, that it is fine for us to engage with it and that such an entity is an international organisation to which we can second Irish forces under section 3(1)(a). It would be appropriate to give both narrowness and clarity on that matter. There are a range of different kinds of actions and very few countries have the same military position and military history as Ireland, which is important in terms of how we engage with them. Similarly, many agencies and regional arrangements will have a different military history.

Are amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, grouped?