Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 also relates to section 3(1)(a) of the 2006 Act which lists the different kinds of purposes for which people may be seconded. Section 3(1)(f) refers to humanitarian tasks and I have no problem with that. Many of the others are also very appropriate although "reconnaissance or fact-finding" could be problematic, depending on what we are doing them for and for whom we are doing them. I will leave that aside for the moment but I may come back to it. Section 3(1)(a) refers to "carrying out duties as a military representative or filling appointments or postings outside the State, including secondments to any international organisation". It is made clear elsewhere in the Act that those secondments may apply to whole portions of troops. I am proposing in amendment No. 4 that in section 3(1)(a), we should say "an" instead of "any" to make it very clear and that we should insert the following subsection:

(3) In exercising its functions under subsection (1)(a), the Government shall only approve secondment of a contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force to an international organisation which is not the United Nations or part of an International United Nations Force, where such a secondment is for the purposes specified in subsection (1)(f).

Subsection (1)(f) refers specifically to humanitarian or emergency action. I have proposed an alternative version in amendment No. 5 which provides for secondment to an international organisation "under a United Nations mandate".

Amendment No. 4 seeks specifically to protect the capacity for emergency and humanitarian action by naming it, but amendment No. 5 is probably better because I do not think we need to name subsection (1)(f). There is capacity under the Act for the Minister to delegate control to a force commander for any purpose under section 3, which includes humanitarian action under section 3(1)(f). The Minister can already delegate directly and does not have to go through section 3(1)(a) to do so. He can delegate to a force commander for any of the purposes listed in section 3(1), but I am trying to caveat that where he is not employing section 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(d) or 3(1)(f) and is employing 3(1)(a), which specifically refers to the secondment of a contingent or member of the Defence Forces to an international organisation, the organisation in question should be operating under a UN mandate.

I have approached it in two different ways but I believe amendment No. 5 is the better way. I have sought to clarify my intent by offering an alternative approach in amendment No. 4.