Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will read my written response to these amendments but also respond verbally to Senator Higgins. I understand the point she is making but there are other roles to be considered. For example, we have a military representative in Brussels and in New York. We can have a military representative to the OSCE. These representatives are not on humanitarian missions. I can second someone to an organisation for many different reasons, potentially, including to try to influence policy, for example. That could be the women, peace and security agenda which Ireland is trying to drive through the Security Council and reinforcing that within organisations and so on. When I decide to second a member of the Defence Forces to an organisation in some other part of the world, it does not necessarily mean it is for a mission on the ground that involves peacekeeping or other interventions. It could be for something much more mundane.

The OSCE is not operating to a UN mandate and neither is the EU but both work with the UN. NATO often operates and works in partnership with the UN but it often does its own thing as well. It is the same for organisations like the African Union, the Southern African Development Community, SADC, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and so on.There are lots of different organisations around the world where we may choose to have a military person seconded and that may make sense for us to try to influence outcomes or to gain a greater understanding. For example, we have two military personnel seconded to Europe's cybersecurity research centre in Tallinn because we think that we can gain knowledge and expertise in the cybersecurity space when we bring them home again. It is important to emphasise the point, because Senator Higgins has linked the delegation to a force commander, which makes the assumption that every time I decide to send a member of the Permanent Defence Force to some other part of the world, it is always on a mission under a force commander. A lot of the time it is not. Much of the time it is a different kind of role related to training, operational assistance or whatever else.

The Senator is proposing a number of amendments to the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. However, if accepted, her amendments would result in fundamental change to what is a long-standing and settled policy on the dispatch of military contingents for overseas service. The effect of the amendments would be that the Minister for Defence could not appoint any personnel to a posting in the EU or to the Partnership for Peace, in terms of the liaison office, the OSCE, or similar organisations. It is vital to our national interests in terms of engaging with and influencing developments in these spheres that we have that capacity.

The amendments to the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 set out in section 17 are separate and focused on removing the prohibition contained within section 3 of that Act on members of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, serving as members of a contingent, which can be dispatched for overseas service for the purposes specified in the 2006 Act. Having carefully considered the matter, I have serious concerns about the implications of the amendments. I hear where the Senator is coming from on it, but there is a broader issue here as well whereby a lot of our Permanent Defence Force personnel get seconded overseas for periods of time, as they are nearly all temporary secondments. Sometimes it is not a boots-on-the-ground type mission. It is often something very different to that, which is why we have a very active military person seconded to Brussels and to other key decision-making bodies where we need to try to influence outcomes as best we can.