Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with the amendment. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, used NATO as an example on Committee Stage but as the Senator said he used the example of mine clearing in the context of the co-operation that goes on between the Irish Defence Forces and NATO. My understanding is, and I am open to correction on this, the other structures that are in place to protect our involvement in international operations remain. The notion that the definition in section 1 of the 2006 Act could be stretched to where Senator Higgins is expressing concern is legally impossible. It is a definition that has been there for more than 15 years. It does not appear to have been misused in any way. I wonder if Senator Higgins is identifying a problem that is not actually there. The definition is undeniably broad but I refer to what I said in respect of the first amendment. To an extent we must trust in the Minister of the day whoever he or she may be or whatever party he or she may be from to make the decision and to afford that Minister the flexibility to make the decision, conscious of the fact that he or she could not make a decision that would contradict Ireland's neutrality or put Irish forces into an operation that would contradict the triple lock that is in place.

While I acknowledge that Senator Higgins identifies an issue, I am not sure it is in real terms a practical issue that might arise. It is a definition that has been there for some time. To use it in the way the Senator fears it may be used would be to stretch it to a legal breaking point.