Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, all relate to section 3 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 and propose a new section 3(3) to introduce a little clarity. Again, I have adapted all of my amendments to reflect the discussion I had with the Minister. I greatly respect the Minister and the very strong points he made on Committee Stage. That is why I have adapted these amendments to reflect that discussion. It is also why I am disappointed that the Minister and the Department have not brought forward their own amendments because that would have been a very positive signal.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to introduce clarity with regard to secondments under section 3(1)(a) of the 2006 Act. My amendment refers to the secondment of a contingent. The Minister made the case, which I understood, that Ireland may occasionally have to second individuals to a number of different kinds of international organisations. This may be for the purposes of giving an organisation those individuals' expertise or it may relate to the honorific appointment of a member of the Irish Permanent Defence Force. However, when a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force is involved, that is, a large grouping that can be commanded, especially under the new Act, thereby giving military power to an international organisation, rather than an individual who is there to represent and be the voice of Ireland in a given situation, it is appropriate that there would be engagement with the Oireachtas where such secondments are for a period of 12 months or where a second secondment to the same organisation is proposed.

I am again trying to give space. The Minister said that most of these secondments and roles tend to last six months. These are not covered in my amendments. I am allowing the Minister to make decisions that may be needed to second a contingent to an international organisation for six months. My amendment explicitly refers to secondments that last for longer than those six months, for 12 months or more, and to the renewal of secondments, that is, a second period of secondment. At that point, we are no longer talking about situations in which speedy decisions need to be made, perhaps in high-pressure circumstances. There will have been a period of at least six months, if not one year, in which the Minister will have had the opportunity to engage with the Oireachtas appropriately and to discuss why Ireland is choosing to second contingents, not individual members, of our Permanent Defence Force.Sadly, due to the poor terms and conditions that apply within the Defence Forces because of the failure to value its members, we do not have as many personnel as we should have. That is a separate discussion, which, I am aware, we all had on Second Stage. I hope we will have a chance to address it further. If we are renewing an arrangement to send a contingent of our overstretched Permanent Defence Force to an international organisation, or sending it for longer than one year, it is appropriate for the Minister to engage with the Oireachtas and make his or her case for it. That is what amendment No. 3 seeks.

Amendment No. 4 refers to where a contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force is seconded to an international organisation described under paragraph (d). Again, this relates to the issue regarding paragraph (d). Amendment No. 4 does not affect the secondment of an individual or a contingent to the OSCE or any EU or UN body, but it means that when sending individuals or a contingent to be part of a more ambiguous arrangement, such as a regional agency, body or alliance, such as NATO, they should be engaging only in activities under section 3(1)(b) to (1)(h) of the 2006 Act. I refer to arrangements involving a force that may have participated at some point in a UN activity but that may not be participating under a UN mandate. The activities encompassed include humanitarian action, reconnaissance and information-related work, or those associated with the various grounds that the Minister of State listed. If there is ambiguity over an alliance that personnel are to be seconded to, let us at least nail down the exact purpose for which they may be seconded. Under the relevant section of the 2006 Act, there is not a tightening of purposes. Section 3(1)(b) to (h) clarify the purposes. If we cannot tighten the kinds of bodies encompassed, let us tighten the purposes further.

Amendment No. 5 is the same. Again, I am responding on the basis of the Minister of State making good points. There is a wide range of bodies to which members of the Permanent Defence Force may need to be seconded. Amendment No. 5, which is a reasonable compromise, proposes restrictions and simply suggests that those restrictions should apply only to contingents of the Defence Forces rather than individual members.

I engaged very thoughtfully on what we discussed on Committee Stage. I believe these amendments reflect a refinement, a nuance and the discussion. My preference would always be for the Government to introduce its own amendments to address the issues and concerns raised. The amendments are my attempt to do so. I hope the Minister of State might be able to consider them or at least indicate his intentions to address these issues.