Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Based on conversations I had with the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, on Second and Committee Stages and his indication that he was interested in examining areas of the Bill, I had been hopeful that the Government would have proposed amendments in respect of this part of it. That would have been appropriate. The Bill has already been passed by the Dáil, so I do not know what opportunities remain in this regard. Perhaps changes may come in a subsequent Bill.

Concerns have been flagged. One of the key aspects is that the legislation as set out defines international force in an extraordinarily wide way. This is breaking new ground in respect of our national defence legislation. The Bill defines an international force as "an International United Nations Force or any force to which a contingent or a member of the Defence Forces may be assigned to for service outside the State". I raised with the Minister my concern that the term "any force" is, frankly, extraordinarily wide. It is too wide and does not give us clarity regarding the kinds of force and circumstances that may be involved. I had suggested narrowing the definition to refer to a United Nations force, but I withdrew that proposal in acknowledgement that it might be too narrow. Nonetheless, to have no clear definition of "any force" remains a concern. Section 2 continues with the words, "may be assigned to for service outside the State for any purpose specified in section 3 of the Act of 2006", but that assignment is only limited by the proposed new section 17A(1)(a) of the principal Act.

My proposed amendment, which has a wide sense in this regard - wider than I might like - at least ties the definition of "international force" to an existing definition set out in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. That definition refers to an "international organisation" as meaning "the United Nations; the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; the European Union or any institution or body of the European Union; or any regional arrangement or agency that participates, or has participated, in operations as part of an International United Nations Force". I have concerns about the phrase "or any regional arrangement or agency" that I will address later, but that is at least a definition and we can point to it and see the source. In my amendment, then, I have suggested that we would tie the definition of "international force" to the definition of "international organisation" that already exists and has some attendant detail included in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. This would give us a degree of clarity regarding the kinds of forces and organisations to and situations in which we might transfer operational control.I was hopeful that the Minister would have brought us a definition, whether he agreed with how I sought to define "any force", on which we could all rely and refer to. We may have agreed or disagreed about it but at least a definition would have given clarity. I am concerned that this legislation proposed to be passed in the Seanad today still does not have clarity on "any force".