Seanad debates
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages.
11:00 am
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is not my brief and I am filling in for a colleague, who cannot be present. It is astonishing that amending legislation dealing with members of the Defence Forces operating abroad includes the provision in section 3(1), "with the prior approval of, and on the authority of the Government." I am not opposed to such approval but I am surprised it is necessary to provide for it in this legislation. I assumed that such decisions were provided for in primary legislation.
Am I to take it that if this phrase was not inserted, the Chief of Staff could dispatch members all over the world on his own initiative? Is this phrase necessary in the legislation or is it contained in primary legislation, such as the 1960 Act? This is not a major issue but when I read the Bill, I wondered whether the Defence Forces Chief of Staff would need to obtain Government approval before he deployed personnel if this phrase was not included. Perhaps because the Minister is an eminent lawyer, I will ask questions that I might otherwise not. He deserves congratulations because he is the only Minister whose photograph appears on the departmental website.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not realise that and I thank the Senator for bringing it to my attention. Since Ireland began to participate in overseas missions in the 1950s, the general authority to send troops was always assumed. For example, a number of observers were dispatched to the Middle East in 1958. No legislation was in place and they were dispatched on the basis that everybody assumed it was legal to do so.
When the first armed overseas mission was undertaken as part of a peacekeeping operation in the Congo in the early 1960s, the Government decided to pass legislation to set out the circumstances and procedures for sending troops abroad on armed peacekeeping missions. The legislation did not cover other personnel such as observers or those attending seminars, undergoing training or participating in ceremonial duties. I suspect the reason the legislation did not deal with them specifically is it was assumed all activities were legal. There is a danger it could be argued that because the 1960s legislation laid down the procedures for sending troops overseas, it could not be applied to all personnel overseas and, therefore, there was no authority to send troops overseas other than on an armed mission. The Attorney General thinks the argument would not succeed but that does not prevent it from being raised. The provision is being included for the avoidance of doubt and to head off anybody who may make that argument in court.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When the UN makes a request for support for a mission, the Government asks the Defence Forces to carry out an assessment. This is forwarded to the Minister who then brings it to Cabinet. Has the verdict of the military on a mission been different from the position adopted by the Government? If such a scenario arose, the public would not be aware of it. How many UN requests does the Minister receive annually? What is the parliamentary involvement in the current procedures? Where the decision is taken, the Dáil is involved and, therefore, an absolute parliamentary role is in built. Will the Minister outline what happens when the military makes a recommendation and the politicians make another?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The UN receives a request, which is then transmitted to us. If the UN decides to embark on a peacekeeping operation, Ireland is usually contacted and the Government then makes a decision. Before the Government makes a decision, an assessment, as the Senator correctly stated, is carried out. A number of factors determine whether Ireland participates in a mission. For example, the Defence Forces has a threshold of 800 troops who can be deployed abroad at any time. Participation in new missions depends on how near the limit they are. One of the most important factors is the risk element and we rely exclusively on the military assessment for this. I cannot envisage a scenario where a Minister or a parliamentary delegation would undertake its own investigations to second guess the military, which makes the risk assessment. Sometimes the military outlines a substantial risk attaching to a mission but, nevertheless, because of its importance, the Government decides to go in anyway.
While the military would not necessary advise against doing so, senior personnel would say it is probably okay but certain factors need to be borne in mind. The current mission in Afghanistan, which involves only seven troops, is an example. The situation is volatile and that is why the mandate for the mission is renewed on a four monthly rather than an annual basis. For example, I obtained Government agreement yesterday to extend the mission by another four months from July. However, I am keeping it under review and I am in regular contact with the military about the risk element in Afghanistan. Generally, we rely on the military to carry out the risk assessment and we go on its advice.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am glad risk assessments are undertaken continually because while I supported the mission to Liberia, it was probably one of the riskiest the Defence Forces ever undertook. Fortunately, they have been extremely successful considering their role was as close to peace enforcement as a Defence Forces mission has ever come in that they were dealing with irresponsible and unpredictable armed factions. While the State should not only support risk-free missions, there is a need for a review of risk taking and whether the risks are proportionate to the outcomes, as they were in Liberia. It was a sad and tragic country in a state of permanent civil war. Similar requests, however, may be made in the next six months regarding Somalia.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senator for his remarks. The Liberian mission has been very successful. The mission was due to discontinue this month but the Government decided, at the request of the UN Secretary General, to extend it for 12 months. The mission will be gradually scaled down during that time. Since 1993 overseas missions have become riskier because chapter 7 or peace enforcement missions were added to the Petersberg Tasks.
I refer to peace enforcement missions, in which peacekeepers may be obliged to use force to make a peace settlement stick. Hence, in addition to the level of risk, the terms of reference which we are now entitled to use under the Petersberg Tasks must be taken into account.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete lines 34 to 46, and in page 5, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsections (2) and (3).
This comes to the nub of a disagreement between the Labour Party and the Government on the definition of what constitutes an international force. My understanding is that the previous position stated it was necessary for a force to be established by the Security Council. The Minister's amendment proposes a force which is established, mandated, authorised, endorsed or supported. The Labour Party does not share the Government's view in this regard and the amendment is an attempt to return to the status quo in terms of the definition of an international United Nations force.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There may be some confusion in this regard. If I am correct, Senator Ryan's amendment reads, "in page 4 to delete lines 34 to 46, and in page 5, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsections (2) and (3)". Is this the amendment to which the Senator is speaking?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Section 4(2), which the Senator proposes to delete, provides for a saver in respect of personnel who enlisted before the enactment of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993. The effect of the amendment would be to delete this saver. As stated, the 1993 Act extended the involvement of the Defence Forces in UN-mandated peace support operations to include peace enforcement missions. I refer to chapter 7 missions. At the time, the view taken was that personnel who had enlisted before the enactment of that Act would not have envisaged service on such missions as part of their terms of enlistment and that consequently, it should not be made mandatory for them. With the repeal of the 1993 Act, the section is being re-enacted in the present Bill. As it would be a breach of faith to use the legislation under discussion to remove the saver in respect of the pre-1993 personnel, I cannot accept the amendment.
To put it in simpler language, in 1993 the type of peacekeeping mission in which Irish troops could engage changed fundamentally. Chapter 7, or peace enforcement missions were added to the pre-existing simple peacekeeping missions. The Government's view at the time was that people who had enlisted before 1993, when chapter 7 missions became a feature of foreign peacekeeping operations, had not done so on that basis. They had enlisted on the basis that when the Defence Forces went overseas, they could only carry out ordinary, non-chapter 7 peacekeeping missions. Hence, it was considered to be fair and proper to exempt such personnel from the requirements of going on chapter 7 missions.
There are some exceptions in this regard. First, a police-type mission, which is not regarded as being dangerous, is all right. The second exception concerns someone who enlisted before 1993 and who signs up for a chapter 7 mission. This scenario is also all right. However, the Department did not consider it to be right and proper to force such people to engage in such missions because at the time they joined the Army, they did not exist.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I refer to members of the Defence Forces who signed up before 1993 and who did not sign up under the post-1993 conditions. Presumably, if they consent to so do, such people can still go on such missions.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They can make a request to so do.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I presume that some people who enlisted before 1993 have gone on operations subsequently.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, they have that right.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was somewhat surprised that this amendment was tabled because in the context of social partnership, it is a well-established practice that one does not change post facto people's terms and conditions of employment. Hence, the Minister's position is correct.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not press the amendment. However, while I accept the Minister's argument, in effect the amendment pertains to the redefinition of what constitutes an international United Nations force.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is aware that the last time he came before this House, it passed legislation to put in place an ombudsman who would take responsibility for investigating claims of bullying or harassment within the Defence Forces. In the context of this section, I wish to raise a point, given that the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 predated the Government's decision to amend this Act in principle to allow personnel to travel to other parts of the world for all kinds of reasons. I presume it is legally possible that, under the aforementioned Act, a complaint made overseas concerning an action by one member of the Defence Forces against another could be fully investigated and a determination made. I raise the point because the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act predated the Bill under discussion at present. Will the Minister clarify whether the situation I have outlined is applicable?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As personnel deployed abroad are deemed to be on active service, the ombudsman's remit does not cover that scenario.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know such people are in a military setting when carrying out such an operation and are subject to all kinds of pressures and all the rest of it. However, what is the rationale behind the exclusion of such personnel? Regardless of whether they are on an operation, but in particular if they are away from home, what is the rationale for excluding them from making a complaint under the existing legislation?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will communicate on the rationale with the Senator.
Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(a) by inserting "or International Peace Mission" after "International United Nations Force" in each place where those words occur.".
The House had a preliminary discussion on this issue during the Second Stage debate last night. Undoubtedly, the Government's position differs from that of the Fine Gael Party in respect of the triple lock. However, the Minister will understand that I have taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to have a debate on this issue. Fine Gael's amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, with No. 6 being the most important, would attempt to change policy on the triple lock. It will be useful to have a debate on this matter because differing views exist on all sides of the House. The Fine Gael Party has chosen to do so by way of its amendments, in order that the debate will be on the public record.
As the Minister is aware, from 2003 Fine Gael has consistently argued for a change in the policy of triple lock. The current policy concerning the commitment by Irish troops abroad is based on three simple and straightforward resolutions, namely, a resolution of the Government, a resolution of the Dáil and a resolution of the UN Security Council. Fine Gael believes that this policy requires amendment, in order that the people themselves would decide on the operations in which they would become involved through the Defence Forces.
The Minister is well aware of the difficulties which exist at the UN, particularly as far as the Security Council is concerned. The latter has five permanent members and ten rotating members. Some years ago, Ireland was one such rotating member. Each permanent member has a veto in respect of any resolution put before the Security Council.
Last night during the Second Stage debate, Senator Minihan raised the case of Macedonia, where it was absolutely clear a contingent of troops was required for peace enforcement. As I understand it, 13 EU states and 14 non-EU states were involved. We committed to send troops to that region, which is within our sphere of Europe. The Chinese vetoed a resolution at Security Council level because the Macedonians had supported the Taiwanese. The Chinese retaliated against this small emerging democracy and for their own selfish political ends vetoed a perfectly sensible and rational UN Security Council resolution which would have better protected the region.
I know not many such cases exist, but this is a clear irrefutable example of where Ireland's national interests were put to one side as power play in New York determined whether we could commit troops in the field, and as such, it must be debated. There may well have been a time when the triple lock was necessary, in the context of the Cold War and the two power blocs which existed for so many years after the Second World War. However, we must question it in today's much more fluid and complex situation.
The Minister gave a straight-up explanation of the new EU battle groups last night. He described them as comprising approximately 3,000 troops. We will be part of the Nordic battle group. At six-monthly intervals these battle groups from various parts of the EU will be on standby. In the Minister's words not a huge number of Irish personnel will be committed. However, where we are part of that 3,000 contingent under the new arrangement we will be dependent on having a UN Security Council resolution before we can commit members of the Defence Forces. That is a loss or diminution of sovereignty. Others now decide how exactly we should fulfil our role in the international community. It is the considered view of my party that this issue must be debated.
The recent controversy in Shannon and the use of Irish airspace and airports by the United States was the most clear example of public outrage and expression of how people felt, one way or the other. The triple lock made no difference as to whether the United States was given permission to use our airspace. It is put up by the Government as a sacred cow and part of our traditional policy of neutrality. I believe we live in a much more complicated world, in which Kofi Annan asked for regional autonomy and capability. I refer to Chapter VIII, Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which states:
Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
We suggest exactly that. We believe that if the Government and Dáil Éireann decide to commit troops in the context of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, we should be entitled to do so and we should not be stopped by petty squabbles at UN Security Council level. That is the position of my party and of many people who consider this matter in a rational way.
The Minister referred to the Petersberg Tasks, which were endorsed by the Irish people in the Maastricht treaty and subsequent treaties, a much greater test of sovereignty than any resolution to which the Dáil can come. How can we possibly rapidly respond to humanitarian or environmental issues under the Petersberg Tasks if we are stymied by power play in the United Nations? We believe we should amend our law in this area and provide for this much more transparent and exacting policy which would allow us to fulfil our international obligations.
We ask the Minister to consider these amendments in the spirit they are tabled. We understand this debate is ongoing but we will use the Bill as an opportunity to debate this important matter.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter because I fundamentally disagree with the Fine Gael argument on the triple lock. Fine Gael would have a hard job persuading putative partners in a rainbow coalition, the Labour Party and the Green Party, of that argument.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Mansergh should let us speak for ourselves.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will let Senator Ryan speak for himself but I am entitled to make that comment.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As I am here, Senator Mansergh need not attribute to me the possibility that I——
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I made a perfectly legitimate political point——
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——and I am interested to hear what Senator Ryan has to say on the subject.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what Senator Mansergh should have said.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not be told what I should say. I am free to speak, as is Senator Ryan. He makes political points and I am entitled to make a political point.
To return to the triple lock argument, I heard Javier Solana speak on this matter at the Forum on Europe. I also heard a leading United States expert on foreign policy speaking on it. I cannot remember his name, he may a Congressman. Javier Solana made the point that the example mentioned by Senator Brian Hayes was isolated. It only happened on one occasion. The United States spokesperson pointed out every country must have a framework of rules and conventions for its foreign policy. When it is self-imposed it does not involve any loss of sovereignty whatsoever. It is a sovereign decision and, in principle, it could be changed down the line.
One must understand the reason and rationale for the triple lock system. As Senator Brian Hayes knows, most people in this country are attached to the tradition of military neutrality. Alongside that, and this is part of the de Valera tradition of foreign policy going back to 1946, is a desire to contribute to international collective security. There is no conflict between neutrality in the sense of not belonging to partial military alliances and supporting international collective security. The reality is one would not have sufficient consensus in public opinion in this country unless fairly clear guarantees were given. We have a long tradition of support for the United Nations and, taking that by and large as a rule of thumb, one isolated example is not sufficient to depart from it.
If one was to get rid of the triple lock system, it would not merely apply in cases where China used its veto for an arbitrary reason not connected with the situation in which we were interested in participating. It would leave us wide open to involvement in many situations without a United Nations sanction. That would not be acceptable to public opinion. The certain uneasiness and the fact we have not rushed into it is because of terms such as "battle groups", which the Government and the Minister agree are unfortunate. We have a duty, particularly as a prosperous and well regarded nation to play our full part in international collective security and to do so reasonably pragmatically.
I have no hang-ups about our having engaged in peace-enforcement missions since about 1993. I have no problem with such missions if they have UN backing. Senator Brian Hayes is right in that the UN has moved in recent years towards delegating responsibility in this regard to regional organisations and this means we could find ourselves engaged in peacekeeping missions co-ordinated by NATO. This does not alter the fact that the missions would be UN-backed but, none the less, the logistics would be organised by NATO. As we know, there is opposition to such proposals from groups such as PANA, one of the leading lights of which is a member of the Labour Party although he does not necessarily express Labour Party policy.
Public consensus in this matter is very important. There is great support for our Defence Forces — I would never wish this to be otherwise — and I therefore believe the triple lock mechanism is an essential reassurance. One would need to realise that an isolated problem would have to recur regularly to warrant change and I fully support the Government's position in this regard. The triple lock mechanism needs to be maintained but I also support the view that we need to make the largest possible contribution, within our capacity, to international peacekeeping operations. This requires some pragmatism and that is why I am opposed to these amendments.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is an important topic. I am not sure the Fine Gael amendment would make much difference to the de facto position and my party would not support it. This is well known and it did not take the undoubted profound analytical skills of Senator Mansergh to divine it — we kind of knew it. However, I am impressed by Fianna Fáil's recognition that the Labour Party and Fine Gael have principles which are not up for negotiation so as to enjoy the convenience of being in Government.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have as many principles as those parties. The Senator should not be super-moralistic.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, our principles are as good as those of the Senator and he should not pretend he is superior and on some kind of moral high ground because he is not.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This has been an excellent debate and it is getting better.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was reasonably restrained for the past ten minutes. I remember the 1992 negotiations, during which freedom of information and the Electoral Act were the only issues on which Fianna Fáil exhibited profound principled resistance to——
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is untrue and irrelevant to this debate. I was present with Fergus Finlay drafting the programme.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So were good friends of mine in my own party.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They did not report back to the Senator very accurately.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Not only did they report back to me but they were also discussing this matter with me as late as 10.15 a.m. this morning.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For a start, the financial framework constituted a principle. If the Labour Party wanted to go beyond——
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a bit pointless to ask the Acting Chairman to defend me against Senator Mansergh but I would like to speak without interruption.
Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is entertaining but the Senator should get on with the debate.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should not introduce extraneous matters in that case.
Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Ryan, without interruption.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the formation of the next Government is not extraneous, there is nothing I can say that is. However, I will try to confine my remarks to the Bill.
The triple lock does not represent an inhibition of the scale some of my friends in Fine Gael believe it to be, yet I would not rely too much on Javier Solana as an authority. When Mr. Solana first came to Ireland, he wanted to talk about the new security role in the European Union but we discovered that he had slipped through a clause in the European Parliament late in the session, effectively creating a carte blanche for himself to do all his business in secret. This was at a time when we were told the Union was to be a model of transparency. Second, when he came to talk to the joint committees on European affairs and foreign affairs, he insisted that the meetings be in private. This is not the way to win favour. The Joint Committee on European Affairs refused to meet him on his grounds and the meeting never took place.
The problem with security, particularly within the European Union, is that there are people at the highest level in the Union who deeply resent not having a big stick to accompany their economic power. If one goes to Brussels for one of their fairly honest briefing sessions, they will tell one that Europe is an economic superpower and a military mouse and that they wish to change this. I do not have any great ambition to have a third military superpower on the planet to compete with the existing one and the developing one, China, which will probably not become a full military superpower in my lifetime but which will inevitably become one. If India's economy continues to develop as it is at present, it will also become a military superpower. I am not sure the necessary consequence of this is that the European Union should become one also, nor am I sure this is the way to achieve collective international security. The way to achieve it is through the strengthening and enforcement of international law.
I disagree with my friends in Fine Gael on the limitations of the existing UN system although I do not believe this issue is one that would lead to our having difficulties in forming a Government. We are well able to work these matters through and have found capacity to agree on more difficult issues. It is always easier to agree with Fianna Fáil than Fine Gael for the reasons I have already stated and which I will not repeat. I am very glad we are debating this issue because I remember Senator Mansergh saying foreign affairs constituted a matter for the Government and that the Oireachtas should, by and large, stay out of them. In doing so, he enthusiastically quoted Éamon de Valera.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We were talking about a different matter.
12:00 pm
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am glad we are making progress on this issue. At least the entanglement of the Oireachtas in foreign affairs is now accepted.
I do not agree with Senator Brian Hayes on this issue although there is much merit to his argument. The solution is to create a UN structure whereby we can assume that we will only rarely have to draw on superpower status. Chances are that, within ten years, there may well be a couple of other permanent members with vetoes, and there may be all sorts of other changes. This issue could be revisited if there were a succession of circumstances regarding which the Irish people felt we should be involved and that the aforementioned mechanism was the only reason preventing us from becoming involved.
I have no objection in principle to a legitimate, valid method of despatching Irish troops into potentially dangerous situations but I am very sceptical about the something-must-be-done school of thought which espoused, during the horrors of the Yugoslavian civil war, that we should have sent an army to the region. The leader of a particular NGO which deals with development issues responds to every difficult set of circumstances in the developing world by suggesting we should send in an army. If we had sent in as many armies as that individual saw fit, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of the world's defence forces would probably be tied up in all sorts of difficult circumstances. We therefore need to avoid the something-should-be-done school of military intervention. The triple lock mechanism puts the something-should-be-done mentality through a good, efficient filter such that only conflicts in respect of which military intervention is regarded as both valid and potentially successful can be considered.
The idea of sending an intervention force into horrors such as those that obtained in Bosnia and Croatia at the height of their civil war is hair-raising when one considers the amount of death and slaughter that might result to no great purpose. I have never been persuaded that large-scale military intervention ever stabilises any conflict and it always postpones rather than creates a resolution. In this regard, consider the conflict in Afghanistan.
What looked like a decisive end to a particular system of government may not have been nearly as decisive or as final as people thought at the time. I am still waiting to see what will happen in Kosovo where again there appeared to be a military intervention to stop the Serbian attack. I am not sure what the outcome will be there because I am sceptical about the use of overwhelming military force of the kind that, incidentally, may be used in Gaza in the next few days, to achieve anything other than a good feeling among the supporters on one side. The whole triple lock mechanism is cumbersome, slow and, I agree, occasionally embarrassing but I would be prepared to revisit it if we had a succession of these kinds of situations. The only problem we have had so far is with Macedonia. If it becomes a regular feature and if the United Nations became permanently divided, it would be valid but at this stage it is neither necessary nor essential.
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Surprisingly, I find myself almost agreeing with Senator Ryan's last comments, which is probably a first.
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I raised this issue last night as I did three years ago. The triple lock is a necessary mechanism to deal with our own insecurities about neutrality. Let us call a spade a spade. That is the reason we had to do that. It is a question of having a more mature debate about what our neutrality means and the real crux of the issue for me is the power of veto. We are not in a position to change the UN Security Council. I am aware that Kofi Annan has stated over the past 24 months or so that there must be an examination of the reorganisation of the UN and the way it does its business but I doubt if people will give way on the power of veto. The power of veto is the key.
The Minister might avail of the opportunity to clarify some concerns I have about this whole area. I am inclined to agree with Senator Ryan that as of now there is no evidence that we should amend or change our stated policy on the triple lock mechanism. In the case of Macedonia, however, my understanding is that we already had troops there in some capacity, albeit a handful of troops — I stand corrected if I am wrong — and when the UN resolution failed, we had to withdraw them. Perhaps they were seconded to NGOs or used by way of some other mechanism.
We will have a problem if a clear humanitarian crisis arises and a request is made for Irish troops to assist, be it logistically, engineering wise or in whatever speciality the troops are required, in an unarmed mission with no conflict and which is clearly of a humanitarian nature. How do we get over that problem? Do we get over it by seconding troops to an NGO? A crisis developed in Nicaragua or somewhere after a hurricane and a platoon or a company of engineers assisted by way of logistical support. Perhaps that situation could be clarified.
If we have a mechanism to allow us respond to situations similar to what happened in Nicaragua, where a UN mandate is not required but we were in a position from a humanitarian basis to allow military personnel with their expertise contribute to an international aid effort, that would be appropriate. Do we have a mechanism to reflect the will of the Irish people in such disasters? Unfortunately, we sometimes look at the military purely from a perspective of guns. There is much more expertise within the military to allow its personnel move into a situation logistically in terms of engineering or whatever. All I am saying is that if such a situation were to arise, it would be unfortunate if we as a people were unable to contribute to it because of the vested interests of one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It is not that I want to abolish or change the triple lock mechanism in any way. I want a mechanism that reflects the will of the people in such a scenario and on such a request. I support the requirement for the triple lock mechanism. It is what the Irish people demand in their understanding of our neutrality.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I essentially agree with the substance of what was said by the two previous speakers. I support the triple lock mechanism but if a case arose where there was an arbitrary veto and it was clear nonetheless that there was overwhelming public support for the operation to go ahead, it would always be open to the Government to introduce emergency or fast-track legislation to suspend it in that specific instance. I agree that if this turned out to be a recurring rather than a once-off problem, we might need to do something more fundamental. However, if we get rid of the triple lock mechanism, we are leaving it wide open for a variety of situations.
Senator Ryan is right in saying that the triple lock mechanism would not prove an insuperable difficulty in coalition negotiations. I am sure that is correct. If one studies the track record of the past 25 years, one will see that Fine Gael is always more forward on defence policy and at times outright sceptical if not hostile to Irish neutrality. Fine Gael defers to the strong convictions of its partners. I remember when the Fine Gael spokesman——
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——Deputy Gay Mitchell wanted us to join the Western European Union and sign up to Article 5, which would have involved a significant——
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What the Senator is saying is irrelevant. There will be no negotiations between Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I might have something to say on that.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With due respect, that is a macho statement. The result of the next election will reflect the will of the people and it is legitimate to discuss all possible scenarios.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I hope the Senator will be here for my reply.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not discussing the general election. We are discussing the amendment. I call the Minister to reply.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Brian Hayes referred to what I said last night about the battle groups and the figure of 3,000. I reiterate that a battle group will consist of only 1,500 troops but the ambition of the European Union, which it has now achieved, is that from next year it can have two battle groups standing by to be deployed simultaneously.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, 1,500 each. One might be deployed to Africa and the other to Asia but they will be deployed simultaneously should that be necessary.
I wish to clarify another point on which there appears to be some confusion. The United Nations does not decide to deploy a battle group. The United Nations will ask the EU to intervene and the method of intervention by the EU, as a regional agency, will depend on what the EU decides. It might decide, for example, to send a traditional type of peace enforcement mission or a battle group, depending on the circumstances.
Senator Hayes also mentioned the necessity of rapid deployment in a humanitarian crisis. In section 3(1)(f) we are providing for troops to be deployed by the Government on humanitarian missions in the absence of a UN resolution. In other words, the resolution will not be necessary to deploy troops. Until now, the Government did not have the power to deploy troops on humanitarian missions. There will be no United Nations resolution because there is no threat to international peace and security. Until now, troops could volunteer and they would be seconded to an NGO and go in as part of an NGO operation. We are now giving ourselves the power to deploy troops if necessary in a humanitarian situation but there will not be a UN resolution. That will not arise.
Regarding Senator Minihan's question about Macedonia, we did not have any troops there that had to be withdrawn. My advice is that there was a United Nations mission in Macedonia, which was vetoed by the Security Council and had to be discontinued. Subsequent to that, an EU mission was sent there by virtue of a UN Security Council resolution but I do not believe we were participants in either.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senator. There were no Irish troops there in either case. They were not part of the UN mission. They were part of a subsequent EU operation. The core of this amendment lies in the definition of international peace mission and the provisions under which a contingent could be despatched on such a mission. The rest of the amendments are consequential to the acceptance of the definition of international peace mission. What the amendment proposes is, effectively, the elimination of any requirement of a UN Security Council mandate, including any requirement for such a mandate even for a peace enforcement mission. It is proposed that a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force could be despatched on a peace support mission, once Dáil Éireann is satisfied that it accords with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and has approved the despatch of the contingent. From the outset of this process I have stated that a triple lock of UN resolution, Dáil and Government approval would remain. That has been the consistent policy position of this Government and I do not intend to depart from it.
It is also a position which I know is understood and appreciated by the Irish people. The effect of the amendment would be to make the existing provisions as regards an international United Nations force moribund. I cannot and will not do that. I am well aware that it has been a consistent policy of Fine Gael, and I respect that, to remove the requirement for UN authorisation. However, the United Nations Charter is clear. In Article 24 it provides that, "Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf". In addition, in Article 53 as regards regional organisations, the charter states, "...no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council...".
The effect of the amendment would be to undermine the authority of the United Nations Security Council. As strong supporters of the United Nations and the primacy of the Security Council in relation to the maintenance of international peace and security, we take our authority for participation in international peace support operations from the Security Council, and we do not need to apologise for that. The existence of such mandates confers a legitimacy on an acceptance of particular peace support operations by groups engaged in conflict. This is an important force protection issue also. In addition, to take on board what is now being proposed would open us to the possibility, as Senator Mansergh said, of military adventurism. While I understand the position and the thinking behind the amendment, I cannot accept it.
I want to make a couple of general points. As regards whether the necessity for a United Nations resolution will prevent us from deploying rapidly, I do not accept that it will. We intend, when we have successfully negotiated membership of the Nordic battle group, to have an administration arrangement to deal with those matters as quickly as possible. We have no control over how quickly the United Nations resolution will be forthcoming, but will have an arrangement in place to call the Dáil together quickly, to have a Government meeting, etc.
The framework nation for the Nordic battle group will be Sweden. We have had detailed discussions with the Swedish Defence Forces and the Swedish Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs. They do not foresee the United Nations resolution creating any impediment. None of the other members of the particular multinational group of which we hope to be a part, the Nordic battle group, has a legal requirement for a United Nations resolution before it deploys. It is fair to say, however, that there is an overwhelming requirement. People are extremely reluctant to deploy troops in the absence of a United Nations resolution. In addition, the Nordic battle group is not the only one in which Ireland will be involved. Perhaps it will be in the short-term, but we are exploring other possibilities. Some members of other multinational battle groups have a legal requirement. I also understand there is a possibility that at least one member of the Nordic battle group which does not have a legal requirement for a UN resolution may be changing its law to provide for that.
I can envisage situations in which Ireland could be part of a multinational battle group where other members might not want to deploy because they are carrying some historical baggage that would not allow them to become involved in a certain part of the world, not because of the absence of a UN resolution. Conscious of that, the multinational battle groups will have a built-in redundancy provision to provide for a situation where one or more constituents cannot deploy as required. In other words they will have a fall-back position to provide for such contingencies. We need not be too worried about that.
It has been a very good debate. I take on board everything that has been said about the triple lock. I take on board the possibility that we might be faced with a succession of situations. That is a fairly remote possibility but there is the chance that some future Government might be faced with a succession of situations where the overwhelming view of the Irish people is that we should be deployed some place, but we cannot because one member of the Security Council vetoes it. That is the position if, indeed, the United Nations decision making process remains at it is, which it probably will.
In the short term we are discussing with our potential partners, and with other European countries such as Austria, the possibility of participation in multinational battle groups. Nowhere in the course of these discussions has the possibility even been mooted that the necessity for a United Nations resolution, which everybody understands we have, will hinder or hamper us or stand in our way.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators for the series of contributions to our amendments. However, it is not a question for other people to decide whether they are satisfied with out position, but rather a matter for us. I suspect the other countries involved in the Nordic battle group would not raise the issue because it has nothing to do with them. It is a matter for us and that is why we need to debate it.
Senator Mansergh spoke about the whole question of public support and consensus and he is right about that. We cannot do this without the full support of the Irish people. However, I will be clear about one thing. His party promised before 1997 as regards involvement in Partnership for Peace that there would be a specific commitment in the Fianna Fáil manifesto on a referendum to get the support of the Irish people. This was a guaranteed commitment, promised by the Taoiseach. What happened to that?
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They had the opportunity to consider it in the European Parliament elections in 1999. It was in the manifesto then.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was sacrificed on the altar of expediency. For Senator Mansergh to lecture me and my party on the question of consistency and the necessity for public support, given Fianna Fáil's track record and its——
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——dropping of that promise to the Irish people——
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would take that with a very large dollop of salt. He is absolutely right, however, in saying we need a national framework. We have one, namely, the right of any political party to question that national framework in the light of the circumstances we find ourselves in. There is absolutely no suggestion in our position since 2002, and in the series of amendments we have tabled, that we would depart from the principles and the purpose of the United Nations Charter. To use the Minister's phrase, no military adventurism is being proposed in this. It is simply a restatement in a much more modern context of existing policy, because we could not take part in any adventure, to use the Minister's words, unless it was absolutely rooted in the consent and the principles that apply from the United Nations.
Let us understand who are the countries that possess the power of veto, to which Senator Minihan referred. They are the United States of America, China, France, the United Kingdom and Russia. These are the countries which can decide at any stage, for their own selfish ends, to veto policy in this area. With the greatest respect to colleagues, we are abdicating our sovereignty to the United Kingdom, to the United States of America and to other countries should this situation arise. The point has been made that there has been one case — the celebrated case of Macedonia — and the law should not be changed on the basis of one case. If it happened once, it can happen again. We are now moving into a much more fluid situation, given the establishment of these new battle groups, and hopefully Ireland's participation therein. We must adapt our policy as a consequence of that.
Senator Mansergh referred to de Valera, someone I greatly admire, as I have recently told him, and the traditional policy of neutrality he developed. I am more with Lemass on this, however. Lemass was much clearer about Ireland's obligations in terms of the then embryonic European Community, now the European Union, when he said that if we are part of it we have got to defend it. The case of Macedonia was within the sphere of European influence. Resolution 1371 was passed for Macedonia and was enforced by NATO. It was clear that there was an obligation on the part of NATO, which wanted to hand the duty over to the Europeans. A total of 27 European countries were prepared to commit personnel to Macedonia, but Ireland was not.
Senator Ryan asked what can be done. There are legitimate things that we can do and which we have done so well in the past. The Irish come with considerable historical and current knowledge of peacekeeping. We are world renowned for it and we should make no apologies for it. In these amendments, we are trying to create a new policy which would ensure that other countries cannot get in the way of doing something that most Irish people want to support. There is no question of military adventures in these amendments. They are consistent with EU principles and EU consent. I am glad the amendments have provoked this debate, but it is a debate which needs to take place across the country. That debate will ultimately be decided by the country.
I respect the position of the Labour Party on this and I know the party respects our position. It is better to be up-front and honest with all parties about where one stands rather than having to change position after the election.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I hope we can stay with the amendments. Whether we like it or not, we are not drafting manifestos at the moment.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I recommend Senator Brian Hayes reads De Valera's speech to the Dáil in 1946 on membership of the United Nations. He did not just articulate the traditional policy of neutrality. He mainly articulated Ireland's obligation to take part in international collective security, which could have involved the use of force on certain occasions. People should have no bones about that. When Lemass suggested a willingness to engage in territorial defence of the European Union, he went considerably further than any subsequent Government on this issue.
We are discussing law in this House. When enacting law, we may all have the best possible intentions. Law can last a very long time, sometimes it can last for centuries. People may have different attitudes and intentions. We cannot take for granted the idea that there is overwhelming support for removing the triple lock. The point of law is to have precautions written in so that the law cannot be broken until a decision is made to introduce new legislation. That is why the weakest part of Senator Hayes's argument is that this is some kind of abdication of sovereignty. The adoption of the triple lock is an act of sovereignty and not an abdication. In principle, we could change it in the future, which simply underlines the point that it is a sovereign decision.
I would like to set the record straight on Partnership for Peace. Senator Hayes is correct to state that there was a promise to hold a referendum.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When the Government parties looked at it, they decided——
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
—— that there was not any legal or constitutional need for a referendum. Before joining Partnership for Peace——
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Fianna Fáil promised a referendum without looking at it. Well done.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can the Senators allow me to conclude?
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Mansergh, without interruption.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Due to the change in our position on Partnership for Peace, it was necessary to obtain an electoral mandate and it was put into the manifesto for the European Parliament elections. There were people who were anxious to see a majority of MEPs elected who would be opposed to Partnership for Peace. As it happens, we did fairly well in that election. The Fine Gael Party and even the Labour Party did not have a problem with Partnership for Peace. We gained an electoral mandate after the European Parliament elections. That may not make everything right and we are open to some criticism on the subject. However, the Irish people were at least consulted before it actually happened.
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister for the clarity of his response to a number of the issues I raised. Section 3(1)(f) had not slipped past me. I clearly see that we have the ability to deploy, which means that we would not have to succumb to NGOs. However, someone will have to make a decision on what is humanitarian and what is not. I presume that it will be made by the Government and by the Department of Defence.
If we decide to deploy in a given scenario and the UN resolution is vetoed for some particular reason, we will be in a scenario where we decided to put troops into a humanitarian situation but we had to withdraw. There is no definitive answer to that and it is one of the problems that may come down the tracks. It is useful that we have highlighted these problems in this debate. It is not that we are not aware of them. The necessity for the triple lock mechanism is a clear reflection of the Irish people's view on deploying troops abroad. It is due our historical view of the definition of neutrality.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This has been an interesting use of our time. By definition, all law can throw up anomalies. One only needs to recall recent events. When the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. A would be returned to prison, it declared that it would publish its reasons the following Thursday, but we are still waiting. That shows how complicated law is as the eminent judges of the Supreme Court are trying to find a consistent position on how a man could be locked up again, having being convicted of an offence on unconstitutional grounds. Their lordships will have to choose their words very carefully.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We should not discuss the Judiciary here.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a matter for another day, but one can discuss the Judiciary, as many Supreme Court judges have told me. When I say at public meetings that we cannot discuss the Judiciary, the judges always ask why not and who said so. We cannot libel judges and we cannot attribute evil motives to them, but we are perfectly entitled to speak about their rulings. I have been involved in debates in which I was very restrained, but Supreme Court judges told me that I was perfectly entitled to criticise any decision they make, provided evil motives are not attributed to them.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Only when the process is complete.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes.
There will always be anomalies in law, especially international law. In this case, I believe that the argument, due to the anomalies, lies in favour of the status quo.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Minihan asked about troops being deployed. I envisage a very remote possibility of a humanitarian mission established under section 3(1)(f) subsequently becoming the subject of a United Nations resolution. A humanitarian mission follows an event such as a tsunami or an earthquake and we have given ourselves the right to deploy troops rapidly to help the unfortunate people affected. A peace support mission is entirely different. Could a mission that starts as a humanitarian mission subsequently become a peace support mission if the political circumstances changed?
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There could be civil unrest.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I suppose it would be possible. In such circumstances, I imagine the troops who had been deployed in accordance with section 3(1)(f) would still be validly there. Obviously, if it became too dangerous we would need to take that into account and might need to withdraw them. The question of their safety would be a matter of agreement between the Government and the host state. If we were satisfied that the host state could make proper provision for their safety we might decide to leave them there. We would need to deal with that situation if it arose.
Subsequent to the United Nations mission to Macedonia that needed to be withdrawn, an EU mission was sent. We did not participate in that mission because of the wording of the resolution. Owing to the way the UN resolution was drafted, the wording of the Defence Act 1954, as amended, did not allow us to participate. We have therefore changed the definition of "international United Nations force" in section 1 of the Bill. The original legislation provides that we can only participate in missions "established" by the United Nations. We have legal advice that "established" includes authorised by regional agencies such as the European Union, the African Union, etc. However, when drafting a resolution, as officials of the United Nations do not have the Irish defence legislation before them, they tend to use terms such as "supports", "endorses", "sanctions" etc., which is why we are now inserting such terms provided a resolution has been passed.
I agree with Senator Mansergh. The decision for Ireland not to participate in a foreign peace support mission without prior sanction of the United Nations is a deliberate sovereign decision of the Government. Other governments have decided otherwise. It is a decision on which they can change their minds and we can also change our minds. It is an exercise of our sovereignty and not an abdication of it.
I will not get into the debate about election promises, the PfP, etc. If I had an afternoon in a library with access to the Internet to research the election promises of all parties, I could come up with many promises from various parties when in opposition that were broken when in government.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister should spend time in the Seanad.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are very good at remembering them here.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In practically all those cases the decision to break those promises did not have a subsequent electoral mandate.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 3
In page 5, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6.—Section 70 (as amended by section 4 of the Act of 1960) of the Principal Act is amended by—
(a) inserting "or for any purpose specified in section 3 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006" after "International United Nations Force" in each place where those words occur, and
(b) by inserting "or International Peace Mission" after "International United Nations Force" in each place where those words occur.".
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This section describes the way in which a contingent would be despatched following approval of the Dáil. I am referring to the insertion of a new section 2(3) in the 1960 Act. Last night Senator Moylan asked why the Seanad is not included. I accept the version as outlined by the Government. Constitutionally the Government is not even obliged to be in this House. I understand the Dáil approves the nominations of the Taoiseach to the various Cabinet posts. The Government makes up its mind and the Dáil approves the decision on the despatch of troops. It is correct that the Dáil and not the Seanad should make the decision. However, there is merit in Senator Moylan's suggestion that the Seanad, as it did in the case of the mission to Liberia, would have either a resolution or a debate which would allow both Houses of the Oireachtas to debate the matter. Often this House has a greater opportunity to have such a debate than the other House does, owing to the theatrics and the bearpit atmosphere in that House. We had a very good debate on the mission to Liberia the day after the resolution was passed in the other House. What is the view of the Government on the Seanad having the opportunity to debate the issue without giving formal approval to it? I understand why and agree that it should not approve such missions. However, the Seanad should be involved in some way.
Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept what the Minister said last night on this matter. However, when the Seanad and Dáil are involved in enacting legislation, I believe that perhaps in the event of something going wrong with the forces deployed, someone could subsequently take a court case claiming that because both the Seanad and Dáil approved the legislation, both Houses should have a say in the decision, which should not lie solely with the Dáil. Those were my grounds for having raised the matter. I accept what the Minister has said. I hope nothing occurs later that would prove the Bill wrong.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not believe the Senator's fear is well founded. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that the Seanad should have an input. In my term as Minister, if a further deployment of troops abroad takes place, I will organise that it be formally reported to the Seanad, which can then make its own arrangements for a debate.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is very useful. I thank the Minister. I have one other point on this section. The troops may only be sent "but only if, the contingent or member is not so deployed until a resolution under subsection (1) of this section has been passed by Dáil Éireann approving of their despatch for such service". It is absolutely clear. If the Government needed to take a decision in July, August or September on the despatch of a number of troops to an emergency situation, the Minister appears to suggest that the Dáil would need to be recalled to give its approval.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, lines 26 and 27, to delete "and Dáil Éireann may by resolution approve of the report".
I know the Minister will claim this is a direct transposition from the previous legislation. However, I believe it is a peculiar phrase. Section 13 states, "The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after 1st day of January in each year beginning with 1st day of January 2007 make a report to Dáil Éireann on the operation in the preceding year of section 2 of the Act of 1960." Who could object to that part of the section? However, the phrase "and Dáil Éireann may by resolution approve of the report" is a very peculiar choice of words. Dáil Éireann may by resolution also disapprove of the report. There can be no legal reason to have a form of words that suggests that the Dáil has some obligation. I know that cannot be the case as the Dáil is sovereign. I have no idea why that was inserted in the first place because it seems an anomalous collection of words. A report is put before the Dáil and it is up to that House to decide whether to approve it. This matter is not the end of the world but the wording may be superfluous. The Minister will say it is traditional to insert such a phrase but we sometimes end up with legislation which perpetuates superfluity to the enrichment of those in the Minister's former profession.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The effect of this amendment would be to delete the requirement for the Minister to have the annual report on participation by the Defence Forces in UN missions endorsed by Dáil Éireann.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This provision was introduced in the 1993 Act by the coalition Government of the time. It is good that the Dáil reviews in some detail and on an annual basis the missions undertaken by the Defence Forces, which for the most part have been approved by the Dáil in accordance with the requirements of the Defence Act.
Section 13 states, "Dáil Éireann may by resolution". That is a permissive provision which also allows for disapproval by the Dáil. The real reason for the phrase is that it enables the Dáil to debate the report. The technical opinion is that, if the phrase is excluded, the Dáil will not be able to debate the reports laid before it. An Opposition amendment was accepted on this issue by the Government in 1993.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important that annual reports are made because a persistent, if small, body of opinion argues at every meeting of the National Forum on Europe that we have sold out our neutrality and are becoming part of the US-led NATO complex, if not a member of the coalition of the willing. A sober appraisal of the facts demonstrates the clear desirability of participation in various international tasks, including peacekeeping. Opportunities should be provided to debate any controversies that arise because an attitude of wilful paranoia is far too widely held. The Minister has to continuously battle against misrepresentations of this country's policies, which are laudable and overwhelmingly supported by the public.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the House is aware, I am married to a psychiatrist. I will ask her for a definition of "willful paranoia" because I have not previously heard of that illness.
Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will explain it to the Senator if he so wishes.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not intend to press the amendment. The Minister essentially indicated that the section is intended to give the impression that the Dáil can debate reports, while not obliging it to do so.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It enables the Dáil to debate reports.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would be better to delete the phrase, as we propose, and substitute it with "and shall be debated by Dáil Éireann within 6 months". It might not be a bad idea to lay the report before both Houses so that a debate could be held in the Seanad. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal while the Bill progresses through the other House. There is a real chance that the reports will be debated in this House but the chance of a debate being held in an already overcrowded Dáil is remote.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I claim vindication for the Labour Party, which for many years has pointed out the existence of a legal anomaly. It is good that the Attorney General finally recognised the truth of my party's claim. Fianna Fáil is adept at belated conversions, as was revealed by Senator Mansergh during this debate.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the House and the Labour Party for the Bill. Given the fact that the Dáil would have to make a resolution on these matters, I suggested to the Minister that the advice of the Attorney General might be put into the public domain. The precedent should be broken in this regard because every Deputy will be involved in deciding on whether to commit troops to other parts of the world.
It is proper that changes were brought to allow for the consideration of activities additional to international peacekeeping, so that the Defence Forces can continue to bring great honour to this country. We have had an interesting and useful debate, although some issues will have to be considered on another day.
Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing the Bill before this House and commend the Minister on the detailed explanations he provided on amendments. I wish our Defence Forces well. They have served us well in the past and will continue to do so in new areas in the future.
As regards keeping the Seanad abreast of developments under sections 8 and 13, reports often get a good airing in this House and, wherever possible, we should be given the opportunity to debate whatever is put before the Dáil.
John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister and his officials for facilitating us in this debate. It is unfortunate that more debates on defence matters are not held. The role of the Defence Forces is widely acknowledged as a source of pride among the public.
The Defence Forces have undergone a significant transformation over the past number of years and I commend the Minister on the leadership he has given in terms of embracing change. Our troops are taking on greater international duties and are being better equipped, which allows them to respond to their changing role.
However, it has been a difficult time for the Defence Forces. As one who left the Defence Forces when the transformation was beginning, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the role of the Minister and his Department in embracing the changes proposed in the White Paper. The product of that transformation is a very professional force. It is only when tragedies occur overseas that we focus on the Defence Forces but we should express interest in the tremendous work they do, not only after tragedy but all the time, so as to ensure they are protected by legislation and adequate equipment.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Ryan's suggestion that we change the terms to ensure a debate takes place is a good one. Perhaps he could ask his colleagues to table an amendment for the Dáil debate.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Getting my Dáil colleagues to take Seanad Éireann seriously is almost as difficult as getting the Government to do so.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not agree with Senator Ryan that the position of the Labour Party is vindicated by the measures I am introducing. We have deployed our troops abroad since 1958 when no legislation governed this issue. Several Governments have done so since, some of which included members of the Labour Party. If it was necessary to do so then, the Labour Party could have changed the law. This Government considered it necessary to include an avoidance of doubt provision. Senator Ryan claimed that Fianna Fáil was a party of late conversions. I will not entertain the House with the history of the Labour Party and late conversions. I could provide examples of conversions that changed again once the election was over.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair is of the opinion that the history of the Labour Party is not relevant to the debate.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am responding to provocation. Debates in the Seanad tend to be more mature and reflective than in what Senator Brian Hayes refers to as the bearpit, namely, the Dáil. This might encourage Senator Hayes to remain in the Seanad.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators for their contributions and will consider the suggestions made.